RWN returns on Monday. Until then, consider this to be open thread, enjoy the links, and have a great week-end!

Alito Defends His Actions In Two Appeals Court Cases (Free WAPO Reg Req)

La Shawn Barber's Corner

Brainster's Blog

A Certain Slant Of Light

Commonwealth Conservative

The Full Text Of The President's Veterans Day Speech

General Patton's Address to the Troops, June 5, 1944 (Some Bad Language)

Hard Starboard

INDC Journal

Mark In Mexico

The Mighty Righty

News Unfiltered

A Nation Of Riflemen

Riding Sun

PS: I nominate Lorie Byrd for the blogger deck 'o' cards. Feel free to go vote for Lorie or any of the other great female bloggers listed.

The latest thread at DU started out simply enough, with a lefty poster acting as if it were actually courageous to condemn Abu Musab al-Zarqawi while simultaneously blaming the White House for his terrorism...

ChiciB1: "Okay I'll Say It... Zarqawi IS A LUNATIC!! As long as he's out there doing HIS damage... OUR Idiot can keep beating the "Terra" drum!!

What can be done???? Killing all these innocent people only fuels the WH Agenda!!! Even IF OUR Idiots Provoked them!! And THEY DID!! IMHO

Am I in "left" field here????"

From there, things only got loopier and hence, more entertaining...

AntiCoup2K4: Zarqawi is a computer generated composite sketch. There is no such person.

Lerkfish:you see the dots, you're just not connecting them. If Zarqawi's actions benefits Bush, who do you think is directing him? if there even is a Zarqawi

Jacobin: Who said that? (Zarqawi's) no more glorious than Smirky's Band of Shock N. Awe murderers.

why do you think the people who fight for the 84% of Iraqi's public who want to drive the U.S. out of Iraq, are any worse than the people blowing up women, children and men and frying them with phosphorous?

Just rank American Nationalism, or is there something more here to discuss?

leesa: Ummm....do ya think perhaps you're being duped by the warmongers? Very doubtful these things are done by either Zarqawi or AlQaeda...nothing to be gained for them....EVERYTHING to be gained by the coalition forces and their silent allies.

Read 1984 and focus on the usefulness of an contrived omnipotent villain like OBL or Zarqawi. Very handy

Do you enjoy reading RWN? Then how about clicking on an advertiser or two? The more hits they get, the happier they are with RWN, and the more likely they are to keep advertising here again -- and their money pays for everything from my internet connection to the pig ears my dog Patton likes to chew on occasionally. So, just click on 2 or 3 advertisers -- please?

Michael Crichton's State of Fear in paperback

Freedom Stone T-Shirts

Government Spending and Political Attitudes Survey

Jack Lewis

National Republican Senatorial Committee Survey On Immigration Policy

Newsmax Poll: Giuliani For President?

Place A Bet On Iraq

Realm Dekor

Right Wing Stuff: Conservative T-Shirts

Stop The ACLU

PS: I now have 2 out of 4 banner ad slots available and I'm going to continue my sale on banner ads until the end of next week. The cost is normally $60 for a 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ad that runs at the top of RWN for a month. But, until the end of next week, the cost is $40 per ad. If you're interested, send me an email letting me know, click on the "donate via Paypal" in the support section to get the money to me, and I'll have an ad up for you ASAP.

Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war. When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support. I also recognize that some of our fellow citizens and elected officials didn't support the liberation of Iraq. And that is their right, and I respect it. As President and Commander in Chief, I accept the responsibilities, and the criticisms, and the consequences that come with such a solemn decision.

"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

"The stakes in the global War on Terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our Nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory." -- George Bush

Also see, If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People -- Version 3.0.

"ELAINE: Yeah. Why not Susan. I should be friends with Susan. (smacks
her forehead with hand) Of course! Susan! Oh! OK, I’ll see you
guys. Huh. (rushes out the door.)

KRAMER: That's gunna be trouble.

JERRY: Why?

KRAMER: Jerry, don't you see? This world here, this is George's
sanctuary. If Susan comes into contact with this world, his world's
collide. You know what happens then?

(Kramer raises his hands into the air and slowly brings them together in
an explosion. He's holding some food in one hand, so when his hands
come into contact food flies all over)

KRAMER: Ka shha shha shha Pkooo (exploding sound)" -- Seinfeld

There is a lesson in that quote for bloggers: Do not mix your work-life and your blogging life because it will only lead to complications. Put another way, don't tell people where you work that you blog and don't give people on your blog the information they need to make problems for you at work.

That's because over and over and over again, scenarios like this keep happening in the blogosphere:

"Paul Deignan is a 41-year-old mechanical engineering Ph.D. candidate, with master’s degrees in math and mechanical engineering, a background in military intelligence and a wife and three kids.

Since taking up writing his own blog, Info Theory, in September 2004, he’s blogged about nuclear annihilation, mutual information between random variables, and suicide bombing. He’s also noted that the M6805 Athlon-based notebook “may be upgraded to 2GB despite the product specs’ claim that 1.25GB is the limit.” In sum, as his site motto says, he likes to apply information theory to the political and social problems of our day.

...(O)n the morning of the 2nd, Deignan visited B*tch Ph.D.’s blog about academe and politics where, by that time, the anonymous blogger had written about her distaste for President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito Jr.

Deignan soon responded to B*tch Ph.D. on his own site with a long comment that ended: “Now, note that your definition of sovereignty is actually anti-sovereignty. We are never sovereign if it is by permission of others that allow us to make decisions. Note also that a woman cannot spontaneously create life. She may only nurture preexistent life.”

Then he posted a seemingly innocuous entry on the B*tch Ph.D. site: “Your linking talking points w/o analysis. Already I see several points that are exaggerated and misconstrued without even needing research…”

Feeling that this comment and subsequent ones from Deignan did not qualify as “substantive debate,” she soon deleted his comments and banned him from her site. Her policy states, “Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal.”

...What might have ended there as an everyday online spat was only the beginning. A frequent visitor to the B*tch Ph.D. site, the University of Northern Iowa history professor Wallace Hettle, felt obliged to defend B*tch Ph.D.’s liberal end of the blogosphere. Hettle found Deignan’s curriculum vita at Info Theory, which lists his academic advisers, the Purdue mechanical engineers Galen King and Peter Meckl, who will play a big part in deciding if he will ultimately receive a Ph.D. Hettle e-mailed them, indicating that Deignan’s comments were “unprofessional” and “contrary to the spirit of free enquiry.” Hettle announced his actions within the comment section of B*tch Ph.D.

“Yes, we received an e-mail,” King confirmed on Wednesday. “It said that Paul was exceeding his bounds, if you will, on what is essentially a private site. He’s been asked to refrain, at least until he’s [graduated from Purdue].”

But escalation, not restraint, has marked the ensuing days, in which Deignan, Hettle and B*tch Ph.D. have hurled accusations of various kinds at each other. Both Deignan and B*tch Ph.D. have hired lawyers. Hettle wouldn’t comment on whether he has done the same.

Deignan said he is prepared to begin a lawsuit as soon as possible. He accuses both Hettle and B*tch Ph.D of libeling him — Hettle because of the e-mail he sent to Deignan’s professors, and Bitch Ph.D. for saying that he may have used a technique known as “IP spoofing,” which is a form of hacking, to try to determine who she is. Deignan denies having done that.

Bitch Ph.D., said that she feels somewhat threatened by Deignan. “I don’t know if his attempts to track me down represent a real threat, either in terms of my identity or in terms of a physical threat,” she said via e-mail Wednesday. “I don’t know if what he’s doing counts as cyberstalking. It’s certainly upsetting.”"

