Right Wing News

RWN has been moved to a new server, but the upgrades are still not quite done. Ideally, the upgrades would have been completed before the move, but they should be done very soon and had the page not been moved over, we'd have had to wait until next week-end to complete the move. Given how poorly my old hosting company has been performing of late, I hated to wait.

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

Mark Steyn: Hillary Clinton and the contradictions of the West

The List Universe: 25 things that are not what they seem

Power Line: A telling correction at the New York Times

Hot Air: More evidence that Obama is a doofus

Egotastic: Sarah McLachlan bikini pictures

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

There's a very basic question that everyone should be asking about Barack Obama at this point and it's "What makes this guy qualified to be President?"

Certainly, he would be one of the least experienced Presidents that we've ever had. He has never served in the military, he has never run a business, and he hasn't even served a full term in the Senate.

Moreover, this guy is extraordinarily gaffe prone and dare I say it, fairly dumb, for a politician. We're talking about a guy who thinks there are 57+ states and doesn't even seem completely familiar with the concept of movie sets.

To get around these glaring flaws, Obama's argument is that his judgment is so good, so fantastic, so incredible, that we can overlook all of his gaffes, his lack of experience, and the fact that he doesn't seem extremely bright.

However, the fact that he just left his anti-white, anti-American church speaks volumes about his judgment.

Now, a politician with ambitions that went beyond local politics, wouldn't have joined a church like that in the first place if he had great judgment.

However, even if he did, he would have realized that it could be a problem when he got on the national stage. So, if Obama had even halfway decent judgment, he would have quit the church when he joined the Senate.

Then there's Obama's run at the Presidency. Now, he went to that church for 20 years. He should have known, without a shadow of a doubt, that many of the things that were said at that church would be incredibly offensive to many Americans.

However, probably because Obama is so used to being in an environment steeped with anti-white and anti-American sentiment, he apparently didn't even realize that it would be a big problem.

By leaving this late in the game, after sticking up for the church for so long, Obama is making it look as if he's just playing a political game. Oh, he loved the anti-white, anti-American side of the church, but now that it's getting in the way of his presidential ambitions, he's going to kick them under the bus with Jeremiah Wright and his own grandmother.

For a man who's asking Americans to put him in office based on his great judgment, he isn't providing much evidence that he actually possesses one.

"America is the greatest sin against God." -- Obama's pal, Father Michael Pfleger (Obama even proudly displayed his endorsement on his campaign homepage)

Maybe our descent into totalitarian moonbattery is all an elaborate joke, intended to make a point about the perils of political correctness. This couldn't possibly be for real:

A doll caused a security alert at an American airport because its two-inch plastic gun was considered a dangerous weapon. Judy Powell, 55, from Walton on the Hill, Surrey, bought the GI Joe toy in Las Vegas and packed it in her hand luggage. But security staff at Los Angeles International Airport refused to let Mrs Powell on board the plane with the replica rifle.

At least Mrs. Powell still has her sense of humor:

I was simply stunned when I realized they were serious. Security examined the toy as if it was going to shoot them and looked at the rifle. I was really angry to start with because of the absurdity of the situation. But then I saw the funny side of it and thought this was simple lunacy.

A grim spokesman for LAX was less inclined to levity:

We have instructions to confiscate anything that looks like a weapon or a replica. If GI Joe was carrying a replica then it had to be taken from him.

Meanwhile, across the pond:

Brad Jayakody, 30, from London, said he was stopped from passing through security at Heathrow's Terminal 5 after his Transformers T-shirt was deemed "offensive."

The shirt featured a cartoon robot holding a gun. Jayakody was forced to remove it.

You would think authorities would focus on young Muslims with scraggly beards and ticking luggage. But that would be racial profiling. Imposing moonbattery appears to be more the point than security.

On tips from Lyle. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

My latest column at Townhall, Top Seven Reasons Why Barack Obama is a Weaker Candidate Than People Think, cracked the 7 most read pieces this week.

It's a real honor to be on there with a group of columnists of that caliber.

However, people are staying connected. This was interesting:

It's a funny thing. There is the deterioration of Iraq's infrastructure -- scarring of buildings by bullets holes, streets deformed by concrete blocks, checkpoints. But you can go inside a humble Iraqi house and you will see laptops, desktops, up-to-date technology costing hundred of dollars or even thousands.

Sometimes I tell myself Macintosh, Microsoft, and Dell should consider Iraq as a promising markets, although it exists in such a weird condition. Except for the PC, everything seems similar to the stone age, especially the absence of electricity.

The biggest prison can be the mind. Iraqi society is becoming open, even if the doors to their homes are locked shut.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier.

Omar Sharif, who was born in Egypt and has been in movies like The Ten Commandments, The 13th Warrior, Top Secret! and dozens and dozens of other films, had this to say about a conversation he had with George Bush before the war in Iraq,

"I told him that I come from the East and I know... He said: "No, there must be a democracy (in Iraq)." I said to him: We don't have a democracy, and we never will. You'll see, because people like me prefer to go to the neighborhood sheik. I like going to him, and he resolves all the problems. If someone stole from you, or something, you take him to the neighborhood sheik, and you say: This man stole from me. The sheik says to him: Return the money, or never come back to the neighborhood."

It's tempting to simply eviscerate Sharif for his comments, but there is some truth to what he's saying. The Middle East is tribal in a way that is hard for Americans, who were born free, to comprehend.

For us, freedom is as natural as breathing, which can be a problem in and of itself because many people don't always appreciate the gift they've been given or understand the ramifications of losing it. Certainly many people on the Left in this country who seem to believe the Iraqis would be better off under a tyrannical dictator who ruled with an iron fist -- than in a free society that has to temporarily deal with violence and chaos -- would fit into that category.

However, these sort of backwards, tribal societies stifle creativity, innovation, progress, freedom, and cannot compete in the modern world. Know what the Middle East is? Take away the oil and the religious zealotry and it's Africa: a poor, backwards, failing region that wouldn't be able to feed itself.

If the people of the Middle East do turn out to be incapable of grasping that and choose to cling to what's comfortable and familiar instead of building societies that can thrive in the 21st century, they will have no one to blame but themselves as they fall ever more hopelessly behind when the oil revenues start to dry up.

In making the case for responsible withdrawal the Prime Minister has demonstrated independence and candour. The Rudd Government's Iraq policy is grounded in the recognition that stability in Iraq requires a political solution among all the ethnic and sectarian groups on such critical issues as the distribution of oil revenue, powers of regional governments and demobilisation of militias. The strategic reality is that an indefinite presence of foreign troops as part of a one-dimensional military campaign will never end the violence. This can be achieved only by Iraqis through negotiation and agreement.

Now certainly, there are plenty of honest liberals out there. However, percentage wise, conservatives tend to be more Christian, more concerned with values, and more concerned with just being decent people.

This is why conservatives tend to be more vulnerable to the "hypocrite" charge: you have to have morals and values in the first place to be a hypocrite. If your attitude is everything goes, yes, you're not going to be a hypocrite, but you're a pretty lousy human being.

Of course liberals, being liberals, want to have it both ways. They don't want to stand up for moral values, but they want to be considered just as moral as the people who do.

However, the hard, cold reality is that on the whole, liberals just aren't as moral as conservatives,

Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57 percent of those who described themselves as "very liberal" said yes in response to the World Values Survey, compared with only 20 percent of those who are "very conservative." When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86 percent of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68 percent of liberals.

Ponder this scenario, offered by the National Cultural Values Survey: "You lose your job. Your friend's company is looking for someone to do temporary work. They are willing to pay the person in cash to avoid taxes and allow the person to still collect unemployment. What would you do?"

Almost half, or 49 percent, of self-described progressives would go along with the scheme, but only 21 percent of conservatives said they would.

When the World Values Survey asked a similar question, the results were largely the same: Those who were very liberal were much more likely to say it was all right to get welfare benefits you didn't deserve.

The World Values Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it was OK to drink a can of soda in a store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car.

Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals were two and a half times more likely to say that they illegally download or trade music for free on the Internet.

A study by professors published in the American Taxation Association's Journal of Legal Tax Research found conservative students took the issue of accounting scandals and tax evasion more seriously than their fellow liberal students. Those with a "liberal outlook" who "reject the idea of absolute truth" were more accepting of cheating at school, according to another study, involving 291 students and published in the Journal of Education for Business.

A study in the Journal of Business Ethics involving 392 college students found that stronger beliefs toward "conservatism" translated into "higher levels of ethical values." And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between "political liberalism" and "lying in your own self-interest," based on a study involving 156 adults.

Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam," according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics.

Again, this is not to say that every conservative is honest or that every liberal is dishonest, but there is a very real difference between those ideologies and the effect that they have on people who ascribe to them.

When liberals have accomplished their goal of effectively repealing the Second Amendment, we'll be more than ever at the mercy of the government, but at least we'll be safe from each other, right? Wrong, obviously.

In Britain, where moonbats aren't encumbered by the pesky Second Amendment, anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been found stabbed to death in her apartment. Too bad she didn't have a gun; she might have been able to defend herself.

Mrs. Regan started the Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny was shot. Her grandson has been arrested for stabbing her.

In a world with guns, 53-year-old grandmothers like Pat Regan have a chance. In a world with only knives, not so much. When knives are banned, and it comes down to fists and blunt objects, they'll really be in trouble.

Hat tip: Free Republic; on a tip from Cheetah. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

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

Mike Adams: Our states' right to kill the rapist

Cassy Fiano: Hey you cougars, it does NOT make you look "flirty" and "fun" to act like you're 18 if you're actually 40.

The Nose On Your Face: The Ten Commandments according to Barack Obama

I Don't Like You In That Way: Denise Richards bikini pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

This line from Father Pfleger's pseudo-apology for his rant against Hillary Clinton and white folk really jumped out at me.

But during a mass Sunday at St. Sabina, the priest struck an unusually contrite and cautious tone when appealing to his congregation for forgiveness. Pfleger said the last week had been the most painful of his life, even more so than the shooting death of his foster son Jarvis in 1998. Because he had received more than 3,000 e-mails of "hate, threats and name-calling," he said, the security guards who often flank Pfleger even kept parishioners at a distance as an extra show of caution. (emphasis added)

What kind of narcissist equates the public obloquy he is facing for his own words with the death of a foster son?

Gateway Pundit has the most concise summary of what is wrong with how these guys approach their moments of sunlight in the political sphere.

Are we starting to see a pattern?

-- Preacher spouts off racist & hateful anti-white attacks from the Trinity altar.

-- Hate-filled "sermon" make headlines from Sioux City, Iowa to Sunshine, Florida.

-- Preacher says he has been victimized, that the media used "snippets"

-- We all get lectured that we need to have a "discussion on race."

-- Blah... Blah... Blah...

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

Just in case you were wondering if the Clintons had any hard feelings over the way they were treated by the mainstream media and the Obama campaign...

"It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It's just the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn't do anything about it. The first day he said 'Ah, ah, ah well.' Because that's what they do -- he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain -- maybe I better quit the church. It's all politics. It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it."

"But I'm telling ya, all it's doing is driving her supporters further and further away -- because they know exactly what it is..." -- Bill Clinton

Welcome to our world, Bill!

Republicans spent 8 years pointing out your shortcomings and our concerns were always given the short shrift by the media because they were in your corner.

And he's complaining about surrogates doing the dirty work? Remember what James Carville said about poor Paula Jones after Clinton made a pass at her, her reputation was dragged through the mud, and she finally stood up to defend herself?

"Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park and there's no telling what you'll get."

Now the dirtbags around Barack are getting the "Slick Willie" treatment. It's the same old song and dance, but this time the Clintons have been on the receiving end of it.

It couldn't have happened to nicer people.

PS: Of course, Bill was right when he said that Barack only quit Trinity because of politics. He would have stayed in his anti-white, anti-American church forever if he hadn't been forced to abandon it for politics' sake. Is there anyone who is intellectually dishonest enough to even dispute that?

The website of the day is Exurban League.

As a general rule, conservatives don't believe that mankind is causing global warming or that we need major legislation to "fix" the problem. That's true with conservatives in general and even more true about the conservative media.

Just to give you an idea of what I mean, here's a survey question from an early 2007 Rightosphere Temperature check,

4) Do you think mankind is the primary cause of global warming?

Yes (0) -- 0%
No (59) -- 100%

In other words, 59 right-of-center bloggers were asked if mankind was the primary cause of global warming and every single one of them said, "no."

Now, let's talk about the people who are supposed to be representing those conservatives in Congress.

Via Michelle Malkin,

Keeping you up to date: I told you this morning about the Lieberman-Warner "climate change" boondoggle. At 6:25pm Eastern tonight, the Senate voted on the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to Consider S.3036 ). It passed 74-14, with 12 not voting.

Thirteen GOP senators plus Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (yes, Robert Byrd) opposed the massive eco-pork bill that would perpetuate the carbon offset/cap-and-trade fraud.

So, there's a huge, socialistic, cap and trade program being proposed to deal with what most conservatives consider to be a non-existent problem and only 13 Republican Senators out of 49 voted against cloture on it.

...And the "geniuses" in the Republican Party sit around scratching their heads trying to figure out why conservatives are completely demoralized.

Is Barbara Boxer's bill dead on arrival? The Senate is debating the much-hyped bill this week and next week, but already Democrats and the bill's moderate GOP backers are floundering. Roll Call reports:

In the heat of Monday afternoon, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) fumbled with her kickoff speech on global warming legislation as she tried to wax poetic about the need to save the planet, and the United States, from environmental disaster.

Boxer couldn't find parts of her speech -- Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) leaned in to help at one point -- rifled through her notes, went off in several directions and even stopped to talk to her staff in the middle of the speech. Her disorganized comments might have gone unnoticed, but they seemed to symbolize the disarray that many Democrats say has plagued and will continue to afflict the Senate debate on climate change this week.

"We are about to take up the most important fight of our generation, and we have no strategy, no message and no plan to get out of this," one senior Senate Democratic aide said.

Another senior Senate Democratic staffer echoed those sentiments: "Everyone knows this bill is going nowhere. The president is opposed to it. The House is not inclined toward action on this, and now we're going to spend valuable floor time on a bill that's going nowhere ... while Republicans are champing at the bit to accuse Democrats of raising gas prices."..."Boxer is walking us off a cliff," another senior Senate Democratic aide said.

The result of this disarray is that Republicans in the Senate who were at first fearful of this debate may now be finding their backbone and joining a handful of Senate conservatives intent on killing the bill. Like the immigration debate, the "climate change" debate may end up hurting the bill's sponsors politically as the American people tune in to the truth about what is actually in the bill. Also like the immigration debate, as the public scrutiny ramps up, expect to see Republicans otherwise inclined to vote for the measure, oppose it in the end.

Homosexuals and transsexuals have made such impressive gains lately, some have moved on to the next phase of the plan to reduce civilization to a freak show that would shock the most depraved denizens of hell. Next up: establishing the "inalienable right" to have sex with animals:

Frank Kameny, a hero to the homosexual community who was integral in pressuring the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify same-sex activities as "normal," has written to a pro-family organization that he believes bestiality is fine, "as long as the animal doesn't mind."

