The 4th Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2006

The 21 Most Annoying People On The Right In 2006

The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2006 Edition

The RWN Conservative Of The Year

The 20 Biggest Stories Of 2006

Screw Loose Change

Don Surber

Patrick Ruffini

Lone Star Times

Overlawyered

Something...And Half Of Something

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Eyeon08

Question: "Do you think we should send in more troops or keep it the troop levels the way they are?" -- libliever

Answer: I'm a little cool to the idea of adding more American troops because supposedly, most of the generals don't support it, I think that the Iraqis could already be doing a lot more, everyone agrees that the "surge" won't be sustainable, and most of all, I'm not sure exactly what all these troops will be doing in Iraq. Sure, there will be more bodies on the ground, but what hump does this get us over? Does this mean we'll be able to secure Baghdad? Do we need them to knock out Al-Sadr's militia? Will the Iraqi troops be ready to take over the day to day policing the country by the time those troops have to leave? What does this do for us? The truth is, no one has really effectively answered that question and if we increase the number of troops in Iraq and don't accomplish anything, it will be a significant negative for us.

However, the President is the Commander-In-Chief and therefore, he's ultimately responsible for the war effort in Iraq. If he thinks we need more troops to win, I'll back him on that, no matter what the polls or the generals say. As long as the President is striving to win in Iraq, not just tread water or cut and run, I'm with him all the way.

As far as the polls go, a President shouldn't be making key decisions about the number of troops on the ground based on polls. When it comes to the generals, the President should pay close attention to the advice his generals give him, but he has got to be the ultimate decision maker.

Additionally, as I've written before, I think the President has, "a window that will last through 2007 to do what he needs to do in Iraq." If there isn't a significant improvement by then, the public's support for the war will be so low that even many Republicans in Congress will turn on the war and then it will become entirely possible that the Democrats in Congress may be able to gather enough votes to cut off funds for the war. Forcing our troops to surrender in that fashion would be a disastrous outcome not just for Iraq, but for the United States.

That may be part of the reason why Bush thinks we need to pull out all the stops and increase the number of troops in Iraq. It may be because if he realizes that if doesn't move the ball forward this year, he may not have much of a chance to do anything in 2008. So, from his perspective, it may be now or never.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Link #6

Question: "A lot of left wing blogs are talking gleefully like they have a generational majority after winning an off year congressional election. Do you think this kind of thinking will cause the democrats to overreach?" -- RtWingNtCase

Answer: Will they overreach? Oh, absolutely. This agenda they came in with? Nobody voted for them because of it. In fact, most people who aren't political junkies had probably never heard of it until they got into office. All they did was poll test a bunch of ideas that wouldn't nauseate their base, like raising the minimum wage, plugging the Medicare Prescription Drug gap, etc., found what polled well and decided to support it.

But, their radical base is all about tax increases, impeaching Bush, socialized medicine, killing the war in Iraq, hampering the war on terror, and maximizing the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country -- and they will be howling like a pack of wolves for the Democrats in Congress to move on those issues.

So once the Dems are done with the fluff and start getting into those big, controversial issues, they'll start doing what their base wants and you'll get to see the raving, full on crazy, authoritarian side of the left on full display. It won't be a pretty picture.

How much that will impact things in 2008 is an open question, however. The gap in the House is probably too big for the GOP to make up in a single year unless the Dems completely melt down, there will be more vulnerable Reps than Dems in the Senate in 2008, and unless President Bush brings his approval rating up, he'll hurt the chances for the next Republican nominee for the Presidency.

So yeah, they will overreach, they almost always do, but it remains to be seen how much of an impact their overreach will have weighed against all the things that are in their favor right now.

My The 20 Most Annoying People on the Right article was the 5th most read article at Human Events this week.

That's not bad given that I'm competing for eyeballs over there every week with people like Ann Coulter, Brent Bozell, Cal Thomas, Michael Reagan, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan, Michael Reagan, Linda Chavez, David Limbaugh, Robert Novak, Thomas Sowell, Newt Gingrich, etc, etc, etc.

PS: I actually made the top 10 list quite a few times in 2006, but I've never taken the time to point it out before.

I just received this press release and decided to post it because it shows that at least a few Republicans in DC seem to "get it" and because it's nice to see that House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, whom I've always pigeonholed as a "business as usual" Republican, is actually a co-sponsor.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Earlier this week, the House of Representatives convened to mark the beginning of the 110th Congress. The first order of legislative business was to consider H. Res. 6, which will adopt the House Rules for the 110th Congress. The House of Representatives is not a continuing body; it must reconstitute itself at the beginning of every new Congress, which requires the adoption of rules to govern the House.

Unfortunately, Democrats have not allowed amendments, nor any Republican input, to be brought to the floor as part of the House Rules package, therefore Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) introduced a "stand alone" rule changing resolution that, if enacted, would amend the House Rules.

"The Federal Government is spending money at an unsustainable rate," said Conaway, a CPA and small businessman entering his second term in Congress. "Congress must do a better job of setting priorities. Reducing the deficit and controlling spending should be a top priority and in order to do that, we need to set up mechanisms that halt runaway government growth and spending."

Conaway's "No New Programs" resolution would change House rules on spending. The "No New Programs" rule change, which is co-sponsored by House Republican Whip Roy Blunt, would make it against House rules to create a new federal program without the elimination of an existing federal program of equal or greater cost. It would force Congress to make tough choices by only creating new programs if they are considered to be a higher priority than an existing program or programs.

Conaway concluded, "It is our responsibility to evaluate the spending process. This commonsense rule change proposal would be a step toward ensuring taxpayer money is being spent wisely. I am disappointed that this resolution was not included in the House Rules package today. Congress needs to get serious about healing Washington's spending disease and I will continue to work on reforming how the federal government spends taxpayer money."

Update #1: From the comments section:

"It's actually a great idea. It's a shame the Congressional Republicans didn't think of it before the election, rather than now, when it has no chance of passing." -- Bill_Dalasio

"Agreed. It's a day late and, well, a dollar short." -- seschub

They are a "day late and a dollar short," but I'm of the opinion that the more applicable phrase would be, "better late than never." They did a lot of things wrong in the last Congress, but now, at least they're starting things off by doing something right.

Question: "How much stock do you put in the predictions that there will be a successfull and perhaps large terrorist attack within the United States later this year?" -- ohioan

Answer: I don't put any stock in predictions made by Pat Robertson, if that's what you're driving at =D.

But, the reality is that we are wide open for a terrorist attack in this country and have been for a long time.

First off, chances are that terrorists would have no problem getting into this country. A lot of terrorists could probably fly in with no problems. Any that couldn't fly in, could get in a ship coming into our ports. If there are any terrorists left that couldn't make it in either of those ways, well, there are 12-20 million illegal immigrants who managed to just waltz right over the border. Next once the terrorists get here, there is practically an unlimited number of targets that feature hundreds of people gathered together with little or no security protecting them. Put it together and the potential for a large terrorist attack is going to be there for the foreseeable future, including of course, this year.

That's why it's a loser's game to try to play defense. You have to go "over there" and kill the terrorists because if they have the opportunity to gather "here" and strike, we're going to have a lot of trouble stopping them.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Mary Katharine Ham's Blog: HamNation Vlog: Hold Onto Your Collards! (A good looking, conservative woman who likes to cook. What's not to love?)

Hot Air: Zionists to colonize the moon! Update: Zionist space aggression begins?

Bill Bennett: A proposed 15 item 2008 platform.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

Question:"WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.

The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

This from the Daily News. Are we willing to allow the President this additional power? Has President Bush over used his signing powers? Is anyone fearful of the extent of government peeking into our lives? How far will we let them go?" -- Let_It_Be

Answer: First of all, despite what the article says, this isn't an "additional power." The President already has the right to open people's mail under emergency conditions:

"White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore said today that the signing statement was meant merely "to clarify that he already has the authority" to open mail in certain emergencies.

"The president is not claiming any 'new authority,'" the White House said in a new statement. "The signing statement merely recognizes a legal proposition that is totally uncontroversial: that in certain circumstances — such as with the proverbial 'ticking bomb' — the Constitution does not require warrants for reasonable searches."

Lawrimore said such presidential power would not infringe upon Americans' privacy, because it "would only be used in extraordinary circumstances."

The Dec. 20 signing statement said the president had the power to check mail "in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

Moreover, George Bush doesn't want to read your letters to Grandma and he's not going to sign off on opening Nancy Pelosi or Michael Moore's mail because it would leak out and he would get impeached. That goes for any Republican President.

