Thursday, September 28, 2006

I'm Betting On Deval Patrick!

That's right. On my radio show today, I bet $1,000 that electing Deval Patrick governor guarantees higher taxes in Masssachusetts.

Here's the bet: If Deval Patrick doesn't raise my Massachusetts state taxes (not local ones--this isn't a trick or a trap) within two years of taking office, I will write a $1,000 check in Mr. Patrick's name to the Fisher House Foundation.

Now, I don't know about you, but for me, $1,000 is a lot of money. But I won't lose a minute of sleep over this bet, because I've got science on my side. Surely you've seen this equation before:

Liberal legislature + Liberal governor= Higher taxes.

Bet? No way! It's a sure thing.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Bubble, Bubble, Boston's In Trouble

Check out, and you'll see that the news on the housing market--in the short term anyway, isn't good. For example:

  • Boston has been ranked the #1 most vulnerable housing market for potential price declines by Kiplinger's Personal Finance and the PMI Group.
  • The Wall Street Journal has identified Boston as one of the metropolitan areas in the US where it is cheaper to rent than to buy. Their data goes from 2001, when it was already cheaper to rent, to 2004 when the difference was even more pronounced.
  • Consumer Reports has rated real estate in the Boston market as "Overpriced" and pegged it at 24% over the affordable price as of Q4 2004.

My question: Deval Patrick, what are you going to do to solve this problem? So far, his plan is to solve the oversupply of housing by...building more government-subsidized housing! That'll do it!

What Clinton Didn't Do...

...and when he didn't do it, according to Richard Miniter in the Wall Street Journal.

The Natural Truth About the NIE

"If democratic reform efforts in Muslim majority nations progress over the next five years, political participation probably would drive a wedge between intransigent extremists and groups willing to use the political process to achieve their local objectives."--the National Intelligence Estimate.

Before you buy into the non-stop-repeated pseudo-journalism on the subject, please read the NIE for yourself. What you'll find is what common sense tells you:

A--There were terrorists before we took out Saddam, and if we'd left him alone, there would still be terrorists trying to kill us now. Only, they'd have a government and its intelligence agencies in Iraq ready to help out.

B--Some people are declaring jihad because we're in Iraq. But some of them would have declared jihad over Israel, or Lebanon or the an opera about Mohammad anyway. So we're not sure how many people joined Al Qaeda because we whacked Saddam (and I thought we all "knew" there's no connection between Saddam and Islamists in the first place?)

C-- Just as attacking Japan increased Japanese support for the empire, attacking Islamist terrorists causes some Muslims to rally 'round their cause. Also, NOT attacking them and letting them run wild causes some Muslims to support their cause. Also, supporting free speech, free press and rights for women and homosexuals causes some Muslims to support the Islamists. And the Bush-haters' solution to this is....?

UPDATE: Another highlight from the NIE: "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.”

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

With Friends Like These...

Is it just me, or does Deval look like he's been kidnapped by the "Laurel and Hardy Militia of Al Qaeda" and being forced to pose for this photo?

"I am not being coerced. I choose to convert of my own free will..."

"Hanna's beliefs prevent her from even treating soldiers on American soil."

One of the most reprehensible news stories I've read in a long time comes from Somerville, MA where US Army-trained doctor Mary Hanna is attempting to avoid the military service she agreed to give in exchange for a military-funded medical degree.

Getting out of something that you don't want to do--I get that. It's human nature (would you pay your credit card bills if you didn't have to?) It's the reason she offers that I find so profoundly offensive.

Hanna claims she's recently gone through a religious revival as a Coptic Orthodox Christian and providing care and comfort to an American soldier would violate her religious sensibilities.

This is a woman who, presumably, would provide medical care to rapists, child molesters, even terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. But an American soldier? Unclean. Beneath her. A violation of her principles.

Who wants to explain to her that the freedom to live by these principles comes from the barrel of a gun--a gun carried by an American soldier? Who wants to share with her what would happen in an Islamist country to a woman who wanted to go to medical school, become a doctor and treat (undressed!) soldiers alone in a hospital room?

The charitable argument is that Hanna is just a scam artist trying to get out of her deal to provide medical services to the Army in exchange for a free education. But what a disgusting, insulting argument to make.

Sadly, this anti-soldier, anti-US-military attitude is probably one she encounters on a regular basis as a war opponent in Somerville. It is possible to oppose the war in Iraq without loathing our soldiers.

But more and more liberals aren't even trying.

Oil Companies Are Gouging Us At The Pump...NOT!

Notice how, when oil prices go up, gas prices go up. Gee, you don't think there's a relationship there, now do you?

Evil Oil Companies Are Making Obscene Profits....NOT!

For most of the past 20 years, oil and gas was a mediocre deal for investors. Notice how often it was LOSING money. If oil companies control the world, why would they choose to lose money?

Evil Bush Conspiracy Manipulates Gas Prices!

Or maybe not.

They Debate, You Decide

Due to an email snafu on my end, I wasn't able to post any of your real-time emails during last night's debate. My sincere apologies.

However, the 96.9 listeners had some terrific comments, so I'm posting a few here for your review. To add your own, email

SEAN: "Some people actually hate healey for being an elitist snob. my wife for instance. she hates what patrick stands for but closes her eyes."

SUSAN: "I think Christy should have run as a Republican. can you say Gov Patrick ???? OH God Help us. This state will get exactly what is deserves if we elect a left wing Clintonite like Patrick. Why doesn't someone ask the question why illegals can get subsidized housing, while American citizens are shut out of that housing. What a shame. Our citizenship means nothing anymore in this State."

CHRISTINE: "Healy-Mihos 2006? I don’t know, could be the winning ticket"

DEAN: "Kerry Healey, in this debate, came off a smug, arrogant, aloof and the queen of giggle. Kerry wouldn't even acknowledge Ms Ross which came off very bad. Deval seemed to start the 'can't we all get along, I agree with everyone' club. Christy Mihos, said 'illegal' and not "undocumented". Christy just got my vote!"