Personally, I think Hettle is a creep for trying to get Deignan in trouble, B*tch Ph.D is a huge drama queen (for her comments in the last paragraph quoted), and I'd also add that it's silly for Deignan to sue, but you see what sort of problems can be caused for a blogger who, "lets worlds collide?"

Trust me, if you let people know where you work, someone will eventually get mad at something you've said and try to get you into trouble. On the other hand, blogging can open up all sorts of cans of worms at your place of employment. Will your employer be constantly looking over your shoulder to make sure you're not blogging on company time? Will they pass you over for a promotion because they think you're more interested in your blog than putting in long hours at the company? Will they be worried you're going to post something embarrassing to the company on your blog? Will a boss who feels strongly about politics hold your ideology against you?

It's just a minefield of potential issues and that's why it's best to avoid the problem completely by not talking about your blogging at work or your work when you're blogging. Remember, don't let those two worlds collide and or it can make your life much more difficult.

Hat tip to Protein Wisdom for the story.

Without the sacrifices made by the American soldier, our great nation would not be strong, free, and prosperous and this world we live in would be a much darker place. So thank God for the troops who've fought for America in the past, who're fighting for this country today, and who will keep standing up for this country in the future. This country and nations all over the world owe our troops, past and present, a debt which can never truly be repaid.

In Dover, PA, the school board was pushing intelligent design and apparently that didn't sit well with the parents in their district. We can ascertain that because they voted all 8 of the school board members out of office and replaced them with people who were against intelligent design.

If you believe that local school boards deserve to have a lot of latitude in what they want taught and that parents should have a big say in what goes on in their schools, which seems to be the position that most conservatives take, this is no big deal. Maybe you'd support having your kids taught intelligent design or maybe you wouldn't, but if a majority of parents oppose having it taught, that should settle the matter...unless you're, Pat Robertson, who apparently believes Dover just deeply offended The Man Upstairs:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city," Robertson said on his daily television show broadcast from Virginia, "The 700 Club."

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there," he said."

You hear that, Dover? Pat Robertson has obviously had a chat with God and you people in Dover are one step away from being on the Sodom and Gomorrah list. So, you people in Dover should just forget about God and don't ask for His help. You used to be a thug, a murderer, a prostitute? God, in his infinite mercy, is willing to forgive you for that. But, you vote against a board member who believes in intelligent design and that's an unforgivable sin. That's right, you don't come back from that, buddy! In fact, you people in Dover might as well just start praying to Satan, Mammon, a Golden Calf; it really doesn't matter, as long as it's not God, because Pat Robertson says he's sick of you people.

On the other hand, maybe Pat Robertson is just a loud mouth who is widely disliked, even on the right, because he regularly says these sort of really dumb things. That sounds a lot more likely...

The liberal blogosphere is up in arms about this church, which it believes is the victim of a politically motivated IRS investigation over a pre-election speech.

Churches and other non-profits, as you know, are not supposed to engage in political activity. If they do, they lose their tax-exempt status.

The sermon, while claiming not to tell the congregation how to vote . . . well . . . how shall I put this . . . tells its congregation how to vote. The good reverend uses every mechanism except actually saying "Vote for John Kerry or you're an amoral, venal, war-mongering, woman-hating, poor-oppressing b*stard." Exactly that message is, however, crystal clear.

This is a big no-no. Now, as non-profit sins go, this speech strikes me as a venial one, several steps down the ladder from allowing employees to purchase office supplies with the Church's sales tax exemption. For starters, it's extraordinarily unlikely that anyone in the decidedly left-wing congregation was planning to vote for George Bush in the first place, and even if there was a reactionary imperialist running dog or two in the audience, I find it hard to imagine that they had their vote swayed by the good pastor's speech, which is neither original nor particularly compelling.

Nonetheless, the IRS has to investigate these things when it gets a complaint, and investigate it has, and aren't we all glad that we have a big tax-collecting apparatus to protect us from left-wing ministers? But I digress.

The liberal blogosphere seems to be entertaining the notion that George Bush has personally spearheaded this inquisition against those noble people of conscience in order to intimidate the left wing. Cough. Might I suggest that George Bush probably gains a lot more votes than he loses if pastors are allowed to tell their flock how to vote, considering that most churchgoers on any given Sunday are rather conservative in outlook and denomination?

But at a more fundamental level, what's more likely: that the Bush administration has launched a personal crusade against a left wing church that might have cost Mr Bush a handful of votes, in a state that was predestined to go Democratic anyway? Or that some sourpuss who's p*ssed off at the minister because he wouldn't use his cousin's cleaning company to tidy up the vestry after services decided to get even by putting the IRS on his tail?

If the people getting all excited about this went to church more often, they'd know the answer to that question.

This content was used with the permission of Asymmetrical Information.

"(I)f you accord to terrorists all the rights of somebody who gets arrested for holding up a liquor store in Des Moines, you are going to lose to the terrorists, because when you accord them the full rights of somebody who is a criminal, you make it impossible to prosecute this as a war, which is what it is." -- Mark Steyn

Foreign

Paris Riots Losing Steam. "Only" 482 Car Burnings, Two Schools Damaged, And Two Power Plants Sabotaged In France Last Night.

Aussie Treasurer Peter Costello: "If You Are Somebody Who Wants To Live In An Islamic State Governed By Sharia Law You Are Not Going To Be Happy In Australia, Because Australia Is Not An Islamic State, Will Never Be An Islamic State And Will Never Be Governed By Sharia Law."

Hundreds Of Angry Jordanians Rallied After Terror Attack, Shouting, "Burn In Hell, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi!"

Saudi Books Aim To Divide U.S. Muslims, ‘Infidels,’ Congress Told

Domestic

Senate Approves Limiting Rights Of U.S. Detainees (Free NYT Reg Req)

McCain Urges Changes To Iraq Strategy (The Blowhard Plays To The Press Again)

RINOS In The House Attempt To Block Budget Cuts

San Diego To Appeal Cross Decision. Judge Nullified Citizens' 75% Vote To Maintain Landmark

Pentagon Firing Link To Able Danger

Gonzales: Justices Shouldn't Cite Foreign Laws

Recruiting Brightens For Army

Columns

Mark Steyn: It’s The Demography, Stupid (Free Spectator Reg Req)

Jonah Goldberg: Torture

David Warren: The New Old Europe

Dick Morris: Paris' Harvest Of Socialism

Victor Davis Hanson: Europe Is No Heaven On Earth

Left-Overs

Marines Celebrate 230 Years Of ‘Special Operations’

Is Wal-Mart Hostile To Christmas?

Cleveland: Police Say Mom Sold 2-Year-Old For $2,000

The 24-Year-Old Woman Found Guilty On Thursday Of Forcing Sex On A Sleeping Man Has Been Sentenced To Eight Months In Prison By A Bergen Court

Website Of The Day: Dinocrat

Take a look at this heaping hunk of crap:

It looks like a really bad high school art project, doesn't it?

Well, guess how much this thing sold for? If you haven't already seen the story, you probably came in way low...

"A large-scale metal sculpture by American artist David Smith has become the most expensive work of contemporary art ever sold at auction, fetching 23.8 million dollars at Sotheby's in New York.

Five bidders competed for Smith's "Cubi XXVII" which was the starting lot at a Wednesday evening sale of 54 contemporary works that brought in 114.5 million dollars."

After seeing that this craptacular piece of junk went for nearly 24 million dollars, two thoughts quickly came to mind...

#1) Why does the government need to be involved in funding the arts when there are dopey rich people shelling out almost $115 million dollars at a single auction? If there are people who are willing to pay all that money for this jinormous welding accident and it's undoubtedly misshapen artistic cousins, why in the world are taxpayers being asked to fund the National Endowment of the Arts?