Now, a Democratic President could get away with reading mail to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Just look at all the FBI files that the Clinton Administration got away with looking through -- and that was already illegal.

So, if say "President Hillary" wants to look at someone's mail, she won't need a signing statement because she'll be confident that the Democrats in Congress will back her no matter what happens. That means there will be nothing for her to worry about. So, the whole, "What if the other side gets this power? Would you worry then?" argument really doesn't come into play in this case.

Last but not least, this whole "controversy" is typical of the sort of minutiae people tend to get bogged down in today's political environment. The President of the United States has the authority to pick up the phone, at any time of the day or night, and order a nuclear strike on another country. But, you have people sitting around fretting about his having the power to look at a letter in an emergency situation. It's silly.

Question: "There have been a number of articles about the rise of the Euro as a world reserve currency. Of course, Iraq and Venezuela have said they will now expect payment in euros. But apparantly other nations have begun to diversify into euro holdings, as well. How do you see this affecting the dollar, and the American economy?" -- CoolCzech

Answer: As an answer to that, let me quote to you from my interview with the late, great Milton Friedman:

John Hawkins: If the euro were to replace the dollar as the medium of exchange, if everyone bought and sold their goods in euros instead of dollars, would that have an impact on the US economy?

Milton Friedman: The success of the United States will depend on how much it can produce at home, how much it can sell abroad, what it buys from abroad. It's of less importance whether it is denominated in dollars or euros.

John Hawkins: So in the end, that is really not going to make a big difference one way or the other...

Milton Friedman: That's not going to make a great deal of difference. What's going to make the difference is the productivity of the different countries. But personally, as I say, I believe the Euroland is going to run into big difficulties. That's because the different countries have different languages, limited mobility among them, and they're effected differently by external events.

Right now for example, Ireland and Spain are doing very well, but on the other hand Germany and France are doing very poorly. The question is; "Is the same monetary policy appropriate for all of them?" Germany and France on one hand and Ireland and Spain on the other: it's very dubious that it is. That's why you're having increasing difficulties within the Euroland group. As you probably know Sweden, which had not joined the European Monetary Union, voted down doing so and will keep its own currency.

After noticing that I stuck him in the number 3 slot on, "The 21 Most Annoying People On The Right In 2006," conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi wrote a 775 word response at Human Events.

Incidentally, earlier this week, Corsi also wrote an almost 3000 word response to a Michael Medved column panning the North American Union conspiracy theory.

You know, maybe it's just me, but when you have to write two columns in the same week trying to convince your fellow conservatives that you're not really as crazy as people think you are, it could be a bad sign.

PS: In both columns, Corsi treats Robert Pastor, a university professor, who has talked about the Amero and advocates more integration between the US, Mexico, and Canada, as some sort of central figure in this plot. Can I tell you a little secret? Something I haven't written about previously?

A while back, I actually had a phone conversation with Robert Pastor. He says that he hasn't met with anyone in the Bush Administration on any kind of merger between the US, Mexico, and Canada & to the best of his knowledge, no one in the Bush Administration is working on a North American Union or an Amero. Additionally, he added that an Amero was just one of three ideas that he floated in one of his books. So, even the father of the Amero idea isn't committed to an Amero. He also added that until he talked to me, he didn't realize that anyone out there bought into the North American Union conspiracy theory other than (I believe these are his exact words), "fringe lunatics."

Also see,

Killing the North American Union Conspiracy
The Questions Conspiracy Theorists Need To Ask Themselves

Update #1: Since this response has been linked by Human Events, RWN is being inundated by people who have been duped by Corsi, so, even though I think it is a ridiculous subject, sort of akin to proving that the moon isn't made of green cheese, let me take just a moment to undercut the key legs of Corsi's wacky conspiracy theory.

What is the conspiracy theory?

"President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy....Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union." -- Jerome Corsi

What about the Council of Foreign Relations? They're not a government entity. So, whatever the group suggests or doesn't suggest, it has nothing to do with the Bush Administration.

The report by the Council of Foreign Relations task force, "Building A North American Community," doesn't call for building a North American superstate. Nor for that matter, does the Council of Foreign Relations.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America? They're not based on anything the Council of Foreign Relations has said or the "Building A North American Community" report. Furthermore, they don't advocate building a North American Union or the creation of an Amero.

Robert Pastor is not a member of the Bush Administration and he, and any other college professor, can advocate anything they want, but that doesn't mean that the Bush administration supports it.

NASCO has nothing to do with the Bush administration, nor do they advocate building a North American Union. They're a business group that is working to build more traffic up and down a particular stretch of highway.

The Trans-Texas Corridor? Again, it has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. It's a road project, in Texas, that NASCO supports because it will mean more money for their stretch of highway.

So, what is the tie between the Bush Administration and the "North American Union" and an "Amero" supposed to be? There simply is none. Nobody in the Administration is advocating a North American Union or the Amero. Nobody in the Bush Administration is working on it.

As far as President Bush goes, yes, he stinks on illegal immigration and he's a free trader, like most people in the Republican party. But, he's also a lame duck President who is going to be out of office in two years. Do you think he's going to show up on TV one day in late 2007 and say, "I thought I'd let you know that the dollar is being replaced by the Amero and we're merging with Canada and Mexico?" Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? Do you realize that he couldn't even do something like that without a Constitutional Convention? Have you put any thought into how he would pull that off since a merger of this sort would be almost universally opposed in the United States?

On Jerome Corsi, yes, he's associated with the Minutemen and Swift Boat Vets for Truth. He also has a PHD. But, there are former government officials and PHD's who run around spinning 9/11 conspiracy theories, too. Moreover, we're talking about a guy who was originally claiming that the Bush Administration was going to secretly expand Canada to include NAFTA -- even though Canada was already in NAFTA. Doesn't that tell you a little something?

Last but not least, all this conspiracy mongering is doing is creating a new "black helicopter crowd" on the right. It's every bit as ridiculous and embarrassing as the "Loose Change" theories on the left about how the government was behind 9/11...and if you read everything that has ever been written on this conspiracy, you'll still never find one person in the Bush Administration who has advocated a merger of the US, Mexico, and Canada or an Amero. Nor will you find any evidence that they've ever done anything more than the standard (We need to work hard to improve our cooperation with our neighbors stuff) that we've been doing for decades.

All Corsi and Company are doing is pointing out that there is a small number of people in the United States who'd like to create a North American Union and noting that the Bush Administration works with Canada and Mexico on certain issues and then treating that as de facto evidence of a bizarre and far reaching conspiracy. That's just not the case. We're not going to "dissolve the United States." The dollar isn't going to disappear. The Supreme Court isn't going to be replaced by some council of judges from Toronto and Mexico City. There isn't going to be a Mexi-Cana-Merica. So, rest easy on that count.

Question: "Who is the best comic book character of all time?" -- D-Vega

Answer: Spider-Man. Definitely. Know why? It's because most comics spend a lot of time developing the "super" part of the character, but they do a poor job of building a compelling person behind the mask. Sure, Superman has the hots for Lois Lane and Batman's parents were killed when he was young -- yada, yada, yawn!

But, with Peter Parker, it's so easy to relate to the guy. He knows what it's like to be uncomfortable in a social setting, to want a girl he can't have, to have a family member die because of his mistake, to struggle to make ends meet, to have work get in the way of being a super hero, and to bust his butt to help people and get no gratitude in return.

Peter Parker feels "real" and "human" in a way that the Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Wolverine, Wonder Woman, etc., etc., etc. really don't and that, along with Spider-Man's puckish sense of humor, is what makes him into such a great character.

PS: Yes, when I was a kid, Spider-Man was my favorite comic.

Question: "What are the legal, bureaucratic, or traditional obstacles that prevent a defeated politician from pursuing the Presidency?

I ask because plenty of conservatives were defeated and the McCain, Guliani, Romney lineup is killing me." -- Dinglehoff

Answer: The thinking is that if you can't even win on your own home turf, how can you possibly win a nationwide race? In other words, if George Allen can't even beat James Webb or Rick Santorum can't even beat Bob Casey, what makes anyone think that they could go toe to toe with Hillary Clinton or John Edwards and win a nationwide election?

As far as McCain, Giuliani, & Romney go, I share your lack of enthusiasm -- as do a lot of people from what I've been reading and hearing.

But, who knows what may happen? Newt Gingrich could genuinely be said to be in the three slot right now, although I suspect that he doesn't intend to run. Duncan Hunter is also a pretty exceptional candidate, but he has a long way to go at this point to make it into the top tier. There's also always the possibility that a governor like Rick Perry, Mark Sanford, or Tim Pawlenty will jump in and make a go of it. Otherwise? It's not looking so good for conservatives on the presidential front.