LORI: "What the heck is Ms. Healey talking about - budget surplus? If there is a surplus, obviously someone isn't managing the Commonwealth correctly - there should NOT be a surplus when there are still schools falling apart (literally - visit UMASS Boston!), whicle we are still paying tolls on roads long paid for, and certainly not when we need so much help with fighting the crimalien invasion."

CYNTHIA: "Considering it was 3 against 1, I think she held her own pretty well. What professional communicators need to understand is ...Have you ever seen 'Charlie Brown' when the teacher speaks and all you hear is, 'Whaw, whaw, whaw, whaw?' Well, people hear, 'whaw, whaw, whaw, against giving licenses to illegal aliens.' 'Whaw, whaw, whaw, roll back taxes,' etc."

Monday, September 25, 2006

Liveblogging The MA Governor's Debate on 96.9 FM TALK

My take on the debate is below. The postings start with the most recent, so you may want to scroll down.

And The Loser Is:

Anyone who wasted an hour watching this yawnfest. It offered definitive proof that having the second-tier candidates truly reduces the value of these debates.

The other loser is Kerry Healy. Why? Because when you're down in the polls by 35% and nothing happens--you lose.

Kerry was also the only candidate who was rattled. Of course, she was also the only candidate who took any punches. Cranky Mihos proved that he's in this race to settle scores, not win votes. He was all over Healy like Rosie O'Donnell on a plate of pasta.

Patrick, meanwhile, never even fielded a tough question. He was able to pontificate about "collaboration" and "checking in and checking out" without facing any follow up.

Message to debate organizers: DUMP THE TWO LOSERS NOW! If Patrick wants to trash Healy on an issue, make him do it!

Having Bored Us Into A Coma...

...the candidates now are urging that the campaign ads be just as boring, too.

And now Christy Mihos--running the "heads up their butts" ads--is complaining about Karl Rove's ads. Except that Karl Rove DIDN'T run/produce/pay for the ads he's complaining about.

The FISHING Industry?

Why not the restaurant industry or the car repair industry or the computer science industry? Puh-LEEZE.

Maybe in Maine or Louisiana. Not here.

Finally! A Reason To Listen!

The Big Dig throwdown! A win for Christy Mihos if this is the high point--unfortunately, he's coming across like a loon again.

Healy needs to remind everyone of the lawsuit to try to take control of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority. How does she not name Matt Amorello?

Patrick is being smart by talking about "being a leader" without ever explaining how he would have done something that the Supreme Judicial Court stopped Gov. Romney from doing. How?

Taking Care Of Business

"speed up approval and permitting?" Please --everyone knows the problem is that from local government to state government, starting a business in Massachusetts is a HUGE hassle. Speeding up the over-regulation won't reduse the over-regulation, it will just take out a little of the sting.

Meanwhile, in Ohio and North Carolina, the over-regulation doesn't exist in the first place. Does anyone really believe that an All-Democrat Massachusetts government is going to reduce the burden on business?

I Refuse To Quote The Rainbow Coalition Chick... matter HOW STUPID her comments are. It's a matter of principle, folks. I'm not going to debate the viability of Soviet Communism, either.

Been there, done that.

It's Halftime! And The Score Is...

Zzzzzzzzzz...huh? What? Oh--the debate, yeah, right.

Which means Patrick is winning because when you're up by 35% and nothing happens, that's good news.

Mihos is probably giving the best performance overall, but it's hardly impressive. One thing about this format is it shows just how "one-note" his campaign truly is.

And whining about Jane Swift "violating my civil rights?" Please. This is all personal, which is why Mihos is only swinging at Healy.

The Good News For Patrick Is...

...that he doesn't have to win. He just needs to "not lose."

Thus far, Patrick is definitely not losing, but am I the only person who finds his performance, well, underwhelming?

His "on the one hand, on the other" is a smart strategy for making his appearance forgettable. But it strikes me as a Prevent defense approach. Wonder if he can continue to get away with it until November?

Patrick Has Dodged A Bullet Tonight

Having Christy Mihos running interference on illegal immigration is a real boon for Deval Patrick. Mihos punches Kerry in the face, takes her off the game and takes the focus off of Patrick. The driver's license is a big problem for Patrick and he got out without a scratch.

Kerry Healy Gets K.O.d!

Christy's convoluted and incomprehensible question about Kerry Healy changing her position on illegal immigration actually worked--Healy couldn't answer. She looked like she was dodging it, whether she was or not.

Not good, Kerry, not good at all.

"FOX Isn't Fair!"

First taxes, now immigration--two of Patrick's worst issues. Is Bill Clinton right--a "right wing hit job?"

And Patrick's "we're both right" about illegal immigration shows what everyone knows: He's on the wrong side of this issue.

Cranky Christy Is Hitting The Right Note

"We can't afford to live here" is exactly right. Normal folks know exactly what he's talking about. They feel it, even if they don't express it--other than with their U-haul vans.

It's an issue that either Patrick or Healy is going to seize upon before the campaign is over. The smart one will do so first.

Patrick Defends Politics

Hmmm....I wonder if this is a meme Patrick is going to build on--defending the legislature from "disrespectful" comments by Healy. It wasn't a big deal, maybe a throwaway. But maybe not.

Does Deval "Change The Culture" Patrick really think this is a winning approach?

Cranky Christy Goes On The Attack!

Well, sort of, anyway. He says Healy and Patrick are taking money from Big Dig contractors. Let's see if either one takes the bait.

And We're Off And Running!

Taxes and spending, great place to start!

OK, it was trite, but it's easy to remember: "If cutting taxes is the question, Duval Patrick isn't the answer." I predict plenty of these bumper-sticker rebuttals tonight.

Romney Watch Update

At the recent "Family Research Council" summit in DC, which Republican presidential hopeful was the big winner? According to John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, it was Mitt:

[Romney] impressed three separate and distinct audiences in Washington last week in a 24-hour speaking blitz.

On Thursday about one out of eight House Republicans came to hear him address a weekly luncheon hosted by Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia. Mr. Kingston told the Boston Globe that Mr. Romney made a very positive impression and was clearly positioning himself for the role opposite Mr. McCain that Mr. Allen once occupied.