#2) What ever happened to making art that, you know, actually looks like something? You know, art that doesn't look like it was made by a HP Lovecraft fan on acid? The fact that a sculpture, that looks like a giant, metallic tinkertoy experiment gone wrong, sold for nearly 24 million dollars shows you how worthless much of what passes for "art" these days really is.

At 2:30 today, I was fortunate enough to be invited to another conference call on Alito. This one featured Ed Gillespie, who's billed as Alito's sherpa up on Capitol Hill.

The key thing they were trying to accomplish was to knock down the latest Democratic line of attack on Alito, which is that he may have done something unethical by ruling on cases involving Smith Barney and Vanguard. In both cases, Alito conducted himself properly, ethically, and he did nothing wrong (See here & here).

However, there is a small hitch. Alito, during his confirmation hearings in 1990, said, "that he would disqualify himself from" any cases involving the Vanguard companies, the brokerage firm of Smith Barney.

So again, even though Alito ruling on both those cases was well within ethical guidelines, why did he do something different than what he said he would do back in 1990? I asked a question about it and so did Stephen Bainbridge -- and the answer was...no real answer. They side-stepped it.

To me, that's very odd, because the entire point of the conference call seemed to be to talk about these allegations and, yes, they did effectively nuke the charge that Alito did anything improper on any of the cases, but what about the Senate questionnaire back in 1990?

This shouldn't be a tough issue to work around. How about this answer?

"Well, he was being overly cautious in the questionnaire and after hearing what some legal ethics experts had to say about the matter, he decided to go ahead and hear the cases since there wouldn't be any conflict."

Once something like that is said, it slams the door on the issue. After getting those questions from us, hopefully they'll be inspired to get this straightened out.

On the upside, the Alito nomination is still looking very good. Not only does a filibuster seem unlikely at this point, Alito seems likely to get votes from all the GOP Senators and even a few Democrats. So up to this point, Alito is looking completely confirmalicious =D

*** Update #1 ***: Others commenting on the conference call include:

ProfessorBainbridge
The Political Teen
Tim Chapman at Townhall
Suitably Flip
Blogs for Bush
Decision '08

*** Update #2 ***: By the Tim Chapman asked: "there was any merit to conservative concerns about reports that Alito has embraced the Roe vs. Wade decision as precedent that deserves "great respect."

That was answered like so:

"Gillespie said that the question of Stare Decisis relative to Roe vs Wade was discussed in the Roberts hearings and Roberts made very much the same point. But, cautioned Gillespie, "We have not heard judge Alito in his own voice on this." You give deference to the members of the Senate, but since his introduction we have not heard from him."

I would just add to that while you never truly know what a judge is going to do until they actually rule on a case, I wouldn't sweat that. For one thing, Supreme Court precedents are deserving of "great respect," but that doesn't mean they can't be overturned.

Just keep in mind that Samuel Alito is a textualist, just like Bork, Alito, and Thomas. Given that there nothing in the Constitution that supports Roe v. Wade, the minimal amount of law that's built on top of it, and textualists tend to be less respectful of precedent than other judges, it's highly likely that Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade if he was given the opportunity.

So, that's not something worth getting worried about at this point...

Ross Douthat & Reihan Salam wrote a piece in the Weekly Standard about how the GOP's domestic agenda should change in the Post-Bush era. Some of their analysis was good, some of it was bad, but the concept was terrific -- and a terrific concept is worth stealing =D

So, here's my short, very generalized, off-the-cuff guide (This would be a good topic to revisit in more detail later) to what the GOP's post-Bush domestic agenda should look like.

Deficit & Taxes

-- Change the rules so it takes the support of a supermajority in Congress to raise taxes.
-- Attempt to flatten and simplify the tax code.
-- Support a Balanced-Budget Amendment or some other sort of legislated spending limits.
-- Support Social Security reform including private accounts, raising the age limit in 2030, permanently tying the age limit to the average lifespan of Americans, & index Social Security payments to prices, instead of wages.
-- Set the baseline budget to the rate of inflation when we're running a deficit and the rate of inflation + 1% when we're in the black.
-- Oppose taxes on the internet.
-- (Note: If Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Reform somehow hadn't gone into effect by this point, I'd support dumping it. But, if it has been in effect for 3 years, that won't be politically possible).

Energy

-- Drill ANWR ASAP.
-- Permanently get rid of the Clean Air Act Amendments that lead to different gasoline blends going to different states (which raises the cost of gas about 15 cents per gallon)
-- Low interest loans and tax credits for companies that agree to build new refineries or nuclear power plants.

Health Care

-- Tort reform, which will reduce not only costs paid out in lawsuits, but the cost of "defensive medicine."
-- Streamlining the regulations that make bringing a new drug to market so slow and expensive.
-- Health care savings accounts.
-- Allowing health insurance companies from anywhere in America to compete for business in any state.

Illegal Immigration

-- Significantly increase spending and resources for border control.
-- Put an end to "catch and release" programs (i.e. if we catch an illegal immigrant, they stay in our hands until they're deported).
-- Crack down on businesses that hire illegal aliens.

Various

-- Pledge to continue to appoint textualist judges.
-- Oppose Affirmative Action as unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.
-- Support a "loser pays" principle that will cut down on frivolous lawsuits.
-- Continue to push for school vouchers, particularly in areas where schools are failing.
-- Support the presentation of a Photo ID in order to vote.
-- Push for stricter control of legal immigration. Cut back the number of immigrants being allowed to enter the US and be more selective with the people we allow into the country.
-- Support Three-Strikes and You're Out laws that get criminals off the street permanently.
-- Oppose new regulations on the internet.
-- Support free trade at every opportunity.
-- Oppose any and all government spending on abortion.
-- Support a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.
-- Oppose minimum wage hikes.

Oh, the irony just never stops up on Capitol Hill.

On the one hand, we have puffed-up Senators threatening oil executives with a windfall profits tax and grilling oil executives about "obscene profits" that are less than a third of what corporations like Citigroup and Microsoft rake in.

On the other hand, gutless Republicans in the house are refusing to allow the oil companies to tap into a large supply of oil on our own soil:

"House leaders late Wednesday abandoned an attempt to push through a hotly contested plan to open an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling, fearing it would jeopardize approval of a sweeping budget bill Thursday.

They also dropped from the budget document plans to allow states to authorize oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts — regions currently under a drilling moratorium.

The actions were a stunning setback for those who have tried for years to open a coastal strip of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to oil development, and a victory for environmentalists, who have lobbied hard against the drilling provisions. President Bush has made drilling in the Alaska refuge his top energy priorities.

Still, the Senate has included ANWR drilling in its budget bill and GOP leaders will push hard for any final House-Senate budget bill to include it."

The opposition to drilling ANWR borders on being completely irrational. The oil companies would be drilling on a small, isolated strip of land that is completely uninhabited by humankind. Furthermore, this isn't even a "not in my backyard situation" because there is strong support for drilling ANWR in Alaska. Heck, even the Democrats' strongest ally, the unions, support ANWR drilling because it would create jobs.

So why aren't we drilling ANWR?

Primarily because a bunch of environmentalist wacko luddites, who're reflexively opposed to letting the oil companies drill anywhere, for any reason, are hollering at the top of their lungs about this and scaring Democrats, RINOS, and people who don't know anything about ANWR. It doesn't matter whether people know what they're talking about or are making any sense at all, they're yelling loudly so the GOP feels compelled to give in.

Voting to allow drilling in ANWR should be the easiest decision the clowns up in Congress ever had to make -- and they still can't get it right. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic...

"Of course, the oil companies have made a lot of profit lately, but so have many other businesses and industries. Although Exxon got big headlines for earning $9.92 billion in the third quarter, few analysts bothered to note that this only came to 9.8 cents per dollar of sales — well below that of many other companies. For example, Citigroup and Microsoft each made 33.2 percent profit. Among other major companies that each made at least twice as much as Exxon in percentage terms are Bank of America, Merck, Google, Eli Lilly, Coca Cola, Intel, and Yahoo.

