The 10 Most Viral Videos Of All-Time

2000-Year-Old Greek Device Is 'First Computer'

The ABC PAC Presidential Challenge

Book By Frank J.: The Chronicles Of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat Of Saddam. The Dumbest Book Ever Written About The Bush Administration!

Colorado Right

Daily Pundit

Debbie Schlussel

Home School Blogger

Video: Mexican President Sworn In After A Brawl In The Mexican Congress

Video: Michelle Malkin Teaches Britney Spears How To Get Out Of A Car

Patterico's Pontifications

Professor Bainbridge

Pro-Illegal Immigration Thugs Start Fights And Attempt To Block A Speech By Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo

Video: The Recreation Of A 130 Ft. High 450 MPH Tsunami That Once Struck In The Middle East

Richard Miniter

Riehl World View

Scrappleface

Question: "What's your take on this 2008 hopeful? Duncan Hunter." -- hos9911

Answer: I think Duncan Hunter is a very intriguing candidate who could fulfill the role that George Allen was growing into before his untimely political demise a few weeks back.

Hunter is the current Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and he's a charismatic, very conservative, tough on illegal immigration, former Army Ranger in Vietnam, who has a son serving in Iraq. I've looked him over and as far as I can tell, the only real chink in his armor is the fact that he's not a free trader (And let's face it, to the Buchanites and a lot of Democrats, that bug would be a feature).

The big question at this point for Hunter looks to be whether he can gain the name recognition and raise the money he needs to be a top tier contender. If he can, my first impression is that he would make a far better candidate for the presidency than John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, or Mitt Romney. Hunter would be a guy with credibility on defense issues, a candidate that conservatives would turn out for, and a guy who I believe could reach out and pull in moderates and blue dog Democrats. In short, out of the current field, if I had to pick one candidate who could go from nobody to top contender, like Howard Dean did in 2004, it would be Hunter.

Update #1: If you'd like to see and hear what Hunter sounds like, there's not a lot to choose from on YouTube, but I thought he came across really well in this video defending how we treat the terrorists at Gitmo:

Question: If Iran manages to acquire nuclear weapons, which is looking more and more likely, what do you think the US response will be?" -- Ben89

Answer: I wouldn't say it's a given that Iran will be allowed to acquire nukes. Bush does not strike me as the sort of guy who would willingly let that happen on his watch and we, in the general public, really have no idea how far away the Iranians are from nuclear weapons. So, it's entirely possible that Bush or for that matter, maybe even Olmert, is biding his time and waiting for the right time to hammer them.

But, if they do get WMD's, it's going to be extremely difficult for us to deal with.

That's because #1, if Iran gets WMDS, a half-dozen other countries will probably develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves from Iran. You can expect Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Turkey and who knows how many other nations over there to instantly start working on nuclear programs.

That's going to lead to the 2nd big problem. The M.A.D strategy, you launch nukes at us and we launch nukes with you, isn't going to work very well if there are a half-dozen countries with connections to terrorists that could have been responsible for a suicide bomber with a nuke leveling D.C. If someone launches a missile with a nuclear warhead at you, you know who's responsible. If Iran gets nukes and that very predictably starts a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a day could come where we would lose multiple cities to nuclear weapons without even being sure who was responsible for it.

Beyond those very serious problems, there's the fact that Iran has, in so many words, threatened to nuke our ally Israel out of existence. Furthermore, Iran is not a country that would be above nuclear blackmail. You know, we're about to invade Iraq / Saudi Arabia / wherever and if you try to stop us, we'll nuke you.

If we allow Iran to acquire the bomb, it will forever change the world for the worse and will likely lead to the United States getting nuked at some point in the future. That's why, if it came right down to it, there is no such thing as going too far in an effort to stop Iran from acquiring nukes. If the only way to stop them from acquiring nukes is for us to bomb every population center in their nation back to the stone age, I'd say do it. If the only way for Israel to stop them from acquiring nukes is to pre-emptively nuke them, I'd say do it. The Iranians have to be stopped from getting nukes by any means necessary.

Just a possible suggestion, M.A.D. could be salvaged, just in a way I think those who are screaming for its resurrection might not be all too happy with. Specifically, we could go with what I'm provisionally calling the "Strangelove option". That is, set a list of countries that we will immediately launch a full-scale nuclear assault on in the event of nuclear detonation within the U.S. No investigation. No proof. No questions. Just the go code. The only way a given country could hope to "save itself" would be to get off of the list." -- Bill_Dalasio

I've heard this suggested before and while theoretically, it might work, if we don't have the guts to bomb Iran now in order to stop them from getting nuclear weapons, does anyone really think we'd really be willing to nuke a half dozen countries in the future if a nuclear weapon were to go off in the US?

In other words, if we don't have the will to do something much less destructive today in one country, what makes anyone think we'd be willing to unleash this tsunami of nuclear destruction across a half dozen countries, especially given that we'd know that most of them didn't deserve it?

Moreover, even if we did it, what sort of chain of destruction would we be unleashing? Let's say Saudi Arabia has nukes, but didn't have anything to do with a terrorist attack on us. If we were to turn Riyadh into a glowing hole in the ground in retaliation for, let's say, an Iranian nuclear attack, who's to say that the Saudis wouldn't then be inspired to try to sneak a nuke into another city in retaliation or cut off our oil or screw us some other way. I mean you simply can't nuke a nation that didn't attack you and expect them to just take it lying down or forgive and forget.

Long story short, Iran has to be stopped before it gets to that point.

Question: "Keith Ellison, the first American Muslim elected to Congress, has said that he will only take his oath of office on the Qur'an, not on the Bible. Do you have a problem with this?" -- maledicta

Answer: Yes, I do, but it's a moot point since the Democrats are going to allow it. Moreover, apparently this isn't the first time people have used books other than the Bible in an oath ceremony,

According to the Library of Congress, Theodore Roosevelt became the first and only president to take an oath without a Bible in 1901. In 1961, John F. Kennedy took his oath on a Catholic (Douay) version of the Bible. Several Jewish members of Congress have taken their oath on the Torah. Article VI of the Constitution specifies that "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Since that's the case, I don't see a point of making too big of a deal out of it.

Question: "Love your blog, I read it often. I have a question for you, though. You have mentioned in the fact that you are a Christian and a southern Baptist. If you are indeed a Bible believing Christian, why do make comments such as "Most species that have existed on earth at one point or another have gone extinct, sometimes even after thriving for millions of years. Chances are that eventually, at some point in the future, the same thing will happen to mankind." That doesn't even remotely line up with #1. What most Bible scholars believe to be the age of the earth (6-8,000 years, definitely not millions or billions for that matter), and #2. The Bible, in Revelations, is pretty clear about the end times, the rapture, the 1000 year reign, etc., and never once is there anything about us "going extinct" as a species. Help me out with this one, because I'm pretty confused." -- Aaron Braun-Duin

Answer: Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds," -- and that's the approach I take when religion and science seem to diverge. I don't worry about what appear to be contradictions between my faith and science because I'm of the opinion that when science and Christianity don't seem to match up, it's because of our imperfect understanding of one, the other, or both.

So, I just treat them as completely separate issues, go wherever each one leads me, and have confidence that eventually, after further clarification, they'll both end up in the same spot. To do otherwise and demand that they end up in the same spot right now, with our limited understanding of science and the way that the Lord works would feel like hubris to me.

Question: "In light of Chucky Shumer's recent remarks: Is Reaganism truly dead?" -- Good_Ol_Boy

Answer: The American people loved Reagan and most members of the conservative base consider themselves to be Reaganites, but if you look around Washington, you'll find few Republicans in power who live by the same principles as Reagan.

The last Republican Congress certainly didn't behave like Reagan. The two Reaganite members of the House who ran for Leadership positions, Mike Pence and John Shadegg, were creamed. The current President isn't another Reagan. Neither of the two front runners for the Republican nomination in 2008, John McCain or Rudy Giuliani, are Reaganites.

So, amongst the people, Reaganism is doing just fine. But, up on Capitol Hill in the Republican Party, you aren't going to find much evidence that it's still alive and kicking.

Question: "Best movie bad guys ever. Go." -- maledicta

Answer: Here are my faves:

Thulsa Doom from Conan: The evil, sword swinging sorcerer/cult leader who was Conan's nemesis in the movie.

William 'D-Fens' Foster from Falling Down: The reason this villain was so brilliant was because you could sympathize with him, even as he went way over the edge.

Magneto from the X-Men movies: Although he was completely ruthless when it came to human beings, his attitude made perfect sense given how mutants were treated in the movies and his experience as a child whose parents were ripped away from him in the Holocaust. Sure, he was evil, but you understood why he was evil given the situation he was in.

The Operative from Serenity: He was a fascinating bad guy because he Randian, ruthless, and even admitted that he was a monster. Here was a man who believed in doing evil -- and he was evil -- for what he thought was the benefit of others. He was a great villain.