According to Kameny:

Absolutely indisputably a central part of the very definition of Americanism is the guarantee, found in the Declaration of Independence, as not merely a Right, but as an Inalienable Right, of the "Pursuit of Happiness." If something which someone arbitrarily defines as a "sexual perversion" provides happiness for consenting adult participants, then its enjoyment is enshrined in basic Americanism.

Why not have sex with animals? After all, animals are people too.

Kameny's contributions to mainstreaming homosexuality have been officially consecrated by our moonbat masters. His "Gay is Good" slogan from the 1960s is enshrined as a sacred artifact at the National Museum of American History.

If Kameny lives long enough, he might move on to mainstreaming pedophilia and necrophilia. What's next after that, only moonbats could imagine.

On a tip from mega. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

One of the Left's weird little hiccups on foreign policy is their inclination to oppose using our military when it will benefit us while supporting the use of our military in situations that have very little to do with our national interest.

So, for example, in Iraq where we have an enormous national stake in using our military, the libs are opposed to using our military -- so much so that many of them would prefer to see the crumbling of democracy in Iraq, genocide, and the United States' reputation damaged for decades -- than for us to continue fighting.

However, in places like Burma, where we have very little at stake one way or the other, the Left can't wait to use the military.

For example, here's the New Republic -- a magazine that's generally considered to be more sensible and have more foreign policy gravitas than the average liberal doofus like Michael Moore, Kos, etc. -- on Burma,

Actually, our most atrocious failure in Burma has nothing to do with money. It has to do with politics. In the three weeks since the disaster, the country's brutal junta has seized shipments of food and medical assistance, blocked vessels with aid cargo--including three U.S. Navy ships--and kept out many foreign relief workers. At the height of the chaos, Burma's military leaders even forged ahead with a constitutional referendum, passed with suspiciously broad support, that consolidates and continues the regime's pillage of national resources.

If this disaster had happened ten years ago--that is, before Iraq--plans would almost certainly be on the table for some form of humanitarian intervention designed to resolve the situation. Maybe we would be talking about deposing the Burmese regime outright; maybe we would be discussing--as Robert Kaplan did in a recent New York Times op-ed--more modest steps, such as sending U.S. Marines on boats to deliver supplies to the hardest-hit areas. But, either way, realistic options would be considered for saving Burmese lives, even if those options involved violating Burmese sovereignty.

Instead, American diplomats in Asia have explicitly avoided direct criticism of the regime. And, even as the USAID brigade waits for visas in Bangkok so that it can enter Burma, the White House has made sure to clarify that no threat of force is on the horizon.

This is, put simply, an unacceptable abdication of our moral responsibilities. Even though our standing in the world has been severely diminished by Iraq, we should at least be debating intervention in Burma. There are, no doubt, many logistical complications and unintended consequences that would follow from such a policy. But there are also reasons why it should be a live option. The goal of such an intervention need not be regime change; it should simply be to make sure that a vulnerable population receives the supplies it desperately needs. Of course, if violating the sovereignty of a murderous regime happens to undermine that regime's legitimacy, then that would not be such a terrible result. But this does not necessarily have to be our goal.

Yes, folks, they actually want us to invade Burma and perhaps overthrow their regime not because it helps our country, but in order to feed people.

Are these not the same people who have spent the last few years ceaselessly criticizing every move the Bush Administration has made in Afghanistan and Iraq? Aren't they the same ones who have been telling us time and time and time again that we were too careless going into Iraq and that there's nothing worth fighting for in Iraq? Haven't liberals been screaming for years, often while wearing Bush ='s Hitler shirts and carrying giant puppet heads, that war never settles anything and that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? But now, they want to invade Burma?

Now, personally? I have sympathy for the people in Burma and am glad we've tried to get aid to them. However, it's not really our problem, it has nothing to do with our national interest, and even if so, we have a lot bigger fish to fry.

Besides, we're not the only country with a military. If somebody "needs" to do something about Burma, let the Europeans or the blue helmets at the UN -- who have been sitting on the sidelines complaining about the way we've run the war on terror -- go in there and show us how it's done. If the UN is so effective and the EU is a new "super power" that doesn't need our help, let them act like it. Seeing them take on some real responsibility instead of acting like backseat drivers would be a welcome change.

"This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Of our elaborate plans, the end
Of everything that stands, the end
No safety or surprise, the end
Ill never look into your eyes...again" -- The Doors

The AP has released a story saying that Hillary is going to concede tonight, but the campaign has denied that it's true.

However, according to Terry McAuliffe, Hillary will give up the ghost if Obama hits 2118 delegates.

CBS is saying that Obama sits a mere 36 delegates away from that number and the Politico is saying that the delegates he'll collect in South Dakota, Montana, and from the super delegates will probably put him over the top.

That's probably correct.

Theoretically, could Hillary fight on all the way to the convention and try to get the super delegates to switch their votes back to her?

Sure, but that would take her over the line from "scrappy & tenacious" to "obsessed." On the other hand, she could still step out now, negotiate with the Obama campaign to pay off her debts from the run, and be in position to be a strong contender in 2012 if he loses. All that would disappear if she fought on after it appeared that he had captured the nomination.

So, is Hillary going to concede tonight? Probably not, unless Obama definitively locks it up in the next few hours. However, is it likely that this race will be over by the end of the week? Yes, it is.

This is the end for Hillary.

Update #1: According to the AP, Obama has clinched it.

Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

The 46-year-old first-term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.

Clinton was ready to concede that her rival had amassed the delegates needed to triumph, according to officials in her campaign. These officials said the New York senator did not intend to suspend or end her candidacy in a speech Tuesday night in New York. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they had not been authorized to divulge her plans.

Barack Obama's recently strategically disowned church, which he had been attending for 20 years, is famous not just for its hostility to Caucasians, but for its fiery denunciations of America. Long-term friends of Obama like Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger are famous for drawing rousing applause by screaming "God damn America!" and "America is the greatest sin against God!"

All this hate must be directed against America's people, not its government, which has been extraordinarily generous toward Trinity United, having treated it to at least $15 million in federal grants.

Andrew Walsh of the Leonard E. Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life with Trinity College in Hartford explains why there's no hypocrisy involved in Reverend Wrong's habit of biting the hand that feeds:

Wright believes things like the government-funded programs are a necessary compensation for the legacy of white racism, part of what's necessary to heal the wounds inflicted over four centuries on blacks.

I keep forgetting: white people are the racists, not the Black Liberation Theology maniacs screaming racial epithets from their tax-exempt and taxpayer-subsidized pulpits.

If the government is already extracting $millions from our paychecks to shower down upon the Reverend Wrights of the world, imagine what it will be like with Obama as President. Race-based "churches" may be the only sector of the economy that will actually grow.

On a tip from Oiao. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

An initiative that would again outlaw gay marriage in California has qualified for the November ballot, the Secretary of State announced Monday.

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen said a random check of signatures submitted by the measure's sponsors showed that they had gathered enough names for it to be put to voters.

The measure would amend the state constitution to "provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

As I read this opinion, I kept wondering when I'd run into the inevitable discussion about incest and polygamy. Those of us who oppose homosexual "marriage" often argue, with good reason, that allowing two men to "marry" opens the floodgate to allowing just about anyone to marry. I never found that discussion because there wasn't one. Instead, there's a footnote. A footnote. From page 79 (emphasis added):

"We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry."

Wait a second. Our nation's culture has also considered homosexual relationships "inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry," has it not?

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals.

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

Rachel Lucas: Two minutes of hate: bloggers are liars and sin is what Obama decides it is.

Moonbattery: Democratic Underground calls for citizen's arrests of political opponents

Blogs for Victory: Funny photoshop: Hillary for VP

Celebslam: Queen Latifah bathing suit pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

The website of the day is Five Feet Of Fury.

This shouldn't surprise many people. According to a Pew Research poll, the liberals who relentlessly advocate higher taxes are three times more likely than conservatives to think it's okay to cheat when paying them. They are more than twice as likely to excuse getting paid under the table so as to keep collecting unemployment benefits. Liberals also have less of a problem with shoplifting and buying stolen goods.

A study published in the Journal of Legal Tax Research confirms that liberals take tax evasion less seriously. One in the Journal of Business Ethics found that conservatives have "higher levels of ethical values." Another in the same journal found that liberals are more likely to cheat, plagiarize, and let others take the blame for their ethical lapses. The Journal of Psychology found a link between liberal political views and "lying in your own self-interest."

Peter Schweitzer blames this not on liberals being bad people, but on them having been corrupted by a bad ideology:

Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective.

Sixties organizer Saul Alinsky, who both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton say inspired and influenced them, once said the effective political advocate "doesn't have a fixed truth; truth to him is relative and changing, everything to him is relative and changing. He is a political relativist."

What's wrong with cheating and lying when reality is whatever we find it convenient to pretend it is?

The choice isn't so much between right and left, as between right and wrong. Yet again we see that liberalism is the ideology of decline.

On a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

WaPo's Richard Cohen has "come to loathe the campaign." Most notably:

I loathe above all the resurgence of racism -- or maybe it is merely my appreciation of the fact that it is wider and deeper than I thought.

He's shocked that people admit to race being a consideration in the Obama-Clinton campaign. Why a veteran observer of human events is surprised by this, I don't know, but one understands at least his sadness over the fact.

The troubling thing, though, is that his "appreciation of facts" is weak pretty much across the board. He goes on to lament a whole series of developments that, like race as a factor in the human experience, should have been pretty obvious to him well before this campaign cycle.

These are the things that sadden Cohen:

* Hillary Clinton's "incessant exaggerations, the cheap shots, the flights into hallucinatory history" and the fact that she's "managed to come across as a hungry hack, a Janus looking both forward and backward and seeming to stand for nothing except winning."

* Bill Clinton is Bill Clinton.

* The press' "incessant blogging and commenting and talking and yapping and hype."

* There's some possibility that a Democrat won't win the presidency.

Where has this man been?

This content was used with the permission of Outside the Beltway.

Yesterday, I ran a poll on global warming. The question was,

Which of these two positions better describes your feelings about Global Warming?

There were 763 responses and here's how it broke down,

The jury is still out on global warming and more research is needed before we take action to deal with it (97%)

Global warming is definitely happening, it's caused by people, and we need to take strong action to stop it. (3%)

Why, the Nobel Peace Prize committee would probably have a heart attack after reading those numbers. Did you people not watch Captain Planet enough as a kid? Didn't you see Earth in the Balance? Haven't you noticed all the celebrities who really "care" about this issue?

Man, propaganda just doesn't work as well as it used to in this country.

Bonus poll: Yesterday, my co-blogger Dr. Melissa Clouthier ran a poll on gay marriage. It received 473 responses and read,

Gay Marriage.....

Should be legal (11%)

Should be illegal, but I support Civil Unions (34%)

Should be illegal and the laws as they exist are fine (55%)

A snippet from an actual conversation I had on IM last night,

(Anonymous friend): You feeling good about November?

(John Hawkins): Not really because it's lose/lose no matter who gets in, it could go either way on the presidential side, and we are probably going to lose seats in Congress no matter what happens.

In April, the annual report of Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion--with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.

And what market-distorting results do we get for those government incentives? 289,650 abortions in 2006.

You could come up with plenty of reasons for Obama NOT to take Hillary Clinton as his Veep.

He's running on a platform of change and the Clintons are "old school" politics at its worst. They don't like each other. The Clintons have a lot of baggage. Hill and her hubby have insulted Obama numerous times. The Clintons would be a huge sideshow in the White House. Working with egos the size of the Clintons for four years would be brutal. Having the first black candidate and the first woman on the same ticket would be "too much" change for one ticket. Hillary's home state, New York, will go to Obama any way. Hillary has high negatives and will help inspire conservatives to vote McCain.

You can go on and on with reasons why Obama shouldn't select Hillary as his Vice-President.

However, there is one thing Hillary brings to the table that Obama can't ignore: her supporters.

Hillary won the popular vote and a lot of her supporters, quite legitimately, believe that she wasn't treated fairly by the press. They also feel like she didn't get a fair shake from the super delegates and they're angry at the insults that have been aimed at them by Obama supporters. Many of these people, the more moderate ones anyway, will consider voting for John McCain or sitting home before they'll pull the lever for Obama.

But -- and this is a big but -- if Hillary were to join up with Obama, you'd have to think that the overwhelming majority of her disaffected supporters would just let bygones be bygones. What that means is that Hillary can probably deliver more votes in November to Obama than anyone else he could choose just by keeping her supporters from defecting.

Hillary Clinton drew more than 17 million voters in the primaries. If just 10% of those people stay home or vote McCain, that could be enough to cost Obama the White House in what is shaping up to be another tight election.

With that in mind, Barack Obama would be very foolish not to seriously consider making Hillary Clinton his #2.

Update #1: From Jimmy Carter,

"Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.

"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."

Carter, who formally endorsed the Illinois senator last night, cited opinion polls showing 50% of US voters with a negative view of Clinton.

In terms that might discomfort the Obama camp, he said: "If you take that 50% who just don't want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don't think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he's got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds."

After many years of watching Jimmy Carter, the one thing I have learned about him is that he is almost always wrong about everything related to foreign policy, human nature, and politics. That means if he thinks it's a bad idea, it must be the smartest thing that Obama could possibly do. So, root hard against a Barry/Hill ticket...

It's quite ironic that most people seem to believe that liberals are more concerned about education than conservatives because libs put a much lower value on actually educating children than conservatives do.

Now, teaching children Left-Wing propaganda in school? Liberals care a lot about that. Catering to every whim of the teachers' unions that help Democrats win elections? Liberals are all about that.

But, actually educating kids? Honestly, I believe that there are more than a few liberals who would rather keep children stupid because they believe it's to their advantage.

For example, take a look at this story from Britain where the Left is slowly but surely, systematically destroying that country from the inside,

Children should no longer be taught traditional subjects at school because they are "middle-class" creations, a Government adviser will claim today.

Professor John White, who contributed to a controversial shake-up of the secondary curriculum, believes lessons should instead cover a series of personal skills.

Pupils would no longer study history, geography and science but learn skills such as energy- saving and civic responsibility through projects and themes.

...The professor believes the origins of our subject-based education system can be traced back to 19th century middle-class values.

While public schools focused largely on the classics, and elementary schools for the working class concentrated on the three Rs, middle-class schools taught a range of academic subjects.

These included English, maths, history, geography, science and Latin or a modern language.

They "fed into the idea of academic learning as the mark of a well-heeled middle- class", he said last night.

The Tories then attempted to impose these middle-class values by introducing a traditional subject-based curriculum in 1988.

But this "alienated many youngsters, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds", he claimed.

The professor, who specialises in philosophy of education, was a member of a committee set up to advise Government curriculum authors on changes to secondary schooling for 11 to 14-year-olds.

The reforms caused a row when they were unveiled last year for sidelining large swathes of subject content in favour of lessons on issues such as climate change and managing debt.

Note that this is not just some lunatic spouting off in the forums of the Democratic Underground; it's a person who's actually advising the British government on what to put in its school curriculum.

If lefties like this guy have their way, kids won't know math, science, or history, but they will be able to quote to you from Earth in the Balance. That's really where liberal priorities really are when it comes to education.