An Internet search turned up no evidence that Sen. Gregg or any of the other dimwits calling for windfall profits taxes on the oil industry have also called for windfall profits taxes on the banking, pharmaceutical, software, or hotel industries that have earned much more per dollar than the oil and gas industry in recent periods. Nor is there any evidence that windfall profits tax advocates have ever suggested compensation to offset oil-industry losses in years when the price of oil has fallen. It’s heads I win, tails you lose." -- Bruce Bartlett

How about helping me out with an article I'm working on by suggesting some of the greatest moments in the history of the blogosphere? I'm looking for things like the Trent Lott takedown and Rathergate and I'd hate to miss anything important. So, how about chipping in your two cents in the comments section?

Many of you may have already forgotten all the scaremongering about the draft that the left engaged in during the 2004 election...but not me. The Democrats ranted, they raved, they claimed that college students were going to be drafted and no matter how often the rest of us tried to interject some reality into the situation, they could not be dissuaded.

So now, more than a year after the 2004 elections seems like a good time to ask a question I like to pose ever so often: Hey, you liberals, when does the draft start?

Last night, as I was shopping at Wal-Mart, I walked past this mother, her baby, and her cute as a button daughter, who looked to be about 3 years old, and was, for some reason, holding on to two rolls of wrapping paper.

So, the baby grabs something off of the shelf and the mother, who has her hands full with the baby, looks at her daughter and says: "Can you put that down and put this back on the shelf for me?"

Then the daughter looks up at her mother and says: "I can do anything, Mama!" Then she puts down the wrapping paper, grabs the item, and puts it back on the shelf for her mother.

Now that was cute and it also shows you what's wrong with liberals like Michael Moore and Bill Clinton...Ok, you got me. It actually has nothing to do with liberals, but, it was just so cute that I had to find a way to work it in, even though it's not relevant to anything, anywhere...well, that's not exactly true. I could probably spin this into some kind of spiel about children's self-esteem or parenting, but that's a stretch and not really the point at all.

So, just enjoy the cuteness of it all!

Domestic

Voters Approved Ballot Measures To Ban Handguns In San Francisco And Urge The City's Public High Schools And College Campuses To Keep Out Military Recruiters

Voters Soundly Reject Election Changes In Ohio

Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals In Pennsylvania (Free NYT Reg Req)

New York's Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg Won By A Record Margin

GOP Leaders Drop Hotly Debated Anwr Drilling Plan From Omnibus Budget Bill (GOP Wimps Lose Again)

Scooter Libby Defense Fund Opens

Judith Miller Is Out At The Times (Free NYT Reg Req)

State Prosecutor In Florida Still Fishing For A Way To Charge Rush Limbaugh With A Crime

Foreign

Suicide Bombers Kill 18 At Jordan Hotels

French Rioting Now Down To 116 Towns

Belgium Plays Down 3rd Night Of Violence

Aussie Terrorists Had Stockpiled Enough Chemicals To Make At Least 15 Large Bombs To Be Used Against Selected Targets

Religious Persecution In China Has Reached The Point That Distributing Bibles Is Earning A Three-Year Prison Sentence

Blair Defeated Over Terror Laws

Columns

The Washington Times: McCain's Mistake -- The So-Called "Torture Amendment"

Norman Podhoretz: Who Is Lying About Iraq

Michael Barone: The 2005 Election Results

John Miller: How The 2006 Senate Races Will Shape Up

Joel Kotkin: Why Immigrants Don't Riot Here

Tony Blankley: Islamist Threat in France

Reuel Marc Gerecht: Valerie Wilson & The Sloppy Spooks

Ann Coulter: Clooney And McCarthy

Jonah Goldberg: Questioning The Patriotism Of The Media

Left-Overs

Cheerleader Denies Have Sex in Restroom

Blogger Joanne Jacobs Has A New Book: Our School: The Inspiring Story of Two Teachers, One Big Idea, and the School That Beat the Odds

Website Of The Day: The Americans For Prosperity Blog

You may or may not have heard of Capitol Hill Blue, a liberal online mag. That would be understandable because they're not particularly talented, noteworthy, or unique in any way, except for one thing: In my opinion, they like to make up wild stories about the Bush administration from whole cloth and attribute them to anonymous sources.

Now, if these fairy tales were being written by a blog with 12 people reading it, it wouldn't be worth taking the time to refute them. But, for example, their latest article/imagining about Bush, White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 'political enemies,' has been linked by over 63 blogs according to Blogsnow. So apparently, there are a lot of liberals out there buying what the Weekly World News of the blogosphere is selling.

Just look at this tripe and ask yourself how any politcally savvy person could possibly believe it was real:

Spurred by paranoia and aided by the USA Patriot Act, the Bush Administration has compiled dossiers on more than 10,000 Americans it considers political enemies and uses those files to wage war on those who disagree with its policies.

The “enemies list” dates back to Bush’s days as governor of Texas and can be accessed by senior administration officials in an instant for use in campaigns to discredit those who speak out against administration policies or acts of the President.

The computerized files include intimate personal details on members of Congress; high-ranking local, state and federal officials; prominent media figures and ordinary citizens who may, at one time or another, have spoken out against the President or Administration.

Capitol Hill Blue has spoken with a number of current and former administration officials who acknowledge existence of the enemies list only under a guarantee of confidentiality. Those who have seen the list say it is far more extensive than Richard Nixon’s famous “enemies list” of Watergate fame or Bill Clinton’s dossiers on political enemies.

...White House insiders tell disturbing tales of invasion of privacy, abuse of government power and use of expanded authority under the USA Patriot Act to dig into the personal lives of anyone the administration deems an enemy of the state.

Those on the list include former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife, former covert CIA operative Valarie Plame, along with filmmaker and administration critic Michael Moore, Senators like California’s Barbara Boxer, media figures like liberal writer Joe Conason and left-wing bloggers like Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (the Daily Kos) and Ana Marie Cox (Wonkette).

“If you want to know who’s sleeping with whom, who drinks too much or has a fondness for nose candy, this is the place to find it,” says another White House aide. “Karl (Rove) operates under the rule that if you f*ck with us, we’ll f*ck you over."

So, according to Capitol Hill Blue, not only is there a White House enemies list, the CHB boys know some of the people who are on it. Did I say, "fascinating," yet? I didn't! So let me say it again, "fascinating!"

Now, here's an interesting question: how is it that Capitol Hill Blue, a very liberal online magazine, has such excellent sources at a very high level in the White House? I mean obviously, they've got better sources than the New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ, LA Times, etc., etc., because none of those papers were able to get this story.

And, boy, is Capitol Hill Blue claiming that a lot of sources know about this. Let's see, there's "a number of current and former administration officials," a "White House aide," "another White House aide," "a former White House aide," "worried White House insiders," and a "White House staffer." None of the names are mentioned, of course, because imaginary sources have no actual names -- whoops, did I say that out loud?

But, even if there were such an "enemies list," even if all these people existed, and even if they were willing to talk about this anonymously, pray tell why would they give this information to a 3rd rate, lefty cyber-rag like Capitol Hill Blue instead of the WAPO or NYT? Maybe they like the tinfoil hats the people at Capitol Hill Blue probably like to wear? Who can say?

Yet, despite the fact that this garbage on Capitol Hill Blue is one step removed from the sort of web pages where they speculate that the earth is actually being run by lizard people, there are a lot of liberal bloggers -- although fortunately not all -- who completely believe these deranged rantings. How embarrassing for them!

