1] Wizbang
2] Little Green Footballs
3] Chicago Sun Times
4] Tom Nelson
5] This Ain’t Hell
6] Because I’m Right
7] Conservative Grapevine
8] Right Wing News
9] Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
10] GOP Blog

I put this list up every Sunday (I try to, at least), so if you’d like to be on here next week, all you have to do is link to us as often as possible and send some traffic.

And, while I’m on here this Sunday, I’d like to wish all you moms out there a Happy Mother’s Day. =)

Have a great weekend, everyone!

A television ad in which the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and a former speaker, Newt Gingrich, warn about the dangers of climate change may violate federal election law, according to two campaign finance lawyers.

The spot, which shows Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Gingrich seated on a couch in front of the Capitol, is being questioned because the California Democrat faces a primary election June 3 in her San Francisco district.

“It’s prohibited,” a Republican campaign finance lawyer, Jan Baran, said. He said the ad constitutes a “coordinated” expenditure on behalf of Ms. Pelosi’s campaign by the group sponsoring the ad, the Alliance for Climate Protection. Any ad of that sort distributed in a candidate’s district within 90 days of a congressional primary or general election is deemed a campaign donation, Mr. Baran said.

Don’t expect her to “pay” for any indiscretion, and don’t expect anyone in the MSM to pick it up, either.

Here’s the ad at issue:

What irks me about the ad is not that Newt is “campaigning” for the environment, I think that’s a good idea, generally. We could all be better stewards of the environment. My problem, of course, is his contention that we need to petition our leaders to do something about it. I mean, is he a conservative or is he a conservative? Conservatives should not be encouraging the federal government to be “the solution” to all of our problems (of course, whether anthropogenic global warming is a “problem” is another discussion all to itself). When conservative leaders like Newt stand up and make these statements, it is almost irrelevant whether or not the government actually gets involved, because these sorts of ads, replayed over and over, repeated by liberals and conservatives alike, simply enforce among the population that government solves problems.

Bernie Ward, the most prominent liberal voice on Bay Area talk radio for more than two decades, admitted Thursday to distribution of child pornography by e-mail in a plea deal that will send him to federal prison for at least five years.

Ward, 57, a former Roman Catholic priest, was a fixture on KGO-AM 810 for three hours every weeknight, known in recent years for his fervent denunciations of President Bush and the war in Iraq during his news talk show. He also hosted “God Talk,” a Sunday morning program on religion, and was a prolific fundraiser for the station’s charity drives.

Remember the fury over Mark Foley and his contact with House Pages? Think there’s going to be any outrage or indignation from the left over this guy’s behavior? Don’t hold your breath.

Over at the Democratic Underground, one person says that “even heroes can have their tragic flaws.” Uhm, you guys weren’t saying that with Foley. You sure as hell aren’t saying it about this guy, either.

What both men did was reprehensible, and people (both left and right) were correct in condemning them for their actions and behavior. But if you’re going to condemn them (as I did and still do) and demand they face the consequences, then you’d better be willing and able to condemn Ward and his actions. Simply because he shares your political beliefs is no reason to give excuses for his behavior. Otherwise, you’re a hypocrite.

And, as we all know, the left is never guilty of hypocrisy, right? (ahem, cough, cough)

With pressure growing on Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to end her presidential campaign, “intermediaries” have resumed discussing the possibility of an Obama-Clinton “dream team” ticket.

“I think it’s very much a possibility and there are others around Sen. Clinton, other top Democrats who think the strongest ticket would be a joint ticket,” George Stephanopoulos, ABC News’ chief Washington correspondent, said Monday on “Good Morning America.”

I have this initial gut feeling that this would be a dream ticket for the GOP, too. So much for Obama’s message for “Hope” and “Change” if he has put a Clinton on the ticket. And how great would it be to continue to trash both of these candidates throughout the general election? I can’t think of a VP that has more baggage than Clinton, either. And, finally, you know Clinton and her ego won’t be the quiet, behind the scenes VP. No, she’ll be outshining Barry Obama at every chance she gets.