Hat tip to Knowledge is Power for the story.

Jacques Diouf, Director General of the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization, has been denouncing the West for the fact that Africans are too sunk in moonbattery to feed themselves. Listen to him rail:

No one understands… how over-consumption by obese people in the [Western] world costs $20 billion each year.

The media is only too happy to help him convince the gullible that Africans are starving because fat white people snatch the food from their mouths. Check out this pair of pictures from LiveNews.com:

That's some powerful propaganda. Now here's a picture that tells the real story:

These are William and Annette Rogers, who were assaulted, whipped, and shot after Robert Mugabe supporters gave them two minutes to leave their property in Zimbabwe. Their story is both harrowing and common among the white farmers who have not yet managed to escape this formerly civilized country.

Their farm will now belong to thugs of the proper skin color. Instead of producing food, it will be taken over by weeds, as the U.N. and its media toadies point the finger at Caucasian children for eating too much cotton candy.

Meanwhile, Mugabe is in Rome at the invitation of Jacque Doofus's FAO, despite having been formally forbidden to travel in Europe as a result of his criminal conduct as Zimbabwe's socialist dictator. At a previous U.N. food conference, Mugabe boasted that his policy of stealing farms from white people was going to increase the former Breadbasket of Africa's food supply. Now people are starving there, the country's money is worthless, and Mugabe has been using foreign food aid as a political weapon.

In related news, racist socialist Barack Obama has the Democrat nomination sewn up.

Hat tips: Free Republic; on tips from Cheetah and V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Late last night Harry Reid took the Senate floor to advance a motion to shut down debate on the Boxer Climate Tax bill, also know as "cap-and-trade." Reid's "cloture" motion, if successful, will have the effect of silencing the bill's critics in the Senate. After cloture is adopted, no amendments to the bill will be allowed.

Clearly, Reid and Boxer see the writing on the wall. If this bill is subject to too much scrutiny it will crumble under the weight of its own stupidity. As I mentioned earlier, this debate is taking a very similar shape to the debate over so-called immigration reform. The heavy-handed tactics employed by the pro-amnesty crowd in the Senate are now being employed by the leftist enviros. Silencing dissent is their only chance.

The problem for them, is the Senate is built to allow dissent. As was the case with immigration, a small but vocal minority took down the bill. History may repeat itself in the coming days.

-- Atlas is a conservative congressional aide, and a long-time fan and reader of Right Wing News.

Today is Q&A Friday #90 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 just about anything; politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, movies, music, literature, or TV. Then later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

Ask away!

PS: My co-blogger, Dr. Melissa Clouthier, said it might be fun to answer a couple of questions as well. So, if you have any questions for her, feel free to fire away.

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

Ann Coulter: Obama was selected, not elected

Cracked: 7 innocent gestures that can get you killed overseas

Kontraband: Terrible tatoos of celebrities

Egotastic!: Abigail Clancy bikini pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

At 4:00 PM EST, I'm going to be on the Jaz McKay show.

Click on Stickam in the left corner to listen to the show.

So, where do you want the porta-potties for this here rally, sir?

Set them up over there, on that memorial, yeah, that one, with the flag at half-staff:

PORTLAND, OR - Police officers in Portland, Oregon, are still waiting for an apology from Barack Obama after campaign staffers of his recent rally in Portland, Oregon, setup porta potties directly on top of the Portland Police Memorial, which honors the agency's 25 fallen police officers.

Obama staffers said that only that one particular open area, out of many, was suitable for wheelchair access.

This content was used with the permission of The Jawa Report.

Pic stolen from IMAO

Chuck Todd is a generally solid, lefty political analyst who occasionally lets his political leanings affect his judgment. Here's an intriguing but skewed analysis of the electoral map that he helped create,

Obama's wider map: About two months ago, we unveiled our early look at the electoral map. And this being the second official day of the general election, now's as good a time as any to see where we stand in the McCain vs. Obama race.

Base Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, NY, RI, VT (153 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: ME, NJ, MN, OR, WA (47 votes)
Toss-up: CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NM, NH, OH, PA, VA, WI (138 votes)
Lean McCain: AR, GA, IN, LA, MS, MO, MT, NE, NC, ND (84 votes)
Base McCain: AL, AK, AZ, ID, KS, KY, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (116 votes)

While both McCain and Obama get to 200 when adding up their base and lean states, it's clear to see that Obama has an early edge with the map. Not only does he have a stronger base than McCain does (153 votes vs. 116), but he also has more potential pick-up opportunities. When you add toss-up and "Lean McCain," Obama has the potential for another 222 votes outside his favored states. By comparison, McCain's toss-up and "Lean Obama" comes to 185. Of course, potential sometimes means just that -- potential. At the end of the day, Obama will likely win few, if any, of those Lean McCain states. But his reach right now seems much longer than McCain's.

There are two problems with this analysis that I see.

The first issue is one that Todd and Company touch upon: neither McCain nor Obama is likely to win any of the states that are leaning in the other direction. Admittedly, it COULD happen, but it probably won't.

What that means is that in their breakdown, both candidates start out with the same number of "safe" electoral votes. In other words, the "wider map" really doesn't pan out.

Now, here's the real kicker: given how it has been polling so far and the demographics of the state, Florida should probably be in the "lean McCain" category instead of being treated as a toss-up.

So, if we move Florida's 25 electoral votes into the lean McCain category, here's what we get:

Obama base and lean: 200
McCain base and lean: 225
Toss-up: 113
Electoral votes needed for victory: 270

How's that map looking now?

PS: This doesn't mean McCain is necessarily going to win because it could still go either way, but at least for the moment, McCain still looks more likely to come out on top in November.

To get an idea of the insanity in store for us if B. Hussein Obama gets to pick judges, consider some of the nutcases appointed even by Bush — terrorist-pampering U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke, for example.

Currently Judge Kook is holding up the transfer of convicted terrorist Kifah Wael Jayyousi to a maximum security unit in Terre Haute, Indiana, because his communications would be closely monitored and visitors limited. This would interfere with his ability to conduct terror operations from behind bars (à la Omar Abdel-Rahman), and — according to some of the moonbats running our legal system — violate his "rights." Why a district judge in Florida thinks she can dictate the conditions at federal prisons in Indiana is anyone's guess.

Jayyousi was convicted together with the Dirty Bomber Jose Padilla. Earlier, Judge Kook rejected prosectors' demands for harsh punishment for Padilla, and exploited the case as an opportunity to denounce his supposed harsh treatment, whimpering on his behalf that he had been held without a Koran or entertainment opportunities.

Padilla wanted to set off a radioactive bomb in an American city. But evidence of that couldn't be presented in the circus environment of a normal criminal court, probably because it was classified. The trained al Qaeda killer could be free to continue his terrorist activities in less than 13 years.

Welcome to the future of the War on Terror. Both Obama and McCain have promised to close Club Gitmo, so that all terrorists can be treated to mollycoddling at exorbitant taxpayer expense by moonbats like Judge Kook.

Hat tip: The Corner; on a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

There's no need for the Mariners to apologize for this,

Most of the time, a kiss is just a kiss in the stands at Seattle Mariners games. The crowd hardly even pays attention when fans smooch.

But then last week, a lesbian complained that an usher at Safeco Field asked her to stop kissing her date because it was making another fan uncomfortable.

The incident has exploded on local TV, on talk radio and in the blogosphere and has touched off a debate over public displays of affection in generally gay-friendly Seattle.

"Certain individuals have not yet caught up. Those people see a gay or lesbian couple and they stare or say something," said Josh Friedes of Equal Rights Washington. "This is one of the challenges of being gay. Everyday things can become sources of trauma."

As the Mariners played the Boston Red Sox on May 26, Sirbrina Guerrero and her date were approached in the third inning by an usher who told them their kissing was inappropriate, Guerrero said.

The usher, Guerrero said, told them he had received a complaint from a woman nearby who said that there were kids in the crowd of nearly 36,000 and that parents would have to explain why two women were kissing.

"I was really just shocked," Guerrero said. "Seattle is so gay-friendly. There was a couple like seven rows ahead making out. We were just showing affection."

On Monday, Mariners spokeswoman Rebecca Hale said that the club is investigating but that the usher was responding to a complaint of two women "making out" and "groping" in the stands.

"We have a strict non-discrimination policy at the Seattle Mariners and at Safeco Field, and when we do enforce the code of conduct it is based on behavior, not on the identity of those involved," Hale said.

The code of conduct announced before each game specifically mentions public displays of affection that are "not appropriate in a public, family setting." Hale said those standards are based on what a "reasonable person" would find inappropriate.

Guerrero denied she and her date were groping each other, saying that along with eating garlic fries, they were giving each other brief kisses.

First of all, public displays of affection make some people uncomfortable and that's why it was entirely appropriate for the Mariners not to allow that behavior at their games. If people don't like that, they can pick out a better make-out spot than in the stands of a Mariner's game -- and honestly, just about everywhere is a better make-out spot than in the stands of a Mariners' game.

Now, the article complains that there were other people in the crowd making out who got away with it. That may be true, but so what? If you get a speeding ticket, is it invalidated because someone else got away with speeding on the same highway?

Of course, there's a little he-said/she-said issue going on: The Mariners say the gay couple was making out and groping while the women say they were just giving each other a little kiss here and there -- so what?

They were told the rules up front, they were arguably breaking the rules just by kissing, and it's the Mariners ballpark.

If they don't like that, then they should go spend their money elsewhere instead of trying to turn the whole thing into a "gay rights" issue.

PS: Given the exhibitionism, whininess, and urge to offend people that's so common in the gay community today, the next home game will probably be a nightmare. For example, don't be surprised if two gay guys start having sex in front of a group of 3rd graders at the next Mariners' game because they believe it strikes some sort of blow for gay rights.

Nanny State moonbattery is having its intended effect: reducing humans to soft, squishy things incapable of thinking for themselves:

Our health and safety culture is producing a generation of 'bland' children who do not know how to evaluate risks, a headmaster has warned.

Jonathan Hughes-D'Aeth said that pupils' development was being "stifled".

He told a conference of independent school heads in London about an incident last year where two children assumed that it must be safe to leap into the sea from a harbour wall — because there were no warning signs.

He said: "They exemplify a generation of young children who have not been given the chance to evaluate for themselves the risks of the dangers which are around them."

Rather than learning a lesson from minor bumps and scrapes, children are taught by their parasitical parents to whimper and snivel in court in exchange for someone else's money.

Norwich Union experts have said a U.S.-style compensation culture is sweeping through Britain. Parents were now less likely to accept minor injuries to their children — such as cuts, grazes and bruises — as accidents and instead sued for personal injury, they said.

Wandering off education's moonbat reservation, Hughes-D'Aeth observes,

If we take drowning as an example, the best form of protection is actually to teach children how to swim, not putting up large numbers of notices banning swimming. Systems themselves do not create safety. Competent people do.

However, self-reliant, competent people are a threat to authorities, so they are being systematically eliminated in favor of cowardly, unthinking, bovine farm animals that can be bred for votes — which might explain idiocy like this:

• Children at Cummersdale Primary School in Carlisle were told to wear goggles when playing conkers
• Youngsters taking beach donkey rides in Bogor Regis were told to wear hard hats
• Councillors in Bristol ordered 100 yew trees next to a playground to be chopped down in case children poison themselves by eating the leaves
• Three swings at Great Somerford in Wiltshire were taken down because they were slightly too high under EU regulations
• Derby City Council told schools to cancel trips in sunny weather in case the pupils were sunburned

On a tip from Lyle. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

I watch March Madness and choose whichever Michigan team is in it. And after that, whichever Big Ten team is winning. And after that, any team except the Syracuse Orangemen which is a pretty good bet because Jim Boeheim sucks butt and the Orangemen are always underachievers (except when Carmello Anthony was coaching from the floor).

Back in the day, I used to love the NBA but I believe that Michael Jordan ushered in it's downfall. As the super selfish superstar, big salary and big ego, until later in his career, Jordan redefined NBA basketball in his image. Basketball only succeeds as a team sport and yet, now, the NBA is filled with scores of individual players who seem inured whether they win or lose. It's ridiculous. That being said, my husband has been watching the play-offs and of course, I have an opinion. My favorite team, the Pistons, is out. They play with a frustrating hot and coldness that I lay at the feet of the coach. I do like the Rockets and San Antonio. Dallas blows. Dirk Nowitzki is the definition of German socialism on the basketball court. He cracks under pressure, too. Meh.

Since I'm originally from Michigan and spent my High School years in Lansing and played basketball myself (my favorite sport to play), I was a fan of Earvin "Magic" Johnson. His parents lived in the area. His High School, Eastern was a rival team of ours and my brother went to his basketball camp in the summer. I followed Magic through Michigan State and then on into Los Angeles when I became a Lakers fan (except when they played the Pistons). While I respected Larry Bird, I did not like the Celtics.

Here's my dilemma now: The Lakers and the Celtics start the NBA Finals tonight. I am a traditional Lakers fan. There is only one not-so-minor problem--I loath Kobe Bryant. In fact, I think loath might be too mild for how much that man-child gets on my nerves. He embodies everything I despise about the NBA these days. He's entitled. He's selfish. He's weak-minded. He's immature. The NBA rewarded him this year with the MVP and every word that has come out of his big, stupid, toothy-grinned mouth since that wicked moment has been utter bullsh*t.

In contrast, I really like Kevin Garnett. He has class. He represents the Celtics tradition well. The Celtics have worked hard with little drama and no scandal. And even though I am not a Celtics fan, just to see Kobe Bryant denied, I will be cheering for them tonight. If there was a way to vote against Kobe and for the Celtics, I would.

So, who do you guys pick to win the series? Does anyone even watch the NBA anymore? Unfortunately, I think the Lakers have a good odds. It makes me almost as sick as considering Obama as the next President. That these yahoos even have a chance.... Well, some years are better than others.

Here are the 7 dumbest moments from B.O.'s "I am the nominee speech", with my brief comments following after each one,

7) At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office.

Should we be proud that the least talented, least qualified person in the field actually won?

6) In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

It's hilarious that he dings McCain for denying his "accomplishments" and then doesn't list them. What are they supposed to be? He has made it to the US Senate and defeated Hillary Clinton. Has he done anything else of note that would merit a mention in the race for the Presidency? Anything?

5) I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years

Obama keeps bringing this nonsensical point up over and over. It has gotten to the point where you have to wonder if Mr. "57 states" even understands that we have had troops in places like Germany, Japan, and Korea for a long time after the fighting in those nations ended. If this guy doesn't even know how many states there are, he may not know that we've been in those nations for all these years either. After all, in the IQ department, Obama is definitely on the back end of the curve for a US senator.

4) Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future -- an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.

Ok, so we have a man who can't afford gas and none of the "solutions" Obama offers will reduce the cost of gas. It was amazing to hear people clap for this idiocy.

3) What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon..."

Well, I bet Obama isn't going to be attacking anyone on their patriotism and religious issues. That's why they say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It would be like my ripping on someone for being conservative and Southern.

2) ...I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment -- this was the time -- when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

So we're not caring for the sick and the jobless can't get jobs? The unemployment rate is 5.0%. Obama is going to affect the level of the oceans? What? America isn't the "last, best hope on earth" any more and Obama is going to be the guy to fix that? In all seriousness, if that were our problem, would someone as inept as Barack Obama be the guy we'd want to tackle it?