The mainstream media loves nothing better than to claim that blogs are dodgy, inaccurate, and full of misinformation. Well, judging by the reaction to this Capitol Hill Blue story, at least when it comes to the left side of the blogosphere, the MSM is right.

There's an important question that Americans need to ask themselves about the Paris Riots: Could the same thing happen here?

Granted, there are some significant differences between this country and France. We do a better job of assimilating immigrants, have a much lower unemployment rate, a less cushy welfare system, tend to be much more aggressive in dealing with rioters, and percentage wise Muslims make up 8% of the population in France as compared to roughly 2% of the population in the US. So, it's unlikely that we're going to see Muslim rioters running wild in the streets here in the US anytime soon.

Still, the French riots reinforce a number of ideas and concepts that have been brought up many times before in immigration debates in the US.

#1) It is important that immigrants respect our laws: If we allow illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States -- or even guest workers -- we're teaching them that it pays to break our laws. As they've found out in France, having immigrants in your country who care little for your nation's laws and traditions can have terrible consequences.

#2) It is vitally important for immigrants to speak English and be assimilated in our culture. When you have enclaves of people in this country who live with other immigrants, spend all their time with other immigrants, live in an area populated almost entirely by other immigrants, and don't even speak the language, you may see a "dual culture" develop (i.e. "We're in America, but we don't feel like Americans.") That's part of the problem in France and it's a problem in this country as well, although not to the same degree -- yet.

#3) Our immigration policy needs to be updated for the 21st century. The United States is the strongest and most prosperous nation (of any size) in the world. Because of that, each year, there are far more people who want to come into this country than we can accept.

So, what's wrong with being choosy about whom we allow to become a citizen of the United States? For example, why shouldn't a computer programmer from India be given preference over a ditch digger from Mexico? Why couldn't we take in a scientist from Jamaica instead of a lawyer from Germany? What's the point of allowing a day laborer from Brazil into the United States when we could have a nuclear physicist from New Zealand instead?

Furthermore, we've got reams of data on every ethnic group that has been allowed into the United States. You can look up crime rates, average income, you name it. So what's wrong with saying:

"Immigrants from country X make an average of $40,000 a year, only 3% of them are on welfare, and only 1% of them have committed crimes over a 10 year period. On the other hand, immigrants from country Y make an average of $16,000 a year, 19% of them are on welfare, and 11% of them have committed crimes during a 10 year period. Therefore, only carefully screened handfuls of people from country Y will be allowed to become citizens of the United States while many more people from country X will be allowed in."

That's exactly what we should be doing. Our goal with immigration shouldn't be to bring in more day laborers, it should be to bring in the best and the brightest applicants from all over the world. Not only will that help keep America successful well into the 21st century, you can also be sure that it won't be an Iraqi doctor or an engineer from Poland who's out in the street throwing petrol bombs at cars.

Had the French made some different decisions 5, 10, or even years ago about how they were going to handle immigrants, these riots would have never happened. We should learn from their mistakes and correct our policies now to make sure we don't have our own problems further down the road.

RWN advertiser and bookmark-worthy blog, Stop the ACLU, has done an interview with me via email. You can take a look at that interview here.

You can read some of the other interviews that have been done with me at the following websites:

The YNC.com on 9/29/2005

National Journal's Blogometer on 8/16/2005

Election 2004 Debate 3: Jeff Seemann and John Hawkins At Blogcritics on 10/13/2004 (Not an interview, but a debate. Still, I liked how it went, so it gets included.)

dustinmhawkins.com on 6/16/04.

BlogsofWar on 1/17/04

Totally Fushed on 8/7/03

Belly Flop on 5/22/03

While channel surfing I caught the end of an interview with Ben Stein on Tucker Carlson’s MSNBC show. Stein caught me a little off guard by calling Special Prosector Patrick Fitzgerald a “thug.” Stein, understandably enough, is not a fan of politics entering the criminal courtroom. Even taking into account his history as a Nixon speechwriter though, I was taken aback by his passion on the subject.

I can’t say that I agree that Fitzgerald is a thug. So far, I have seen no evidence of that, but I do agree that the Wilson/Plame investigation is all about politics. No one can say with a straight face that the Novak mention of Plame endangered national security. I think it is a huge stretch to even argue that it endangered Plame’s security. If it did, why did the husband of Ms. Super Double Secret Undercover Covert Operative Agent Spy do everything he could to call attention to it rather than to make a quiet complaint and take steps to retain some of his wife’s relative public anonymity? Instead, anytime the story disappears from the media for more than ten minutes he does whatever is necessary to draw the attention of the television cameras.

I can’t help but imagine what the media would have done to Joe Wilson had he been speaking out against the Clinton administration and someone like James Carville or Paul Begala had suggested to a reporter that he got his assignment because of his wife’s recommendation. Since the media didn’t seem to have a problem with Clinton’s people sending private eyes after women to scare them into silence, not to mention what they did to Ken Starr, I don’t think mentioning that Wilson’s wife was a desk jockey at Langley would exactly raise their ire. That only happens when the President has an “R” after his name. Just consider all the possible SNL and Daily Show sketches that could be written about the pompous, camera-addicted Wilson posing for Vanity Fair while bemoaning his loss of privacy.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

Ever wonder why Democrats want another investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq? Perhaps because three past independent investigations all concluded the same thing, that there was no manipulation of intelligence, and the Democrats are trying to create one that will say the opposite?

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, pages 50-51: "no evidence of political pressure,":

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq, pages 284-285, "did not find any evidence,":

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. … Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction, page 110, "found no evidence of deliberate distortion,":

In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying quali?cations. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgements inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the in?uence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgements inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) says another forthcoming report will conclude the same thing.

This content was used with the permission of Blogs For Bush.

"It is one thing to know in theory that France has undergone major ethnic changes over the past 30 years and another thing altogether to confront a mass ethnic insurgency. The figures are inescapable. There are about 60 million inhabitants in continental France, plus 2 million citizens in the overseas territories (essentially the French West Indies and La Reunion island in the Indian Ocean). About 20 million, most of them white and Christian, are over 50.

Out of the remaining 40 million or so, 10 million or so belong to the ethnic minorities: Muslim North Africans, Muslim Turks or Near Easterners, Muslim Black Africans, Christian West Indian, African or Reunionese blacks. When one regards to the youngest age brackets, the proportion is even larger. It is estimated that 35% of all French inhabitants under 20, and 50% of all inhabitants in the major urban centers, belong to the ethnic minorities. Islam alone may claim respectively 30% and 45%." -- Michel Gurfinkel

Foreign

State Of Emergency Declared In France

French Riots Continue Despite Curfew Threat

Leaders Fiddle As France Burns

Paris Prosecutors Opened An Inquiry Tuesday Into Two Young Bloggers Who Urged French Youths To Riot And Revolt Against The Police

US Denies Using White Phosphorus On Iraqi Civilians

Annan, Bolton Clash On Syrian Cooperation With UN

Angry Mugabe Tells US Ambassador To "Go To Hell"

Domestic

Dems Win In Governor's Race In Virginia And New Jersey

Texas Voters Approve Ban On Gay Marriage

CIA Asks Justice Dept. To Review Prisons Report

Senate Staffer Asaulted. Perhaps For Her Work On The Finance Committee

Senator Kerry Rebuffs Claim He Said Election Was Stolen

Rep. Sherrod Brown Wrote To Sen. Mike Dewine Last Friday, Voicing Concern About Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito's Labor Record. Brown's Language Was Crisp -- And Was Plagiarized

Mary Mapes Still Can't Figure Out What She Did Wrong During The Rathergate Fiasco

Columns

David Limbaugh: A Manifesto Of Lies (Superb)

Byron York: The CIA Prison Leak Story Goes To The Justice Department

Norm Coleman: Beware A Digital Munich

Michael Gurfinkel: France Facing 'Horrendous' Balance Sheet

Hugh Hewitt Talks To Victor Davis Hanson About The Rioting In France

Thomas Sowell: Riots In France

Left-Overs

US Senators Outperform Wall Street Stars In The Stock Market

Non-Lethal Laser Rifle Being Tested By The Military

Accused 'Used Head As Bowling Ball'

Game: The Kickoff

Website Of The Day: Neo-Neocon

At the end of a column on the Paris riots in which he slammed the French for racism and for their treatment of immigrants, conservative columnist Ralph Peters stepped over the line when he said:

"Meanwhile, every American who believes in racial equality and human dignity should sympathize with the rioters, not with the effete bigots on the Seine."