Yes, I think Clinton would be a damn albatross on ol’ Obama’s neck (as will be Michelle Obama, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Obama’s voting record, Obama’s ideas, etc.).

Here’s an article (if you could call it that) from the Huffington Post that was printed over at Yahoo!:

The British have Buckingham Palace. The French have Élysée Palace. Americans, we have… The White House? The WHITE House. The White HOUSE.

Whereas “Buckingham Palace” and “Élysée Palace” sound majestic, we must admit that “The White House” sounds like something out of a children’s book:

This is Jane.
See Jane run.
Run, Jane, run
to The White House.

Doesn’t the leader of the free world deserve to live in a residence with a more stately name?

Now, that’s not the funny part. This is:

Washington never lived in The White House; James Madison became the President in 1797, three years before construction was completed, which proves one thing: even George Washington couldn’t get contractors to work any faster. (Washington never saw the completed structure; he died in 1799.)

Really? James Madison was elected in 1797? Moron. (John Adams was elected after Washington)

Now that’s some funny right there. But wait, it gets better. Go over to the actual post on HuffPo and you see that a person in the comments corrected the author. And the post has been changed to reflect the correction, with nary a word on said correction. “Fake, but accurate” and all that, you know.

Now, as to the REASON why it was finally called The White House (it was referred to as the President’s House or the Executive Mansion, among other things, for its first century). Quite simply, it was because early Americans (and present-day ones, too) rejected the use of regal terms to describe anything, be it a person or a building. We don’t call our public buildings “palaces” or anything, because we threw off those notions in the revolution. We go for more plain terms whenever we can.

Just as Washington rejected being called by more noble-sounding titles in favor of the more generic “Mr. President”, Americans always called the historic mansion by its generic name, The White House (because, after all, it was white). It was THE White House, not A white house. Roosevelt simply put the name that everyone called it on official stationery, and so the name stuck.

But hey, let’s not get history confused with, I dunno, facts or anything. Because a lib says it is so, then it must be true, right?

Personally, I’m surprised that a lib hasn’t said they call it the White House because only whites have lived there. Oh, wait…sorry, that already happened.

I understand the author is trying to be funny, but he doesn’t pull it off at all.

Many Democrats are frustrated and fatigued by the longest U.S. presidential nomination battle most have witnessed, and the divisions in its wake have left some wondering if they can back the ultimate winner.

“I backed Hillary in the (Wisconsin) primary, but no matter which one gets in, I’m unimpressed by both of them at this point,” said Linda Mrochinski, who works for a nonprofit organization in Milwaukee.

“Instead of a policy-based and a ‘what we can do’ campaign, it’s become a campaign of the women versus the blacks. It’s just not a very comfortable campaign at this point,” she added.

I guess it’s not really important how this woman got to where she is, or how long it took her to get there, but just that she eventually got there.

Democrats love identity politics, lady. It is more important than issues, generally because Democrats know they cannot win on the issues alone. The Democrats’ mantra is to divide and conquer - split the country up between rich and poor, black and white, man and woman. Just listen to their A) “class warfare” speeches (the rich are exploiting you), or B) Sharpton’s protesting every time somebody black gets in a controversial situation (but do not ask him to support a white), or C) watch the way Democrats frame the abortion argument (Republicans are trying to deny women their rights!). When, in fact, Republicans are simply A) trying to keep the economy going, which usually means keeping the people with the money and in charge of the business able and willing to continue to spend, B) fighting crime, and C) protecting the sanctity of the smallest life / returning to Consitutional principles of federalism/state’s rights.

One thing I would like to ask of people joining in: PLEASE use an actual username so that we can keep track of who we’re talking with. We can have anywhere from 2 to 20 people “talking” at any given time, and if everyone is listed as “anonymous” or whatever, it’s kinda hard to know who said what. I don’t care what name you choose to go by, as long as you type something in.

Thanks in advance!