1) In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

America isn't great now -- But -- if we elect Barack Obama, all "fundamentally good" people will vote for him and the country will be great again? Oh, please save us, Barack! What a low opinion of this country and a high opinion of himself this guy has.

PS: It's fascinating that so many people gave Obama high marks for this speech. Yes, he delivered it well, but it was absolutely riddled with idiocy. The "stupid" doesn't just disappear because Obama is good at reading what people write for him.

Oh boy, some dude over at Kim's place is bitching because he has to get a permit to put in a pool in his yard and no blankety-blank government should interfere with what is happening on his property. Well, it's an interesting argument. Houston is rather notorious for it's lack of building codes. In fact, buying homes outside of certain communities can put a person in a precarious living situation. The downside is possible death by burning due to faulty wiring, foundation shifting and building collapse, or drowning due to flooding. Well, that last one is less likely because there are no basements. Most likely, everything and everyone will just get really wet.

I live in a planned community where there are codes and rules. Out of state friends have snorted in derision at my snobbiness and then I point out that I know people who live in the country and down the street from their lovely five acres, a land-fill is going in. Nice. Oh, and next door, their neighbors have their toilet plumbed to a hole in the ground. That tends to knock the edges off a person's home value.

On the upside, housing in Houston is cheaper and Houston is not suffering the disastrous loss in home values that other places are experiencing.

In heavily restricted states and cities, like in New York, for example, it could be argued that the tight codes have contributed to inflated home prices. This article is from 1999 but the principles still hold:

Another recent report examined why prices are so high. Conducted by New York University for the city and the New York City Partnership, it found that because of corruption, outdated regulations and higher labor and material costs, residential construction in the five boroughs is the most expensive in America. Those hurdles stop many projects, further squeezing the market and driving up prices.

This study said the city can spur housing development by revising building codes and zoning regulations and by freeing up more city-owned land. The city also could waive or reduce permit fees for new projects and revise the tax structure so vacant land is taxed at a higher rate, while providing breaks for new multifamily housing.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier

"Pathetic hags..."[with nothing] to aspire to other than being attractive, having pretty clothes and having sex..." -- Dawn Eden on Sex and the City

Sex and the City was the ultimate "chick flick" TV series and like most men, I spent years avoiding it like a prostate exam. However, after discussing the show with the incomparable Dawn Eden when I interviewed her about her surprisingly deep and spiritual book, The Thrill Of The Chaste, I decided to take the plunge and actually watch a season of the show. Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed watching Sex and the City so much that I cycled through three seasons in roughly two months time.

Why was the show alluring? Well, it featured four attractive, single women in their mid-thirties getting into funny situations that revolved around dating and sex -- and then talking about them without men around. For a single man in his thirties, it was almost like watching tapes that had been sneaked across enemy lines. Moreover, the characters, while not necessarily sympathetic, were at least intriguing.

There's Miranda, a feisty, slightly neurotic lawyer who's frustrated with men. She was the only character who would occasionally go an entire episode without having a man in her bed.

Next is Samantha, a walking, talking female libido who has very little to her personality beyond being generally assertive and sleeping with just about any good looking man she can coax into her bed.

Then there's Charlotte, the "nice" commitment-oriented, more "conservative" woman who's totally focused on getting married. She is a very likable character in some ways, but almost as unrealistic as Samantha when looked at as a whole. How do you take a character seriously when she's supposed to be a good girl who actually gets horribly offended when her own friends drop "F-bombs" in her presence, but meanwhile, she ended up sleeping with almost as many different guys as Samantha did during the first three seasons?

And last but not least, there's Carrie Bradshaw, who's supposed to represent the "every woman" watching the show. Of course, the fact that the character people are supposed to be able to best relate to -- is a woman who writes a column about sex for the local paper, is obsessed with high fashion, and spends her time frantically alternating between meaningless flings and long-term relationships -- tells you a lot about the show.
As a group, although the show tries to portray them as likeable, with the possible exception of Charlotte, they're an extraordinarily selfish group of women with meaningless empty lives. Their jobs are an afterthought, they're all as shallow as kiddie pools, and they look at people outside of their little group, including the men in their lives, as little more than disposable playthings that have no purpose other than to make them happy.

Does that mean that Sex and the City promotes a promiscuous, unhealthy lifestyle? Yes, it does, although to be fair, the show does occasionally show the consequences of sleeping around.

For example, one of my favorite moments in the first three seasons is when Samantha gets sick, knocks a curtain rod down, and needs help getting it back up. So, she starts calling all the different one-night-stands she has been with and even though she goes through an enormous number of them, not one of them cares enough about her to come over and help.

Unfortunately, such moments happened far too seldom on the show and were so sanitized that as a conservative, you almost want to cheer when one of the women actually has to deal with a consequence of sleeping with a different guy every week....

Which brings me to the movie. Much to my chagrin, Charlotte and Miranda were married when the movie started and Samantha and Carrie were in long-term relationships. This was horrifying because the dating stories were the heart of the series for the first three seasons. It was almost like watching an A-Team movie where the guys had given up helping people and spend the whole movie playing monopoly and checkers.

So, if there were no dating stories, what was going on? Lots of brutally painful relationship stories along with talk about fashion. In other words, it was guy hell. We could put that movie on constant rotation at Gitmo and within a couple of days, the terrorists there would be begging to be waterboarded just to get away from their TV screens.
At about the 40 minute mark, I was ready to gouge my eyes out with my thumbs to stop the pain and that's when I remembered that the movie ran a full two hours and twenty minutes. Furthermore, I couldn't leave because I had to discuss the movie in this column. At that point, if they had cyanide capsules at the concession stand, I might have bought a handful.

Later that night, after calling some female friends who were big fans of the show, I found out that it got much more relationship-oriented in the later seasons. Had I only known, I would have just written column #47 on Barack Obama instead of spending more than two hours of my life in that Prada nightmare.

If you want a quick review of the movie, it's easy to give you one in less than five words. For women it's, "Relationship stuff. You'll love it!" and for men, it's just "Run!"

Beyond that, two things really stuck out for me about the movie.
The first is that the show's view of "love" is just as warped as its view of dating. The movie features this romance novel notion that when a mutual mistake breaks up a couple, the man should pine away for her, hopelessly in love for months and months, with no encouragement, no reason to think it's not over -- until the woman finally changes her mind and they take up right where they left off. In the real world, as often as not, this is called creepy, stalkerish behavior.

The other unintentionally sad but telling moment, requires a mini-spoiler so consider yourself forewarned if you continue.
Near the end of the film, Samantha -- who has been with a much younger, good looking, rich, successful man who has worshiped the ground she walks on for five years -- dumps him because she wants to have sex with different guys. The movie then finishes as the girls celebrate her 50th birthday party. Perhaps the message is intended to be empowering somehow, suggesting that Samantha didn't need a man or a family in her life to be content or perhaps were supposed to conclude she should be congratulated for being true to her nature. However, the reality is that she's 50 years old, her friends are all in long term relationships, and her days of going clubbing with them and picking up hot guys for casual sex are probably about to draw to a end. So even in its closing moments, like the rest of the show, the movie promotes a lifestyle and a value system that may be entertaining, but makes utter wreckage of people's lives.

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

Mark Steyn: Geez, these days I don't seem able to step out of the house without committing a hate crime

John McWhorter: Barack Obama being nominated proves racism is in retreat in America

Cracked: The 6 most ill-conceived video game accessories ever

Celebslam: Cora Skinner bikini pics!

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

As many of you know, Right Wing News has been going through some changes over the last couple of weeks.

Well, they are now complete and I thought I'd give you a rundown of what has been happening with the page.

First of all, RWN is now a group blog -- and not just on the week-ends.

During the week, I will be regularly posting along with Dr. Melissa Clouthier & Van Helsing from Moonbattery. I'll probably be adding one more regular guest blogger as well.

Also, you will be seeing occasional (probably 1-2 posts a week) from Atlas (an anonymous congressional aide), former congressional aide and tech junky, David All, and E.M. Zanotti from The American Princess.

Once I get the final guest blogger in place, it's going to mean that the amount of content on RWN is going to have roughly doubled each day from 6 posts to around 12.

Additionally, there were some other changes made, some of which you'll be able to see and some of which, you won't.

* At the top of the page, you'll now notice a new "features" section. It has a "featured post," a "secondary featured post," and the 30 latest posts grouped by author. This will make it easy to cycle through the large amount of content RWN is putting out each day.

* RWN has moved to a new private server that should keep the downtime for the page to a minimum and make posting comments easier.

* The version of Movable Type powering the page has been upgraded.

* Some minor, but significant changes have been made to the look of the blog. Essentially, I've gone with snazzier looking buttons instead of text in a lot of areas.

* RWN now has a brand spanking new Forum, which is something people have been requesting for a long time.

* Registration at RWN can now be opened and closed at my leisure. It is currently closed and will be opened at random periods so that the page's regulars can join, but so that trolls that can shift around their IP will have much more difficulty coming back after they're banned.

* You'll notice headshots for all the authors -- well, actually just Melissa and me so far =D -- but, I'll be getting more people to submit their headshots and you'll be able to get an idea of what the people writing the articles look like -- most of the time any way.

* There are now buttons for My Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn page on the left although I have to admit that I mainly use Facebook these days.

* You'll see a new star rating system on each post -- and it actually makes a difference. When you click on a headline in the feature section and it goes directly to the post, you'll see the top 10 most starred and top 10 most commented upon articles over the last 10 days. Your rankings and where you make your comments help determine which articles make that list.

* The "ad" in the feature section and the "referrers" used to have to be changed by hand. That's no longer the case.

* A problem with spacing in the RWN archives was corrected.

* Trackbacks were dumped because spammers were hammering that feature so hard that they were actually knocking the page down at times.

* You can now submit RWN articles to a number of different websites via links at the bottom of each page.

* At the very bottom of RWN, we now have a banner ad (Starting price $100. For that, you get a single banner ad (no sharing the slot) that runs on every page of RWN. You'll also see a section called "Earlier this week," which should display all the articles that have dropped off the page earlier this week.

All this work was done by Danny Carlton, who is, without a doubt, the best designer and scripter a blogger could ever have working for him.

Last but not least, I think these changes are going to improve RWN considerably. The page is going to have much more content, will be easier to navigate, will have more features, be stickier, and should generally just deliver a better experience for readers. Hope you like the changes!

Seattle Parks and Recreation may push the envelope of environmentalist absurdity over the edge by banning bonfires on the grounds they could cause global warming.

From a memo to the park board from staff:

The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon … emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming.

Grown adults, presumably walking around unmedicated, actually believe that bonfires on the beach will heat up the planet. It's getting scary out there.

What if we just told these 21st century savages that they can avert global warming by wearing green on Thursdays, or maybe by shaking a bone at the sun? That would leave the rest of us free to go about our business.

But of course, the erosion of freedoms we always took for granted isn't an unfortunate byproduct of environmentalism — it's the point of environmentalism.

Now even the Flintstones are more advanced than what moonbats would allow.

On tips from John H, V the K, and Wiggins. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Question: "Hawkins - Do you ever leave comments on other blogs? If so, do you use your own identity, or do you do so anonymously or with a pseudonym? If not, is just a question of not having time to do so?" -- huckupchuck

Answer: I very seldom comment on my own blog or on other blogs for two reasons.

#1) I figure that the time spent working on a comment that will be read by a small subset of the people on the blog could be better spent working on a post that will be read by everyone on my blog.

#2) I've been blogging for so long that I've gotten a little numb to things said in the comments section.

* If someone insults me in the comments section on my own blog, 99 times out of 100, I just don't care. If the insult is particularly egregious or inappropriate, I delete it and ban him. If someone insults me in the comments section of another blog, I don't ever care.

* If another blog insults me, I'm usually content to ignore it, but if I do decide to respond, I want to do it on my own blog rather than in their comment section.

* If someone compliments me, I appreciate it, but I'm so swamped I don't have time to give him/her a proper thank-you.

* If someone gets something wrong, I figure someone else will correct him/her.

* If I do see something worth responding to in a comments section, I'd rather try to work it into a blog post.

That being said, I will very occasionally comment on blogs, like on this post over at Alarming News (Karol consulted with me on my latest column at Townhall and then wrote about the same subject).

As a general rule, I post under my own name. If I don't, it's almost always because the system automatically has me post as "anonymous" and I forgot to include it.

PS: I do have pseudonym accounts at places like Fark, Digg, and Free Republic, but I got those to submit stories, not to comment, and I seldom take the time to write anything besides a promo for a post on RWN.

Bill Berkowitz, who seemed shocked/horrified by a post on RWN about an "Obama gay murder scandal" that the Globe was covering, asked to do an interview with me for a profile piece.

To be honest, I wasn't sure if I'd be treated fairly or not given that Berkowitz has written for places like the Nation, Alternet, and the Smirking Chimp, but I figured it would be good blog fodder either way.

So, I did the interview and the final product came out today at Media Transparency.

All in all, I really liked the final product and thought I got fair treatment. Make sure to go check it out.

Question: "I am a long time reader and a first time commenter. I am not from the United States, but have been following the illegal immigration debate in your country. I am curious as to whether or not you think conservatives would agree with a guest worker program that would allow Mexicans to legally enter the United States and work at the low end seasonal jobs they currently do that most Americans can't be bothered with. If conservatives would have a problem with a guest worker program, why would that be?" -- Ron_Bacardi

Answer: First of all, let me just note that there is no such thing as a job that Americans won't do. There are only jobs that Americans won't do for a certain paycheck.

Illegals often don't pay health care or car insurance and they either pay no taxes or actually get rebates, because they lie on their taxes. Moreover, if they have families, they're usually in other countries where the salaries and cost of living are much lower. Because of that, they can work for wages dramatically lower than those of American workers. So, in the end, illegals -- and for that matter, guest worker programs -- drive down wages and hurt the poorest Americans.

But, setting that aside, it's worth noting that we already have multiple guest worker programs in this country. So, what we're discussing is whether to harm even more low income Americans with guest worker programs in order to fatten the banks accounts of more corrupt businessmen.

Truthfully, we don't need any guest worker programs at all because the market will always adjust. If every illegal alien in the country disappeared tomorrow, there would be a small, temporary rise in prices with a few products, but in a year, 99% of the general public would never even notice that they were gone.

However, the people who would notice they were gone -- crooked businessmen trying to run their law abiding competitors out of business by using illegals, liberals who see illegals as future votes, and members of the grievance industry -- are the ones driving the push for a guest worker program.

As a general rule, I think we'd be better off as a country if we had no guest worker programs at all, but if we are going to have them, I at least think certain rules should be followed.

* Participation in them should be treated as a privilege and should only be granted to people who respect our laws enough not to enter our country illegally.

* Guest worker programs should be temporary. In other words, someone comes here, they work for a period of time, then they go home and we bring in another guest worker. Sure, guest workers should be able to apply for American citizenship and, yes, if they come here, keep their nose clean, and do a good job, that should be a plus towards their getting citizenship, but the program shouldn't lead to open ended stays in the US or to necessarily becoming US citizens.