Immediately afterward, Mr. Romney went across town to address a group of K Street lobbyists and economic conservatives. "He was impressive in explaining how he governed as a conservative in Ted Kennedy's home state," said columnist Robert Novak.

The next morning, Mr. Romney appeared before the Family Research Council's summit. "He won over a lot of people when he recalled how as a businessman he had rescued the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City," says Chris Butler of Americans For Tax Reform.

Not a bad day's work for a presidential candidate.

UPDATE: It's not all good news for Mitt.

The quarterly meeting of the Sourh Carolina Republican executive committee Sept. 16 ended on a sour note when one of its more prominent members cornered Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and grilled him about his Mormon faith.

It was not a pretty sight, according to witnesses.

Cyndi Mosteller, chairwoman of the Charleston County Republican Party, one of the largest GOP organizations in the state, came armed with a bunch of material — and questions — about the Mormon church.

Mosteller, an evangelical, said she especially was concerned about the church’s attitude toward African-Americans and its stand on polygamy.

Clinton's "Tom Cruise" Crack-Up

As usual, the MSM are missing the big story of Clinton's appearance on Fox News, focusing on Chris Wallace's performance instead of the former president.

As the author of
CLINTON & ME: How Eight Years of a Pants-Free President Changed My Nation, My Family and My Life, I found the president's performance bizarre even by Clintonian standards. He had all the usual features--whining about the right-wing conspiracy, defending himself by blaming others, mishandling the facts to the point of outright lying--but it was the emotional reaction that stunned me (and, obviously, Mike Wallace).

Three words: Hit A Nerve.

As I've said a thousand times before, blaming Clinton for 9/11 is as dumb as blaming Bush. America as a society just didn't get it when it came to terrorism until it came to New York, DC, and our TV sets in September 2001. Having said that, if you want an honest, neutral take on just how truly "didn't get it" we were on Clinton's watch, read Steve Coll's Ghost Wars.

And as for Clinton's argument that "nobody connected Osama to Somalia and Black Hawk Down," Jim Geraghty gives that bogus bloviating
the smackdown:

The Clinton Justice Department's indictment of Osama bin Laden reads in part:

"The Attacks on the United States Forces in Somalia. On October 3 and 4, 1993, in Mogadishu, Somalia, persons who had been trained by al Qaeda (and by trainers trained by al Qaeda)participated in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack resulted in the killing of 18 United States Army personnel..."

As for Clinton's insistence that Richard Clarke has exonerated the former president's performance, once again may I interject with the facts:

On page 223, Clarke describes a meeting, in late 2000, of the National Security Council “principals” — among them, the heads of the CIA, the FBI, the Attorney General, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the secretaries of State, Defense. It was just after al Qaeda’s attack on the USS Cole. But neither the FBI nor the CIA would say that al Qaeda was behind the bombing, and there was little support for a retaliatory strike. Clarke quotes Mike Sheehan, a State Department official, saying in frustration, “What’s it going to take, Dick? Who the shit do they think attacked the Cole, fuckin’ Martians? The Pentagon brass won’t let Delta go get bin Laden. Hell they won’t even let the Air Force carpet bomb the place. Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?”

That came later. But in October 2000, what would it have taken? A decisive presidential order — which never came.

Once again, I'm not blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11. But if I had his record, I'd keep my mouth shut.

Friday, September 22, 2006

Deval Patrick, Quota King?

At this risk of being accused of "race-baiting" by the head of the MA Democratic Party, allow me to share this excellent article by CBS 4's Jon Keller on Deval Patrick's reputation as an extremist on race-based government policies and affirmative action.

Now THAT'S What I Call A Zionist Conspiracy

Note what Pope Benedict XVI is wearing around his neck in this Palestinian poster being handed out on the "Day Of Rage."

The Arabic writing on the poster reads, "There are many lies that go out of their mouths."

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs.

Teachers May Demand The Naked Truth

The US House of Representatives has passed something they call the "Student and Teacher Safety Act," but reads more like the rulebook of the Col. Klink Academy. It requires every public school to develop a plan for teachers and administrators to search kids at school. According to, these searches include "bag searches, pat downs and strip searches."

The bill was proposed by a Kentucky legislator struggling for re-election, and it was passed by voice vote (no fingerprints) so I hope this isn't perceived as a political winner. How many American parents are prepared to have their kids strip-searched in school? How many moms and dads want teachers and assistant principals to have the authority to pull their kids' pants down without parental knowledge or consent?

I hope this issue is a BIG loser when it gets to the US Senate.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

#29: Taxpayer-Funded Salon Visits For Women With Bangs

OK, maybe that's not one of Kerry Healy's 50 ideas for Massachusetts, but you'll have to read her proposals for yourself to find out for sure.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Deval Patrick Just Says No To Tax Cuts, But...

...meanwhile, the Bush tax cuts have generated more revenue than ever for the federal government:

The U.S. government just recorded record high tax revenues on the September 15th quarterly deadline date for business tax payments. It turns out that total receipts were a booming $85.8 billion. Treasury Undersecretary Randal Quarles said Friday’s numbers provided a “continuing demonstration of the strength of the U.S. economy.”Actually, overall tax revenues for that day, including personal taxes and payroll taxes, were the largest in a single day in the nation’s history. Twenty percent above a year ago according to Quarles.

Gee, wouldn't it be great if Massachusetts economic growth could do the same for us? But does anyone believe a Governor Duval is going to IMPROVE the business climate in Massachusetts?

Meanwhile, it also turns out that the Bush tax cuts have also generated more of what Deval Patrick would call "social justice," i.e. "punishing the people who work hard and are successful. As the Tax Foundation reports:

  • Effective tax rates have fallen for every income group
  • The greatest reduction in tax burden has been for low-income Americans, while the tax burden for the wealthiest has increased almost across the board
  • Since 2000, an additional 14 million taxpayers in the low-income groups pay no federal income taxes at all
  • The new data show an increase in Americans who, in addition to paying no federal income taxes, also receive money back from the IRS
Don't believe me, my Kool-aid drinking friends? Read the numbers for yourself.