Gabriel Shear from Swordfish: Here was another man evil because he wanted to wage a private war against America's enemies. While you couldn't root for the guy to kill people during a bank heist, at the end of movie, when he's heading out to assassinate terrorists, you almost can't help but think, "I'm glad the guy is out there killing those people."

The Terminator (original): The unstoppable, utterly ruthless, killing machine. You couldn't reason with him, you couldn't stop him, and he never quit coming.

Jack Torrance from the Shining: Nicholson made this characters descent into madness and attempt to murder his family into something amazing. If a lesser actor had played Torrance, he probably wouldn't have been that exceptional.

Darth Vader from the Star Wars movies: Obviously, Vader is a classic villain. Unfortunately, the new Star Wars movies, which were fairly lame, made him seem less imposing, especially after he found out the ridiculous circumstances under which he became Vader.

Herbert West from the Re-Animator movies: An incredibly brilliant, egomaniacal, perverse charismatic, ethically challenged man of science who was determined to defeat death itself. The ultimate mad scientist.

Dean Vernon Wormer from Animal House: The archetype for overbearing, uptight, jerks at colleges who are trying to ruin the fun of the good guys.

Update #1: Here are a couple I missed in the original list that I think deserve to be on there; Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs & Bill "the Butcher" from Gangs of New York.

Question: "Do we have to colonize other planets in order to survive extinction, as Stephen Hawkings has said?" -- D-Vega

Answer: Most species that have existed on earth at one point or another have gone extinct, sometimes even after thriving for millions of years. Chances are that eventually, at some point in the future, the same thing will happen to mankind. Maybe it'll be caused by an asteroid, nuclear war, global climate change (Did you know the earth used to be a solid ball of ice at one point with even the oceans frozen over?) -- who knows? Also, who knows when it'll happen? It could be next week, it could be 10,000 years from now. But, at some point, some horrible event will probably threaten the survival of mankind and by the time we're in the middle of the crisis, it may be too late to do anything to assure the perpetuation of the species.

So, yes, if we do want to guarantee that our species will continue to exist, we will, at some point, want to spread out to other worlds -- although, given our present level of wealth and technology -- I'm not sure that finding inhabitable planets and moving significant numbers of humans to them will be a realistic option at any point within our lifetimes.

Question: "Critical race theorists are a very outspoken group that really seem to get almost no coverage whatsoever among the MSM, the blogosphere, or much of anywhere other than liberal academia fawning over them. A typical CRT essay will read something like this:

"Whites tend not to recognize that race has little meaning without reference to the power structures that have historically supported and are currently supporting white domination. Whites see whiteness as the norm, an absence of race. Along with whiteness come privileges that are invisible to whites. Instead of seeing privilege resulting from the historical domination of whites in this country as the source of our success, whites interpret any benefits we receive as reward for individual merit and hard work. In fact, the myth of the "American Dream" has imbued in white Americans a sense of entitlement. The myth tells us that so long as we work hard, we deserve to and will succeed unless obstacles are placed in our way. By the same token, whites consider racism and discrimination as evils committed by other individuals, not something that whites are responsible for as a group. Race discrimination is defined in Title VII disparate treatment theory as individual action resulting from a conscious intent to harm. This definition furthers the perpetrator's perspective by assigning guilt to one individual employer and alleviating most whites of responsibility for systemic means that reinforce racism and white privilege."

Ann McGinley, The Emerging Cronyism Defense and Affirmative Action: A Critical Perspective on the Distinction Between Colorblind and RaceConscious Decision Making Under Title VII, 39 Ariz. L. Rev. 1003 (1997)

What's your take on this line of thought?" -- maledicta

Answer: There are people out there who take responsibility for their own lives and there are people out there who like to pretend that life is something that happens to them, over which they have very little control.

The quote above is from someone from group #2 and unfortunately, that sort of false "I am a victim" mentality does enormous damage in people's lives, especially in the black community. If you want to know why, percentage wise, black Americans aren't as successful as white Americans, it's not because of racism. For example, "A Time/CNN poll found 89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be "a small problem" or "not a problem at all."

So, why aren't black Americans as a whole doing as well as white Americans in some respects? It's because a lot of black Americans aren't getting a decent education, because a lot of black Americans are having kids out of wedlock, because percentage wise, too many black Americans commit crimes, and because too many black Americans falsely believe that they're victims who can never succeed, no matter what they do, because of racism.

You know, if you didn't finish high school, spent time in prison for dealing drugs, and have 3 different kids by 3 different mamas, I don't care what color you are, you're probably not going to be a very successful person. But, if you're white and behave like that, people will blame you for your behavior, while if you're black, because of the soft bigotry of low expectations, you'll have a lot of people excuse your behavior on the basis of the sort of garbage Ann McGinley wrote in the above quote.

Moreover, a lot of what passes for "racism" today goes to show you how little racism we really have in American society these days. There used to be a time where black Americans were lynched, weren't allowed to sit at the same lunch counters as white Americans, and had to sit at the back of the bus. Everyone can agree that those were racist actions. Now, 3/4's of the population rolls their eyes most of the time when someone cries "racism," because as often as not, it's over someone using the word "niggardly," or an actress saying, "call me," in an anti-Harold Ford commercial, someone daring to criticize a clown like Jesse Jackson, or some similarly ridiculous triviality. In this case, McGinley doesn't even bother to cite trite examples of that sort, she just claims all white people are racist by virtue of being white, case closed.

These ridiculous ethnic studies classes where they kick around these silly critical race theories are a waste of time and should be dumped from universities all across the country.

Question: John, my question is about your work with Human Events. You have a weekly column (usually on wednesdays, apparently thursday this week), that much I know. What I am curious about is what kind of constraints do you have on your writing? Do you choose the subject of each column completely on your own? Does your editor give a topic, or a list of topics from which to choose? Does HEO maintain any kind of rights over the material you submit to them (for instance, if you wrote a column that they edited down in a way you didn't like, would you be free to post the article, as you wrote it, on RWN)? I know this is a lot of questions, but they all come down to the same issues of, "how does the arrangement work?" -- Chris_RC

Answer: Let's see, Human Events...

Originally, I got a gig there when they asked me if I would be interested in writing something for them and I asked if they'd like to have me write a regular column. They answered in the affirmative, gave me a tryout period, liked what I wrote, and I've been writing for them ever since.

As far as the topic goes, I pick what I write about, run it by them and after they approve it, I write the column. On rare occasions, they have suggested things or requested to use something I'd already written for RWN (for example, The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008).

Theoretically, they can edit my material, but the only significant changes they've ever made are to titles of some of the columns.

Are far as their rights go, they can use the columns on Human Events online or in the print magazine. On my end, I can post the columns on RWN as soon as the day after they're published on Human Events (although it usually takes me longer than that to do the update). Also, I retain full rights to my columns. I can do whatever I want with them as long as Human Events gets them first.

I get paid a fee for each column that's published (They send me a check for 4 weeks' worth of work roughly every month or so). I don't want to get into how much I get paid per column for obvious reasons, but it's enough to be worth it given what I make as a pro blogger, but still not a lot of money.

On the other hand, being with Human Events has opened some doors for me. A lot of big name conservatives that have never heard of Right Wing News have heard of Human Events and when I'm calling a congressman's office or trying to get an interview, I always try to mention that I write for them. Furthermore, it gets my work out in front of a whole new audience and my columns have gotten me some contacts from the press and radio appearances that I would not have gotten otherwise.

So, all in all, my gig with Human Events has definitely been a big positive for me.

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia (This Should Prompt Us To Bomb Iran)

Iraq Panel to Urge Pullout Of Combat Troops by '08 (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki Said On Thursday His Government's Forces Would Be Able To Take Over Security Command From U.S. Troops By June 2007

Centcom: The Media In Iraq Is Using False Sources For Its News And The Military Is Asking Them To Start Documenting Their News Before Reporting It To The American Public

Syrian Network Planned To Kill 36 Lebanese Officials

3 Suicide Bombers Kill 8 In Somalia

Nearly 180 Soldiers, Civilians And Police In UN Peacekeeping Missions Have Been Targeted For Disciplinary Action Since The Beginning Of 2004 For Sexual Abuse And Exploitation And The Problem Persists

French Fighter Jets Bombed A Rebel-Held Town In Central African Republic

Democrats Break Pledge To Voters And Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion

U.S. Warns Of Possible Qaeda Financial Cyber Attack

A Veteran U.S. Immigration Supervisor Admitted Thursday He Moonlighted Running A Business That Supplied Fake Documents To Illegal Immigrants

Jeb Bush Calls Tancredo A 'Nut'

New York Restaurants Are Lobbying The City Council In Hopes Of Overriding A Ban On Trans Fats That Is Expected To Pass The Board Of Health

Highly Dubious Report About Soldier's Coffin At Center Of Furor

A Conversation With Bjorn Lomborg

Cliff May: Baker/Hamilton

Ralph Peters: Iraq's Uncivil War

Chuck Todd: Hillary's Primary Problem

John Stossel And Kristina Kendall: Who Gives And Who Doesn't?