Today will be Q&A Friday #56 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!

Democrats Take Control of Congress

A U.S. Border Patrol Entry Identification Team Site Was Overrun Wednesday Night Along Arizona's Border With Mexico

Miers Resigns As White House Counsel

Bush Looking At Global Warming Ideas

Supreme Court Will Hear Cases On Union Political Activities

Giuliani Blames Crist Aide for Leaked Docs

Buddhist Congresswoman Sworn In With No Book, Calls For Tolerance

Gallup Poll: 56% Of Americans Believe That The News Media's Coverage Of The Situation In Iraq Is Generally Inaccurate

Vanity Fair Does A Long Piece On Ultra-Weasel, John McCain. Read It And Weep When You Think That This Guy Is A Front Runner For The Presidency

Supreme Iranian Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Reported Dead (Hooray!)

North Korea Prepping Nuclear Weapons Test

Mullah Omar Says Hasn't Seen Bin Laden Since 2001 (Uh, Reuters Has An Email Address For Mullah Omar?)

Iraqi Govt. Now Says Capt. Jamil Hussein Is Real And Threatens To Arrest Him For Talking To The Media

A Sydney Australia Building Was To Be The Target Of A Rocket Attack After A Man Allegedly Supplied Rocket Launchers Stolen From The Military To A Suspected Terrorist

Disappearance Of Indonesian Jet Baffling

Bush Plans Changes In Key Advisers For Iraq Fresh Start

.Donald J. Boudreaux: America's Trade Deficit Is Evidence Of Its Economic Vigor And Promise, Not A Cause For Concern

Bill Steigerwald: The Quotes Of 2006

Mary Katharine Ham: Deficit Spending: Trendy and Misguided, Just Like Leggings!

Steven Stalinsky: Middle East Conspiracy Theories

Libya To Build Statue Of Saddam

Ex-Fox News Publicist Reported To Be Source Of Vicious Rumors About Brit Hume

John Elway To Run For Senate In Denver?

Website Of The Day: Keith Burgess-Jackson

At 3 PM today, I was on a teleconference with Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell. Here are my notes (not quotes) from the meeting:

Opening statement: "Civility does not mean capitulation." We're not going to give in on raising taxes. That's not up for negotiation. Being on offense in the WOT isn't up for negotiation. We will support the President's proactive approach which has protected us from attack since 9/11. We do want to cooperate on lobbying reform though.

Q&A Session:

Q: Campaign finance reform? What about that? What about the guy who got in trouble for having a Bush bumper sticker?

A: We lost McCain-Feingold 5-4 and the deciding vote, Sandra Day O'Connor, is no longer on the court. He will try to chip away at this at the Court level. We will try to prevent further erosion of speech.

Q (from me): The majority of Republicans in the Senate voted against the illegal immigration bill that was passed last year and there is talk that it is being moved further to the left. What will the Republican stance be on the illegal immigration bill?

A: You probably don't agree with this, but I support a comprehensive bill. I support a guest worker program. I am opposed to allowing any preferential treatment for people here illegally to being citizens. I don't think a guest worker program and ultimately becoming a citizen necessarily have to be related.

Q: What about lobbying and earmark reform?

A: I think the key to earmark reform is transparency. Some earmarks are good -- like a cancer hospital in my state. Some are bad though -- like the Bridge to Nowhere or the old Lawrence Welk Museum.

Q: You've hired a blog liaison. There has been a good reaction to that.

A: The Senate is frustrating for whoever is in the Majority. Harry Reid will need to come up with 60 votes to do anything. Almost nothing will happen in the Senate that we don't agree, too. We want to do more teleconferences to tell more people about how the Senate works and what we can do.

Hawkins' Note: The Senator was limited on time, so we didn't get to go too deeply into every issue people were interested in. However, there were three things worth noting.

First of all, I'm not so sure that McConnell can deliver when he says that the GOP is going to continue to support the President in the WOT. After all, we've already had Arlen Specter running off to Syria and Chuck Hagel saying Bush won't get support for his "Alice in Wonderland" policy of sending more troops to Iraq. Frist was never able to enforce party discipline in the Senate and until I see otherwise, I'm not sure that McConnell can either, even if his heart is in the right place.

Secondly, deficit spending WAS NOT one of the things that McConnell said they were going to hang tough on. In particular, the fact that McConnell touted a piece of pork in his own state when he was asked about earmarks is a really bad sign if you're looking for evidence that the GOP has gotten back to their roots on spending.

Last but not least, I got the impression from McConnell that the GOP is going to roll over like a French Poodle for the Democrats on illegal immigration. That's really bad news because as McConnell said, they could stop the Dems in their tracks on this issue if they so desired.

Summary: Don't get the wrong idea: McConnell didn't come across as Lincoln Chafee, Jr. or anything and I thought it was impressive that he took the time to brief the blogosphere today, but there certainly wasn't much for conservatives to get excited about in this teleconference.

Also see,

California Yankee

Honorable Mention -- raccoon: "If Spanish became the dominant language in the US, so what? Spanish has the advantage over English in that it's spelled phonetically. I believe in 30 years, Spanish will be the de facto dominant language in many states. In some, it probably is already."

Honorable Mention -- Sinti: "I've always felt (right wing Evangelicals) needed deprogramming. They need help to get out of their self-made hell. Appeasement, however, turns us into them - f*ck that. Don't change the party to please them, that would be insane. The deprogrammer needs to be really subtle in the beginning, and it takes a lot of patience - most folks wouldn't have the stomach for it, they'd rather just smack 'em up and hope that straightens them out."

10) mikelewis: Is America even worth saving? The world economy is struggling back on its feet after a century of war both hot and cold and we are now drowning in debt. Our products are too expensive for world consumption and our people are too ignorant and divided to lead in the new world economy. The only thing we really have left to protect our place in the world is the reliance on the dollar and an indestructible army, both of which are becoming less reliable and less indestructible everyday.

Our Constitution is not only openly ignored by our own President but it has been usurped by millions of sub-laws and statutes. The average American person probably violates at least 1 law a day and We hardly have to leave our homes to do so. Our sense of morality is so twisted that even our spiritual leaders are nothing more than two-bit con-men.

Our addiction to oil has turned us into junkies. Our addiction to television has turned us into zombies. Our addiction to fear has turned us into slaves. So is America even worth saving? Wouldn't it be better to let her die than to continue to be some grotesque malignancy on the world? Is it even realistic to believe we can fix a country so broken and depraved?

9) Odin2005: It's things like this that make me support population control. Theocons have no respect to the enviroment, Gawd told them to multiply like rabbits and that protecting the enviroment isn't needed because they think Jebus is gonna come down a rapture them. These people are dangerous and should not be allowed to have more kids then secular people do.

8) in_cog_ni_to: Has this ever happened to you? The Star Spangled Banner use to bring tears to my eyes. I would always choke up with pride when I heard the anthem. (before I learned how bad this freakin' country is) and last night at my son's wrestling meet, the school we were at played the Star Spangled Banner (that's never happened at any other meet) and I found myself.....ANGRY BEYOND BELIEF! I WAS P*SSED THAT THEY PLAYED IT. P*SSED THAT I HAD TO LISTEN TO IT AND P*SSED THAT THE SHEEPLE STOOD THERE WITH THEIR HANDS ON THEIR HEARTS as if this country is something to be proud of. I was SHOCKED by my gut reaction. I was FURIOUS. It was so unexpected. Have any of you ever experienced that? It's been YEARS since I've been at any event where the SSB was played and my reaction was so visceral. I-was-angry.

7) neebob: Proud, schmoud. That attitude is what got us where we are today. It's one thing to have a sense of community, but that's not what proud to be an American is.

Proud to be an American is an unquestioning mindset that grew up pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth and bought into all the false history that was written to justify aggression, theft, and slavery.

Proud to be an American is into mythology, too, and likes to imagine that America is more than a patch of ground and it's more than an accident to have been born on it.

Proud to be an American is too busy making money and buying stuff to really notice the vast machine above its head or think very hard about how that machine affects other citizens of the world and even lots of other citizens of America. Proud to be an American looks at someone who manages to rise to the top of the machine and assumes that person has admirable qualities and good intentions.

Proud to be an American is emotional and irrational. It fails to see things as they really are and is far too slow to recognize crimes and criminals. It's beyond time to stop thinking that way.