UPDATE! Deval isn't the only Democrat who wants to stick it to the taxpayers. Congressman Charlie Rangel--who would take over the Ways and Means Committee if the Dems take the House--wants to get rid of EVERY one of the Bush tax cuts above. Guess he's against higher revenue and the wealthy paying more...

How NOT To Offend Muslims

You'll find all the pointers you need in my latest "Usual Suspects" column.

Mass Primary Update

If you're looking for results from Tuesday's primaries in Massachusetts, they're here.

If you're not a Bay Stater and want to know if Sen. Kennedy is going to have an opponent, the answer is "technically, yes." Find out about him here.

I was asked before the election what the difference was between the two Republicans running in the US Senate primary. My answer: "One of them can't win in November, and the other one is certain to lose."

Here's my "Winners and Losers" list from the primary:

WINNER: Deval Patrick. You don't have to get 50% of the vote to win a primary in Massachusetts, but it helps. He's not just the front-runner, he's the solidly supporter, party-uniting nominee on day one. That's very good news for Democrats.

WINNER: Liberal supporters of illegal immigration. Not only is Patrick a supporter of open borders, amnesty, subsidized tuition for illegal aliens at MA colleges, but he is prepared as governor to sign into law an act to give drivers licenses to immigration criminals in Massachusetts. Also, Democrats defeated their strongest voice against illegal immigration, Rep. Marie Parente, last night and replaced her with a pro-illegal candidate. Fence-sitting Democrats across the state are no doubt watching and learning.

WINNER: Mitt Romney. The overwhelming victory by former Clinton DOJ official Deval Patrick is the best news Mitt Romney could have gotten out of the race to replace him in the Massachusetts Governor's office. Patrick is a great candidate, to be sure: appealing, likeable and smart. However, he is also a movement liberal who sticks out even among the local Blue Staters.

A moderate Democrat would be all but a shoo-in, but Patrick is precisely the kind of Democratic nominee who has made it possible for the GOP to hold onto the governor's mansion the past 16 years. Patrick helps Romney by making this race competitive, which will bring regional and national attention.

If his Lt. Governor, Kerry Healy beats Patrick and holds the office for the Republicans, it will reinforce the "Conservative Republican who wins Blue States" argument that is Romney's strongest case for the nomination.

In addition, Patrick is a Clintonista. Republicans in California and Michigan who normally wouldn't care about the MA governor's race will be tuning in a little more closely when this race pops up on CNN. Beating Patrick isn't like beating Hillary, but it's closer than any of the other Democratic candidates out there.

LOSER: Attorney General Tom Reilly. 'Nuff said. (But if you want to gloat, go here.)

LOSER: Kerry Healy. OK, so Lt. Gov. Healy didn't completely lose last night. She could be facing mega-bucks "moderate" (in Ohio, he'd be a screaming Lefty) Chris Gabrielli, and instead gets to take on pro-illegal, pro-tax, pro-racial quotas, pro-reparations Deval Patrick, which makes the race competitive.

But what Healy really wanted last night was for Tom Reilly to come in second, not get handed his head in third. Reilly was the candidate of what's left of the Reagan Democrats. He was the "we don't want another liberal nut" candidate in this primary. Yes, Gabrielli voters are potential Healy voters, too, but they are going to be easier to keep in the Democratic fold. Reilly voters are going to hear Deval Patrick say "I want your local governments to be able to raise your taxes to provide for public services for illegal immigrants" and then RUN to the polls to vote GOP. Healy needed more of those voters turning out last night.

LOSER: Christy Mihos. The independent outsider now has to compete with "independent outsider" Deval Patrick. The "inside/outside 'they hate me on Beacon Hill'" story line has already been taken, Mr. Mihos. Why do we need a former Republican like you on the ballot?

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Iran's Nukes: First The Good News...

...Condi Rice has confirmed that the EU3--France, Germany and Great Britain--are negotiating with Iran about their nuclear weapons program right now.

The bad news? It didn't work the last time:

Iran duped European Union negotiators into thinking it had halted efforts to make nuclear fuel while it continued to install equipment to process yellowcake -- a key stage in the nuclear-fuel process, a top Iranian negotiator boasted in a recent speech to leading Muslim clerics.

When we were negotiating with the Europeans in Tehran, we were still installing some of the equipment at the Isfahan site. There was
plenty of work to be done to complete the site and finish the work there. In reality, by creating a tame situation, we could finish Isfahan," said Hassan Rowhani, who headed talks with Britain, France and Germany until last year.

"From the outset, the Americans kept telling the Europeans, 'The Iranians are lying and deceiving you, and they have not told you everything.' The Europeans used to respond, 'We trust them,'?" Mr. Rowhani said in a speech to the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution.


Monday, September 18, 2006


The ISB's Favorite Imam Declares A Muslim "Day Of Rage"

Sheik Al-Qaradawi, friend of Menino's Mosque here in Boston and noted Islamo-feminist (he called for suicide bombings by WOMEN terrorists) has called on Muslims world to respond to the Pope's comments with a "day of rage."

Part of their ongoing PR campaign: "Muslims: Stop Calling Us 'Violent,' Or We'll Kill You."

My question is, what day for Arab Muslims is NOT a day of rage? Is there ever a "day of reasoned discourse?" or "day of open debate" or even "day of just hangin' with our Hebrew homies?"

I say that we respond to the Muslim's "Day Of Rage" by declaring Friday a "Day Of Reason." Let's get lots of people of different faiths, different races, sexes, etc. together and debate different ideas. Let's agree, let's disagree, let's stridently disagree--and then NOT set anthing on fire, overturn any cars or shoot anyone!

Nothing angers this Islamist nitwits more than reason, so it will be a win-win. The more reasonable we are, the more rage they'll have. It's perfect!

If you want to participate in the Day of Reason, email me at

Reuters' Quotes "Christian" Historians

"In a speech in Germany on Tuesday, the Pope appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that the early Muslims spread their religion by violence."