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

The scum that's out on the streets of France burning cars, assaulting policemen, and beating civilians deserve no sympathy from decent or civilized human beings.

To the contrary, sympathy should be reserved for innocent people caught up in the mess: those who've been beaten, had their property destroyed, and are locking themselves away in their own homes because they're afraid to go out on the streets. Those folks, along with the French police who've been on the front lines trying to restore order without getting adequate help from the government, are the ones who deserve our pity, not the thugs who are terrorizing France.

Even if you care little for the French, their government, or their way of life, they are preferable to Molotov-cocktail-throwing thugs who spend their nights randomly destroying property for kicks.

Ralph Peters should know better...

One of the things that has become crystal clear since the Bush administration made the mistake of appointing Patrick Fitzgerald as a special prosecutor over "Plamegate," is that Valerie Plame's job in the CIA was no secret despite the protestations to the contrary from her husband, serial liar Joe Wilson.

In fact, there are now multiple people on the record saying that they knew Valerie Plame was a CIA agent before Robert Novak's original column revealed that fact to the world. Quite frankly, if it had been widely known that the press, Valerie Plame's neighbors, and even people Joe Wilson blabbed to in the Green Room at Fox News all knew about her "secret identity," a special prosecutor would have never been appointed in the first place.

Here are a few of the quotes that prove that Valerie Plame's identity was not so "secret".

"How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry." -- Robert Novak

"On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative.

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that — but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of." -- Clifford May

"A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status." -- The Washington Times

"Former Time magazine correspondent Hugh Sidey told the New York Sun in a story published Sunday. "[Plame's] name was knocking around in the sub rosa world we live in for a long time."

NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell, in an appearance on CNBC's "Capitol Report," Oct. 3, 2003, was asked how widely it was known in Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger," she said." -- WorldNetDaily

"Retired Army General and FOX News contributor Paul Vallely says he knew former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife Valerie Plame was a CIA agent long before she was outed in a newspaper column in 2003 because Wilson told him so. Vallely says Wilson volunteered the information in at least three separate conversations while both men were waiting to appear on FOX News programs during the fall of 2002." -- Brit Hume

Valerie Plame was obviously a not-so-secret agent.

When you try to evaluate the performance of a government, it's often useful to compare what it's done to another government in roughly similar situations. So, let us compare the disaster relief performance of the US to that of one of our Western European "allies," France.

First, we'll start with the USA.

After Katrina, Bush was lambasted from every direction for the Federal Government's "slow response" to the crisis. In fact, the government was perceived as being so snail-like, so glacial, that Bush was actually accused of hating black people and wanting them to die.

Well, let's look at the performance of the Federal government after Katrina.

Katrina was a massive natural disaster that hit an enormous area, snarled roads, and made some areas inaccessible because of floods. Still, on the same day that Katrina hit, Monday, there were already Coast Guard, Air Force, Air National Guard and Army choppers doing house to house rescues. Those rescue missions continued non-stop until the danger passed.

Furthermore, a number of New Orleans residents fled to the Superdome and Convention Center to ride out the storm. Normally, the local officials would have handled evacuating all those people. But, since they failed to do their job, the Federal government had to step in.

Once again, Katrina hit on a Monday and by Friday the military had established order and gotten needed supplies (that once again should have been provided by the locals) into both buildings. By the following Monday, 8 days after the storm, both buildings were completely evacuated.

The death toll in New Orleans, after one of the worst natural disasters in American history, was 972.

Now let's look to that liberal paradise, France. Here's the latest news on the Paris riots:

"President Jacques Chirac declared a state of emergency Tuesday, paving the way for curfews to be imposed on riot-hit cities and towns in an extraordinary measure to halt France's worst civil unrest in decades after 12 nights of violence.

Police, meanwhile, said overnight unrest Monday-Tuesday, while still widespread and destructive, was not as violent as previous nights.

"The intensity of this violence is on the way down," National Police Chief Michel Gaudin said, citing fewer attacks on public buildings and fewer direct clashes between youths and police. He said rioting was reported in 226 towns across France, compared to nearly 300 the night before."

Note that after 12 nights of rioting, they're just getting around to declaring a state of emergency and the police seem to be proud of the fact there is now rioting in only 226 towns instead of 300. Moreover, the French government has rejected calls by a police union for troops to be sent in. How's that for "government-in-action?"

Next, let's go back in time to another great moment in French governance: the heat wave in 2003.

As was mentioned earlier, America lost almost 1000 people in New Orleans during one of the worst natural disasters to ever hit our country. On the other hand, France lost 10,000 - 15,000 people in August of 2003 just because it got hot. And what did France's government do to try to save lives? Very little. In fact, Jacques Chirac didn't even bother to issue a statement or break off his vacation in Canada while his people were roasting alive by the thousands.

It's a telling comparsion, folks, one that we should all keep in mind...

*** Update #1 ***: This post was updated slightly to reflect the fact that Katrina did not offically make landfall in New Orleans until early Monday morning on August 28th, rather than late Sunday night.

"Real estate prices are at their highest levels in history, as are homeownership and Americans’ average net worth. Unemployment also is lower than the average during any of the past three decades. Yet Americans are very down, and one third even think the economy is in a recession. Is consistently negative media coverage influencing public attitudes? Might headlines like “Job growth less than expected” and “Jobs come up weak” have something to do with the gloom being felt across the country?

The Labor Department announced unemployment numbers for October on November 4, and despite a decline in this rate and an addition to payrolls, the media reported the gains as “surprisingly meager,” “stalled,” “damped,” and “disappointing.”

As measured by the gross domestic product, the economy has now grown by 3 percent or more for 10 straight quarters – a feat that hasn't been achieved since the mid-’80s and never occurred during the “boom” years of the ’90s. The unemployment rate now stands at 5 percent.

But consumer confidence as measured by the Conference Board, a non-profit economic research and forecasting organization, is at 85, its lowest reading since October 2003 when unemployment was 20 percent higher than it is today. At the same time, according to Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports, "34 percent believe the U.S. is in a recession." And, a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll stated that 61 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the economy?

Regardless of what economic data is released by the various government agencies responsible for such things, the media tend to report it as bad news. When the press make pessimistic predictions that don’t pan out, rarely will they revisit them or explain why they were wrong. And when data is reported that is better than expected, the press will often downplay it by suggesting that the numbers are preliminary but could be revised lower later. When such revisions actually improve the picture originally depicted, this too is largely ignored." -- Noel Sheppard

Bush Puts Paris to the Torch
When Bush began this silly little "War on Terror" of his, he promised it would make the world a better, safer place for everyone. Apparently, he forgot to include the peace-loving Muslim peoples in his "brave new world", for ever since 9/11 he's gone out of his way to make them feel uncomfortable. Routine genital-mocking at Abu-Ghraib. Quran-mishandling at Gitmo. Random searches at airport security that are a slap in the face of every sweaty, middle-eastern businessman who just wants to relax and enjoy his last flight in this world without being harassed by infidels. Now, we learn that the CIA has been apprehending terrorist suspects and holding them in secret prisons all across Europe, where they are kept in small rooms with bad feng shui and forced to endure impromptu burlesque shows in complete violation of the Geneva Conventions. So is it really such a big surprise that the Muslim community has exploded with such rage against Western Civilization? Is it any wonder that the Religion of Peace is currently burning the City of Love to the ground?