6) MADem: I am permanently sickened by GOD BLESS AMERICA, myself. I used to like it, the odd time I would hear it, in Kate Smith style. Now, it makes me physically ill, frankly.

5) chimpymustgo: It's not just the last 50 years - America has been f*cked up since Day 1. Sure, it was founded on some lofty principles and noble ideas, but we had to MURDER the indigenous people here so set up our little "democratic republic", then we built it on the backs of ENSLAVED human beings.

The 20th Century began our terrorization of the rest of the world. And here at home, the elites have the money, the power, the VOTING MACHINES. The Presidency, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the Media, the new Patriot Act.

What is left to save? And just exactly how do you do it?

4) Rene: "How's this conspiracy for you all.....(the death of retired New York Times journalist David E. Rosenbaum) was just a warning to others in the media.......much like the anthrax death of the National Enquirer photo journalist who'd just published bush twin photos.....and the anthrax sent to others in journalism."

3) bryant69: Hmmmmmm

Finally it's all coming together. Clearly it was Bush who tried to have Reagen wiped out. Given how evil Bush and his family is, it's really the only logical explanation.

For those of you who doubt this theory ask yourself the following questions.

1. Who would benefit if President Reagan had died?

2. Given their total lack of regard for human life, why would the BFEE refrain from rubbing out Ronnie?

3. Can you prove that Bush didn't have a hand in the Reagan assassination attempt?...

2) Brian Stevens: Thats the problem. There are peolple that post here talk a good game. But to do it, is another story. We have and are being looked at as cowards because of this. If civil war must start, which is TOTALLY INEVITABLE, the first shot must come from us.

1) (This one, because of the number of pictures, had to be edited down just a bit. But, it may be the single stupidest post in the history of the internet.)

spooked911: I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block. ...Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters. ...Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure. Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high. ...Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene. ...Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would extra weight. It still did. ...The structure held up fine after the fire died. ...After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all.

In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one).

What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire. And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.

If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?

Also see:

The 3rd Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2005
The 2nd Annual 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2004
The 10 Worst Quotes From The Democratic Underground For 2003

Initially, you had right-wingers, like myself, pointing out that Barrack Obama's middle name is Hussein because it irritated liberals and because we wanted a little payback for all the George "Felix" Allen comments from the left during the election.

Then CNN called Osama Bin Laden, "Obama," presumably by accident --although this isn't the first "accident" of that sort they've had at CNN.

Now, Yahoo has gotten in on the act.

Poor Osama, Saddam, Arafat, Zarqawi -- I mean Barrack Obama just can't catch a break, can he? I'm just kidding.

I know left-wingers get all bent out of shape about this stuff, but nobody cares what Barrack's middle name is or whether his last name rhymes with Osama. It's not important and it's not going to make a significant difference in an election.

PS: However, I wouldn't be surprised if there's more to the cocaine story than meets the eye. Personally, I look forward to the first interviews with Barrack's coke dealer and the first photoshopped pics of Obama with a snowstorm of cocaine under his nose.

Hat tip to TPM Cafe for the story.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

The Nose on Your Face: Viewer sues after surprise appearance of John Madden at "Critical Moment" of porn video

RightWingTrash: The top ten RightWingTrashy films of 2006.

BizzyBlog: Iraq and the US: ‘Violent Death’ stats that will Iraq your world.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

New Orleans set new standards for incompetence during Hurricane Katrina...

"Ok, everybody! Go to the Superdome if there's an emergency! There's no food, water, or doctors there, but that's ok! Doh! You policemen? Start looting and running away and then as a reward, we'll send you to Las Vegas on vacation! Yeargh! We could bus people out of here, but we left all the buses on a flood plain! Dur dur-duur!"

...so, is it surprising, that the citizens of New Orleans, after reelecting America's most incompetent Mayor, Ray Nagin, are moving right back into the areas most prone to flooding? Sigh, idiots, idiots, idiots, idiots...

"...After Katrina, teams of planners recommended that broad swaths of vulnerable neighborhoods be abandoned. Yet all areas of the city have at least some residents beginning to rebuild. With billions of dollars in federal relief for homeowners trickling in, more people are expected to follow.

Moreover, while new federal guidelines call for raising houses to reduce the damage of future floods, most returning homeowners do not have to comply or are finding ways around the costly requirement, according to city officials.

"It's terrifying: We're doing the same things we have in the past but expecting different results," said Robert G. Bea, a professor of civil engineering at the University of California at Berkeley and a former New Orleans resident who served as a member of the National Science Foundation panel that studied the city's levees.

"There are areas where it doesn't make any sense to rebuild -- they got 20 feet of water in Katrina," said Tom Murphy, a former Pittsburgh mayor who served on an Urban Land Institute panel for post-Katrina planning. "In those places, nature is talking to us, and we ought to be listening. I don't think we are."

...Mike Centineo, the city's building chief, said, "Legally and morally, we're doing the right thing," but he acknowledged that most returning homeowners are not raising their houses to meet the new flood guidelines. "You wouldn't want to put people through more than they can endure. It's a catastrophe that happened. No one wants it to happen again. But they're just rebuilding as best they can."

...In the fall of 2005, planners from the Urban Land Institute, working with the city's Bring New Orleans Back Commission, recommended that large sections of Lakeview, Gentilly, New Orleans East and the Lower Ninth Ward be abandoned, at least temporarily. The panel called for the government to purchase homes at pre-Katrina prices.

There were two reasons for the planners' proposals. First, the levees had proved catastrophically fallible. Even now, they are not guaranteed to stand during the strongest hurricanes. Moreover, the wetlands that once protected the city from storm surges continue to erode, and hurricane experts, including Max Mayfield, the outgoing director or the National Hurricane Center, have repeatedly warned that many homeowners are taking on unacceptable risks in U.S. coastal areas.

Second, it seemed likely that New Orleans's post-Katrina population was destined to be smaller. It made sense to consolidate neighborhoods, planners said, to prevent blight from overtaking sparsely populated, partially abandoned areas.

"What we said was that, in the areas that had gotten 10 feet of water, don't commit to rebuilding anything yet, because it probably won't happen anyway," said Joseph Brown, head of the urban design panel at the Urban Land Institute.

But Nagin, who was hearing complaints that shrinking the city's footprint was unfair, particularly to African Americans, rejected the idea. Everyone should be able to return to their homes, he said."

American tax dollars should not be spent on building homes in a bowl, 20 feet below sea level, in a city that shouldn't even exist anymore because it's so prone to hurricanes. Oh, but it would be "unfair" to make people move to an area where their whole home won't end up under water if there's a hurricane, -- give me a break.

These dopes don't seem to get that Mother Nature doesn't care about "diversity." If there is another hurricane next year, "Gaia" isn't going be thinking, "You know, we already hit New Orleans and a lot of black people got hurt. Maybe I should hit Vermont this time just to mix things up a bit."

There COULD BE another hurricane that hits New Orleans next year. It COULD flood the city. Then what? Besides, half the city never came back after Katrina, so it's not like there isn't plenty of room for people to move. Anyone who had the modicum of common sense could figure out that homes should be built in the higher parts of the city in New Orleans at this point! In fact, this is such a no-brainer that anyone moving back into these 10ft-20ft below sea level portions of New Orleans should be pre-approved to win a Darwin Award if they get killed in another hurricane.

Every time you think it's almost impossible to like the guy any less, he steps up and surprises you with something new,

“By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the godd*mned fence if they want it.” -- John McCain

Update #1: Here's another quote from the Vanity Fair piece that's rather telling:

"A year later, with bad feeling still so high that strategist John Weaver had been virtually blackballed from working in Republican politics, Weaver went so far as to sound out Democratic Senate leaders about the possibility of having McCain caucus with them. This would have put the Senate, then divided 50–50, into Democratic control. Aides to two senior Senate Democrats say it was never clear how serious McCain himself was about the proposal, and any possibility that it might actually happen was short-circuited when another Republican, James Jeffords, of Vermont, made the move first, in 2001."

That's right. A McCain staffer actually discussed a McCain switch to the Democratic Party in 2001. Now, this guy is supposed to be the front runner for the Republican nomination in 2008? Shouldn't you actually be a loyal Republican before you're considered to be the Republican candidate for the Presidency in 2008?

Drew Griffin, a CNN reporter, tries to talk to Dan Rostenkowski about his pension. Remember Rosty? He was the powerful head of the House Ways and Means Committee throughout the 1980s and early 90s, but who lost his seat in 1994 after he was involved in the House post office scandal. He later plead guilty to mail fraud and served 17 months in jail, although Clinton later pardoned him.