So reads the key section of a Reuters story by Jonathan Wright on the current Islamist upheaval over accurate quotations. My question: Is the view that Islam was spread through violent conquest really "a Christian view." Or is it, perhaps, settled opinion from every reputable historian in the modern world (i.e., not working at a Muslim university)?

I can't imagine anyone referring to the "pagan view" that Europe conquered the Americas through violence, or the "liberal agnostic" view that the Holy Roman Empire used its military might to expand the reach of the Catholic church, or that the religious wars between Catholics and Protestants of 500 years ago were anything other than, well, religious wars. Or is that just "a Protestant view."

Memo to Reuters and the Islamists it is sucking up to: I am not going to abandon facts to the Islamists. I'm not going to be forced by angry Muslims to re-write history. I'm not going to reject modernity, the Enlightenment or the Western notions of free speech and equality just because they offend Islam. I DON'T CARE.

What we need in the modern world are more leaders don't care, either.

Why Liberals Love Islamists, Part XXXVI

Harvard welcomes Khatami so he can reiterate that executing homosexuals isn't always wrong. The sharia police are whacking women with sticks for exposing their ankles in public. Multiculturalists insist that Western nations should make room for sharia law in our culture. And now the latest from the Religion of Peace:

"Pakistani rights activists called on the government on Sunday to suspend Islamic laws on rape and adultery until controversy over them is settled. The government is struggling to amend the laws, known as the Hudood Ordinances, which require a rape victim to produce four male witnesses to the crime or risk charges of adultery.

President Pervez Musharraf, who espouses a philosophy of "enlightened moderation," had called for a review of the laws and the government had drafted an amendment taking rape out of the sphere of religious law and putting it under the penal code.

But the government backtracked last week after Islamists threatened to quit parliament if the laws were changed, and agreed to keep rape both in Islamic and civil law."

No wonder the Harvard Left loves these guys!

Friday, September 15, 2006

Everything You Want To Know About How To Treat Terror Detainees

It's all here, thanks to former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy. He notes that, while Sen. McCain and others claim that President Bush wants the detainees to have no rights and no protections...

"...To the contrary, the Bush commission procedures called for:
  • the presumption of innocence; burden of proof on the prosecution;
  • the right to counsel--both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chose to retain one;
  • the right to be presented with the charges in advance of trial;
  • access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution;
  • access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings;
  • the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes);
  • the free choice to testify or decline to do so, and the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify;
  • access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses, and to investigative resources as "necessary for a full and fair trial";
  • the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses;
  • elaborate sentencing procedures, and a multi-tiered post-trial review process. "

My suggestion to Sen. McCain: Get the facts.

This Just In: Muslims Furious!

Actual headlines reacting to Pope Benedict's lecture:

Muslims in uproar over pope’s remarks on Islam.

Muslims deplore Pope speech, want apology.

Muslims express fury over pope’s remarks.

Turkish lawmaker compares pope to Hitler.

Muslims assail pope’s remarks on Islam.

Pakistan parliament demands Pope retract Islam comments.

Pope branded a medieval crusader in India.

Muslims demand pope apologise for Islam comments.

Wacky Woodward Speaks, And Listeners Respond

Looney-tunes UNH psych professor William Woodward's appearance on the show Thursday has generated quite a bit of reaction. Many of the emails are similar to this one from John in Pelham:


I just wanted to tell you that I am a huge fan and a loyal listener. I unfortunately graduated from UNH both undergraduate in business administration and graduate school in accounting. I used to be extremely proud of the school, even with its liberal background, but recently with William Woodward, I have come to realize that I am embarrassed to admit that I am a Wildcat alumni. So much so that I called the Alumni Center and told them to take my name out of the alumni database and to stop sending me anything related to the University so long as Woodward is still employed at the University.

I just graduated in May and I want to know what steps of action if any that I can do to remove a tenured professor. I have been following this for quite a while and it appears as if there have been lobbying groups that have asked the provost to investigate the entire situation which unfortunately resulted in absolutely nothing.

Being a citizen in NH and an alumni of UNH, there has to be something I can do.

I have contacted local politicians but have achieved nothing. You are a very intelligent man and I was hoping you would be able to steer me in the right direction.

Anyway, any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks Michael,


And then there's this email, from Caroline in Rutland, which I hope every member of the UNH board will read:

Dear Chancellor Reno,

I am sending you this e-mail to voice my complete disgust and disbelief that a school with the history and quality of UNH is allowing someone like Professor William Woodward to continue teaching young adults given his comments and so called "theories" regarding the tragedy that occurred on 9/11/06.

My older brother Timothy Stout was an alumni of your school. He was murdered on 9/11 that day in the 103rd floor of the North Tower leaving behind a young wife and 3 children who were 6, 5 and 4. He would be incredulous to hear this kind of filth and ridiculous conspiracy view being spouted by someone from UNH. You should be embarrassed.

While I understand the "freedom of speech" argument when it comes to speaking opinions and getting students to think, the views of this "professor" (and I use that term loosely) go way beyond what most normal people would consider sensible.

End the association of this man with your school. I can tell you that our family, including my sister-in-law and her 3 children will never give a dime to your school while he is employed there. We have many family members who live in New Hampshire including one who is a State Representative (I lived there for 13 years and my husband grew up there). I am going to advise them to spread the word to anyone
they know that your school should be off limits until you do the right thing.

I hope that UNH comes to its senses.

Sincerely, Caroline

Hear, hear. And let's hope the University of New Hampshire does hear...from people like us:

The Good News For The Pope Is...

...God doesn't work for ABC/Disney. The Pope keeps his job.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The Truth Is Out There...

...but the 9/11 Scholars For Truth are REALLY out there. During the 4pm hour today, we're scheduled to be joined by Professor William Woodward of the University of New Hampshire, a member of the 9/11 conspiracy movement. Perhaps the best summary of their position is found in the internet movie "Loose Change."