So, here we go:

Update: That was pretty fun, we’ll have to do it again in a few weeks!

Thanks to everyone who joined in, it was great getting a chance to (finally) talk to you.

Actually, it is funny because Obama just said this a few hours ago:

Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that the most important thing he could achieve as president would be to deal with Iraq and the threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan while improving “our influence around the world.”

And then we get this just 15 minutes ago:

The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was arrested in the northern city of Mosul, the Iraqi Defense Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

It’s slightly lamentable that he is not dead, but I suppose he may have some intelligence value.

I doubt this will translate into a bump in the polls for McCain, but it will push Iraq farther and farther down the line in terms of what is important to voters.

Slowly but surely we are winning the war. As long as we keep anti-every-war-that-ever-took-place-for-any-reason fringe lefties out of the decision-making process, we’ll be just fine. Take the time, get the job done. It matters.

Update: Not so fast.

John McCain the presidential candidate suddenly sounded like the John McCain of 2005 on Monday, touting two pet issues that have generated considerable heartache among grassroots conservatives: the “Gang of 14” compromise and comprehensive immigration reform.

McCain brought up the “Gang of 14” saga unprompted at a town hall here, in advance of a major speech on judicial appointments he is set to deliver tomorrow in Winston-Salem.

“I know what bipartisanship is,” McCain said. “I am going to talk tomorrow again about our Gang of 14: seven Republicans, seven Democrats that got together rather than blow up the Senate, and we confirmed so many federal judges.”

(snip)

The Arizona senator also seemed to move past his usual “secure the borders first” mantra in favor of calling for, as he put it, “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Last summer, McCain and Sen. Edward Kennedy led the charge on an immigration reform package that aroused the ire of conservatives and ultimately threatened to undermine McCain’s then-frontrunning presidential bid. (McCain also supported immigration reform bills in 2005 and 2006.)

“Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don’t think you can take it piecemeal,” he explained Monday, answering a question about providing visas for skilled workers.

“In other words,” he said, “because as soon you and I start to talk about the highly skilled workers, our agricultural interest people are going to say, ‘Look we need ag workers, too.’ And then somebody’s going say, ‘We need the DREAM Act,’ and then somebody’s going to say, ‘We’ve got to enforce our border.’”

Throughout the Republican primary battle last fall, McCain faced relentless questions about his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, the 2007 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if they faced certain penalties. Opponents labeled it “amnesty.”

Since clinching the nomination, McCain has largely avoided speaking about wide-ranging immigration reform, arguing primarily that the government needs to focus on securing the border with Mexico before taking on other measures.

On Monday, he lobbied for a broader approach that includes a temporary guest worker program and tamper-proof ID cards.

“We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States,” McCain said, “and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform.”

As I’ve said before (too many times to count), no matter who wins in November, this country is going to move to the left. Regardless of whether it’s McCain, Clinton, or Obama, this idea of giving illegal immigrants amnesty is going to become a reality. And with the border unsecured, and unlikely (under any of these three) to ever be secured, it’s only going to kick the can down the road another twenty years.

Think about it. If illegal immigrants break into the country and then get amnesty, what message does that send to others who are thinking about doing it? It says “come on in and then wait us out, we’ll give you amnesty, too.” We learned this lesson — or SHOULD have, rather — from our experience with the amnesty in the 1980s. We were told that the border would be secured, those here illegally would be given amnesty, and the problem would never come up again. Well, here it is, twenty years later, and we’re at the same place we started at. And the politicians, as usual, are proposing the exact same solution they gave us back then.

Like I’ve said, if you don’t learn from your mistakes, you’re bound to repeat them. McCain obviously has not learned from his past mistakes, and he’s going to do his damndest to repeat them. It’d be a totally different story (to me, at least) if the border was totally secured by now and we knew for a fact that this wasn’t going to be a problem later on. Then I’d have zero problem with an amnesty. Throw them a friggin’ parade, for all I care. But with the border being as open as it is, it’s only going to send the message, loud and clear, that you can come here illegally and be rewarded for doing so. It says don’t bother filling out the paperwork or going through the proper route to come here, just walk across the border, we’ll take care of it later. Meanwhile, enjoy your stay here in the United States, where we talk about the rule of law, but don’t much care to enforce it, lest someone call us uncaring or something like that.