Remember Jim Traficant and Duke Cunningham, two other convicted lawmakers serving time?

Well it turns out that the federal government is still paying these guys pensions for their time serving in Congress. And they're not alone.

According to the Taxpayers Union research, 20 lawmakers over the last 25 years have been found guilty of serious crimes while in office. All 20 received, or are still receiving, congressional retirement benefits.

The National Taxpayers Union is petitioning Congress to pass a new law cutting pensions for congressmen convicted of a crime. That should be an easy ethics change that everyone can get behind.

Unless they're afraid that they too will one day need that pension.....

(H/T Real Clear Politics Blog)

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

You'll find this nature video, which shows the effects of drugs like crack and LSD on spiders, to be both informative and fascinating ( ;) -- some bad language near the end)

Hat tip to QandO for the video.

Cindy Sheehan And Other Anti-War Protestors Disrupt Democratic Press Conference

FBI Reports Duct-Taping, 'Baptizing' at Guantanamo (This Is The Sort Of Stuff They're Reduced To Complaining About Now)

Tim Johnson Has Not Spoken Since The Emergency Brain Surgery

White House Won't Condemn Saddam Taunts

Protesters To Stand Trial Over Blocking Views With Signs At St. Patrick's Day Parade Likening Bush To Hitler

Israel Will Soon Collapse, Says Iran's President

Pentagon Prepares For Iraq Troop Surge. Commanders Say They're Ready For Expected Order To Deploy More Troops

US Navy Patrols Somalia's Coast

Mac Johnson: Why Illegal Immigration Is About To Get Worse

Michael Medved: 2006 -- Great For Americans, But Bad For America?

Ann Coulter: The Democratic Party -- A Vast Sleeper Cell

Evans-Novak Political Report For The Week Of Jan 3, 2007

Victor Davis Hanson: A War Of Endurance

John Stossel: Is This Any Way to Help the Homeless?

George Will: The Right Minimum Wage (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Rehnquist FBI File Sheds New Light on Drug Dependence, Confirmation Battles

Officials In Australia Have Destroyed Copies Of A Video Showing Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin's Death

The 100 Most Annoying Things Of 2006

George The Calf Escapes Death

Website Of The Day: Patrick Ruffini

Honorable Mentions: Susan Collins, Mike DeWine, Jerry Falwell, Lindsey Graham, Jim Kolbe, Richard Lugar, Grover Norquist, Bob Ney, Don Sherwood, John Warner.

21) Larry Kudlow: "Whether it's anti-Arab Islamophobia or anti-Mexican Hispanophobia, the fear-mongers in the conservative ranks do not truly believe in economic opportunity. Nor do they believe in Ronald Reagan's "City on a Hill" vision of America, where it is our charge to lead the world toward free-market prosperity, political democratization and true freedom for all peoples.

Yes, there is a rift in the conservative ranks. Opposing President Bush are those with a vision of pessimism, defeatism and fear. Supporting the president are those with a Reaganite vision that brims with opportunity, victory and success in the spread of freedom and democratization." -- Larry Kudlow

20) Joseph Farah: Farah did a magnificent job building up WorldNetDaily into a force on the right, but the page seems to be getting progressively wackier. They've got a columnist claiming soy makes people gay and they're constantly touting the insane North American Union conspiracy theory. Take the red pill, Neo, and come back to reality before the nutty stuff ruins all the great work you're doing.

19) The Republican Main Street Partnership: It's bad enough that the Republican Main Street Partnership (AKA as RINO, Incorporated) claimed to be the representatives of "Ronald Reagan's Republican Party" after the elections (Since when has anyone ever considered the Gipper to be a moderate?), but the real kicker was when they falsely claimed that Bob Corker was joining their organization even though his staff said he'd never heard of them.

18) Shelley Sekula-Gibbs: All Shelley Sekula-Gibbs had to do after she won a special election to replace Tom DeLay for the lame duck session in Congress was to go up to Capitol Hill, smile, be polite, and then just cool her heels and wait until 2008, when she'd be a favorite to take the seat back from Nick Lampson. But, Sekula-Gibbs was so incredibly obnoxious that DeLay's old staff quit within a week of her arrival on Capitol Hill. The former chief of staff wrote, "Never has any Member of Congress treated us with as much disrespect and unprofessionalism as we witnessed during those five days." I don't know who'll be in that seat
after the 2008 election, but it won't be Shelley Sekula-Gibbs.

17) Pat Robertson: "Television evangelist Pat Robertson suggested Thursday that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Robertson opposed." -- CNN

16) Pat Buchanan: Although Pat still occasionally shows flashes of brilliance, the older he gets, the more reflexively cranky, conspiratorial, and isolationist he becomes.

15) Jerry Lewis: The Republican pork king of the House.

14) Dennis Hastert: You could easily nail Hastert for not doing enough to stop pork or for the way he handled the Foley affair (although I think he handled that better than most people think he did), but the real killer was his bitter complaining when the FBI raided William Jefferson's office. We had a Democratic Congressman taking bribes and refusing to cooperate with the FBI and Hastert was standing up for him. That was one of the Republican lowpoints of 2006.

13) Ted Stevens: A cranky, doddering, out of touch, taxpayer dollar wasting machine.

12) James Baker: The defacto leader of the Iraqi Surrender Group and a guy who thinks agreeing with Vernon Jordan and Lee Hamilton is more important than coming up with foreign policy that makes sense.

11) George Bush: I really hate to ding the President on a list like this, but he showed a level of political incompetence last year that hasn't been seen since the Carter Administration and that had a lot to do with the drubbing Republicans took in 2006. Moreover, there's the out-of-control spending, his incredibly obnoxious position on illegal immigration, and his seeming reluctance to get serious about Iran, Syria, North Korea and Muqtada al-Sadr is getting to be a real drag.

10) Chuck Hagel: A whiny, wimpy Republican who takes great delight in trying to undercut the war on terrorism. PS: I jumped for joy when I heard the rumor that he may retire in 2008.

9) Joe Scarborough: MSNBC's pet conservative and one of the leaders of the "I hope we lose camp" in 2006. So, we did lose. How you liking it, Joe?

8) Michael Savage: Savage is so habitually obnoxious and over-the-top that I'd be tempted to think that he is a liberal pretending to be a conservative in order to make right wingers look bad if there weren't so many people who actually like listening to this clown.

7) Arlen Specter: If Pennsylvania had a Republican governor, I'd suggest that Mr., "The Republican Party is now principally moderate, if not liberal," stay in Syria so that he could be replaced with a real Republican.

6) Lincoln Chafee: Nobody more richly deserved to lose in 2006 than a Democrat in Republican's clothing like Lincoln Chafee.

5) Katherine Harris: An embarrassment who ran the worst campaign in America and cost the GOP a shot at a Senate seat because it would have wounded her towering ego to admit that she couldn't beat Bill Nelson.

4) Duke Cunningham: A former Vietnam war hero and Republican congressman going to jail for 8 years after taking a bribe. Absolutely shameful!

3) Jerome Corsi: Nobody has worked harder to convince people that the completely moronic North American conspiracy theory is real than the right's version of Dylan Avery, kooky Jerome Corsi.

2) Mark Foley: Thanks to this page-molesting pervert, the Republican Party had to spend the final weeks of the 2006 campaign talking about what the GOP leadership could have done to prevent gay cybersex. Thanks a lot, you creep!

1) John McCain: The #1 Republican advocate for coddling terrorists at Gitmo, amnesty for illegals, and curtailing free speech about elections. If the Republicans in the Senate are planting a thumb in the eye of conservatives, 9 times out of 10, you can count on this egomaniac being at the root of it.

Also see,

The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2006 Edition

Note: Inexplicably, I left Michael Savage off of the original list. He has now been added in.

Since I posted on the annoying conservatives/Republicans of 2006 today, I thought I should at least select a Conservative of the Year to balance things out. So, without further ado...

The RWN Conservative Of The Year: Tom Coburn for his relentless campaign against wasteful spending in the Senate.

Runners-Up: Jim DeMint for fighting the good fight against spending in the Senate.

John Roberts & Samuel Alito for doing exactly what conservatives expected them to do when they got on the Supreme Court: sticking to the Constitution.

James Sensenbrenner, Tom Tancredo, and Jeff Sessions for standing tall on illegal immigration.

John Bolton for doing such a phenomenal job as UN Ambassador.

The Club for Growth for holding the line on spending and leading the charge in the Republican primaries against GOP incumbents who didn't deserve to be reelected.