Larry Elder: What About Clinton and Kosovo? Get Over 'Bush Lied' Nonsense

Jonah Goldberg: It's Losing We Hate, Not War (Free LA Times Reg Req)

The Influence Of Jesse Jackson

Karol From Alarming News Does Blonde Hair, Fishnets, And Platform Boots

Website Of The Day: The ABC PAC Presidential Challenge

Today is Q&A Friday #53 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

Ask away!

Last week, I had an opportunity to interview Michael Fumento, who has now been embedded in Iraq three times and has recently returned from a trip to Ramadi. If you're looking for someone in the media with the ground experience in Iraq, you couldn't do much better than Michael Fumento. Now, on to the interview, which has been edited.

Now, Michael, you were just embedded with the troops out in the field in Ramadi. There are not a lot of reporters who do that. Why do you think that is and do you think reporters over there lose perspective if they don't embed?

Yes, it's preposterous to think that you can cover a country with 26 million people, the size of California, from a hotel room or from the international zone in a single city. Nobody would try to be a Hollywood reporter from Des Moines, Iowa. What if you turned on the news about some catastrophe, like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans that has been going on a day or so, but the reporter was talking to you from Nome, Alaska? You wouldn't give it much credence and you shouldn't give it much credence. The Baghdad Brigade, as I call it, operating out of these hotels -- not only would you think that they don't deserve credence, but time and time again when you look at the stories they write about non-Baghdad areas, you find that they're wrong.

You don't have to pull a name out of the hat, but give me an example of that.

This is actually quite important. The Los Angeles Times, right after my next to last embed in April, reported that apparently there was another Fallujah style, Operation Phantom Fury (type attack) about to be carried out any day against Ramadi -- and it talked about huge numbers of forces being brought up and this and that – and, of course, we now know it never took place. But, the fact is at the time, there were five reporters listed as chief, secondary, and then contributors. Four were Baghdad based and one was based in Washington, D.C. So, is it a coincidence that they were completely wrong about this? No, not really. If they had someone in Ramadi, they wouldn't have written the story. You can't do these things out of Baghdad and you sure as heck can't do them out of the District of Columbia (laughs).

…Now, what do the troops think about the news media? Do they have a good opinion of the media, bad opinion? Do they think the media gives people back in America a fair account of what they're doing?

I have never heard an enlisted man say anything nice about the media, (but) I have heard them say, out of nowhere, "I hate the bleeping media," and I'm thinking, where did that come from and I hope it wasn't directed at me (laughs). But, I don't think it was. They were on friendly terms with me by the time they were saying things like that. The "enlisteds" will tell you that the media is doing a very bad job in Iraq. Now, the officers, the higher you get in the ranks, get more and more political. But, the lower officers will also tell you the same thing.

…Now (You've been to Ramadi twice). Is the situation there better, worse, improving, going down the tubes? What do you think?

This year, I went to Ramadi twice -- once in April and then once in October and there was a discernible improvement in that six month period of time. They give you a briefing with all the statistics that are all very impressive sounding, but, of course, you know they're self serving as well -- and the statistics are impressive -- things like going down from 20 attacks a day to 15, again, over a period of six months. But, more than that, my purpose for being there was to observe for myself, to get a second look and compare it to the first -- and everything I saw indicated that they were making real progress.

Things that people back in the states wouldn't even think about inquiring into...like convoys. The US owns the night in Iraq. That's why helos fly almost exclusively at night and, in fact, the first time I went into Ramadi, it was at night, with a huge, heavily armored and heavily armed convoy. That was the situation months ago. This time....(the convoys I was in) weren't particularly big. In fact, one of them was only four vehicles. They were heavily armored, but very, very, very lightly armed with nothing more than 50 "cals." And one of the trips, believe it or not, was in broad daylight. My God, to think about a broad daylight entrance into Ramadi down Route Michigan six months ago, people would have thought you were crazy. You would have gotten a discharge from the military for suggesting it. Now it's routine.

You've been to Iraq (three times) now. You've been embedded with the troops. You've been shot at. So, you've got some on-the-ground perspective. What do you think the way forward over there is? Should we go big, go long, go home, something else?

Ideally, we would go long and go big. Let's start with going long. A lot of Americans by this point have seen the movie or read the book, or both in my case, Flags of our Fathers. Maybe that movie will help remind them of what has been forgotten about the last good war. Here we were, we'd already defeated Germany. D-Day was past us. All that was left was basically the main island of Japan itself and yet, Roosevelt felt like he was in dire straits because the public was tired of the war. This is the good war, we'd already defeated the Nazis and yet, we were having (to go) through these incredible efforts to get people to buy war bonds and what have you. They were losing interest after 3 and one half years....Moreover, Iraq is, of course, a guerilla war. Guerilla wars take on average about 10 years to win. How anybody can judge the war (at this point) is simply beyond me. We've got to be in it for the long haul.

Is there anything else you'd like to promote or add to that, Michael?

Well, I think it's important after having said this about the length of guerilla wars in general is what you've got to look at is the trends, and...from what I've seen in the most insurgent heavy city in all of Iraq, those trends are all positive. We are retaking Ramadi. The Washington Post recently said we're doing well in Tal Afar, right up against the Syrian border. We're doing well in Fallujah. We are, I absolutely believe that we are winning the...war, which was our first objective. The problems lately have come from the militias and sectarian fighting and we have to get our hands around that as well. But, our first objectives, our military objectives are being met and I think our secondary objectives can be met as well. But, we have to give it time. Six months is not "time."

While I was on vacation, I was disturbed to hear that people were claiming that one of my favorite Congressmen, Tom Tancredo, was hyping the North American Union conspiracy theory:

"Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, revered by some U.S. conservatives for his efforts to staunch the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, said this week that Bush is a dangerous internationalist.

"He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that, it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where the guy is really going," he told WorldNetDaily, a controversial conservative website.

"I know this is dramatic, or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic. But I'm telling you that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American union, it's not something that's just written about by right-wing fringe kooks," said Tancredo, who is considering a run at the presidency.

"It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it . . ."

Tancredo followed up with an interview on the conservative Fox News network, where he said the borders will lose all their significance, serving merely as "speed bumps" in the flow of goods, services and people.

In October, Tancredo demanded the United States suspend work on the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) signed last year by Canada, Mexico and The United States until Congress examines its goals and agreements, which include standardizing regulations and dismantling other barriers to trade."

Today, I picked up the phone and buzzed Carlos Espinosa, Tanc's media guy on the Hill and asked him about this story. He said that Tancredo's comments were taken out of context and he specifically said that Tom Tancredo does not believe in the North American Union conspiracy. Carlos then added that Tancredo does believe that eventually, at some point in the future, that we might end up in some sort of European Union like arrangement with Canada and Mexico, but that he doesn't think Bush is working on that. Carlos said that Tancredo, "believes Bush wants to open up the borders, but he doesn't believe he wants to combine the US, Canada, and Mexico and create a unified currency."

In other words, Tancredo does think Bush is an internationalist and he doesn't think that he's serious about controlling the borders, but Tom Tancredo is not a proponent of the North American Union conspiracy.

Also see,

Killing the North American Union Conspiracy

Update #1: At 1:47 PM I added another sentence to further clarify Tom Tancredo's position.

Vacation Commentary

While I was on vacation last week, here are a few things that caught my eye:

-- I didn't realize that Frank J. had an In My World, The Book out. I bet that's a great book. A really funny read!

-- Michael Irvin appears to have gotten away, scot free, with the same sort of rant that got Jimmy "The Greek" fired. That doesn't seem right to me:

"You may have missed when noted sociologist and anthropological expert Michael Irvin stated that Tony Romo must have African lineage in his genome, which explains why the Dallas Cowboys quarterback is such a good athlete.

Said Irvin on a national radio show this week: "He doesn't look like he's that type of an athlete. But he is. He is, man. I don't know ... some brother down in that line somewhere ... I don't know who saw what or where, his great-great-great-great-grandma ran over in the 'hood or something went down."

But he said it and I do not believe Irvin was kidding. The host of the show apparently did not think Irvin was joking, either. He responded to Irvin, "Oh, that's the only way he can be a great athlete?"

"That's not the only way, but it's certainly one way," Irvin replied. "If great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandma pulled one of them studs up out of the barn (and said), 'Come on in here for a second,' you know, and they go out and work in the yard. You know, back in the day."

Now, here's what Jimmy "The Greek" got fired for back in 1988:

"During the slave period, the slave owner would breed his big black with his big woman so that he would have a big black kid -- that's where it all started."

What's the big difference? There isn't much of one beyond the race of the person making the comment.

-- Here's a very old, very funny, very obscene article that I reread over the holidays called, "Twenty-six things a perfect guy would do, and other propaganda disseminated by misguided women." Enjoy!

-- This comment from Charlie Rangel caught my eye,

"If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq."