In preparation for today's conversation, Professor Woodward sent me a list of questions that he needs answers to. I am presenting it below in its entirety. If you want the actual answers to these questions--and not uninformed lunacy--you'll find them here and here.


1. Why were warnings of the 9/11 attack ignored?
2. Who warned SF mayor Willie Brown not to fly to NYC on the morning of 9/11?
3. Who purchased record numbers of put options against United and American Airlines during the week preceding 9/11?
4. Why have only a few frames of video footage—none showing a jetliner—been released of the impact at the Pentagon? And why did the FBI confiscate gas station and hotel footage minutes after impact?
5. Why was no wreckage from a Boeing 757 found at the Pentagon?
6. Why wasn't the President removed from the classroom by the Secret Service when they knew the U.S. was under attack?
7. Why did the 9/11 report say the WTC core was hollow when it actually had 47 massive steel columns in the core of each tower?
8. Why do videos show people looking out of gaping holes in the WTC towers where it was supposedly hot enough to destroy structural steel?
9. Why was no one fired after 9/11—and why were the most “incompetent” people promoted?
10. How does a hijacker's passport survive a plane crash, a jet fuel inferno, and the collapse of a 110-story building, while the planes’ black boxes do not?
11. Why was the debris of the crashed 4th plane spread over miles?
12. Why was the Air Force intercept protocol made more difficult just prior to 9/11?
13. Why wasn't Ground Zero treated like any other crime scene?
14. Why was the World Trade Center steel debris sent to China unexamined?
15. Was the hijacked Pennsylvania plane shot down?
16. Why did Bush say he saw the 1st plane hit the World Trade Center on TV on 9/11 -- when the video was not available until 9/12?
17. What hit the Pentagon?
18. Why did the pilot make a difficult 270 degree turn in the midst of an extremely steep and rapid descent to hit the least occupied side of the Pentagon instead of diving straight in?
19. How can at least 6 of the supposed 9/11 "suicide" hijackers be alive and living in Saudi Arabia?
20. Why did the Air Force make 67 intercepts in 2001 prior to 9/11, and 0 on 9/11?
21. Why did President Bush try to prevent a 9/11 investigation?
22. Why won't the FBI show us the surveillance tapes of what hit the Pentagon?
23. Why did the 47-story WTC Bldg 7 -- not hit by a plane -- collapse?
24. Why doesn't the 9/11 Report even mention WTC Bldg 7's collapse?

36 Charges, 100 Court Dates...

...and a classroom at Lowell High School. The charges, according to reports in the Lowell Sun, involve stalking, violating restraining orders and making threats. Now he's charged with 30 counts of incest and rape.

The judge rejected Wamala's request for reduced bail because of he 13 previous arrests on 36 previous charges involving 100 court dates. My question: How did Severine Wamala get his teaching job in Lowell, MA with a court record like this?

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Take The Shot!

How often in any war--but particularly in an asymmetrical terror war--do you get a shot like this? Dozens of Taliban leaders and fighters all gathered together, captured in real-time images from a drone overhead?

Almost never. So why didn't we take the shot? Why didn't the cruise missiles come flying in and wipe them out?

Because, according to the NYPost, it is against our rules of engagement to fire on a cemetery. And the Talibanis were at a funeral at the time.

Does anyone need more proof that President Bush and his administration still aren't serious about winning this war?

Democrats Dream Of A World Without Bush

No Bush, No Problem!

Monday, September 11, 2006

Two Must-Reads For September 11th.

First, from Christopher Hitchens in the Wall Street Journal:

The second point makes me queasy, but cannot be ducked. "We"--and our allies--simply have to become more ruthless and more experienced. An unspoken advantage of the current awful strife in Iraq and Afghanistan is that it is training tens of thousands of our young officers and soldiers to fight on the worst imaginable terrain, and gradually to learn how to confront, infiltrate, "turn," isolate and kill the worst imaginable enemy. These are faculties that we shall be needing in the future. It is a shame that we have to expend our talent in this way, but it was far worse five years and one day ago, when the enemy knew that there was a war in progress, and was giggling at how easy the attacks would be, and "we" did not even know that hostilities had commenced. Come to think of it, perhaps we were a bit "innocent" after all.

Second, Peggy Noonan, from Friday's WSJ, on the sounds of 9/11:

Something terrible had happened. Life was reduced to its essentials. Time was short. People said what counted, what mattered. It has been noted that there is no record of anyone calling to say, "I never liked you," or, "You hurt my feelings." No one negotiated past grievances or said, "Vote for Smith."

Amazingly --or not--there is no record of anyone damning the terrorists or saying "I hate them." No one said anything unneeded, extraneous or small. Crisis is a great editor. When you read the transcripts that have been released over the years it's all so clear.

Flight 93 flight attendant Ceecee Lyles, 33 years old, in an answering-machine message to her husband: "Please tell my children that I love them very much. I'm sorry, baby. I wish I could see your face again."

THEY Want You To Remember 9/11

Click here and find out.

ABC Gets One Right

Faced with political pressure from partisans with a self-interest in silencing the facts and open debate, ABC did the right thing (!) and let the show go on. I watched the first half last night and enjoyed it. It's not an award winner, but it was a competent--and sometimes riveting--re-telling of the story of terror in the 1990s.

The fact that President Clinton tried to get it pulled is an endorsement of the program's fundamental truth: Politics triumphed America's security until 9/11.

Good job, ABC, in facing the critics and doing the right thing.

You can't blame me for being surprised.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Harvard Welcomes The "Nice" Nazi

That is, fundamentally, the argument offered by defenders of Khatami's visit to Harvard. Yes, he's an anti-Semitic terror sponsor, but he's one of the nice ones. Kind of like "Sure, I was a member of Hitler's Nazi government...but I only wanted to kill HALF the Jews"

Khatami's defenders can't, after all, argue that the guy isn't a terrorist. He was a follower of Ayatollah Khomeni, and he advocated "Islamic revolution" in Germany before following the Ayatollah to Iran in 1979. The day Khatami stepped off the plane in Tehran, our American hostages were being held in the US Embassy by his friends.