* Children born to guest workers in the US, like the children born to diplomats in the US, should not be considered US citizens merely because the mother happened to be in the US when she gave birth.

If we take illegals who are already here and reward their law breaking by allowing them to participate in a guest worker program or worse yet, by giving them the great honor of becoming US citizens, all we're doing is encouraging tens of millions of other illegals to sneak into the US so they can get in on the next amnesty.

PS: Immigration as a whole makes this country better and stronger, but the same can't be said for illegal immigration. Moreover, the need for guest worker programs is just a symptom of how screwed up and corrupted our immigration policies have become in the US -- but that's a whole different post.

Question: "Do you believe in the "Whitey" video?
If you were John McCain, when would you "release" it?
If you were Hillary, when would you release it?
And why would you release it at these times?" -- Don_cos

Answer: Before I answer this, the "whitey" video is supposed to be Michelle Obama talking about "whitey" during an appearance with Louis Farrakhan. The story was originally peddled by Larry Johnson, an unreliable, ultra left-wing idiot, who was a die-hard Hillary supporter -- but now the story has taken on a life of its own.

So, do I believe the tape exists?

The only evidence it exists is that Larry Johnson says he knows some people who say the tape exists. There are also people asking about the tape. Apparently, Michelle did appear in public with Calypso Louis once, too.

There's your evidence. It's like a kid's game of "telephone" where one person passes something on to the next person and they pass it on, etc, etc, and at the end someone blurts out Michelle Obama said "whitey" in public.

Granted, it would be very, very easy to imagine her saying that, but let's imagine the scenario: she's probably surrounded by friends and supporters, none of whom are going to be inclined to hurt her. So, they'd probably bury the tape. If they did want to get it out, they could just upload it to YouTube and let the world see it. But, even if they didn't do that, would the sort of people gathered around Michelle Obama and Farrakhan be more likely to be Republicans or Democrats? Democrats, right? So that means even if they sent the tape somewhere, it would probably be to Hillary or the media rather than McCain. Would Hillary have sat on it? No way in hell. What about the media? The only way they'd sit on it would be if they knew it wasn't getting out anywhere else. So, if the person sent the tape to, say MSNBC, they'd have to figure that if they didn't play it, someone else would and they'd lose their scoop.

But, let's say that it does exist.

"If you were Hillary, when would you release it?"

I'd have gotten it to a friend in the press 5 minutes after it came into my hands. Now, it's probably too late for her, no matter what the tape says.

If you were John McCain, when would you "release" it?

If I were McCain and I had it, I would release it at the end of September, so that it would be late enough to affect the election, but too early to be called an "October surprise."

PS: Campaigns typically don't just "release" things like this though. What they do is call a friendly in the press, hand them the opposition research they've compiled, and then they let the media outlet break the story. That way their hands are clean. This happens so often that if you see a big scoop about McCain or Obama from now until the election, chances are it originated with the other campaign.

The website of the day is Mark Steyn.

Question: "If you were Obamasiah, who would you pick as a VP? And why?" -- Don_cos

Answer: If I were Obama, the first thing I would do is wait until about mid-July and then do a little polling to see how much Hillary's supporters have cooled down.

There's a list of reasons as long as my arm for Obama not to take Hillary as his Veep, but if he eventually concludes that say, 1.5 - 2.5 million, of her supporters are going to sit home or vote McCain if she isn't on board, then he may not have much of choice. Could the numbers actually turn out to be that high? It's too soon to know for sure, but it certainly seems possible.

But, let's say the Democrats are pulling together and he doesn't need Hillary. What then? Well, Jim Webb might not be a crazy choice. He might be able to help deliver Virginia. He has a solid military background and a reputation as a moderate, yet he's anti-war enough to satisfy the loony lefties. That could be a winning combo for Obambi.

PS: Plus, as an added bonus from my perspective, my "James Webb Writes About Incest and Pedophilia" article from the 2006 campaign will end up getting about a bazillion Google hits if Webb is the Veep.

The senseless goal of cutting carbon emissions in half by 2050 for the sake of averting the nonexistent global warming crisis will cost $45 trillion, according to a study released today by the Paris-based International Energy Agency. That's more than three times the size of the entire U.S. economy.

Since that kind of money simply is not available to flush down the toilet in the name of a debunked hoax, maybe we should just drop the whole thing and move on to the next phony crisis.

That seems to be the conclusion of Senate Republicans, who managed to block a Democrat-backed global warming bill that would cripple the economy.

But we're hardly out of the woods. Both John McCain and Barack Hussein Obama said they would have voted in favor of the suicidal bill, had they not been too busy campaigning to do their jobs as Senators and vote. Barring divine intervention, one of these two idiots will be President soon.

On tips from mega and General Jack D. Ripper. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Watch out obese, corpulent, fatties, your airplane tickets are going to be more expensive. Yes, everyone is going to be paying more, but fat people, they are going be paying bigger prices to go with their bigger bodies. Well, this all might happen. Or, people might be weighed with their luggage and pay a collective price.

As if the whole process of boarding a stinky, germ-infested airborne cattle car isn't degrading enough, you'll be weighed like, well, a cow. And if you're fat, like a fat cow. Now here is what I'm picturing: You schlep to the airport two hours early, you drag your luggage, you go to check in with the irritated masses, you finally get to the check-in counter. The attendant sizes your rotund body up, sizes your bulging luggage up and says: Miss, please get your lard ass on the scale with your luggage. That will be $75 extra--$2 for every extra pound over the limit.

After that humiliation, you take your paunchy rear to the security line. Barely making eye-contact, the security officer with the GED and surly attitude thinks you're shady and says, "Miss, please stand your blond haired, blue-eyed body in front of the scanner, we are going to look at your person and check for parts of bomb-making material and we'd really like to X-ray you. Stand right here. Thank you. Hey Squid, come take a look at these....ju..., I mean bottles." After being searched, partially disrobed and man-handled, you'll be free to get on the plane where you will be wedged into your narrow middle seat in complete physical and psychological pain.

Question: What Boston Celtics player was the first NBA player to shatter a backboard by hanging onto the rim and in what year? Posted by Lord_Locksley

Answer: Like I care about the Celtics. Puhleeze! I'm only enduring them in 2008 out of my disgust with Kobe Bryant. However, this answer was found easily enough, because I didn't actually know the answer. So, here, amongst other Celtics lovers, is the answer:

The first shattered backboard in pro basketball was destroyed in the Boston Celtics' debut game in 1946, at Boston Arena (now Matthews Arena). It was smashed by Kevin Connors of the Celtics.

Question: Why, do you think, is Newt Gingrich and Pat Robertson making these stupid "green-themed" PSA-type commercials with the likes of Pelosi and Sharpton?
--Mr. Meaner

Answer: Like the 99% of you people, I do not think Global Warming is caused by man, nor do I think Newt (who actually has a brain) or Robertson (a man of very little brain) believe that either. The thing is, Republicans are being stupid about the whole Environmental debate and letting the argument be defined by the latest trend which is Global Warming, or now, the more p.c. term "climate change". The leftists who are spouting off about it frame the issue like Republicans don't care or want to kill baby seals for sport.

Who doesn't care about the environment? I mean, really. Most people think it's a good idea to clean up after themselves and to not take more than needed and to share, etc. Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, support measures for good environmental stewardship. The admonishment by God to Adam and Eve holds true: humans have a responsibility to "dress and to keep" the environment and the animals in their care. And conservatives do just this by recycling, conserving where possible, etc. just like Democrats do.

I think that Republicans need to stop allowing themselves to be defined as earth-hating, animal abusing Neanderthals. And Newt Gingrich recognizes this. So while a Conservative's answer to what it means to care for the environment might be different than a liberals, that doesn't mean he doesn't care. Newt seems to be wanting to take away the issue from the Left and he's got the right idea.

Robertson? He's just a crazy old man.

Here's the Right Wing News guest blogger line-up this week-end.

Saturday
--------
Cassy Fiano
Kathy Shaidle Five Feet Of Fury
Gina Cobb
John Stephenson from Stop The ACLU
Little Miss Attila

Sunday
-------
Ron Coleman from Likelihood of Success
Sister Toldjah
William Teach from Pirate's Cove
Michael Illions from Polipundit
MCQ from QandO

Make sure to give all of them a warm welcome and check out their blogs!

His wife going off on a rant about how evil "whitey" is, and conspiracies that he is a covert Muslim trying to infiltrate our democracy are nothing more than rumors...at least at this point. However, there are plenty of things the media don't put enough focus on that are true about the Obamas. Instead they would rather focus on things like his playful fist-bump. They have to keep their priorities on the important issues.

His connection and close friendship with a corrupt crook and convicted felon.
Obama supports sex education for Kindergarten!
Obama sought the endorsement of the Marxist Party in 1996!
Obama's embracement of appeasement.
Obama has a huge anti-gun record.
Obama may not be a Muslim, but every association with religion he has made seems to be outrageously radical!
Obama has a very bad habit of re-writing history.
Obama refuses to cut his friendship with unrepentant anti-American terrorists!
A history of terrorist fundraisers for Obama.
Obama's ties to Kenya and his cousin Odinga.
Obama has many, many radical friends!
Many Obama lies the media will ignore.
He ran on the socialist, pro-PLO party.
He has a list of anti-Israel advisors.
His disturbing statement that young people having babies instead of abortions is punishment.
His condescending, elitist snobbery towards gun owners and the religious.
His disrespect and refusal to salute the American flag.
His plan to disarm America and dismantle our nuclear arsenal.

Please add anything I left out into the comments.

From Hannity's America:

Disturbing to say the least.

Hat Tip: Hot Air

Add another one to the ever-growing list of radical connections and friendships.

Khalidi, a Yasser Arafat toady, got $75,000 through Obama and Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers from the Woods Foundation, and later Khalidi returned the favor by hosting a fundraiser for Obama. Obama "lavished praise" on Khalidi in 2003 when the former PLO functionary took a job at Columbia University, according to an LA Times article last year. It's hardly ancient history, and Khalidi is hardly an acquaintance.

Why is Hannity the only media I've heard report on this?

Crossposted from Stop the ACLU

Robert Novak mentions the Jindal buzz in the New York Post: Jindal-mania naturally has my friends in Louisiana concerned that a national Presidential campaign will spirit the state's new Governor away.

Much as I despise a "bean counting" approach to ethnic/gender diversity, I do believe that—all things being equal—the McCain campaign would be better off placing an ethnic minority and/or a woman on the ticket. (Also, the person should be bright, vibrant, and apparently ready to be involved in the administration in a Cheney-esque fashion [that is, to be a sort of uber-Chief-of-Staff, as Cheney has been to President Bush]. That would answer the unspoken (and spoken) fears about McCain's age.

Novak also addresses some of the job being discussed for Senator Clinton in an Obama Presidency. I'm a good deal less horrified by the idea of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State than I feel I ought to be, but the idea of making her a Supreme Court Justice makes me want to throw up—all day, every day. I'd almost rather have Harriet Miers.

Of course, for Clinton to get either of those jobs would imply that Obama has won the Presidency; his qualifications for same are every bit as lightweight as Miers's were for the Court. Obama is terribly liberal, and terribly young, and terribly naive on foreign policy, the trickiest (and most critical) issue of our day.

(X-posted at Little Miss Attila.)

"I feel safer already."

It seems that the TSA continues its policy of maximizing passenger inconvenience and discomfort, while minimizing any actual increase in safety.

People who lose: those who harbor any sexual modesty, those who suffer from claustrophobia, those who believe in human dignity.

Alternatively, we could increase the number of Air Marshalls in the sky, and get rid of the dress codes that make it so easy to spot them.

(Yes; this entire issue is an enduring gripe for me.)

After being forty-five minutes late, Hillary made the speech we all knew she was going to make. She officially suspended her campaign and threw her support behind Barack Obama.

Hillary Rodham Clinton ended her historic campaign for the presidency on Saturday and told supporters to unite behind rival Barack Obama, closing out a race that was as grueling as it was groundbreaking.

The former first lady, who as recently as Tuesday declared herself the strongest candidate, gave Obama an unqualified endorsement and pivoted from her role as determined foe to absolute ally.

"The way to continue our fight now to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States," she said in a speech before cheering supporters packed into the ornate National Building Museum, not far from the White House she longed to govern from.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," the New York senator said in her 28-minute address.

With that and 13 other mentions of his name, Clinton placed herself solidly behind her Senate colleague from Illinois, a political sensation and the first black to secure a presidential nomination.

For Clinton and her supporters, it was a poignant moment, the end of an extraordinary run that began with an air of inevitability and certain victory. About 18 million people voted for her; it was the closest a woman has come to capturing a nomination.

"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before," she said.

Indeed, her speech repeatedly returned to the milestone her candidacy represented for women. She also acknowledged the unprecedented success of Obama's candidacy.

"Children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the president of the United States," she said.

Here's some of her speech; the full transcript is here.

This is just Hillary trying to salvage her political career. She realizes that the Presidency can still be hers in 2012, and that she needs to do a little ass-kissing if she's going to have any hope of saving her chances.

Of course, there was the expected GIRL POWER! angle. Just because she didn't win the nomination didn't mean she's stopped being Hillary; she's still just as arrogant and elitist as she was before. This speech wasn't about being humble or gracious. It had nothing to do with Barack Obama; it was all about Hillary. It was reminding us all that she was a history-maker, too, that she's a pioneer and a groundbreaker, just like he is. Gay Patriot noted that she didn't offer any kind of advice or encouragement about dealing with McCain, which was interesting. And again, that's because this speech was all about her -- not Obama, not Democratic party unity, but her.

She also got going on the healthcare issue, like with this troubling quote:

We all want a health care system that is universal, high-quality and affordable so that parents don't have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead-end jobs simply to keep their insurance.

This isn't just an issue for me. It is a passion and a cause, and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured, no exceptions and no excuses.

Anyway, since we all know now for sure that Barack Obama is going to be the nominee, conservatives and Republicans need to brace themselves, along with anyone else voting for McCain: independents, Hillary supporters, moderates, disenfranchised Democrats, etc. When Barack was announced as the nominee, the world media started hyperventilating about how "historic" this is, and how ground-breaking and unbelievable his clinching the nomination is, and so on and so forth. So ready yourself, because we've got one hell of a battle ahead of us.

Every ad aired against Obama will be deemed racist. Condemnation of any of his policies will make you a racist. Questioning any of Obama's voting records, past remarks, "charitable" donations and earmarks, and associations will make you a racist. You'll be accused of being too small-minded and racist to be willing to support a black man for President. It will be all about Obama and the fact that he's half black, all the time, and we will get smeared and attacked every day that we fight to try to defeat him. The very fact that we will try to keep him from being elected will get us labeled as racists.

When McCain and Obama debate, McCain will likely be attacked and excoriated for criticizing Obama in any way, shape, or fashion. He'll be called a bully and will be accused of using questionable and unethical tactics (like swift-boating!). Instead of being lauded in the press for being a "maverick", he'll be excommunicated as just another cog in the Republican hate-filled racism machine.