Not to mention the national security risk an open border poses. With terrorists trying everything they can to strike at us, can anyone sit there and honestly say that bin Laden or his pals haven’t thought about smuggling a nuke or a biological/chemical weapon into the country via Mexico? Of COURSE they have. That they haven’t managed to do it is nothing short of a miracle, and probably has more to do with the war and its subsequent damage to their organization than their incompetence. Remember, these people pulled off a coordinated hijacking that took the lives of 3000 men and women and caused billions of dollars in damage. They certainly can, if given the breathing room, mount an attack across an undefended border. McCain, for all his talk about the war and national security, can’t seem to grasp this reality.

Austrian Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned his daughter for 24 years and fathered her seven children, said he was no “monster” and he could have killed her and her children had he wanted to, according to his lawyer.

“I am not a monster,” Austrian daily Oesterreich quoted Fritzl as saying in comments relayed by his lawyer Rudolf Mayer. Fritzl also criticized media coverage of his case as “totally one-sided.”

A) You are not absolved from the “crime” of being a monster simply because you “could have” killed your daughter, but “only” imprisoned her in your basement, told your wife the daughter had run away, raped her, and fathered seven of her children. Killing her probably would have been the more humane thing, incidentally. In any event, you’re a piece of garbage monster either way.

B) There is no such thing as “one-sided coverage” when you lock your daughter in the basement and rape her for 24 years. Why? Because there is no excuse or logical explanation for what you’ve done. When there is a car accident, or some “alleged” crime, often times the media goes overboard and just reports one side of the story. That can be a problem because there are many different things, excuses, or justifications for why people might act the way they do in those situations. For example, hearing one side of the story in a car accident may totally ignore the fault of the other party. In a criminal case, things like self-defense may justify a killing, but if you only hear the police side of events, you miss that very rational reason for why it happened. There is no such possible justification for doing what you did. Nothing can rationalize it. Nothing your daughter did could have made her deserve it, nor is there anything you did that can make this less than what it actually is. If, for any reason you can conjure up, you imprisoned your child and raped them for 24 years, you are a monster. Period. There is nothing from “your side” of the story that can change that.

It would be different if this weirdo had actually denied it. Then I would say, “Yeah, let’s hear from both parties.” Why? Because people do make things up, and in that circumstance, we need to hear both sides of the story. But this man’s response was “I’m not that bad because I could have killed her!”

FYI: the live-chat is tonight at 8 pm (CST), so if you’re bored and have nothing better to do (and, really, who does?) come on by and join in. Should be a lot of fun. Plus, it gives my co-bloggers and me the chance to get to know our readers a little better. =)

The Rev. Al Sharpton was arrested at the Brooklyn Bridge on Wednesday as he and hundreds of demonstrators blocked traffic to protest the acquittal of three detectives in the 50-bullet shooting of an unarmed black man on his wedding day.

Sharpton, two survivors of the shooting and the slain man’s fiancée were among about a dozen people arrested on disorderly conduct charges near the base of the bridge.

Police led away demonstrators at several other bridges and tunnels in the city.

The police officers had their day in court and won. Sharpton’s ilk had their day in court and lost. But that’s not good enough. We need “Sharpton Law,” where Al Sharpton, irrespective of the law, the courts, or any part of the justice system, hands down punishment and discipline as needed.

This isn’t colonial India, Al. It’s America (or is that Amerikkka to you?). You take your disputes to the Court. You win some, you lose some. If you have some proof that something was rigged, or fixed, or somehow unfair, then let us see it. If you’re just whining because no one, not even an impartial justice system, agrees with you, then I hope you have an awesome cell mate named Bubba who’s really lonely.