Like some of our greatest democrat presidents, France has enjoyed a peaceful, collaborative relationship with governments and organizations that less civilized nations would call "sponsors of terrorism" or "the axis of evil". For decades, they've opened their borders to anyone, regardless of race, creed, or deep burning desire to kill infidels. Now a trusting friendship built on a solid foundation of appeasement and capitulation has been burnt to ashes, thanks to the Shrub's desperate urge to get back at the low down polecat that tried t' kill his pa.

But rest assured, Halliburton will be there when the smoke clears to help rebuild Paris. For a price, of course.

This satire was used with the permission of BlameBush!.

"If anything, the Bush Administration has understated the world intelligence community’s evidence on Iraq’s WMD program. CIA Director George Tenet – a Clinton appointee held over by Bush – called the case that Saddam had WMDs a “slam dunk.” The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which Tenet produced in 2002, contained such dire predictions as:

Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents. And all key aspects, research and development and production, of Iraq’s offensive biological weapons program are active, and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War.

That kind of unequivocal intelligence is difficult to overstate. In fact, all the world’s intelligence agencies -- including those of Russia and Jordan -- agreed Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons, had accelerated his nuclear weapons program, and posed a gathering threat to regional stability. Much of our previous intelligence had underestimated other nations’ nuclear capacity: Soviet Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iraq itself prior to Operation Desert Storm. Ba’athist Iraq’s significant ties to terrorism – including al-Qaeda affiliates – are a matter of record. That, coupled with the fact that we had no human intelligence gathering in Iraq after President Clinton allowed Saddam to kick the UN inspectors out of the country in 1998, stoked the president’s sense of urgency. He decided to take out a threat, instead of indulging the Left’s prescription: Leave the jihadists an irresistible target of 200,000 U.S. soldiers, standing on Iraq’s border while Saddam parades hapless inspectors through an endless maze of Potemkin villages, gets the UN sanctions removed, then begins his WMD program in earnest.

The Democrats know nothing will be found. In fact, previous studies – including Phase One of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb report – have cleared the president of pressuring agents to produce intelligence bolstering the case for war. Four solid reports have absolved Tony Blair of manipulating UK intelligence ex post facto, the same charge the Democrats now want to hang on President Bush. The leftists’ thirst for inquests and tribunals is a last ditch desperation effort to validate their fevered fantasies while besmirching in a partisan manner the integrity of the president of the United States through the Big Lie technique: keep repeating the allegation, and eventually, it will stick. -- David Horowitz and Ben Johnson

Foreign

Rioting Spreads To 300 Towns In France

10 Officers Shot As Riots Worsen In French Cities (Free NYT Reg Req)

France Imposes Curfews As Rioting Spreads

Australia Foils Terrorist Attack

U.S. And Iraqi Troops Battle Insurgents

Domestic

Bush Declares: 'We Do Not Torture'

Senators Defend Bush On Torture Ban

Cheney Fights for Detainee Policy (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Fitzgerald Will Have A Very Tough Time Making A Case Against Libby In Court (Free WAPO Reg Req)

GOP Closer To Breaking Up Left-Leaning 9th Circuit Appeals Court

All Saints Episcopal Church In Pasadena Risks Losing Its Tax-Exempt Status Because Of A Former Rector's Remarks In 2004 (Free LA Times Reg)

Average Weekday Circulation At U.S. Newspapers Fell 2.6 Percent In The Six Month-Period Ending In September

Columns

Hugh Hewitt: Alito's Nomination Should Remind Immigrants That The American Dream Still Exists

Patrick J. Buchanan: Paris Burning -- How Empires End

Mark Steyn: Early Skirmish In The Eurabian Civil War

David Horowitz and Ben Johnson: The Wrong Argument, at the Wrong Place, at the Wrong Time

Left-Overs

Music-Swapping Site Grokster To Shut Down Under Settlement

Ship Blasted Pirates With Sonic Weapon

Video: 30 Hornets Vs. 30,000 Honeybees

Humor: The Winners Of The Maureen Dowd Caption Contest

Humor: Future Fast-Food Managers Roar Against the War

Website Of The Day: Dr. Helen

John McCain is an arrogant fool whose latest nauseating attempts to curry favor with the liberals in the media may eventually result in the loss of countless American lives:

"Girding for a potential fight with the Bush administration, supporters of a ban on torturing prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened Friday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law.

The no-torture wording, which proponents say is supported by majorities in both houses of Congress, was included last month in the Senate's version of a defense spending bill. The measure's final form is being negotiated with the House, and the White House is pushing for either a rewording or deletion of the torture ban.

On Friday, at the urging of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, the Senate by a voice vote added the ban to a related defense bill as a backup.

Speaking from the Senate floor, McCain said, "If necessary - and I sincerely hope it is not - I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails. Let no one doubt our determination."

The ban would establish the Army Field Manual as the guiding authority in interrogations and prohibit "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" of prisoners.

The Bush administration has sought to exempt the CIA from the ban."

Preventing our interrogators from using "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" is to, in effect, handcuff them to such an extent that they're practically useless. Hell, there's what could fairly be considered "cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment" that occurs in every American prison, in every high school football practice, and even in the basic training all of our troops go through. As a matter of fact, if you're a parent, you've probably inflicted "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment" on one of your kids at some point or another.

We're fighting terrorists who believe in flying airplanes into buildings full of innocent people and if John McCain and Company get their way, our interrogators will be thrown in prison for depriving the terrorists of sleep for 24 hours.

When some terrorist sets off a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles, is John McCain going to call their relatives and tell them it was better for their families to die than for Americans to waterboard some in-the-know Jihadi who spends his spare time making bombs and slicing off the heads of captives on video?

Come on, Mr. "Straight Talk," tell us how many Americans you would rather see die than continue the "degrading" practice of hooding prisoners? 1000? 10,000? A million? 10 million? How many Americans would John McCain be willing to sacrifice in order to keep our interrogators from threatening to beat a terrorist who knows where a nuclear bomb is located in an American city? Just how many Americans have to die so John McCain can try to look righteous for Chris Matthews and the New York Times?

You know, this is just another example of how tough it has been for President Bush to defend this country from our enemies after 9/11.

We have the American media acting like PR flacks for Al-Qaeda while minimalizing the accomplishments of our troops. Then there's the Democratic Party which is full to bursting with Jello-spined wimps who've been whining, complaining, and generally impeding progress in the war on terror from basically the beginning of 2002 on because they don't want Bush to get credit for defending America. Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Bush is stuck with incompetents like Chuck Hagel and John McCain who are so desperate to curry favor with the media and the Democrats that they're willing to undercut the war on terrorism to do it.

Now, if John McCain gets his way, our interrogators will be so handicapped by the Army Field manual's incredibly restrictive guidelines, that our soldiers won't even be able to rap a terrorist on the knuckles with a ruler. Meanwhile, the terrorists saw the heads off of Americans they catch.

All I can say at this point is that we're very lucky to have George Bush running the war on terror because, quite frankly, his opponents in 2000 and 2004, Al Gore, John Kerry, and John McCain have proven since 9/11 that they're just not up to the job.

Given the situation, this is so ridiculous that it's almost funny:

"One of France's largest Islamic groups issued a fatwa against rioting on Sunday after officials suggested Muslim militants could be partly to blame for violent protests scarring poor neighbourhoods around the country.

The Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF) quoted the Koran and the Prophet Mohammad to back up the religious edict condemning the disorder and destruction the unrest caused.