It's amazing to me that even the Democrats who have been in the military, like John Kerry and Rangel, don't like or respect other people who are in the military. In their view, the military is made up of stupid saps and killbots who were tricked into signing up and were then brainwashed and even though these libs try not to let it show, what they really think seems to slip out with regularlity.

-- The six wacky imams on a plane incident sounds like either a publicity stunt by the imams or maybe a practice run for a terrorist attack, to see how much the imams or terrorists they might be cooperating with could get away with. Either way, not only was US Airways wise to get rid of them, they should it use it in their advertising. Can't you just see the commercial?

US Airways: We take security seriously.

Cut to perky flight attendant: These six men were moving to different parts of the plane, asking for seatbelt extensions that they didn't use, and loudly criticizing the United States. It seemed very suspicious!

Cut to pilot: As a pilot, my first concern is always the safety of my passengers and I wasn't going to risk taking off if there was going to be a dangerous situation in the cabin.

Cut to US Airways manager: Yeah, we caught some flack for removing those men from the plane. The newspapers attacked us and not everyone was happy with it, but we're okay with that. We don't mind taking some criticism if it keeps our customers safe.

Cut to passenger with small child: I was very happy when they took those imams off that plane because I knew that it meant US Airways was looking out for our safety. That's why US Airways is the only airline I trust enough to take my daughter on.

The cute as a button six year old daughter speaks: And they were so friendly, too, Mommy!

Cut back to pilot: US airways: we take security seriously!

Supposedly, the hot new idea from the Iraqi Study Group is that we should try to convince Iran and Syria to help us in Iraq.

What a naive idea!

To begin with, Iran and Syria are terrorist supporting enemies of the United States and it's in their interests to see us fail in Iraq. That's particularly the case with Iran, which would love to see Iraq turn into a weak, Shia run, satellite state that they could control.

Since that's the case, you can expect both nations to ask for the moon in order to get their help and then we can still expect them to screw us the first chance they get. Syria may want the Golan Heights back from Israel, approval to reoccupy Lebanon, or an end to the UN's investigation of former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri, which will likely point the finger of blame at the highest levels of Syria's government. On the other hand, Iran will likely demand that they be allowed to build nuclear weapons if they're to help.

And, what sort of help are we asking for? We're asking them to stop training and supplying insurgents and terrorists that are causing chaos in Iraq and attacking our troops. In other words, they're committing acts of war against the United States and the idea is supposed to be that we'll go to them with hat in hand and offer them goodies to stop picking on us. Put another way, the suggestion here is that the Bush doctrine be set aside so that we can pursue the Neville Chamberlain doctrine with Islamo-fascist run terrorist states that yearn for nothing more than our destruction.

Just about the only thing Bush has going for him right now is that he has been standing strong in the war on terrorism. If he gives that up to play pattycake with Syria and Iran, not only will it be counterproductive, it would cause the last remaining pillar of political support Bush has in the United States to crumble to earth as his staunchest supporters realized that he no longer had his heart in the fight against terrorism.

What was that again, Mr. Ahmadinejad? "We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings"? Do we really, now? "Iran issues fatwa on Azeri writer," by Frances Harrison for BBC News, with thanks to Morgaan Sinclair:

One of Iran's most senior clergymen has issued a fatwa on an Azeri writer said to have insulted the Prophet Muhammad.

The call on Muslims to murder Rafiq Tagi, who writes for Azerbaijan's Senet newspaper, echoes the Iranian fatwa against Indian writer Salman Rushdie.

It was issued by the conservative Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Fazel Lankarani.

The writings of Rafiq Tagi sparked recent demonstrations outside the Azerbaijani embassy in the Iranian capital, Teheran.

The Iranian media is reporting that Grand Ayatollah Lankarani's followers inside the republic of Azerbaijan wrote to him asking for advice about what they called "the apostate writer".

They accuse the Azeri writer of portraying Christianity as superior to Islam and Europe as superior to the Middle East.

Horror of horrors! Well, this death fatwa will put paid to such notions in a hurry!

They allege that he has ridiculed all the sanctities of Islam and done it knowingly, fully aware of the consequences of his action.

In response, Grand Ayatollah Lankarani is said to have issued a fatwa calling for the death of the writer and also the person responsible for publishing his articles.

Earlier, an Iranian cleric had offered his house as a reward to anyone who killed the Azeri writer.

Hmmm. How many rooms?

This content was used with the permission of Jihad Watch.

Last week, a well-known and beloved comedian used his act as a platform to spew racial slurs and epithets. Then, after Chris Rock concluded his show in a standing ovation, Michael "Kramer" Richards launched into an unprovoked racist tirade against two helpless African Americans in the audience, utterly destroying their lives and throwing the civil rights movement back 2000 years.

In response, the Reverend Jesse Jackson called for the Black Community to boycott all Seinfeld DVDs or any other sitcoms produced by or starring Hymies. He also demanded that racial slurs be banned entirely, along with such derogatory expressions as "Extortionist", "Shakedown Artist", "Demagogue" and "Adulterer". In addition, the Reverend Al Sharpton demanded that the phrase "Oh shut your self-righteous cakehole, you bloated jackass" be stricken from the English language.

Wonderful suggestions from two esteemed, self-appointed leaders of the Black Community. However, I'm afraid they don't go far enough to stem the tide of racial bigotry that Kramer unleashed. His vile words reopened the Old Wounds of Slavery - wounds that usually only reappear around election time and can only be healed by piling large sums of cash upon the esteemed, self-appointed leaders of the Black Community.

Sedition is protected under the first amendment guarantees of free speech, yes. Hate Speech is not. A hefty fine must be exacted on all those who commit the unforgiveable crime of uttering the N-Word or it's equally offensive substitute, "The N-word". The resulting revenue would be deposited into a Swiss bank account registered in the name of the Rainbow / PUSH Coalition so that it can be used to the betterment of the Black Community.

Unfortunately, enforcing such anti-hatespeech laws would be next to impossible. It would probably be more realistic to simply impose a national N-Word Tax, as most people have spoken the N-Word sometime in their lives or plan to do so in the future. Rap artists and progressive bloggers would be of course be exempt. Tough measures for time tough times, but I'm sure that had Dr. King dodged Pappy Bush's deadly bullet, he would have wholeheartedly approved.

The Black Community survived slavery. It survived Hurricane Katrina. It will quite possibly survive Cosmo Kramer, too. But can it ever forgive him?

Perhaps. But not until Uncle Jesse gets his benjamins.

This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.

Much thanks goes out to all of RWN's guest bloggers who filled in while I was away!

Mary Katharine Ham
Danny Carlton
Michael "A.J. Sparxx" Illions
Pat Curley
Cassandra
Lorie Byrd
Kathy Shaidle
Michael Fumento
Sister Toldjah
Frank J.

If you haven't already, make sure to check out their blogs!

Iraq Panel to Recommend Pullback of Combat Troops Eventually (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Baker Panel Aide Expects Israel Will Be Pressed (The Iraqi Study Group Is Bad News)

Saudis May Use Oil Market To Crush Iran's Funding Of Militias

President Bush And Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki Postponed For A Day Their Crisis Talks On Iraq

Russia's Former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar Almost Died Of A Mystery Illness On Nov. 24

British Airways Said That "Very Low Traces Of A Radioactive Substance" Had Been Found On Two Of Its Three Aircraft Taken Out Of Service In The Probe Into The Death Of A Former Russian Spy

Al-Qaida Ensconced In Somalia: Top U.S. State Department Official

Japan Says It Could Build Nuclear Bomb, But Won't For Now

Iran’s President Criticizes Bush In Letter To American People (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Bill Frist Bows Out Of '08 Sweepstakes

Supreme Court Clashes Over Climate Change

San Diego To Ban Wal-Mart Supercenters/b>

I'm going to sign off now, but I'd just like to thank John Hawkins for the chance to once again guest-blog here. If you enjoyed my posting, you can see more at IMAO and also buy my book. If you didn't enjoy it, you can just shut up as your precious Hawkins is returning tomorrow anyway.

While you're waiting for John Hawkins to come back, you can write your favorite nation an open letter just like Ahmadinejad did. I'm going to write Finland and I hope they'll write me back.

“The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq [Al Anbar Province] or counter al Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report,” began a front-page article in yesterday’s Washington Post by Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks. It concerned the so-called “Devlin Report,” a five-page document allegedly filled with gloom and doom. It contrasts completely with my article Return to Ramadi, in the Nov. 27 Weekly Standard, in which I write that the largest city in the province is slowly being reclaimed from al Qaeda. By coincidence, the day my article hit the stands the Times of London published an extensive article coming to the same conclusion as mine. But for the timing, you’d practically think one of us had plagiarized the other.

Why such different conclusions between our articles and the Post’s and whom to believe?