Wow. On the same day that Saddam was hung, some Italian nutjob slapped up a website called, "Saddam is NOT DEAD!" Here's some of the "reasoning" on the blog, such as it is:

"Journalists, Politicians, Everybody comment the death of Saddam Hussein.

But WHO HAS SEEN ENTIRELY THE HANGING OF SADDAM HUSSEIN?

WebSites like YouTUBE, Google Video should have on their homepages the video of this execution. But WHY is it completely impossible to find any scene bout this event?

...I have tried to see, on YouTUBE, Google Video the entire hanging of Saddam.
At least after 10 hours (an eternity for Internet) SOMETHING about this scene should appear… I’m not saying an HD movie, just a 500k clip… but guess what? You CAN’T FIND ANYTHING!!!!!

Saddam is not deadAnother incredibly strange thing it’s the completely absence of videos about Saddam inherent to the last 24 hours… WHY???

...WHY nobody has SEEN, FILM or DOCUMENTED this historical moment? We are in the age of the REAL-TIME informations, why there aren’t any news about this?

Everybody speak about the Saddam’s Death but WHO has the proves of that Saddam it’s REALLY death, does anybody has seen any certificate of its death?

...Which hurry was there to kill a man of caliber of SADDAM HUSSEIN?

He did not suffer from schizophrenia, was in perfect health conditions, why they had to kill him so early?

...Who has the interest to kill a person of this calibre? Saddam is not dead. What would have changed if they decide to keep him alive for 1 month or 3 years more? He could not hurt nobody from his prison.

Sorry for my bad English, but I’m Italian, and I’ve never talked about politics for such a long time in my entire life!

Hope that this document has win your interest."

Geeze, I'm sorry that they haven't already done a History Channel special on the hanging of Saddam. Maybe they're saving that for week two after the execution.

The Iraqi government says he's dead. The judge of the trial says he's dead. The US says he's dead. There have actually been snaps of him after death, but no, that's not enough because we didn't have a camera crew there focused in on his face the moment that his neck snapped. It just never ends with these conspiracy kooks.

Bonus Quote: "If you were the presidents of the United States and had between your main investor the Hebrew and if you found yourselves to having to face the global oil situation, you would try you to attack the Iran?"

Hat tip to Something...and Half of Something for pointing out the blog.

-- From Byron York at The Corner:

"American Research Group has just released a number of state polls for the Democratic and Republican 2008 races. In the GOP race, Giuliani leads McCain, 28-26 in Iowa and 31-25 in Nevada, and McCain leads Giuliani 35-28 in South Carolina and 29-25 in New Hampshire. Perhaps the more interesting news is the strength of Newt Gingrich in each state — the choice of 18 percent of those polled in Iowa, 22 percent in Nevada, 15 percent in South Carolina, and 14 percent in New Hampshire. Of the lower-downs, Mitt Romney and Chuck Hagel are tied at six percent in Iowa, and Romney comes in at four percent in Nevada, five percent in South Carolina, and nine percent in New Hampshire."

At the moment, Newt is not only looking to be the third strongest candidate, he looks to be within striking distance of McCain and Giuliani. That makes his decision to wait until September to decide whether to run all the more frustrating. By then, the other major candidates will have enormous warchests, most of the best staffers locked up, and tons of key endorsements. That's a shame, too, because if I had a choice between McCain, Rudy, and Newt as nominees, I wouldn't hesitate in the slightest to choose Newt.

PS: After all the positive ink that he has gotten, wouldn't you think Mitt Romney would be in double digits in one of these polls if he really had what it takes to appeal to the Republican base?

-- From Jihad Watch

"A 35-year-old man was arrested after he allegedly made terrorist threats inside a Palm Springs bar, police said.

Officers detained Haider Mohammad of Palm Springs about 8 p.m. Friday at the Hair of the Dog Bar at 238 North Palm Canyon after he allegedly said he was going to "kill all Jews," said Palm Springs police Sgt. Mitch Spike.

According to witnesses, Mohammad also allegedly claimed to have an alliance with executed former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and to be affiliated with Al Qaeda."

Chris Rock used to do this bit in his act about Martin Luther King was a man of peace, but today, "If a friend calls you on the telephone and says they’re lost on Martin Luther King Boulevard and they want to know what they should do, the best response is, ‘Run!’"

Similarly, we're constantly being told that Muhammad's religion, Islam, is a religion of peace, but chances are, if someone is blown up, decapitated, murdered, or even if there are people talking about jihad, there's almost always going to be a Muhammad involved in there somewhere.

PS: Of course, MLK really was a man of peace. The same can't be said of Muhammad.

-- If the Republicans allow this to go through, they're going to rue the day:

"After more than 200 years of paying taxes, fighting in the nation's wars and abiding by sometimes arbitrary acts of Congress, Washington residents are close to getting a full-fledged representative in the House.

The turning point in this long battle for enfranchisement may be an unlikely partnership with the people of Utah.

The new Democratic majority, in the first months of the new Congress, is expected to take up a bill that would increase the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, giving new vote each to Utah, a Republican stronghold, and the District of Columbia, dominated by Democrats."

This is the same old thing that the Democrats always do. They get a foot in the door and then they wait a while and they move the goalposts. Today, it's a seat in the House. If they get that, a few years down the road, they will demand (and get) two Senate seats (which of course, will be perpetually Democrat controlled). If DC wants representation, let them have it, as part of Maryland.

-- Now this is good news because I suspect that it means gay marriage in the United States is about to come to a long overdue end (at least until the judicial activist libs on the Supreme Court get a chance to force it on America):

"Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban the practice.

The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage to only be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the approval of legislators in two consecutive sessions.

On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers voted in favor of moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.

If it makes it on the ballot and residents approve it, the constitutional amendment would leave Massachusetts' existing same-sex marriages intact but ban any new ones.

About 8,000 same-sex couples have wed in Massachusetts since the Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that the state Constitution guarantees gays the right to marry. A few other states offer civil unions with similar rights for gay couples, but only Massachusetts allows gay marriage.

Backers of the amendment argue that it should be up to the people, not the courts, to define something as important as marriage.

Supporters of gay marriage say the civil rights of a minority should not be put to a popular vote.

Democratic Gov.-elect Deval Patrick on Tuesday had met with leading lawmakers and urged them to skip the vote, calling it a "question of conscience" and saying the amendment process was being used "to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution."

Since Tuesday was the final day of the session, skipping the vote would have effectively killed the amendment effort."

This whole incident shows you how comfortable liberals are with subverting democracy when it conflicts with their ideological goals. Initially, the liberals on the Massachusetts Supreme Court invented a "right to gay marriage" out of whole cloth and declared it to be Constitutional law. So, the only way it could be changed was a Constitutional Amendment. Then, after the necessary signatures were collected to get a vote on a Constitutional Amendment, most of the Democratic legislators, including the incoming Governor, didn't want to allow the question to be decided by the people. In other words, the Democrats bent over backwards to try and make sure that the people weren't allowed to have any say at all about an issue as important as gay marriage.

But now, the people are going to get to vote and even in Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in America, it looks likely that gay marriage will be voted down.

What you're about to see are the top 5 links from Conservative Grapevine yesterday, followed by the number of clicks so far on each link. I think you'll find this to be rather telling:

Gizmodo: Pictorial: Top 10 blogger babes of 2006. (980)
Dr. Helen: Dr. Helen posts an AWESOME bikini shot! (869)
Hugh Hewitt: The liberal reaction to Saddam's execution. (248)
Hot Air: Jamilgate: Eason Jordan goes nuclear on the AP. (217)
About: Political Humor: Year in review: best of the 'best of' lists. (203)

"One of the reasons I have such trouble believing in God is that if he were real and the justice that pious believers speak of were genuine, guys like George Bush should be vaporized instantaneously one day just by opening his mouth. I'm still waiting." -- Daily Kos diarist snafubar

"Doc kept saying to me, 'Stay strong. Stay with me, Sgt. Ed.' He said, 'You're not going to die on me.'" - Marine Sergeant Gregory Edwards

Bruce H. sends the link to this story about a Hospital Corpsman who saved many lives before giving his own...The Rocky Mountain News has done it again - a great story about pain, death, honor, and brotherhood:

...Before being deployed, Navy corpsmen say, they have a choice to "go blue," serving their time on a ship or stateside, or to "go green," assigned to the Marines.

Christopher "Doc" Anderson volunteered to go green.