Here's what's especially troubling. If Barack Obama loses, it will make Bush Derangement Syndrome look like a Bush lovefest. The media will erupt in indignation, angrily shouting about how racists stole the election, how McCain is a racist for riding the backs of racist Americans to victory, and how America is still filled with racism for not electing a half-black man President.

See, with liberals, it's never about policies. It's always about superficialities.

The whole point of bringing this up is to be able to arm yourself. Be prepared, because we all know that this is what is coming, and we need to be ready for the assault. No matter how civil we try to make this fight, no matter how careful we are, this is what we will be accused of, and we can't let it scare us. The media will try to intimidate voters into supporting Obama, and we've got to be prepared to stand up to it.

We need more like her.

If she gets her wish, and we do manage to eliminate the "disabled Gulag," we will probably get more like her, and the world will be richer for it.

Thanks for the thoughtful tribute, Ed.

(X-posted at Little Miss Attila.)

You had to figure that the San Franfreakshow Comical's Mark Morford — the quintessential left-wing bigot — would be a fan of someone who would earn the sobriquet Barack O'Bigot. But Morford's slavish worship of the empty skin Dems have chosen as their affirmative action nominee would embarrass even Chris Matthews.

Slobbers Morford:

Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway. […] No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

What? But it gets worse:

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.

Shovel down through the flaky B.S. to Morford's core message, and it's just what Obama's nasty wife has been screaming:

[O'Bigot] is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

They don't want a president. They want a totalitarian dictator, who will remake every aspect of human existence in accordance with coercive moonbattery — a cross between Stalin and the Antichrist.

Moonbats will be disappointed to learn that Obama is not the Antichrist, or even Stalin, but just a mediocre left-wing kook who has been aggressively marketed by an increasingly radical media establishment that picked him for his Muslim name and skin color.

On tips from V the K and Oiao. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

My friend Pamela Geller offers, in somewhat more polemic language than I would use, a nonetheless compelling antidote to the largely unexamined conception -- to some extent uncritically passed along by me -- that Barack Obama has serious intellectual achievements of which he can rightly boast.

I very much appreciate the point. It's one I began to ponder at about the same time her post went up, just by coincidence. I recalled that, like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama was a law professor at one point, and that Clinton, too, was frequently cited by supporters as a genius, a genuine intellectual -- "brilliant," as they say.

My thinking regarding both of them was the same: Intellectuals may achieve many things, but if they are truly intellectuals there is inevitably some novel or at least rigorous contribution to some art, science, philosophy or other body of thought-powered endeavor, such as law, by which that intellection may be proved and measured.

And in the case of both men (the comparison keeps coming up), there is neither. There is no book or book chapter, no judicial opinion in a case where one of them acted as counsel, no published article in a scholarly or professional work. There is not even a genuinely original great work of oratory or say, a riveting course-pack.

Intellectuals are as intellectuals do. Bill and Barack utilized their credentials, as they had every right to and as almost everyone else does, as stepping stones toward the realization of their grand ambitions. But neither of them can in any way be credited as having demonstrated a genius for anything other than achievement of that ambition. And this is not the same, we should recall, as a genius for leadership or government, with which we might credit a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan. Neither man can be credited with being the moving or creative force behind the building of any great institution, public or private; of a noteworthy government program, initiative or policy; or a political movement that transcended the political institutions of their time and place.

There is no reason that a President must be any of these things. But we should be clear-eyed about what those who seek to be President do and do not offer. No one ever burdened John McCain with the title of "brilliant," "genius" or "intellectual," and he therefore need not defend himself on those scores. There is, however, a consistent bias among liberals to believe that because, as they cannot but see it, their causes are the ones most creditable to reason and intellect, that their candidates -- even the most obviously dull Ivy League graduates -- are the "thinking person's" choice. Of course, by contrast their adversaries are chimps, dullards, genial national hosts. This contrast -- Democrats smart, Republicans dumb -- is consistently echoed by a press corps which, outside mainly the New York Times, wouldn't by dint of its own intellectual or academic achievements know a genuinely original or scholarly insight if you whispered it right into their earpieces.

So be it. It is worthwhile to read Pam's piece, however screechy it is (is this not her charm?), to get another side of the Obama-as-brilliant meme. Little by little the reality of the very humanness of this young, undeniably bright politician is replacing the messianic fervor and massive mythologizing of only a few months ago. He may yet be President, after all. And if he ever is, frankly, reducing him to human scale is probably doing him a favor.

Originally posted at Likelihood of Success.

We have all heard the comments about the Republican Party lacking a brand and direction, while Conservative debate over what Conservatives are the movements leaders and strongest candidates.

As many Conservatives around the Country try to answer questions about what it means to be a Conservative, an equal number are also asking that question.

Enter Lyn Nofgizer, who passed away in 2006. Nofgizer, who was with Reagan since his days as Governor in California and also ran political campaigns for Pat Buchanan and Steve Forbes, penned a very descriptive and enlightening definition of "What is a Conservative":

"Allowing for differences I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, 'the right to be let alone.'

"Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.

"Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth.

"That's about it.

"I know there are those who say a conservative should be pro-life, which I am, but I'm not sure a person has to be that to qualify as a conservative. Nor am I sure that a person must be opposed to pornography, which I am. In both cases there are questions of individual rights and responsibilities which are arguable.

"One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children." {Source: Muth's Truths}

I am sure that this definition will raise some questions, especially in regards to the Pro-life paragraph. But Nofgizer raises a good question about if this one issue defines if a person is a Conservative or not.

One need not look further then to 2 Congressman in New Jersey, a Senator in PA and a Senator in Nevada. All 4 are Pro-Life; 2 are Republican and 2 are Democrat.

None are Conservative.

Yet there are many candidates and elected officials that are called "Pro-choice", i.e. Pro-life except in the case of incest, rape or to save the life of the mother, that ARE Conservative in every other area.

Putting the Pro-life issue aside for the moment, the rest of his definition across the board is totally dead on and should be used as a template for a platform of Conservative principle's for people to read and agree to.

But what about the Pro-life issue and the point Lyn makes? I certainly reject anyone who supports abortion on demand, taxpayer funded abortions, partial-birth abortion and abortions at any time during the pregnancy for any reason, as being a Conservative, or even a Republican for that matter.

I think the problem is that some Pro-life politicians are being called Conservatives when they aren't, and getting a pass because of it. When it comes down to it, Nofziger's definition of a Conservative is a great tool to use as a check list to gauge someone's positions, but at the end of the day, the voter will vote for who represents their beliefs the best.

For the one-issue voter, whether it's the life issue, or immigration, or gay-marriage even, that ONE issue will determine which way there vote will go.

This certainly needs to be addressed further, as other issues come and go, or go hot and cold depending on the year, the life issue is always at the forefront. Nofziger seems to be suggesting that the Conservative movement can include people who are pro-choice. I'm not so sure that is going to fly though, HOWEVER, the movement does include Pro-lifer's who get the Conservative label, but are not Conservative on any or many other issues.

Why the exception, and is it fair? Do you think that one of the problems is that to many Pro-life office holders diluted the Conservative movement by being a RINO and voting like one on to many other issues, while Pro-choice Conservatives have been shut out of even serving in office, giving way to a Pro-Choice liberal Democrat or in the rare case, a Pro-Life liberal Democrat?

Is there such a thing as a Pro-choice Conservative and if so, is that going to be acceptable?

Are there to many Pro-life elected officials now in office that get branded as a Conservative, but vote like RINO, hurting the overall Conservative movement?

It looks like I have the questions, but I sure don't have the answers. Do you?

It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated during 2006 and the war reached its most critical moment, both senators served on national security committees: McCain on Armed Services, Obama on Foreign Relations. From those positions, with access to classified situation reports as well as the public testimony and private advice of those who knew the situation in Iraq best, each man reached an understanding of the facts on the ground and the interests at stake. And each proposed a strategy. It was as close as a presidential candidate could get to showing how he would respond to a national security crisis without already being in the White House.

Both men's proposals are a matter of public record, available on the Internet. McCain set forth his in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007 (at an event marking the release of AEI's "Choosing Victory," which I wrote, outlining a strategy like the one Bush later ordered). Obama presented his in the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 " (S. 433), which he introduced in the Senate on January 30. We also know the strategy the president chose--the surge of forces he announced on January 10, very similar to what McCain described--and the outcome it has brought.

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

The two men brought different backgrounds to the test, of course. In January 2007, McCain had been a senator for 20 years and had served in the military for 23 years. Obama had been a senator for 2 years and before that was a state legislator, lawyer, and community organizer. But neither presidential candidates nor the commander in chief gets to choose the tests that history brings. Once in office, the one elected must perform.

On one side stands Mr. Obama's resolutely cheerful embrace of the future. His vision is inseparable from his identity, both as a rookie with a slim Washington résumé and as a black American whose triumph was regarded as improbable by voters of all races only months ago. On the other is John McCain's promise of a wise warrior's vigilant conservation of the past. His vision, too, is inseparable from his identity -- as a government lifer who has spent his entire career in service, whether in the Navy or Washington.

Yes, his cheerful embrace of how to lose a war. Sounds great! Hope! Change! Giving in to Islamic fundamentalists! Cheerful!

Somehow, in Rich's world, being in government for a long time is now bad. Poor Teddy and Bobby B. They must be bad people, now.

So, what is Obama ready to lead?

Crossed at Pirate's Cove and McCain Blogs

After a several months long brutal primary battle, and two days after their super secret meeting at Dianne Feinstein's home in DC, Hillary Clinton finally made it official yesterday that she is conceding the race for the Dem presidential nomination, and throwing her support behind Barack Obama:

Hillary Rodham Clinton suspended her pioneering campaign for the presidency on Saturday and summoned supporters to use "our energy, our passion, our strength" to put Barack Obama in the White House.

"I endorse him and throw my full support behind him," said the former first lady, delivering the strong affirmation that her one-time rival and other Democratic leaders hoped to hear after a bruising campaign.

Amid tears from her supporters, Clinton issued a call for unity that emphasized the cultural and political milestones that she and Obama, the first black to secure a presidential nomination, represent.

"Children today will grow up taking for granted that an African-American or a woman can, yes, become the president of the United States," she said.

For Clinton and her backers, it was a poignant moment, the end of an extraordinary run that began with an air of inevitability and certain victory. About 18 million people voted for her; it was the closest a woman has come to capturing a nomination.

"Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it has about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before," she said in a speech before cheering supporters packed into the ornate National Building Museum, not far from the White House she longed to occupy again, as president this time.

Here's a lengthy clip from her speech:

Obama's response:

Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton's support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans. Our party and our country are stronger because of the work she has done throughout her life, and I'm a better candidate for having had the privilege of competing with her in this campaign. No one knows better than Senator Clinton how desperately America and the American people need change, and I know she will continue to be in the forefront of that battle this fall and for years to come.

Personally, my favorite response to all this came from the GOP, who are now highlighting past statements from prominent Democrats - including Hillary Clinton - that were critical and/or questioning of Obama's readiness to be president. They've also released this video, titled "Democrats vs. Obama":

Love it.

Lots of people are weighing in on Hillary's concession today, but probably the funniest one is from senior Hillary advisor Mark Penn, who proclaimed in an opinion piece in today's NYT that the problem with Hillary's campaign wasn't the message, it was the money. Would someone buy this guy a box of Kleenex and call the Wahmbulance, please? If money was such an issue, how did Hillary win in OH and PA, in places were BO outspent her somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 6-1?

I'm not so sure the message was the problem either, as there is not a lot of difference in either Obama's or Hillary's platform, outside of healthcare. The biggest problem, I believe, came from those advising her in a senior capacity, those, well - like Mark Penn. From an early May article in Time magazine:

As aides looked over the campaign calendar, chief strategist Mark Penn confidently predicted that an early win in California would put her over the top because she would pick up all the state's 370 delegates. It sounded smart, but as every high school civics student now knows, Penn was wrong: Democrats, unlike the Republicans, apportion their delegates according to vote totals, rather than allowing any state to award them winner-take-all. Sitting nearby, veteran Democratic insider Harold M. Ickes, who had helped write those rules, was horrified -- and let Penn know it. "How can it possibly be," Ickes asked, "that the much vaunted chief strategist doesn't understand proportional allocation?" And yet the strategy remained the same, with the campaign making its bet on big-state victories.

Not only that, but as that same article points out, Hillary really had no caucus strategy and this killed her as Obama won nearly every caucus state:

While Clinton based her strategy on the big contests, she seemed to virtually overlook states like Minnesota, Nebraska and Kansas, which choose their delegates through caucuses. She had a reason: the Clintons decided, says an adviser, that "caucus states were not really their thing." Her core supporters -- women, the elderly, those with blue-collar jobs -- were less likely to be able to commit an evening of the week, as the process requires. But it was a little like unilateral disarmament in states worth 12% of the pledged delegates. Indeed, it was in the caucus states that Obama piled up his lead among pledged delegates. "For all the talent and the money they had over there," says [Obama's chief strategist David] Axelrod, "they -- bewilderingly -- seemed to have little understanding for the caucuses and how important they would become."

Having a coherent, effective caucus strategy alone could have turned this thing around for Team Clinton. Instead, they chose to focus on the big primary states, and to characterize the caucus system as "unfair."

All that is water under the bridge now, obviously, as Hillary has pledged to throw her "strong" support behind Senator Obama's campaign. Don't look for the Bubbinski to join, however - I heard on several news outlets last week that the Obama campaign did not reach out to Bill Clinton in addition to Hillary Clinton because they view him as a venomous poison pill who acted irrationally during the campaign.

So where do we stand now? The WaPo reports that each candidate is preparing a ground game to target each other's traditional strongholds:

The 2008 general election will pit the best-organized nomination campaign in the history of modern Democratic politics against the battle-tested machinery of the Republican Party, with both Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) determined to shake up an electoral map that has been virtually static over the past two elections.

Democrats enjoy a highly favorable electoral climate at this start of the general election, created by gloomy attitudes about the state of the country and economy, President Bush's low approval ratings and negative perceptions of the GOP. But as Obama shifts his attention from his primary victory over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to his test against McCain, the electoral map nonetheless foreshadows another highly competitive race in November.

McCain and Obama offer a rare combination of nominees able to poach on the other party's turf. Both have proven appeal to independents. McCain will target disgruntled Clinton supporters; Obama will target disaffected Republicans. Women, Latinos and, especially, white working-class voters will find themselves courted intensely by the two campaigns.

On issues, the differences are stark, beginning with views on Iraq but also including the economy, now the dominant issue in virtually every region of the country.

Officials from both campaigns confidently predict that they will steal states that have been in the other party's column in recent elections, and an early analysis suggests there will be new battlegrounds added to the map this year, with Virginia, Colorado and Nevada among them. The Midwest remains the most concentrated competitive region of the country, but advisers to McCain and Obama agree that the election could turn on the outcome of contests in the Rocky Mountain States and the South.

Translation: Obama will be tacking right, while McCain will be touting his "centrist" credentials, which will irritate the hell out of conservatives, including yours truly.