Many rioters are of North African Arab and black African descent and assumed to be Muslims. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy and other officials have hinted Islamist militants may be manipulating angry teenagers to defy the French state.

Muslim residents in the rundown suburbs say rioters' anger is more about unemployment and discrimination than religion. France's 5 million Muslims make up 8 percent of the population and many consider themselves second-class citizens here.

"It is formally forbidden to any Muslim seeking divine grace and satisfaction to participate in any action that blindly hits private or public property or could constitute an attack on someone's life," the fatwa said."

Is a Fatwa really the answer to riots? Are there conversations like this actually happening in France right now?

Ali: Wait a second Osama Jr., do not throw that petrol bomb at the car.

Osama Jr.: What do you mean? After we cashed our welfare checks this morning, we spent the rest of the day making these petrol bombs just so we could throw them at cars. I remember you specifically say, "Oh boy, Osama Jr., I cannot wait to throw petrol bombs at cars" just a few hours ago.

Ali: Yes, but there is now a Fatwa saying that we cannot riot.

Osama Jr.: Oh a fatwa, oh...hey, enlighten me on something Ali; Where exactly in the Koran does it give us permission to make Molotov cocktails and throw them at cars unless there is a fatwa? Since when did the Prophet say: "Next time you're in Paris, throw stones at the police officers and beat people with lead pipes unless a fatwa is issued". I don't remember that in the Koran, do you?

Ali: Yes, but...

Osama Jr.: Yes, but nothing. If you were so concerned about being a "good Muslim", you wouldn't have been out here with me rioting every night for the last week and a half. So shut up already and let's see if we can find a synagogue!

Ali: A synagogue! Now you're talking. Then can we burn some more buildings down in our own neighborhood?

Osama Jr.: Sure we can Ali, sure we can!

You want to know how to stop the riots in France? Set curfews and then send in the French police (and whatever the equivalent of the National Guard is over there), decked out in riot gear and put sniper teams on the rooftops. Then, whenever the police encounter a group of rioters, indiscriminately spray the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets and start swinging batons at everyone left standing. If someone throws a Molotov cocktail, shoot him. If someone pulls out a gun, shoot him. Then, when you're done, arrest anyone left standing or laying around, and move to the next corner.

That would put an end to the riots in short order with no fatwas involved -- which is a good thing. Even if the fatwa worked, it would still be bad news, because it would likely lead to a bunch of Muslim Imams trying to subtlety blackmail the government:

"You know, we're the only thing keeping 8% of the population in check. Without us, there would be riots all over France and you don't want that do you? Good, good, now let's talk about implementing Sharia in just a few places to begin with..."

No thanks to that.

The longer the French let these riots go on, the more likely they are to spread, even beyond France's borders, and the more likely there are to be other Paris riots. So what the French need to do is forget about appeasement, accept that Sarkhozy was right when he called the rioters, "scum," and then clean the scum off the streets. That's not just the right thing to do for all the innocent people being affected by these riots, it's the smart thing to do.

This sounds more like a bureaucratic snafu than the Department of Defense acting in bad faith, but the results are the same:

"Department of Defense decision to renege on war-time promises to pay bonuses to more than a dozen re-enlisting Washington National Guardsmen has sparked outrage from prominent elected officials and state National Guard officers working to rectify the situation.

According to a state Guard spokesman, Maj. Phil Osterli, at least 15 Washington National Guardsmen and women signed re-enlistment forms promising them a tax-free $15,000 bonus in return. Many of them were stationed in Iraq at the time, he said.

But Pentagon officials have said in published reports that the bonuses were canceled because they duplicated other programs and were prohibited.

...The state Guard is fighting the Pentagon's sudden reversal on the issue. Osterli said the state Guard's recruiting and retention commander, Maj. John Sharrett, is in Washington, D.C., arguing to National Guard and Pentagon brass that the reversal is unwise and unfair.

"We're clearly concerned about this issue and want to make sure these soldiers get what they deserve," said Osterli."

The military can't promise bonuses and then renege on the deal. That would be unacceptable under any circumstances. But for the Pentagon to do this to soldiers who have risked their lives serving in Iraq is particularly outrageous.

Someone at the Pentagon needs to yank their head from their posterior and get this taken care of ASAP. These soldiers deserve better than what they've gotten so far and certainly, the Pentagon knows that. So, it doesn't matter what paperwork has to be done or if some penny ante rule has to be bent, just take care of business and get these soldiers the bonuses they were promised. That's the right thing to do.

*** Update #1 ***: The second from the last paragraph was edited for clarity's sake.

More Iranian grotesquerie from the Telegraph, with thanks to Scaramouche:

Iranian state television has broadcast a cartoon that glorifies suicide bombings against Israelis, depicting a young boy blowing himself up after being told: "Go and show the Zionists how brave and heroic are the children of Palestine."

And how hateful and mad are their elders.

The cartoon, one of a series shown by the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting on "Jerusalem Day" nine days ago, presents the actions of a boy who kills himself to strike back against Israelis as a noble example for children to follow. The cartoon follows the story of Abd who dies in a suicide attack More professionally produced and graphic than previous Iranian propaganda aimed at children, the cartoon appears to be part of a campaign led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to elevate the issue of the destruction of Israel. The day before the cartoon was shown, he declared at a World Without Zionism conference: "This stain of disgrace [Israel] will be wiped off the face of the world - and this is attainable."...

A British diplomat in London said: "The increase in anti-Israeli propaganda and Ahmadinejad's dangerous rhetoric will only serve to alienate him from his people and further isolate Iran. For the West, as well as Israel, the prospect of this man having his finger on a nuclear button is truly horrifying."

This content was used with the permission of Jihad Watch

"I don't think you'd have to kill, assassinate too many (people). I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives." -- Dr. Jerry Vlasak of North American Animal Liberation

This is where animal rights extremism leads, folks. You end up with nutjobs advocating the murder of people to save cows and chickens. Heck, would this loon favor killing exterminators to spare rats? Would anyone be surprised if he did?

Domestic

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely Says Wilson 'Outed' Wife In 2002. Disclosed In Casual Conversations A Year Before Novak Column

Joe Wilson Fumes Over Vallely Charges

Sen. John Kerry, The Democratic Presidential Candidate In 2004, Has Told Acquaintances Over The Past Year That He Suspects That The Election Was Stolen

Sen. Biden: Alito Filibuster Unlikely

Gas Prices Drop An Average Of 23 Cents In The Last 2 Weeks

President Bush Is Sending His Staff Back To School -- Ethics School

McCain Vows To Add Torture Ban To All Major Senate Legislation (McCain Is An Arrogant Fool)

Michael Schiavo Endorses Democratic Candidate For Governor In Virginia, Tim Kaine

Cindy Sheehan's Anti-War Marine Buddy, Jimmy Massey, Is A Liar

Guardsman Re-Enlists, Pentagon Kills Bonus. Officers From State Try To Restore $15,000 Benefit

Foreign

French Urban Violence Worsens: 1,300 Cars Torched, 300 Arrests

Police Find Bomb Making Factory In Paris

Chirac Vows Arrests And Trials In Riots

Will The Riots Swell The Ranks Of Jihadists In Europe

Pirates Open Fire On US Cruise Ship Off Somalia

Columns

Mark Steyn: Wake-Up Europe, You've Got A War On Your Hands

Bill Kristol: Fight Back Mr. President

Allan H. Ryskind: Democrats Push Big Lie About War

Jack Kelly: About That Iraq 'Deception'

Kathleen Parker: Parents Take Another Hit In The Culture Wars

Left-Overs

Great Pics From A San Francisco Anti-War Rally

Game: Streetball Showdown

Project Valour-IT: Voice-Activated Laptops For OUR Injured Troops