Before arriving in Iraq in early September, Anderson was assigned to Alpha Company of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment - a group with a decorated history dating to World War I. The rookie corpsman was soon on the front with the infantry, saddled with securing some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in Iraq.

Before the Marines headed to Ramadi, they had to know that the sailor from Colorado with the massive pack of medical gear was the kind of man they could trust with their lives.

Marines don't train field medics of their own; they rely on Navy hospital corpsmen, as they have for more than a century. A traditional saying holds that a Marine infantryman doesn't wonder if his corpsman will save his life - he wonders when.

"When you get a new corpsman, he has to prove himself, that he can do the same things the Marines can do," Edwards said. "When we do PT (physical training), he has to keep up. When we go on our hikes, he has to carry the same gear, plus his medical gear, which must weigh an additional 30 pounds. And he can't fall back."

A fourth-generation sailor, Doc Anderson never fell back.

<...>

Marine Sgt. Gregory Edwards took his last step Oct. 21. After six weeks in country, Alpha Company was on patrol in Ramadi, Iraq, conducting house-to-house searches when a hidden explosive detonated. He woke up and saw the hazel eyes he recognized immediately.

The lanky 24-year-old from Longmont wore a patch with two snakes intertwined around a winged staff - the caduceus, the traditional sign of a healer, and the emblem of a Navy corpsman. He was the only one of them in the squad who was not a Marine - the most important one of them all: the one they all called Doc.

Sergeant Edwards lost both legs and almost died, but thanks to "Doc" Anderson, he lived. He wanted to be walking on prosthetics by the time Anderson came home from his tour in April to thank him.

Hospital Corpsman Christopher "Doc" Anderson, fourth generation Sailor and son of a former US Navy SEAL, Rick Anderson, was killed on December 4th during a mortar attack. Sergeant Edwards went to the burial at Arlington National Cemetary to say goodbye to his friend and tell his family what he had done for him.

...Wednesday morning, inside a building at Arlington National Cemetery, the Anderson family walked past the Navy officers, directly toward the man in the wheelchair.

Debra Anderson was immediately intercepted by another mother.

"Your son saved my son's life," Cheryl Edwards said through sobs, locking Debra in a hug. "I thank you. I thank you so much. And I'm sorry. So sorry."

The women hugged, then the men did the same, thumping each other on the back.

"He saved our son's life," Cheryl Edwards repeated.

Together, the families walked to Sgt. Edwards, who sat with his 3-year-old daughter, Paige, in his lap, and 5-year-old Caitlin and his wife, Christina, by his side.

"I'm so glad you're here," Debra Anderson said.

"I wouldn't have missed it for the world," he said quietly. "I didn't give them a choice at the hospital. I told them I had to come."

<...>

"Your boy kept me alive," Edwards said. "I wanted to let go, and he kept me alive."

Kyle Anderson approached Edwards and during a long embrace told the Marine that he now carried part of his brother with him. Kyle told the sergeant he always would consider Edwards his brother, too.

Edwards looked up at Anderson's parents.

"If there's anything I can ever do for you, you let me know," he said.

"You just take care of these girls," Debra said, offering one of the largest smiles that many family members have seen since her son was killed.

"We want to watch these girls grow up," she said.

From her father's lap, Paige pointed at Christopher Anderson's mother.

"Who dat?" the 3-year-old said.

"You'll understand one day, OK?" her grandmother said.

"Yes," the sergeant said, stroking her hair. "Daddy will tell you one day"...

Sergeant Edwards is Someone You Should Know, too. I'll leave you to read the whole piece at Rocky Mountain News with this last quote from Sgt. Edwards:

"I lost my legs not for this country, but for the country of Iraq, so their children will be able to run around, just like mine," he said as he watched his daughters, ages 3 and 5, playing on the hospital grounds. "If time was turned back, I'd do it all over again."

Read their whole story. It's a tough and amazing read.

Godspeed to Hospital Corpsman Christopher "Doc" Anderson and thank you to Sergeant Gregory Edwards.

This content was used with the permission of Blackfive.

Iran Vows To 'Humiliate' U.S

Advisor To President Ahmadinejad Claims Nazi Leader Was Jew Who Conspired With USSR And Britain To Establish Jewish State (These People Are Nuts)

Canada's Spy Agency Says It Is “quite Surprising” That Terrorists Have Not Detonated A Crude Radioactive Bomb, Given The Availability Of Materials And Ease With Which They Could Be Made Into A Weapon.

Revealed: Rudy's '08 Battle Plans

Barrack Obama Has Used Marijuana And Cocaine

'08 Republican Polls: Newt Is Now Officially The Numer 3 Candidate

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Views Barack Obama As Her Biggest Obstacle To Nomination, The New York Times Is Planning To Report, But She Believes The Threat Of His Candidacy Will Diminish -- As Voters Learn How Inexperienced He Is In Government And Foreign Affairs (Hillary Isn't So Experienced Herself)

CNN Apologized Tuesday For Mistakenly Promoting A Story On The Search For Osama Bin Laden With The Headline "Where's Obama?" (Doh!)

Religious Broadcaster Pat Robertson Predicts Horrific Terrorist Attack on U.S. in 2007

Ford State Funeral Moves to Michigan

Activists On The Left Applying Pressure To Democratic Leaders (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Michael Medved: The Best (And Worst) Movies Of 2006

E.J. Dionne: The New Crowd's First Test. Are Hill Democrats Serious on Ethics? (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Greg D'Angelo: Why Congress Shouldn't Fix Drug Prices

Walter Williams: Rules More Important Than Personalities

Jonah Goldberg: America The Generous

Ryan Sager: A Bumper Sticker Menace

George W. Bush: What The Congress Can Do For America

14 Year Old Becomes Youngest Person To Sail Single-Handedly Across The Atlantic

Did Old Whiskey Bottle Hold Suicide Note?

Video: How To Beat The Crane Game

Website Of The Day: The Other Side Of Kim Du Toit

Just take a look at the honorable mentions this year who didn't make the final cut for the most annoying liberals of 2006:

Honorable Mentions: Associated Press, The Democratic Underground, Dylan Avery, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Stephen Colbert, John Conyers, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Glenn Greenwald, Ted Kennedy, Jane Hamsher, Sy Hersh, The Huffington Post, Jesse MacBeth, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Michael Moore, Ray Nagin, Reuters, Michael Schiavo, Jon Stewart, Joe Wilson, Wonkette.

If those are the libs who didn't make it, well, I think that tells you a lot about who did.

Want to see the whole list? Then just click here.

Make sure to check out Conservative Grapevine today, where you'll find links like:

Gizmodo: Pictorial: Top 10 blogger babes of 2006.

Gateway Pundit: Official Iraqi Totals Make Lancet Study Off By, Oh... A Few 100,000!

About: Political Humor: Year in review: best of the 'best of' lists.

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark CG!

PS: If you'd like to submit articles to be linked to Conservative Grapevine, register at CG, and then shoot me an email.

At The Independent, they dropped an interesting factoid in a global warming scare piece:

"Professor Jones said the long-term trend of global warming - already blamed for bringing drought to the Horn of Africa and melting the Arctic ice shelf - is set to be exacerbated by the arrival of El Niño, the phenomenon caused by above-average sea temperatures in the Pacific.

Combined, they are set to bring extreme conditions across the globe and make 2007 warmer than 1998, the hottest year on record. It is likely temperatures will also exceed 2006, which was declared in December the hottest in Britain since 1659 and the sixth warmest in global records."

Global warming fanatics like to tell you all the science is settled when it comes to climate change, but actually, it's extremely iffy.

Just consider that the warmest year on record is 1998 and so there hasn't been any global warming for the last 8 years. Furthermore, remember that the earth was getting cooler from roughly 1940-1970, then it warmed from roughly 1970-1998 -- and since then, it has plateaued even though the amount of greenhouse gasses pumped into the atmosphere has continued to rise during that time.

That's pretty spotty evidence to base all these apocalyptic theories on, isn't it? Especially since we don't even have the most basic understanding of all the factors that have caused the planetwide temperature to fluctuate significantly for millions of years. People who are really interested in science, as opposed to political agendas, should be willing to admit at least such.

On December 31st, the Washington Post wrote an editorial saying, "It's past time to drop all charges in the Duke lacrosse case."

It's nice to see the mainstream media catching up to where the blogosphere was 7 1/2 months ago on the case.

For example, here at RWN, the Duke case was referred to as "Tawana Brawley Part Deux," way back on April 21, 2006.

So, should we be applauding the WAPO for concluding something that was glaringly obvious to people who were paying attention to the story six months ago or should we be chiding them for taking so long to reach a conclusion?