It helps to know that the Times writer and I both went to and reported from Ramadi. We didn’t summarize classified documents or quote unnamed sources. Linzer and Ricks stayed home and reported from Washington, relying entirely on an unpublished document in addition to quoting a "senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity." I have recently ripped the media’s “Baghdad Brigade” for pretending it can cover a country the size of California from a single Iraqi city. What does that say about those who think they can cover Al Anbar from Washington?

All of this illustrates a point I and others have desperately tried to make, that you cannot understand the Anbar if you haven't been there. That's why I went three times to the province and twice to Ramadi itself. It wasn’t to attend a beerfest. It may also help explain things that Ricks has a recent book declaring the war a "Fiasco," and hence is already inclined towards a pessimistic view. Top-notch milblogger Bill Roggio at The Fourth Rail declares, “Military and intelligence sources that I spoke to who have read the [Devlin] report indicate that they largely agree with [it] . . . but not as presented by the Washington Post." (Emphasis his.)

Alas, as much attention as my article has gotten it’s hard to compete with a Post A1 article. Further, as Vietnam’s Tet Offensive proved, guerrilla wars are as likely to be decided in the media as on the battlefield. It’s looking like Iraq will prove no exception.

(Michael Fumento maintains a hybrid website at Fumento.com with blogs from his last two trips to Al Anbar, photos from all three trips, and two major articles from his trip earlier this year. Especially recommended is “The New Band of Brothers," which contains links to much combat video.)

I just realized that with the extra media strength I have today by being able to blog at Right Wing News as well as my own blog IMAO, I now have the power to declare things civil wars. Thus, I would like to declare that Belgium is now in a civil war with the conflict between the Bels and the Giums having no apparent end.

Also, I would like to preemptively declare that our invasion of Iran has resulted in a civil war.

Or do I really need the media power to declare things a civil war or just the ability to edit Wikipedia?

It's often claimed that finding all 12 million illegal aliens and deporting them is unrealistic. I dunno, but maybe there are 12 million other people easier to find we can deport instead, like punk teenagers who hang out at the mall. Also, we could send Mexico all our rapists, as the Dog the Bounty Hunter incident seems to indicate that the Mexican government is very protective of transplanted rapists.

Who would you deport if you could deport any group you wanted?

And in the process has no doubt endeared himself to the MSM. Why? Read on:

At a recent White House reception for freshman members of Congress, Virginia's newest senator tried to avoid President Bush. Democrat James Webb declined to stand in a presidential receiving line or to have his picture taken with the man he had often criticized on the stump this fall. But it wasn't long before Bush found him.

"How's your boy?" Bush asked, referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq.

"I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President," Webb responded, echoing a campaign theme.

"That's not what I asked you," Bush said. "How's your boy?"

"That's between me and my boy, Mr. President," Webb said coldly, ending the conversation on the State Floor of the East Wing of the White House.

[...]

"I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall," Webb said in an interview yesterday in which he confirmed the exchange between him and Bush. "No offense to the institution of the presidency, and I'm certainly looking forward to working with him and his administration. [But] leaders do some symbolic things to try to convey who they are and what the message is."

In the days after the election, Webb's Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill went out of their way to make nice with Bush and be seen by his side. House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) sat down for a lunch and photo opportunity with Bush, as did Democratic leaders in the Senate.

Not Webb, who said he tried to avoid a confrontation with Bush at the White House reception but did not shy away from one when the president approached.

I'm with Dana Pico, on this one. He asks:

My question would be: if the honorable gentleman from Virginia didn’t want to be seen or photographed with, or polite to, the President of the United States, why did he attend a White House reception in the first place? He’s a free man; he could have stayed away.

Disgusting.

Indeed. So much for being able to 'put differences aside in order to be able to work together', eh?

Looks like we have another juvenile Bush hater in the Senate, folks. Just what we needed.

Hat tip: Brian at Iowa Voice, who notes that the Nutroots are lapping it up.

Read more via K-Lo, Michael van der Galien at The Moderate Voice

Thanks to John for asking me to guest blog alongside a wonderful cast of other bloggers. This post was cross-posted from my blog. --Sister Toldjah

The King of the Sunday no one cares but him and his family press conferences, NY Senator Chuck Schumer, made some more stupid comments:

As appeared in the NY Daily News:

Chuck swung by the Daily News for an editorial board meeting this morning, which you'll be able to read more about in tomorrow's News.

A couple of tidbits from his broader discussion (forthcoming in book form) of how he sees the shifting terrain and the Democrats' edge struck me:

"We're in better shape than [Republicans] are, because they don't realize that Reaganomics is dead, that the Reagan philosophy is dead," he said. "We realize that New Deal democracy, which is still our paradigm, which is sort of appeal to each group ... that doesn't work any more."

He had said a bit earlier, "The old Reagan theory which dominated -- which is, 'Government is bad, it's out of touch, chop off its hands as soon as it moves.' -- is over."

UPDATE: My wife reminded me that the Great Wall of China is a cool wall people like to visit, so basically my whole argument has been blown away. If we could have a wall like that, I'd totally be for it.

UPDATE 2: I can see a lot of heated disagreement in the comments, so I just want to remind you that I'm only putting this out here to stimulate thinking about this issue from another angle. I'm not saying I'm absolutely right on this, but I am saying you're probably smoking bad crack if you disagree with me. Don't get angry at me; get angry at your crack dealer.

I think I'm a Mexican racist. For Thanksgiving, the lovely and talented SarahK and I drove from Florida to Texas. On the way back, we stopped in a Wal-Mart in Amarillo since we decided we wanted the new Weird Al Yankovic album for the trip home. That's a regular American farmer town, but the Wal-Mart was full of signs in Spanish and all the staff looked to be Mexican. Since I live in Florida, I'm used to being surrounded by Cubans, but being surrounded by Mexicans is quite another thing and very intimidating.

So, we went to the music section, and one whole third of it was dedicated to Mexican music. Then, I wasn't able to find Weird Al because he doesn't sing in Mexican. So, I went to a nearby clerk - who looked to be Mexican - for help. I asked her where the latest Weird Al album was, and she responded saying she didn't know who that was.

Something in me just snapped.

You evil Mexican! How can you invade our country and not learn the language or even the most basic parts of our culture such as who Weird Al Yankovic is?

It was an angry thought, and I quickly saw how stupid it was. First off, she knew the language just fine. Second, even though she didn't know who Weird Al was, she still helped me find the album. So why am I hating Mexicans? In this day and age, I should be saving all my hatred for Muslims. Do I really want all the Mexicans deported when many are just family men and women? If they were gone, then would there be anyone left in Wal-Mart who would help me find the Weird Al album?

I became afraid I've gotten too swept up in the border issue. It seems really important these days as even my wife shakes her fist at the TV screen every time Bush appears because he hasn't been handling illegal immigration. Also, any time I hear about a politician on a blog, usually the first thing mentioned is his stance on the border.

Originally, I didn't care much about illegal immigration. To me, it seems logical that everyone outside of America should do absolutely everything in their power to get in America. If I were born outside of America, that's what I'd do. Also, illegal immigrants are only taking jobs from the poor, and I don't like poor people. The only thing I care about is whether they're actually coming here to be Americans and not just a Mexican working a job in America.

So, I reanalyzed my stance on the border and, while not figuring everything out, I came to this conclusion which seems so obvious now:

A wall on our border is a really dumb idea.

Though I know many (including my wife and John Hawkins) will disagree with me, I think that's true for a number of reasons.

Hey! It's your favorite J, Frank J. of IMAO, reporting for guest blogging duties. Right now, I only have posting privileges here, but I'll look into hacking MoveableType and see what else I can do with this site.

Anyway, I have a cool, thought-provoking post I'm working on as a Right Wing News exclusive, but, for now, I'll just plug my blog and my book.

Gavin M. of the left-wing (boo!) site Sadly, No! (which should probably be renamed "Unfunny? Yes!" - Ha! I've been waiting a while to unload that gem) was crying for attention, and Cadet Happy, the designated IMAO photoshopper (whose work can be seen in this post from the previous time I guest-blogged here), has accepted the challenge of a photoshopping duel. After a few rounds, IMAO plans to declare victory and begin the occupation of Sadly, No!.

Also, The Chronicles of Dubya Volume 1: The Defeat of Saddam, a compilation of my In My World™ posts, is now available. If you don't already know that my In My World™ posts are the funniest things ever, John Hawkins did a quote round up a long while ago (the book quotes will be a bit different since now these posts have all been actually proofread and edited). Also, you can read a sample at NTM Publishing and then buy the book. If you buy a signed copy, five dollars goes to Spirit of America which gets matched by an anonymous donor so a total of ten dollars gets donated. So now you can get teh funny and support the troops.

Enough plugging; I'm going to get to writing now and seeing if I can change the Right Wing News logo...

This story is just getting stranger and stranger. After murdered ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko made a deathbed confession pointing the finger directly at the Kremlin, the Kremlin has responded back and accused Litvinenko's billionaire friend, Boris Berezovsky, a man who has employed and funded the ex-spy. Traces of radioactive polonium-210, which is what killed Litvinenko, were found at the exiled businessman's London offices.