And you can't argue that Khatami opposed the Iranian policy of terrorizing its own citizens, because Khatami was a member of the ruling council in 1988 when Iran murdered 3,000 anti-Khomeni activists in one week. More importantly, Khatami stayed a member of the council and continued to work in the Islamist government for, well, the rest of his life.

And who can argue that Khatami opposes terrorism when he has chosen to remain a member of a terror-sponsoring government for 27 years? Iran shipped money and guns to Hizbollah and Hamas before Khatami took office, and every year of the eight years Khatami spent in office. Indeed, the infamous Karine-A--a ship loaded with weapons requested by Yassir Arafat and sent by the Iranian government--was captured off the Gaza coast during Khatami's term.

If killing Jews and torturing his own citizens was so unpleasant to the Nice Nazi, why didn't he just leave? Eight of the 9/11 hijackers were allowed to slip in and out of Khatami's Iran in 2000, why couldn't he have followed one of them to Kabul, and then on to Kennedy International? He wasn't a hostage or captive. The Khomeni team was his team. Why not just hang up his cleats and quit?

Because Khatami IS a Nazi. He's an Islamist. That's who he is. That's his chosen world view. He supports the use of violence to achieve Islamists ends, both in Iraq and Israel. He may not support it as fervently or ferociously as current president AhmedWhack-I-Job, but he supports it nonetheless.

Is Khatami a reformed Nazi? Has he rejected his Islamist, terror-sponsoring past? Just ask him. He'll tell you he still supports Hamas and Hezbollah. "I love Hezbollah," he told French President Chirac, "and it must never be disarmed."

So how do Khatami's clowns overlook this? Simple. They deny that the terrorists are terrorists in the first place. As the Boston Globe puts it today: "The two [US and Iran] are also at odds over Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas, militant groups that call for Israel's destruction and are considered terrorist organizations by the US government." [emphasis added]

Oh, that mean ol' US government. Calling an organization "terrorist" just because it drives truck bombs into buildings and sends backpacks full of explosives and rat poison into pizza parlors.

That's not "terrorism," that's, er, uh "negotiation!" And Khatami's not a terrorist, he's a reformer. He's "terrorism-lite!" 50% less terror! 1/3 less anti-Semitism!

And available on the eve of 9/11 at your local, liberal university.

UPDATE: Here is Khatami's resume' in the Islamist government of Iran, provided as a public service to the useful idiots at Harvard:

  • Representative in parliament, 1980-82.
  • Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, 1982-86; again 1989-92. (This office oversaw the creation of Hizbollah during Khatami's term)
  • Head Librarian (and censor) of the National Library of Iran, 1992-97.
  • Member, Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution.
  • Member and former Chairman, Central Council of the Militant Clerics' League.

Friday, September 08, 2006

Speak Out! Fight Back! Beat Harvard! (UPDATED!)

If Mohammad Khatami can go to Harvard's Kennedy School, then so can I! I'll be outside the Harvard Institute of Politics in Cambridge Sunday at 3pm.

UPDATE: And we won't be alone, either. Some Harvard students who support democracy in Iran will be protesting, along with other Boston organizations.

"Jew-Killer" Khatami will be speaking at 4pm.

Some other Bostonians who feel the same way I do are planning to join me carrying posters like these (right). You're more than welcome to come, too.

Here are the details:

Mohammad Khatami, former president, Islamic Republic of Iran (1997-2005)
Location: John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum
79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138
The closest T stop is Harvard Station on the Red Line.
Some protesters plan to gather at the John F. Kennedy Park adjacent to the Kennedy School.

Care to join me? Let me know:

Khatami's Iran Was An Al-Qaeda Ally

Yet another fact about Iran under President Khatami you won't hear from Harvard's press office:

"KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks who is now in custody[11]] and [Ramzi] Binalshibh [an al Qaeda operative captured in Pakistan a year after the attacks who acknowledged a planning role have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers' travel to Iran...In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah
operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. "
Oh, yeah, Harvard. Khatami is the PERFECT guy to speak on the eve of 9/11...

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Clintonistas, Forget The TV Fiction...

What you should be worried about are the facts.

Some of the most sensitive language concerned the specific authorization to use deadly force. Clinton's national security aides said they wanted to encourage the CIA to carry out an effective operation against bin Laden, not to burden the agency with constraints or doubts. Yet Clinton's aides did not want authorizations that could be interpreted by Afghan agents as an unrestricted license to kill. For one thing, the Justice Department signaled that it would oppose such language if it was proposed for Clinton's signature.

The compromise wording, in a succession of bin Laden-focused memos, always expressed some ambiguity about how and when deadly force could be used in an operation designed to take bin Laden into custody. Typical language, recalled one official involved, instructed the CIA to "apprehend with lethal force as authorized." ...Clinton's covert policy against bin Laden pursued two goals at the same time. He ordered submarines equipped with cruise missiles to patrol secretly in waters off Pakistan in the hope that CIA spotters would one day identify bin Laden's location confidently enough to warrant a deadly missile strike.

But Clinton also authorized the CIA to carry out operations that legally required the agency's officers to plan in almost every instance to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to the United States to face trial. This meant the CIA officers had to arrange in advance for detention facilities, extraction flights and other contingencies -- even if they expected that bin Laden would probably die in the arrest attempt. These requirements made operational planning much more cumbersome, the CIA officers contended...
The CIA received "no written word nor verbal order to conduct a lethal action" against bin Laden before Sept. 11, one official involved recalled. "The objective was to render this guy to law enforcement." In these operations, the CIA had to recruit agents "to grab [bin Laden] and bring him to a secure place where we can turn him over to the FBI. . . . If they had said 'lethal action' it would have been a whole different kettle of fish, and much easier."

That's from the Washington Post, by the way, not the Right-Wing Wanker. Steve Coll, now with that other right-wing rag, the New Yorker, also reported:

" the three years before September 11, the United States had multiple opportunities to try to attack Bin Laden directly in Afghanistan, it looked too daunting. There was no will, no context to go after him in a serious way, and so he continued to thrive and operate until he struck on September 11."