In case the thought of McCain's "centrist" campaign has left you cold and even more hardened against voting for him in November, Thomas Sowell, who has been a big critic of McCain's candidacy from day one, lays out the case (h/t: ST reader GWR) for why the differences conservatives have with him should be put aside in November, and sums his piece up with this:

At a time like this, we do not have the luxury of waiting for our ideal candidate or of indulging our emotions by voting for some third party candidate to show our displeasure -- at the cost of putting someone in the White House who is not up to the job.

Senator John McCain has been criticized in this column many times. But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.

On the contrary, he has paid a huge price for resisting our enemies, even when they held him prisoner and tortured him. The choice between him and Barack Obama should be a no-brainer.

Seconded.

Cross-posted from the Sister Toldjah blog.

In 1972, the US imported 12% of its oil needs. Now we're near the 50+% range. In those intervening thirty-something years, we, as a nation have done very little to address that problem.

R.J. Samuelson, addressing the proposed cap and trade program, provides a litany of why it is a bad idea. A cap and trade system essentially outlaws carbon (and will most heavily impact the poor), but there's an even more important point to be made. There is nothing to replace what is essentially banned:

Reviewing five economic models, the Environmental Defense Fund asserts that the cuts can be achieved "without significant adverse consequences to the economy." Fuel prices would rise, but because people would use less energy, the impact on household budgets would be modest.

This is mostly make-believe. If we suppress emissions, we also suppress today's energy sources, and because the economy needs energy, we suppress the economy. The models magically assume smooth transitions. If coal is reduced, then conservation or nonfossil fuel sources will take its place. But in the real world, if coal-fired power plants are canceled (as many were last year), wind or nuclear won't automatically substitute. If the supply of electricity doesn't keep pace with demand, brownouts or blackouts will result.

At this point (nor anytime in the near future) we have no alternative fuels to switch too which can fill the capacity such cuts in carbon will demand just to keep us even, much less address the future demands of a growing economy. We haven't any real plans for increasing nuclear power. Cellulosic ethanol is not a commercially viable process. And wind and solar are hardly refined enough or big enough (or technologically advanced enough) to fill the bill.

We still have a huge need for oil and coal, at least in the short term, and we're ignoring the assets we have for the vaporware of the future. Maybe it's just me, but I usually don't sell my car until I have another car sitting in the driveway.

A perfect example, however, of what we face in the realm of bringing new carbon based assets on-line or refining them can be found, in all places, in Elk Point, SD. There, the citizens have voted in the majority to build the first new refinery in 32 years:

By a solid 58 percent to 42 percent margin, county voters approved Hyperion's request to rezone 3,292 acres of farm land for a new classification, Energy Center Planned Development.

The obvious advantage to everyone, of course, is the increase in refining capacity of the nation overall. More product into a market which is seeing increasing prices - and, promises Hyperion, it'll do so with the latest "green" technology:

Hyperion touted the so-called "green" technology in its proposed energy center, which it claims would be the world's cleanest. The refinery would process 400,000 barrels of tar sands crude a day from Alberta into low-sulfur gasoline, diesel and jet fuel.

Then there is the local economic impact in an area that could use it:

Supporters cited the once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunities the $10 billion project would bring.

An average of 4,500 construction jobs would be required over four years. With the refinery up and running, Hyperion pledges to create 1,826 full-time jobs at hourly wages of between $20 and $30.

But even with the vote approving the project (i.e. the democratic process at work), and even with obvious economic benefit to both the community and the nation, I have to wonder if it will ever be built:

While conceding defeat, opponents vowed to keep fighting the controversial project on every imaginable front, pressing on with a lawsuit it filed against the county over the zoning procedures and opposing Hyperion as it applies for a bevy of state and federal permits.

"We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes," Ed Cable, chairman of the anti-Hyperion group Save Union County, said after the vote.

And, of course, there are plenty of groups out there which will be happy to fund their fight against the will of the people.

This is a microcosm of why we find ourselves in the shape we do today. Because of it, we get further and further behind the energy power curve and are approaching the point where, in my opinion, this problem will become insurmountable. At some point we won't be in the shape to bring viable alternatives on-line (nuclear) nor will we have positioned ourselves to take advantage of the assets we presently have in abundance (oil and coal) for the short term.

What will suffer, of course, is the economy, as it falters and stagnates. And who will suffer? As is always the case when the economy goes south, those who can least afford it suffer the most.

We must wake up to the fact that our energy independence depends on a short-term plan of exploiting (in as environmentally friendly way as we can, given current technology) present carbon based assets as well as future plans to exploit viable alternatives (nuclear) as much as possible while we bring future alternatives on line to replace our carbon based fuels. However, the path we're on at present, as exemplified by what I think will happen (or, in reality, not happen) at Elk Point, SD, will only bring future economic disaster.
____________

Cross-posted at QandO

Last week, when RWN changed servers, there was an issue with my email. For about a week, emails sent to johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com bounced. So, if you sent me an email during that time, I didn't receive it. However, my email should be working fine now.

The website of the day is Conservatives With Attitude.

Cassy Fiano
John Stephenson from Stop The ACLU
Little Miss Attila
Ron Coleman from Likelihood of Success
Van Helsing from Moonbattery
Michael Illions from Polipundit
Sister Toldjah
William Teach from Pirate's Cove
MCQ from QandO

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

Mark Steyn: Obama, political viagra. Now is when you get worried.

Cracked: Nectar of the broke: The world's 5 worst ways to get drunk

No Quarter: The Michelle Obama "whitey" tape really exists -- I swear!

Cityrag: Rihanna bikini pics

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

RWN's registration is now open. So, if you'd like to register to post comments, now would be a good time to do it. The comments section will be closed within a few hours time.

Update #1: RWN's registration is now closed. It'll be open again soon.

At HuffPo, Robert Creamer lists "10" key steps for Obama, but it all boils down to one:

LIE

Face it. If Obama told the truth about his platform, he'd get blown out like Mondale in '84. "I want to raise taxes, regulate our economy into stagnation, and talk to terrorists until they blow us up, after which I would talk to them even more."

No, he's gotta put some bright-red, candy-flavored lipstick on the pig of his platform and hope folks'll believe it's Miss America.

Here's the honest, straightforward, no-spin, no-BS version of Robert Creamer's HuffPo piece:

1). Target States -- Spread the Field.
Lie to the people of the Midwest about sharing their values. Hopefully they've forgotten about that "bitter, clingy, racist, religious-zealot, gun-nut" comment.

2). Pour unlimited resources into Ohio.
Lie to the people of Ohio so much that Republicans will be FORCED to match your ad spending to point out what a liar you are.

3). Obama should not even think about opting into the system of public financing for the general election.
After you get elected, lie about how imperative campaign finance reform is, despite the fact that you couldn't have gotten elected with such a system in place.

4). We must devote a mix of resources to persuasion and to mobilization that is appropriate to each state.
Lie to racist blacks, the ignorant young, and frustrated Republicans contemplating the "nuclear option" of voting in Carter 2.0 in 2008 in the hopes of getting a Reagan 2.0 in 2012.

5). Nationally, the campaign must create a mass movement.
Lie to a LOT of people.

6). Democrats must convince skeptical swing voters that Obama is safely on their side.
Lie a LOT to a lot of people.

7). Democrats need to convince swing voters that McCain would usher in a third Bush term -- that he's not the "independent-maverick" he pretends to be.
Lie about McCain actually being a Conservative. Basically just say whatever McCain does.

8) Democrats need to undermine public confidence in McCain's competency and judgment with respect to the War in Iraq.
Lie about the war. Say things like "Only McCain would be stupid enough to believe that you can defeat terrorists by killing them". Try to keep a straight face while doing so.

9). We need to drive the contrast between a change candidate with a vision for the future and a candidate steeped in the ways of Washington.
Lie about being a sleazy Washington tool. Honestly, how long does the "steeping" process take? If you're still an "outsider" after working for the same company for THREE YEARS, you're probably not very good at what you do. Which tells me that Obama is just a worthless slack-*ss who's not pulling his weight and is basically just stealing his paycheck.

10). Obama must continue to appeal proudly and self-confidently to progressive values.
Lie about the fact that "progressive values" is an oxymoron.

And most of all, lie Big:

The magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others.

This content was used with the permission of IMAO.

If everybody in America saw this video -- that really makes it clear, in his own words, how much Barack Obama despises white people -- he'd lose in a landslide.

PS: Just in case you were wondering, this was apparently put together by a Hillary supporter and it is extremely powerful.

PS: Yes, the first one was Bill the Cat's campaign slogan, but I think it fits Obama better than it ever did Bill the Cat.

Also see the previous Obama bumper stickers, here.

According to liberals, the only reason a man so great as Obama could possibly lose is because he's black and Americans are racist. What a convenient belief. If Obama loses, Americans will hear for the next twenty years about their racism and badness. His loss would be further proof of America's evil. If Obama wins, America will hear about the perfection and lightness of Obama's being. His greatness will make America great.

I found this over at Ebonypolitics:

In America, Barack Obama can be a lot of things: a law professor, a state senator, a United States Senator and a presidential candidate, but one thing he can not be is white, and that is what might stop him from becoming president.

I'd like to put forth the notion to our liberal brethren that Barack Obama might lose not because of the color of his skin, but the content of his character, content of his socialist philosophy, and the lack of content of his resumé. Maybe liberals could also consider that Americans are fair-minded and will make the decision based on what's best for America.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier

The concept of "no child left behind" has reached a new extreme of pernicious absurdity in North Carolina's moonbatty Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district, which is considering making 61 the lowest possible grade students could receive — even if they turn in a blank test.

Explains educrat Sherri Martin:

There is little or no evidence that repeated failure makes people more responsible.

Therefore, they should be given a passing grade even if they do nothing. Also proposed is a 20% limit on how much homework can count toward a final grade, so that students' grades won't suffer unduly if they refuse to do any. Students will also be given more time to make up incomplete assignments, should they find a reason to bother.

More from Martin:

Getting a bad grade or having a bad day does not mean you are a failure. This is about hope.

It's also about change — changing America into a second-rate country by assuring the next generation does not receive an education.

Here's an idea for educrats: Instead of setting a floor for all students, why not take points from the students who study hard, and give them to those who slack off? That's what the government does with our money. The term for it is Social Justice.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

When political correctness gets so out-of-hand that a woman who has been raped can't say the word "rape" at her assailant's rape trial, people need to stand up and say that's unacceptable,

It's the only way Tory Bowen knows to honestly describe what happened to her.

She was raped.

But a judge prohibited her from uttering the word "rape" in front of a jury. The term "sexual assault" also was taboo, and Bowen could not refer to herself as a victim or use the word "assailant" to describe the man who allegedly raped her.

The defendant's presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial trumps Bowen's right of free speech, said the Lincoln, Neb., judge who issued the order.

"It shouldn't be up to a judge to tell me whether or not I was raped," Bowen said. "I should be able to tell the jury in my own words what happened to me."

Bowen's case is part of what some prosecutors and victim advocates see as a national trend in sexual assault cases.

"It's a topic that's coming up more and more," said Joshua Marquis, an Oregon prosecutor and a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association. "You're moving away from what a criminal trial is really about."

In Jackson County, Senior Judge Gene Martin recently issued a similar order for the trial of a Kansas City man charged with raping a teenager in 2000. Despite the semantic restrictions, the Jackson County jury last week found Ray Slaughter guilty of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sodomy.

Whether this guy is innocent or guilty is a matter for the jury to decide. But, they should be able to hear both sides of the case and her side of the case is that she was raped. We're not talking about pre-schoolers here; we're talking about adults who are going to be making a decision about whether or not a man will be going to jail (Personally, I'd support the death penalty in rape cases, but that's another post) and if there is anybody on that jury who can't handle hearing the word "rape" without it causing his judgment to run wildly askew, then he doesn't belong on a jury any way.

Moreover, although we don't know the facts here, let's assume for a moment that Tory Bowen was raped. How offensive is it that she isn't even being allowed to say what was done to her in front of a jury that will be deciding the fate of her rapist? Justice is a two way street and, yes, the victims, not just the criminals, should have some rights, too -- and to tell a woman who was raped that she can't even point out her accuser and say "He raped me," is an affront to those rights.

From the Democratic Underground,

kentuck: Are we feeling the tremors of a revolution?

There is so much wrong with our country that needs corrected. If the government will not correct it, then the people will find a way. Obama is just the first bell to ring. People want change and they want it now. People want healthcare. People want lower gas prices. People want to fly in airplanes without being X-rayed or taking off their shoes. People do not want the government spying on them or eavesdropping on their phone calls. People understand that after 9/11 that we do have people that will do us harm but they want the government to find a different way to protect us than the one they have practiced for the last 7 years. People are looking for big changes and if they do not get them, they will find another way. The Obama nomination is just a small tremor, a warning for the "big one" that is rumbling just under the surface. Senators and Congressmen, please heed the call...

I just LOVE to read liberals talking about revolutions. Aside from the humor of people who don't believe we should be allowed to own guns talking about taking over the country, it's just such a window into the heart of liberalism.

Every time screaming liberals throw food at a conservative speaker on a college campus, try to stifle conservative speech, try to use the court system to implement the beliefs that they can't get through Congress, and call for revolution, it just reveals a fundamental truth about the ugly core of the modern liberal ideology,

"Left-wing zealots have often been prepared to ride roughshod over due process and basic considerations of fairness when they think they can get away with it. For them the ends always seems to justify the means. That is precisely how their predecessors came to create the gulag." -- Margaret Thatcher

You tell 'em, Maggie. Scratch a liberal and as often as not, you'll find a wannabe-fascist underneath.

I just got off of a short teleconference with Senator Kit Bond about the new report by the Senate Intelligence Committee which concludes that the Bush administration distorted intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq. What follows are my notes, not quotes, from the teleconference.

Opening Statement

The report that just came out of the Senate Intelligence Committee was drafted by partisan Democratic staff to deliberately distort what happened in the run-up to the war. In July of 2004, the Senate Intelligence panel said that flawed intelligence, not an attempt to mislead by the Bush Administration, caused the problems.

There was no distortion by the Bush Administration, no lies; it's all Democratic politics. Democrats examined the same intelligence as the Bush administration and came to the same conclusions about the intelligence back in 2004.

The minority was completely cut out of the process. It's purely partisan. They cherry picked intelligence. They're are knowingly distorting and lying to try to mischaracterize what happened.

Q&A Session

(Question from me) Normally, the Senate Intelligence Committee has a reputation for non-partisanship. Would you say that's the case and if so, why has it gone so wrong this time? Is it an election year problem?

The partisanship has been growing worse and worse. Democratic staffers gained control over the phase two of this. This flawed partisan report is being touted as a finding of the Intelligence Committee, when it is a finding of the Democrats.

Can you address what's happening with FISA? Can you address the increasing fight over intelligence.

We are moving ahead. I started meeting with Steny Hoyer in April; we have worked with the intelligence community and Republicans to make him happy. He came back with a counter-proposal. I think the intelligence community has made all the concessions that they can take. We're going to continue to negotiate.

Can you tell us what Steny Hoyer came back with?

He changed some of the drafting and made it impossible for us to work with it. But, we are getting close, so hopefully, we can get this taken care of and sent to the President.

PS: You may find this to be a very relevant link.

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

Paul Krugman resorts to some rather specious history in an attempt to lay racism at the feet of the right.