I'm inclined towards the latter option.

"Looks like they found evidence of water on Mars, but unfortunately, they also found a sucker fish in water, so we're not allowed to study it any more.

Do you know why I'm no longer liberal? Because I wanted to stop my sentences one word short of the word "but." You know, as a liberal, I found myself using the word "but" more frequently than a proctologist filling out his day planner." -- Dennis Miller

This week-end, I did a radio show called, "Meet the New Press." The show features a couple of bloggers from Granite Grok and Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits bantering with their guest (That would be me!)

We went about 30 minutes and discussed,

Top 20 Stories of 2006 Effects of Illegal Immigration Stances on Election Results (a free for all!) Immigration and Republican Presidential Wannabees Most Annoying Liberals of 2006 - a sneak peak Thoughts on John Edwards

You can listen to it here and I think it went fairly well. The discussion was a lot of fun, even if we did pick on Pat a bit for his illegal immigration position and because of his boss, John McCain (spit).

In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. Now, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last six months.

Here's the list for the last six months of 2006...

44) Red Hot Chilli Peppers: Danny California
44) White Snake: Here I Go Again
44) Default: Wasting My Time
44) Three Days Grace: Animal I've Become
44) Rick Springfield: Jessie's Girl
44) Alabama: Song of the South
44) Fun Lovin' Criminals: Scooby Snacks
44) Beastie Boys: sabotage
44) koRN: Twisted Transistor
44) Barenaked Ladies: One Week
39) Snow Patrol: Run
39) The Fray: Over My Head
39) Johnny Quest: The Heisman
39) Willie Nelson, Johnny Cash, etc: The Highwaymen
39) Neu!: Super 16
33) Coldplay: Fix You
33) Quiet Riot: Cum on Feel the Noize
33) Kid Rock: American Bad*ss
33) Cypress Hill: Cock the Hammer
33) REM: It's the End of the World
33) Rob Zombie: Dragula
31) Rodney Adkins: If You're Going Through Hell...
31) Blink182: This is Growing Up
24) Filter: Hey Man, Nice Shot
24) Rage Against The Machine: How I Could Just Kill A Man
24) Survivor: Burning Heart
24) Sugar Ray: Every Morning
24) Papa Roach: Last Resort
24) James Marsters: Rest In Peace
24) nWo Wolfpac: Don't Turn Your Back On The Wolfpac
23) Smashmouth: All-Star
16) Pearl Jam: Alive
16) Disturbed: Down With the Sickness
16) Russell Watson: Faith of the Heart
16) Survivor: Eye of the Tiger
16) Johnny Cash: Hurt
16) Billy Idol: Dancin' With Myself
16) Elton John: Still Standin'
15) Papa Roach: Scars
14) DMX: Bring Your Whole Crew
11) Lynyrd Skynyrd: Sweet Home Alabama
11) Seether: Out of My Way
11) Fall Out Boy: Sugar, We're Going Down Swinging
9) Paris Hilton: Stars Are Blind
9) Rob Zombie: Never Gonna Stop
8) Rammstein: Reise Reise
7) Stefy: Love You to Death
5) Dynamite Hack: Gin & Juice
5) Saliva: Click Click Boom
4) Gary Jules: Mad World
3) John Cena: Bad, Bad Man
2) T. Pain & Kandi G: U and Dat
1) Will Smith: Party Starter

South Park shows you history's greatest legal maneuver: The Chewbacca Defense!

New Year Bombs Shake Bangkok

Hundreds Hurt In New Year Revelry In Philippines

Anger Over Saddam Hanging Spills Into Streets

Iraqis See US Push Against Sadr's Mehdi Army

Iraqi Authorities, Meanwhile, Reported Monday That 16,273 Iraqis -- Including 14,298 Civilians, 1,348 Police And 627 Soldiers -- Died Violent Deaths In 2006. (Free New York Times Reg Req)

John Conyers (D-Mich.), The Incoming Chairman Of The Judiciary Committee, Accepts Responsibility For Possible Ethics Violations

A 'Surge' Faces Trouble In the Senate. Even In GOP, Few Back The President (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Democrats To Start Without GOP Input (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Bush Talks Tough on Earmarks

Journalists To Testify In The Scooter Libby Case

Gary Nelson: America's First Female President? Done That

Mark Steyn: What We Need In New Year Is Some Resolution

Michael Medved: Shame On Demagogues Exploiting "North American Union"!

Lawrence Downes: Middle School Girls Gone Wild (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Mark Bowden: So, Saddam Is Dead...But The Way Of The World Remains Saddam'.

Airline Employees Spot Mysterious Craft Hovering Over O'Hare; FAA Officials Skeptical

Pakistani Boy Hangs Himself 'Like Saddam'

The Top 7 Most Anticipated Games Of 2007

Website Of The Day: Iowa Voice

An Interview With Victor Davis Hanson

The Walter Williams Interview

The David Horowitz Interview

The Hugh Hewitt Interview

An Interview With Congressman Tom Tancredo

Bloggers Select The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Books That Have Had The Biggest Impact On Their Thinking

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select History's Most Interesting Dinner Companions

History's Biggest Impact Players

Left-Wing Bloggers Select The 20 Worst Figures In American History

Winston Churchill Addresses A Joint Session Of Congress on December 26, 1941

Transcript of GWB's Sept 20th, 2001 Speech

Duty, Honor, Country By Douglas MacArthur

Winning the Cultural War By Charlton Heston

Time to Recapture Our Destiny by Ronald Reagan

It's A Hitler Lovefest

The Greys Are Mutants From Atlantis Who Bred With Lizards And Survived Earths Cataclysms

The Galactic Orion/Sirian/Draconian Federation Of Reptiles Have Been In Control Of Earth For Eons

Hong Kong Death Machines!

The Web Really Does Bring People Together...To Eat Each Other

Get Your Antennae Up!

Helping Out The Paranoid Lefties Who Think The Right Is Evil

What's So Great About America?

The Nostradamus Effect

The Moral Superiority Of Israel

On Friday, RWN had the following guest bloggers:

Michael Fumento
Patrick Hynes
Betsy Newmark
Cassandra
Danny Carlton

Thanks for helping out, everyone!

Today, on New Year's Day, it'll be a retro-RWN day.

Then, on Tuesday the 2nd, RWN will return to a normal schedule. Make sure to tune in to catch once a year article, "Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2006 Edition."

Until then, consider this to be an open thread and have a great New Year's!

Update #1: (From Friday) Happy Saddam Hussein is dead day, everyone! Few people on the planet deserved killing more!

Update #2: Even though I'm on vacation, I couldn't resist doing a post on the Kos kids drowning in pools of their own tears over Saddam's execution. As you read these quotes, which all came within 2 1/2 hours of Saddam's death, note these are from Daily Kos diarists, not the commenters:

"Saddam Hussein is dead. He was murdered today by the Iraqi government with the assistance of the United States government.

...We have done very little to improve the overall condition of Iraq. In fact, some would argue that we have made the country more unsafe and more unstable than it was under Saddam.

....Despite George Bush’s best efforts, the truth will come out and is coming out about the war and the process that lead us to war. It has been revealed that Bush intended to go to war in Iraq as far back as 1999. He was sore over the plot to kill his father and he was determined to make Saddam pay for this act. But instead of being clear about this, Bush used the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor to enact his plan of vengeance.

...Congratulations Mr. Bush, you got your revenge. I hope it was worth the cost." -- abbaanthony

"The missus and I were watching some good trash on ABC when the news broke, and Elizabeth Vargas was anchoring the prepackaged "Saddam was horrible and his reign of terror is now over" propaganda that will make wingnuts and freepers have wet dreams over for weeks. Both of us immediately had similar thoughts (after, "I hope they come back to our trash TV show").

Hers was that this was all a bullsh*t show for Saddam trying to kill Georgie's daddy. And mine was that this was a total farce that is an absolute embarassment and black eye for America.

...This is a mockery of justice. And for a man that has been accused of so many atrocities, the stench of those atrocities now extends to the US." -- clammyc

"They say the greats always go in threes. James Brown, Gerald Ford, and Saddam Hussein." -- Rusty5329

"The administration will, in due course, stand to account for a war crime committed in Iraq by executing the Iraqi dictator.

...As such, the entire government of the US is now at best an accomplice to this crime, and at worst although it can be argued that circumstantial evidence suggests that it was a premeditated crime perpetrated by the administration." -- NicolausCopernicus

Today is Patton's 4th birthday.

Happy birthday boy!