Adding to the mystery is the sudden illness of former Russian prime minister Yegor Gaidar. It seems that Gaidar came down with a sudden and quite violent illness last week, a DAY after Litvinenko died. While Gaidar's health has stabilized, the cause is still unidentified.

All of this comes just a little over a month after the murder of Anna Politkovskaya, a journalist who was very critical of Putin and his administration.

Visit the Conservatives with Attitude! website and listen to some great podcasts with political pundits, bloggers and politicians.

I'm going to be on vacation Thurs the 23rd of November through Wed the 29th of November. However, as always, the show must go on. So, here's RWN's schedule over the holidays:

Thurs the 23rd: Retro RWN

Fri the 24th: Retro RWN

Mon the 27th: Guest bloggers will be Mary Katharine Ham, Danny Carlton, and Michael "A.J. Sparxx" Illions.

Tue the 28th: Guest bloggers will be Pat Curley, Cassandra, Lorie Byrd, & Kathy Shaidle.

Wed the 29th: Guest bloggers will be Michael Fumento, Sister Toldjah, Frank J., & Betsy Newmark.

Reading the writing on the wall and the gathering backlash, San Fran Nan denies Hastings his shot at Chairing the House Intelligence Committee:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida, impeached as a federal judge in 1989 on corruption charges, dropped his bid under pressure on Tuesday to chair a congressional panel designed to help protect America's security, a party aide said.

Hastings took the action after being told by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in line to head the U.S. House of Representatives when the new Congress convenes in January, that she would not give him the coveted job, the aide said.

As House speaker, Pelosi decides who in her party serves on the committee that helps oversee federal efforts to protect the United States.

Last week, Hastings made a public plea for the post, arguing that despite being removed by Congress as a federal judge, he did nothing wrong and was cleared by a court of the corruption charges.

But Pelosi decided against picking Hastings for the chairmanship and told him at a private meeting. She has not yet decided who she will name instead, the aide said.

Hastings, a popular politician in Florida, was elected without opposition on November 7 to an eighth term in Congress.

Que Pasa?

WASHINGTON - Rep. Tom Tancredo, the leader of the anti-illegal immigration faction in the U.S. House, spent a recent weekend at The Breakers in Palm Beach.

Ninety miles to the south, he found a symbol to bolster his belief that unfettered immigration is endangering the United States: Miami, he told a conservative online news site, ``has become a Third World country.''

''Look at what has happened to Miami,'' the WorldNetDaily quotes Tancredo as saying in an interview. ``It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you're in the United States of America. You would certainly say you're in a Third World country.''

The remarks drew an instant rebuke from Miami Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who called Tancredo ''flat out wrong'' and extended an invitation for him to come and judge the city for himself.

''I invite my friend, Tom, to visit beautiful Miami, my hometown, and experience firsthand our hospitality,'' Ros-Lehtinen said. ``Come on down, Tom, the water's fine!''

Miami, Ros-Lehtinen said, is a ``world class city where diversity is celebrated. Here people have the opportunity to meet folks from across the globe and honor different cultures. Miami-Dade County is home to many outstanding universities, is headquarters to international businesses and has a vibrant economy.''

I've been spending a couple hours every afternoon listening to Andrea Shea-King and Mark Vance on Constitutional Public Radio. It's the familiar conservative talk, but they've done one little thing that makes listening to them much more enjoyable than other shows. They have a live chatroom where you can interact with the hosts, ask questions of their guests, and talk politics with other bloggers and blog readers.

The show airs from 3:00 PM-5:00 PM Eastern time from Florida's Space Coast and you can listen live here. You can log into the chatroom here (just enter a user name, city and state, and click on the "Submit Query" button).

Today's guest is Orson Scott Card, the famed science fiction writer and longtime Democrat, who crossed party lines like Zell Miller and Ed Koch to vote for President Bush in 2004. Hope to see a bunch of you in the chatroom this afternoon!

Update: A good time was had by all. Mr Card was incredibly well-informed and has not budged an inch on his support for the war in Iraq or the President. I was pleased to see quite a few new faces in the chatroom, including Kevin from EckerNet, Dan from the NeoCon Nexus, AO from Anonymous Opinion, as well as chatroom regulars like Mary Ann from Here, There and Back Again, Third Wave Dave, Anna from A Rose By Name, Gawfer, and David from Liberty or Death, and of course, our gracious hosts, who have their own blog called Radio Patriots.

If you missed the show, it will be rebroadcast in its entirety at 9:00 PM tonight, with the Orson Scott Card interview at 10:00.

Is to hate, hate, hate him....

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, considering a second bid for the U.S. presidency, finished dead last in a poll released on Monday on the Likeability of 20 top American political figures.

Among those placed ahead of Kerry were about a dozen potential 2008 White House rivals, including Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

This is hardly surprising to a person who started a blog called Kerry Haters. It always seemed that the people who knew Kerry best, liked him least. Remember the "no-bounce" convention in 2004? Kerry, given a week of solid coverage capped off with his "And I'm reporting for duty!" speech at the DNC, actually saw his poll numbers decline slightly.

Everywhere you looked, you found people who disliked Kerry, from his classmates at St. Paul's prep school, to those who knew him at Yale, to those who served with him in the Navy. After his divorce from his first wife, he dated a few famous women, including Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas singing group, and actress Morgan Fairchild. Phillips donated to Kerry's rival for the nomination, Howard Dean, but not to Kerry. Fairchild donated to John Edwards, Howard Dean, and Dick Gephardt during the primary season, but not to John Kerry until he had sewn up the nomination.

(Pat Curley blogs politics from a center-right perspective at Brainster's Blog, and debunks 9-11 conspiracy theorists at Screw Loose Change)

Well here's a real shocker...

It is something one half of the population has long suspected - and the other half always vocally denied. Women really do talk more than men.

In fact, women talk almost three times as much as men, with the average woman chalking up 20,000 words in a day - 13,000 more than the average man.

If it wasn't in black and white, we don't think we would have believed it. Via Greta

The seamy underbelly of Christmas... Oh! the humanity!

"Animals have been stolen and slaughtered, they've been raped, they've escaped from the nativity scenes and have been struck by cars and killed. Just really unfathomable things have happened to them."

In the letter to Armstrong, Vergerio shared some sad fates of previous nativity animals - like Brighty the donkey, snatched from a nativity scene in Virginia and beaten by three young men. Ernie the camel fled a creche in Maryland but was struck and killed by a car. Two sheep and a donkey had to be euthanized after a dog mauling at a manger scene in Virginia.

There's just one tiny problem with all of this outrage ... no live animals:

"We have some puppet camel things we put out," Armstrong said. "We have a cow hood thing that a person will wear that actually just looks spooky."

The volunteers stand beneath a brightly lit electric star as Christmas music fills the frosty air. They don't even speak.

"We even use a plastic baby."

What a relief...

Oh, the humanity II! The hideous sequel:

Scientists at a U.S. weapons laboratory say they have trained bees to sniff out explosives in a project they say could have far-reaching applications for U.S. homeland security and the Iraq war.

Researchers at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico said they trained honeybees to stick out their proboscis -- the tube they use to feed on nectar -- when they smell explosives in anything from cars and roadside bombs to belts similar to those used by suicide bombers.

Researchers in the program, dubbed the Stealthy Insect Sensor Project, published their findings on Monday.

Where is Keith Olbermann, Bloggermann, and his overwrought historical parallels when we need him? Surely this is the most ruthless administration EVER.

Via Extreme Mortman, Howard Kurtz seems somewhat skeptical of Matt Lauer's foreign policy expertise. We are shocked... shocked we tell you. And here we had hoped the White House was finally going to turn over the running of our foreign policy to the likes of Dan Froomkin, a man with nearly as much gravitas as Katie Couric on a caffeine jag.

This won't last long:

The College Republicans group at Boston University is offering what it calls a "Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship" that requires applicants to be at least 25 percent Caucasian. B.U.'s "Daily Free Press" newspaper says students who want the $250 award must submit two essays — one on their ancestry and the other on what being a Caucasian-American means to them.

Schools, government and private organizations offer hundreds of scholarships targeted at various minority groups. The president of the College Republicans says his group is trying to make a point about the bigotry of racial preferences and affirmative action — not advocate white supremacy. He says a lot of people have been "agitated or upset" at the Caucasian scholarship idea initially — but understand the point when it's explained to them.

Say it loud! I'm pale and I'm proud!

Doesn't quite have that ring to it, does it?

It's unbelievable what is happening with the events surrounding the 6 muslim passengers being kicked off a plane.

Between the race-card players & the crooked anti-american muslim groups and the appeasing democrats, our ability to protect ouselves pro-actively is severly being compromised.

Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson-Lee, taking time off from complaining about names of hurricanes sounding to "lily-white", said:

the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

Now, let's look at the truth and hear from witnesses who were actually ON the plane:

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix. "I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department. Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin. "That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane." A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.
The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water:

The contours of this landscape-altering election started taking shape more than a year ago. And by the first week of August, my Cook Political Report team and I began forecasting that if the election were held then, the Republicans would lose the House, and that their chances of holding the Senate were deteriorating toward 50-50. Our final predictions were that Democrats would gain 20 to 35 House seats (the final number appears to be about 29), four to six Senate seats (the party won six -- and control), and six to eight governorships (the actual pickup was six). The war in Iraq was the biggest factor in this Democratic wave, probably accounting for 70 percent of the total. The public's disapproval of Republicans' handling of a jumble of other issues -- ranging from scandals, immigration, and federal spending and deficits, to stem-cell research, the Terri Schiavo case, and Hurricane Katrina -- produced the wave's other 30 percent.

Do we sense a theme building? Perhaps of an aquatic nature? Grab your surfboard and hang ten - it gets really good. Mickey Kaus comments:

Do the math: ...[snip] ... When the 6-point Democratic popular vote win is measured against the GOP's 5-point win in 2002 and its 3-point win in 2004, it clearly constituted a wave.

Wow. So in 2002, a humdrum, non-wave election, the GOP won by 5 points. But this year, in a "wave election that rivaled the 1994 tsunami," the Dems won by 6 points. See? No wave: 5. Wave: 6! Cook has a powerful way of putting things.

We suppose that's one way of looking at it. Just watch out for the UnderToad.

Driving home from the mountains of Virginia this weekend I saw a strange sight; an echo of far off days long forgotten now. I almost couldn't believe my eyes. But still there it was on an ancient blue pickup truck traveling about 55 mph in the lane next to us: taking up a goodly part of the rear window and oddly enough, unlike the vehicle it was attached to, in pristine condition. It was an American flag decal, and underneath it in big bold letters were the proud words, UNITED WE STAND.

I remember a time when those decals adorned almost every car in the DC area. But five years after the event which caused those flags to spring up like mushrooms, America no longer stands as one. Those symbols vanished without a trace, like the ephemeral unity which turned out to be more the products of momentary sentiment and media hype than of thoughtful conviction or firm resolve.

As I watched the pickup slowly disappear in the rearview mirror, my mind drifted back to my childhood and the much smaller American flag decals that seemed to be everywhere in those days: on cars, windows of houses, on schoolbooks. Readers Digest gave them away free of charge during the Vietnam War.

In many ways life was simpler then. My Dad was ten feet tall; handsome and strong in his Navy uniform, slightly heroic in my eyes. As long as I could detect the faint aroma of Bay Rum in the air, I knew the world was safe for democracy and the bad guys were on the run.

But even then I never liked it when the news came on, because I never could understand why the bad guys never seemed to do anything wrong, or why we never seemed to win any battles the way heroes sometimes did in history books. Even to a young girl, something seemed amiss. We were America and Vietnam was just a tiny nation halfway across the globe. How could we take loss after loss, year after year? Didn't my country ever do anything right?

As it turned out, we weren't losing on the battle field. Vietnam was lost on the home front. The will to wage an unpopular war was sapped by a relentless media assault aimed at convincing us to abandon a fight that, in reality, was all but won. And it worked - we withdrew first military and finally even the economic aid Congress had promised to South Vietnam, leaving our still fighting allies to the tender mercies of the Communists. Had we still been capable of feeling shame, that would have been a low point in American history.

But if history has taught us anything it teaches that we can always go lower, and so the cycle is about to repeat itself. The diligent efforts of the media, supported by a phalanx of pontificating punditry, have elevated the ubiquitous "Iraq=Vietnam" comparison to the level of self-fulfillling prophecy, for exactly the same reasons. Iraq is about to become yet another war we could have won, but lost on the TV screens, newspapers, and most importantly in the hearts and minds of ordinary Americans who say they support the troops, but don't support what they are trying to accomplish because they've been convinced we are doomed to miserable failure.

When America has more confidence in the military than in any other single institution, how did we get there from here? The answer is simple: we are being defeated from within by American citizens who openly flout our laws and undermine our warfighting effort.

And yet we say nothing.

Let's take Jesus: 33-years-old, still lives with Mom. But the guy knows a trade, likes children and seems pleasant enough. The hair we can live with.

Buddha: Fat. Bald. Sleeps a lot. Again, though, nice personality. Used to be prince, which is a definite plus.

Krishna: She brought him home for Thanksgiving her first year at college. The one with the eyeliner, the orange clothes and the flute. OK once you get to know him.

Mohammed: Swarthy. Illiterate. Kills people. Basically we're talking O.J. without the Heisman. Even if you could overlook the whole nine-year-old girl thing, the guy is a definite "no".

(Via RelapsedCatholic: violating Canadian hate speech laws since 2000.)

Bloggers are compiling quite a bit of evidence that war propagandists in the Middle East have succeeded in infiltrating the international and American media by selling them (both literally and figuratively) stories that are not only fake, but also inaccurate. See the latest from Patterico and Flopping Aces.

It is good to see bloggers exposing stories like these, as they did the "fauxtography" stories and others over the past few years, but it is definitely an uphill battle trying to bring this news to the public. The Anchoress writes about how difficult it is to take back these stories even after they have been proven incorrect or fake.

I wonder how many of our troops are being further endangered by the fakery we're discovering here? I wonder how many of their deaths in the coming weeks will be due to this sort of stuff?

As usual with stories like this the fake story - and the impressions it has made on the minds of the public - is out there, damage done. I don't see how alternate media can win against a major media that fabricates crap and puts it out there knowing that even if they correct the story a week later, they've done their damage. It's a sneakly lawyer's trick, actually - like putting an idea in a jury's head and then having the judge tell them to "disregard" it.

Jeff Goldstein has more to say about the impact of the mainstream press.

From Curt at Flopping Aces comes the news many of us quietly expected: Centcom has confirmed that Capt. Jamil Hussein, the primary source for the recent kerosene mosque murder reports--and for a whole host of reports of Shia massacres recounted by the AP--is neither an employee of Iraq's Ministry of Interior nor is he a police captain.

In short, the AP has been relying on a bogus source for much of its reporting on Shia violence against Sunnis since at least April.

For those who continue to suggest that the mainstream press has a negligible impact on elections, consider that the majority of Americans who bothered to pay any attention whatsoever to this story will be left with an account of horrific sectarian violence against women and children--and the belief that sectarian strife in Iraq is not only inexorable and savage, but pandemic.

Update: The AP is standing by their story and insists Jamil Hussein is a valid source. It will be interesting to see how this one ends.

I have more on this story and others at Wizbang. Thanks to John for letting me guest blog at Right Wing News today.

NBC Today Show host Matt Lauer has declared that there is a Civil War in Iraq:

On the Today Show, Matt Lauer said: "For months now the White House has rejected claims that the situation in Iraq has deteriorated into a civil war. And, for the most part, news organizations like NBC have hesitated to characterize it as such. But after careful consideration, NBC News has decided a change in terminology is warranted -- that the situation in Iraq with armed militarized factions fighting for their own political agendas -- can now be characterized as a civil war."

This morning on radio and MSNBC, responding to NBC's decision to characterize Iraq as a "civil war," Don Imus said:

"He and Brian Williams and all those other nitwits and Griffin, they all sit around and they make this command decision, and Zucker and all of them, and maybe bring ol' Wright in there?"

More: "Do these nitwits at NBC News think this is going to have the impact of when Walter Cronkite came back in Vietnam and said we can't win, and Lyndon Johnson famously said 'well if we've lost Walter Cronkite, we've lost the country?'"

Pam Anderson files for divorce from Kid Rock.

The good news? She's back on the market.

The bad news? She was so wrapped up in her personal struggles, that the usually steady PETA P.R. ship veered into dangerous waters without her guidance:

The pastor at Anchorage First Free Methodist Church was mystified. Why was the activist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals chastising him?

No animals are harmed in the church's holiday nativity display. In fact, animals aren't used at all...

The Rev. Jason Armstrong was confused by an e-mail this week from PETA, which admonished him for subjecting animals “to cruel treatment and danger,” by forcing them into roles in the church's annual manger scene.

“We've never had live animals, so I just figured this was some spam thing,” Armstrong said. “It's rough enough on us people standing out there in the cold. So we're definitely not using animals.”

What the church does have is a "living nativity" scene featuring live people in the roles of Mary and Joseph and the wise men.

Seems the confusion started with the church's choice of phrase. PETA flagged Free Methodist's display as a “living nativity,” and indeed, that's how the church describes it on its Web site.

To PETA, that means animals.

Life=animal life. Living=living animals. Revealing, no?

Life.

Not so much.

And, in case you're wondering why putting live animals in a nativity scene is considered cruel, according to PETA, it's because sometimes they run away from the scenes and get hit by cars. And, one time some animals got mauled by dogs and had to be euthanized after being in a living nativity. Really, that's the reason.

Flashbacks from the Brilliant PETA P.R. Files:

Lynched black men=slaughtered cows

Brilliant and racially sensitive!