Krugman today notes that some feel the election of Barack Obama to the presidency would transform America.

Not so, says Krugman. Instead there's something else at work:

Mr. Obama's nomination wouldn't have been possible 20 years ago. It's possible today only because racial division, which has driven U.S. politics rightward for more than four decades, has lost much of its sting.

And the de-racialization of U.S. politics has implications that go far beyond the possibility that we're about to elect an African-American president. Without racial division, the conservative message -- which has long dominated the political scene -- loses most of its effectiveness.

Wow. I'm still trying to remember the Republican governors who stood at the doorways of schools refusing to let blacks enter. I'm also trying to remember the Republican southern Senators who voted as a bloc a number of times to deny blacks civil rights and continually filibustered all such attempts. And for whatever reason, the name of the Republican Senator who was an officer in the KKK escapes my memory.

Who was that Democratic president who sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to ensure black students were admitted? Isn't he the same president that introduced a civil rights bill only to see Republican Senators block its passage?

Of course if, unlike Krugman, you're actually aware of the fact that I've sarcastically placed the wrong party in all of those examples, then it should be clear that the "conservative message" hasn't hinged on "racialism" at all.

I mean, who was it that LBJ specificially thanked for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill (which Sen. Robert Byrd filibustered for 14 straight hours), because without their overwhelming support Democrats would have defeated it?

The conservative message, as I understand it, has hinged upon the concept of limited government, less spending and less intrusion. What this present crop of Republicans has done is abandon all pretense of being for those conservative principles. That is why the Republicans are in decline - not because "racialism" has lost its sting.

However, like the rather crude attempt by Oliver Willis, Krugman too is bound and determined to make this upcoming general election about race - even if he has to make up a little history to do so.

In reality, racial politics - as demonstrated for all to see in the just ended Democratic primary - is the almost the exclusive realm of left. One only had to sit back and watch an exclusively Democratic event descend into competing camps each claiming the other was employing racism or sexism in their campaign. You should expect no better from Democrats in the general election. It is an integral part of the "cult of the victim" ideology.

Willis and Krugman represent the first shots in the "framing the debate" wars. And as is evident, there is no sordid depth of "argument" to which they won't resort.

So when you see arguments like this...

If Ronald Reagan and other politicians succeeded, for a time, in convincing voters that government spending was bad, it was by suggesting that bureaucrats were taking away workers' hard-earned money and giving it to you-know-who: the "strapping young buck" using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks, the welfare queen driving her Cadillac. Take away the racial element, and Americans like government spending just fine.

... you need to remind them that there is a certain element of America that doesn't care what or who wasteful spending is lavished upon. They still see it as wasteful spending and want less of it. That has nothing to do with race, sex or creed, but instead a principled opposition to the expansion of government.

The job for conservatives (and libertarians) is threefold - slap idiocy like this down whenever you see it, defend conservative principles and insist those who seek your votes do more than just promise to follow those principles. Make sure they implement them.

Small surprise McCain is trying to get Obama to agree to town hall type unscripted debates. The Obamessiah without his teleprompter is like Popeye without his spinach.

Via Gateway Pundit:

Clean and well-spoken? Let's just say clean — if you don't count his associations.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades HQ, on a tip from V the K. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Over 1/4 adults in New York City have herpes. Now, I have a serious question to ask everyone: Do you feel that the removal of restrictions on sexual mores since feminism and The Pill liberated women, has been worth the trade off of STD rates and abortion (check out this chart since Roe v. Wade)? (Never mind mental health issues.)

Before answering too quickly, I'm figuring you're an average male or female. In which case, you've had approximately 8 partners for men, a little less for women (and the men report more partners because they go to prostitutes--hi Eliot). Give or take..... Do you regret your couplings? Would you rather not have had sex with these people? And would your opinion change if you ended up with a permanent scourge like herpes or like Obama said, a baby?

It seems to me that one of the reasons we're getting more moderate Republican leaders is because many Americans, while conservative in their ideals, are more liberal in their actions. That's why I believe abortion will be legal for a long time in most states even should Roe be overturned and why STDs will continue to plague people. People profess to believe in chastity before marriage, even conservative Christians, but few actually believe it enough to practice it.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier

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

Say Anything: Helping Obama out with some new campaign signs

Remedicated: 15 of the weirdest home remedies and folk treatments ever

Cracked: The 11 most badass last words ever uttered

Egotastic!: Ashley Alexandra Dupre bikini pictures - Spitzer's hooker goes to the beach

You can check out all those links and more by clicking here. Don't forget to bookmark RWN's companion page, CG! Remember, if you're not reading RWN and CG every day, you're not getting the full story!

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

The website of the day is Transcended.

Fred Hiatt does a good job, in one column, of destroying the Democrats' partisan effort to produce a phony Intelligence Committee report demonstrating that Bush and Cheney lied in order to get us into Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

Hiatt then goes on to use the report's own words to demonstrate that Bush's claims at the time were "substantiated by intelligence information."

And of course, Jay Rockefeller, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, was one of the most vociferous in his claims in 2002 about the danger that Saddam Hussein posed.

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Unsurprisingly, the Democrats didn't include such statements and the many others like it that Democrats had made in 2002 after looking at the same reports that Bush was looking at. Stephen Hayes, who has been a tiger on researching the connections between Al Qaeda-backed terrorists and the Hussein government reminds us that Jay Rockefeller was quite convinced of those connections before we went into Iraq.

It's also worth pointing out that the Jay Rockefeller who today accuses the Bush administration of inventing the threat posed by Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration once saw "a substantial connection" between the two and warned about the consequences of leaving Iraq to pass its WMD to Osama bin Laden. On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: "The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

The New York Sun highlights some more evidence that the majority wanted to keep out of its report such at the State Department's assessment of the presence of Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq and its operations that went on with the "knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

As Hiatt points out, the crucial lesson we have learned is that our intelligence was quite fallible. Presidents have to make decisions based on such faulty intelligence. Decision-making would be a lot easier if we had absolute certainty to go on, but we don't.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

This is the real concern that we should have going forward - how to make dangerous decisions based on uncertain information, not trying to once again put forth partisan attacks based on filtered information to show try to prove that Bush lied and people died.

The Anchoress has more.

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

The dysfunction, dishonesty, incompetence, and radicalism of the Democratic Party has been off-the-charts. Since they've taken over Congress, it has been nothing but a long string of broken campaign promises, failure, and excuses so far.

Now, that weird little troll Dennis Kucinich is pushing impeachment. Maybe that'll distract the American people from the dismal failure of the Democratic Congress,

Thirty-five articles were presented by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to the House of Representatives late Monday evening, airing live on C-SPAN.

"The House is not in order," said Kucinich to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), upon which Pelosi pounded her gavel.

"Resolved," Kucinich then began, "that President George W. Bush be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate. ...

"In his conduct while President of the United States, George W. Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the following abuses of power..."

The first article Kucinich presented, and many that followed, regarded the war in Iraq: "Article 1 - Creating a secret propaganda campaign to manufacture a false case for war against Iraq."

These closet fascists on the Left, like Kucinich, are absolutely dying not just to impeach members of the Bush Administration -- but to start throwing their political opponents in jail for daring to disagree with the Left.

Republicans should do whatever it takes to thwart their undemocratic tactics and liberals should remember that they will not be in power forever -- and that jail cells can hold Democrats as well as Republicans.

"I cried all night. I'm going to be crying for the next four years. What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation's political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance." -- Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

One mistake that some people make is lumping all Muslims together. The reality is that they're not all the same. Sure, some of them are radical, but some of them are moderate. Sure, some of them are our enemies, but some of them are our friends.

Strategically, if you just say the Koran says what it says and therefore a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim, you lose the opportunity to gain allies like this...

The leader of the tribal confederation that has fought to expel Al Qaeda from most of Iraq's Anbar province is offering his men to help gin up a rebellion against Osama bin Laden's organization along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

In an interview, Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi told The New York Sun that in April he prepared a 47-page study on Afghanistan and its tribes for the deputy chief of mission at the American embassy in Kabul, Christopher Dell. When asked if he would send military advisers to Afghanistan to assist American troops fighting there, he said: "I have no problem with this; if they ask me, I will do it."

The success of the Anbari tribal rebellion known as the awakening spurred Multinational Forces Iraq to try to emulate the model throughout Iraq, including with the predominately Shiite tribes in the south of the country. Today, the tribe-based militias formed to protect Anbaris from Al Qaeda are forming a political alliance poised to unseat the confessional Sunni parties currently in parliament in the provincial elections scheduled for the fall and the federal ones scheduled for 2009.

..."Al Qaeda is an ideology," Sheik Ahmad said. "We can defeat them inside Iraq and we can defeat them in any country." The tribal leader arrived in Washington last week. All of his meetings, including an audience with President Bush, have been closed to the public, in part because the Anbari sheiks, while likely to win future electoral contests, are not themselves part of Iraq's elected government.

Of his meeting with Mr. Bush, Sheik Ahmad said he was impressed. "He is a brave man. He is also a wise man. He is taking care of the country's future, the United States' future. He is also taking care of the Iraqi people, the ordinary people in Iraq. He wants to accomplish success in Iraq."

When Sheik Ahmad's brother, Sheik Sattar, met with Mr. Bush in Anbar last fall, he told the president that he dedicated his victory over Al Qaeda to the victims of the attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 13, 2007, Sheik Sattar was assassinated by an improvised explosive device. Since then, his brother Sheik Ahmad has led the awakening movement.

..."We have to rebuild a national Iraqi army, not built on sects, but the same way they built up the Anbar police," he said. "They must be well-armed, so they will be able to protect the country and all the American interests in the area. We also have to make a friendship treaty based on mutual respect between the two parties, and then the United States will be able to withdraw from Iraq, if they wish, and we will succeed in Iraq the same way America succeeded in Japan and Germany."

The Anbari sheik offered no comment on the details of the current negotiations on the American troop presence in Iraq between Prime Minister al-Maliki and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, saying he was not involved in the negotiations. But he also said he favored such a status-of-forces agreement. "With a diplomatic understanding we will be able to solve all the problems. We fully trust the Americans. We know the United States never in its history occupied a country. On the contrary, they were occupied and they were able to fight the occupier," he said, referring to the American rebellion against the British in 1776.

Sheik Ahmad al-Rishawi? Would we agree on every single issue of philosophy and religion? No, but I'm happy to have this guy on our side. Every American should be -- and when we have an opportunity to ally with other Ahmad al-Rishawi's, we should take advantage of it.

How do these people take themselves seriously? It's like these liberal reporters try to find the stupidest notion that directly opposes common sense and then expound on it for the dull-witted masses. Today, at the scholars feet, we learn about Hugo Chavez's democratic impulses. Here are the words Simon Romero of the New York Times uses to describe Chavez:

• self-reinvention
• incredible political instincts
• gambler

Indeed, the national temperament is now much less buoyant than in December 2006, when voters re-elected Mr. Chávez to a six-year term, and his handlers may have recognized the shift. Despite record oil prices, economic growth is slowing and inflation is soaring. The nationalization of telephone, electricity, oil and steel companies has scared off foreign investment. While shortages of some items have eased, many basic food items remain in short supply.

The writers must get bored with reporting the facts when the facts don't suit them. Chavez is the most recent example of the failure of the socialist ideology. Don't tell the media types that, it doesn't fit the narrative.

Cross-posted at Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Back in the day, I used to love to play Dungeons and Dragons. Then, over time, I got more into video games (although they can't hold my attention like they used to) and the whole idea of massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) fascinated me.

However, there were two things that kept me from ever getting into MMORPG.

#1) So much of it is time intensive. Put another way, the deciding factor in how well you do is how much time you're willing to spend playing. When you're a college student or have nothing better to do after work than just play video games for 5-6 hours at a stretch, that may sound pretty appealing, but if you're a busy person, who has the time to play that much?

#2) These games reminded me too much of this...

Now, I used to work for an ISP and unsurprisingly, there were a lot of hard core gaming junkies working there.

Once -- and I kid you not -- I had one of them tell me that he was spending hours in a game working on his fishing skill. In other words, he sat in front of a computer, logged into a game, where his character was fishing. Another person told me they were running a shop online in one of these MMORPGs.

I was flabbergasted.

What's the point of playing a game where you spend hours fishing, something that you could actually do in real life or worse yet, working at a business -- isn't that the sort of mundane thing you play games to get away from?

Hat tip Hot Air for the video.

Another day, another Hollywood actor denigrating America, God, or, in this case, the troops. Sure, when Rupert Everett said the following, he was talking about British troops, not Americans, but the point is the same,

"In Burton's day they were itching to get into the fray. Now it is the opposite. They are always whining about the dangers of being killed. Oh my God, they are such wimps now!

"The whole point of being in the Army is wanting to get killed, wanting to test yourself to the limits. Now you have to fly 15,000ft above the war zone to avoid getting hit. I don't think there is any point in having wars if that's how you're going to behave. It's pathetic. All this whining!"

He went on to say: "The whole point of being in the Army is going to war and getting yourself blown up. That and p---ing on prisoners. Yet we all get shocked by Abu Ghraib."

You've got to love the "manly man" actor insulting the troops that have been spilling their blood, sweat, and tears in the sands of Iraq. But, what do those peons know about suffering? I mean Ralph Everett's catered lunch probably started late 2 or 3 times while he was on set and once, the air conditioning even broke! Oh, it probably got so, so hot under those lights! But, you didn't hear "Ole Blood and Guts" Ralph Everett complaining like those "wimps" in Iraq, did you?

PS #1: Yes, I know Everett apologized, but it's obviously because he's worried this will hurt the sales of his new film, The Victorian Sex Explorer, not because he didn't mean what he said.

PS #2: You think this guy's comments are out of the ordinary for liberals or do you think that the average lib has no admiration or appreciation for the troops and this guy just said what they're thinking? I think it's the latter.

PS #3: My favorite part of Everett's whole rant was this...

"The whole point of being in the Army is wanting to get killed..."

Well, George Patton once said that,

"No b*stard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb b*stard die for his country."

If only Patton were around today so that Rupert Everett could set him straight on the whole concept. I wouldn't pay a plugged nickel to watch Everett's new film, but I would pay plenty to watch the two of them having a conversation about this subject.

So after years of a sexless marriage, a wife provided a novel solution, and later, wrote about it:

Charla apparently had no intention of writing about "the gift," as she euphemistically refers to it. She was simply a homemaker and marketing consultant, who in 2006 wanted to give her husband a special 40th birthday present.

"This is something no one else would give him," she said in an interview. "It didn't cost a lot of money. It was highly memorable. It met all the criteria for a really great gift."

Brad was less than fully enthusiastic, mostly because, he says, his wife often has big ideas and poor follow-through. After all, she hadn't been especially generous in that department since they'd had their two children. He paid closer attention when he realized that she was serious.

The couples did "hit the wall" at some point. And when it was over, did they continue their marathon ways? Not exactly:

Today, the Browns report they have sex approximately six times a month, or double their frequency before their adventure. The Mullers decline to discuss their habits, except to say that they fall well within the national average. And, Brad said, the sex is better. "It made it much easier to be open to the idea, more spontaneous," he said, "So you don't go back to that always gaming for it and always trying to get out of it."