Your Daddy Kills Animals!

Brilliant and kid-friendly!

I'm Mary Katharine. Come visit some time.

Don't look know, but President Bush is reaching out to his new friends in the Democrat controlled Senate for a new Immigration bill.

One of illegal immigrants best friends, Ted Kennedy, is drafting one as we speak:

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is reaching out to Democrat leaders in Congress in an effort to overhaul immigration laws, and any bill that emerges - Sen. Ted Kennedy reportedly is drafting one now - is expected to include a "guest worker" program and a path to legal citizenship, the Boston Globe reported. "With a new Congress, we have an opportunity to pass our plan to secure our borders, uphold our laws, and strengthen our economy," the newspaper quoted Kennedy as saying. He plans to meet with a dozen leading senator from both parties this week to discuss immigration legislation. Their goal is to have Congress vote on a final immigration bill by mid-2007, the Globe said.

I enjoyed my time here guest-blogging and I want to thank J.H. for the opportunity to interact with the readers here at RightWingNews.com

Well, to catch you up to speed...Wal-Mart did several things to cozy up to the homosexual activists, (who knows why, since they don't represent a very large consumer base, and the demands they make are always over-the-top). Anyway, some Wal-Mart employees found out, quit publicly, in protest and a boycott was called. Wal-Mart offered a contradictory "apology" that said, more or less, "we didn't do it, and we won't do it again.". So the AFA, who was the most visible group calling for the boycott, called it off, except in spite of being mindless robots as the MSM likes to portray us, Conservative Christians didn't follow lock-step behind Don Wildman. In other words, we boycotted Wal-Mart anyway. 

Yeah, but a handful of religious extremists would hardly make that much of an impact, right? Wrong.

From the Associated Press...

The nation's retailers had a strong start to the holiday shopping season, according to results announced Saturday by a national research group that tracks sales at mall-based stores. One big exception was Wal-Mart Stores Inc., which said it expects to report same-store sales in November below its already lackluster forecast.

So will Wal-Mart ban homosexuals from shopping there? That's what the homosexual activists would want people to think, but not one of those calling for the boycott have asked for such a thing. What they are bothered by is Wal-Mart's financial support of organizations that in turn push for legislation that would allow the legal discrimination against Christians or anyone else who believes homosexuality is immoral. 

Wal-Mart joined and donated $25,000 to the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

The NGLCC actively endorses and supports the the "Hate Crimes" amendment to HR 3132, which should more accurately be called, the "Thought Crimes" amendment.

The Traditional Values Coalition warns that the amendment would, "...criminalize the thoughts of those who commit the crime—as well as condemn the moral beliefs of millions of Americans who are critical of homosexuality, cross-dressing, or transsexualism. This legislation puts criticism of these deviant sexual behaviors in the same category as racism, misogyny, and anti-Semitism." R5ecent history has shown, repeatedly, that such laws inevitably result in banning public Bible reading as well as pastors being arrested for the content of their sermons.

Now, since Wal-Mart suffered financially the day after Thanksgiving, they'll be trying to find some way of appeasing those who are still boycotting the company. Hopefully they'll not attempt another meaningless gesture like what we saw days before Thanksgiving. Whatever their response, though, the homosexual activists will try to portray Wal-Mart as supporting "Gay Bashing" if it doesn't continue to financially support them. The Homosexual Activists won't tolerate neutrality, but that approach has been shown to work quite well for the companies with the integrity to apply it.

I know, you're saying that the Religious Right won't tolerate neutrality either, but there you're wrong. That the boycott continued in spite the AFA calling it off shows that rather than a homogenous group, Values Voters are fairly diverse and think for themselves. While some may not be satisfied with a neutral position, most will, and offending the the typically small fringe at the extreme has always been a business reality. The solution is knowing how to recognize an extreme fringe, something Wal-Mart didn't do too well when it jumped into bed with the NGLCC.

Read more of Danny's stuff at http://JackLewis.net

Oh, come on, you know you want to think about it. And, the media knows you do.

Hence, the look-ahead-by-looking-back piece from the AP today on famous moments from N.H. and Iowa primary history-- tailor-made for the political junkie who's sick of pondering the unsuspenseful question of whether the Dems will act a fool or not.

Indulge. You know you want to.

1992: Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton's relationship with Gennifer Flowers threatens his candidacy. Clinton rebounds with a strong second place finish in the Democratic primary behind favorite son Paul E. Tsongas from neighboring Massachusetts and declares himself the "comeback kid."

Perhaps a poor choice of words given the allegations and future revelations.

I totally looked for this one on YouTube, but no dice. Someone really needs to get to work uploading obscure political clips like this for the three people like me who would be interested in watching them:

1972: Sen. Edmund Muskie of Maine stands in front of the conservative Union Leader newspaper of Manchester's building in a snowstorm to defend his wife against an attack published by the paper. Muskie, the Democratic front-runner, is reported to have cried during the rallying, severely undermining his candidacy. Muskie claims the reported tears were melting snowflakes.

No show:

1952: Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was commanding NATO in Europe, defeats longtime Republican leader Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio without ever coming to the state during the primary.

Understatement:

1984: Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado shocks the political establishment by defeating former Vice President Walter Mondale in the Democratic primary by 10 percentage points. Mondale goes on to win the nomination, but loses the election.

Death knell:

2004: The two perceived front-runners in the Democratic contest _ Missouri's Dick Gephardt and Vermont's Howard Dean _ shower each other with negative ads. Taking the high road, Massachusetts' John Kerry eschews negatives ads, puts his money into Iowa and winds up in first place. He goes on to win the nomination.

First of many "moral victories":

1976: Jimmy Carter, an obscure Georgia governor who began grass-roots campaigning in Iowa a year before the caucuses, comes in a distant second in the Democratic contest to undecided, but wins the most votes for an actual candidate. Carter uses the momentum of his Iowa "victory" to achieve victory in the New Hampshire primary.

Truly an inspiring model for the modern Kossian Left of Nedrenaline.

Meanwhile, the Post drops this bombshell: Incumbents are hard to pick off.

Only a few Democrats and Republicans, however, are considered vulnerable. Still, Republicans could be buffeted by a string of retirements that would make the field more competitive. As of now, the two most vulnerable Democratic senators appear to be Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Mary Landrieu (La.), while the most vulnerable Republicans are Wayne Allard (Colo.), Norm Coleman (Minn.) and John E. Sununu (N.H.).

Yep, we dug a hole. It's gonna take some climbing to get out. Grab your carabiners!

And, Dean Barnett notices that Andrew Sullivan is all of a sudden very interested in fairly and even-handedly dissecting the tenets of the Mormon faith on his blog during "Mormon Week on the Dish!"

Strangely enough, the same Sullivan seemed unconcerned with the tenets of the faith when he was pushing for a Mormon Majority Leader in Harry Reid. But now that we're talking about Republican, traditional-marriage-backing Mormon Mitt Romney as an '08 candidate, Mormonism is of the utmost importance.

Update: Fixed some links in there for y'all, in case you were wondering where they were. They disappeared on me, but I got them back.

Also, I'm Mary Katharine Ham. You can visit me at Townhall. Please do!

I didn't even know he was still alive. Well, anyway, his career sure is dead. Now, he's jumped into Michael Moore-like anti-american, anti-war propaganda "documentaries":

Add the name of Phil Donahue to the list of people who’ve made documentaries about the effects of the Iraq war. The legendary liberal talk-show host and renowned Ralph Nader supporter showed his film — which he called a work in progress — to a private screening group last week.

The film, “Body of War,” is unfinished but riveting. It should make Tomas Young, its central character, a star on the lecture and possibly talk-show circuit, much the way Mark Zupan got recognition after last year’s “Murderball.”

Byrd, in fact, plays a big part in Donahue’s film. The 88-year-old senator, with 47 years in office, not to mention six more in Congress, is used by Donahue as a Yoda of sorts for in the film and for the war. He’s proud to be the leader of the 23 dissidents, and his scenes with the wheelchair-bound Young are poignant.

Are you following this story as close as I am? Ripped right out of a James Bond movie or a Robert Ludlum novel, a former Russian spy died last week from radiation poison. It seems Alexander Litvinenko absorbed polonium210, a rare and highly toxic radioactive material.

Days before he died, Litvinenko fingered the Kremlin as his assassin. Even with that "deathbed" accusation, the police are investigating the possibility that Litvinenko may have killed himself to discredit Putin.

This is NOT your mother's soap opera: ABC Daytime Soap All My Children will explore groundbreaking territory as they introduce a transgender character, (transitioning from male to female), to the canvas.

Predictably, GLAAD is giddy over the possibilities: "I think it's groundbreaking and breakthrough television for daytime to put a spotlight on transgender people and tell their story."

And finally, members from the Cut & Run party on the left, have promised America not to offer liberal plans in the next Congress. Dingell, Rangel & Frank are going to concentrate on things that mainstream America wants. Is it just me, or are you just as skeptical ?