And who was president during the "three years before September 11?" Here's a hint: NOT Ross Perot.

Democrats, trust me on this one. If the choice is between the story as reported by the Washington Post and ABC--no matter how bad--and the truth...your team is better off sticking with ABC.

Today's Must-Reads On Mo "Kill the Jews" Khatami

Remember, no matter what he says or does, Mohammad Khatami is a MODERATE, dammit!

Like when he "moderately" called Israel an "illegal state" and told fellow terrorist Yassir Arafat that "all of Palestine [Israel] must be liberated." On 25 April 2001, Khatami said Israel "is a parasite in the heart of the Muslim world."

And remember how "moderate" Khatami was while at the UN when he denied destroying Israel was ever the policy of Iran, and that it's not the policy now? Well, Ahmad-Whack-i-Job can speak for Iran now, but how's this for Iranian policy:

In December 2000, Ayatollah Khamene’i said that "Iran’s stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." In February 2001, Khamene’i stated that, "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." In spring 2001 Khamene’i referred to the Israeli government this way: “the Zionist regime, as the symbol of bloodthirstiness [and] barbarianism,” and to its leaders as “wild beasts."
Oh, and who was PRESIDENT of Iran in 2000 and 2001? Your friend and mine, Mo "Zionist Criminals" Khatami.

More of the "moderate" record of Iran can be found here.

Iran: The Truth Is Out There

Researching Iran's record of torture, Islamist terror and deceit, I've been stunned by the number of public statements--largely from the Left--denying the most obvious truths about Iran. "A nuclear Iran--so what?" is a much easier sentiment to express if you don't live in Tel Aviv.

So desperate are the Bush-bashers to completely erase the terror threat, they're even arguing idiotic and indisputable points like whether or not Iranian president Ahmad-Whack-i-Job ever said "Israel must be wiped off the map."

Well, my loony Lefty friends, please stop embarrassing yourselves. Here's the definitive answer from that pro-Bush, right-wing media outlet, Al-Jeezera:

The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

Why deny the obvious? Can't the Left grasp the concept that admitting the truth about Islamist terror is NOT the same as endorsing the Bush presidency or supporting the war in Iraq? Though, it does raise that most uncomfortable of questions for Democrats who want to replace Bush: What do YOU plan to do to stop the Islamists from killing us?

Liberals Protest TV Show, Not Terrorist

As I point out in this week's column, Democrats are spending a lot more time and energy complaining about ABC's fictional 9/11 show than they are the appearance of a real terrorist--Mohammad Khatami--at Harvard University.

Is it safe to say that more protesters would show up in Harvard Yard to defend Bill Clinton than to protest an anti-Semitic Hezbollah supporter?

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Romney Outs Harvard's Support For Anti-Semitic Terror Sponsor!

Now the question is, does Harvard even care? Or are they still comfortably smug being the safest haven for anti-Semites this side of the Atlantic?

For a week we've been talking about Harvard's decision to usher in the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a speech on "tolerance" from an anti-Semitic terror sponsor, former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami. Finally, somebody is speaking out.

Governor Romney issued an order that no state agencies cooperate in any way with Harvard bringing this loser to town on the eve of September 11th. In at least one state, state police were used to provide security for Mo "Kill All The Jews" Khatami, but not in Massachusetts.

The Boston Globe--which still hasn't written a single word about the $20 million Harvard took from a cash-sponsor of suicide bombers--refused to cover this story until this morning, and only did so because Gov. Romney's actions made it unavoidable. Is this lack of interest in what would is clearly a major local news story a reflection on the Globe's desire to brown-nose Harvard, or is it the case that murdering Jews just isn't considered big news on Morrissey Blvd.?

Regular readers of the Globe can be the judge.

However, while covering the story today, the Globe bends over backwards to make Khatami appear to be a liberal "reformer" with no ties whatsoever to Islamic extremism or anti-Semitism:

As president of Iran from 1997-2005, Khatami was originally seen as a reformer who opened up ties to the West and allowed more freedom of expression in Iran. But he remained in office during a major crackdown on student protest, in which thousands were arrested, including some who are still in prison. He was replaced by hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has defied international demands to curb Iran's nuclear program and has called for Israel to be ``wiped off" the map.

Really? Did Ahmad-Whack-i-Job really say that? And that's news over at the Globe, is it?

So, then why isn't it news that Mr. Khatami--you know, the guy who is actually coming to Boston?--said the SAME THING? That his position while president of Iran and still today is that the "criminal Zionists" should be wiped off the map?

And while we've talked about it quite a bit on my show, doesn't the Globe think it might be of some small interest to their readers that Khatami doesn't just "support" the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah, he actually oversaw the creation of Hezbollah by the Iranian regime in the 1980s?

Oh, but he's moderated since then--right? That's why Khatami stormed out of the 2006 World Conference of Religions for Peace last month when a rabbi stood up and spoke on behalf of giving Jewish prayer books to the soldiers kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas and Hezbollah.

He supports terror today. He's an anti-Semite today. His regime showers money on suicide bombers in Israel and roadside bombers in Iraq today...and the Boston Globe never once refers to Khatami as a terror supporter. And not a whisper on the Globe's editorial page about Harvard's horrific decision to bring him to town in time to be at Logan Airport on September 11th.

Sadly, it won't be the first time an Islamist terrorist was at Logan on that date.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Haleigh Poutre Lives... thanks to the idiots at the Massachusetts DSS who left her in the hands of violent abusers for years and then tried to kill her after her step-losers nearly beat her to death.

Unfortunately for Harry Spence, the ineffective head of DSS who has YET to fire a single person as a result of the Poutre fiasco, Haleigh's grandmother is speaking out about her improving condition.

When will Gov. Romney step in and finally hold someone in state government responsible for trying to kill an abused 11-year-old girl?

It's Miller Time...Not!

Miller beer--the official beer of illegal aliens--is spending $30,000 in support of a so-called "Immigrant Workers Justice Walk," protesting immigration law enforcement in the United States. According to the Chicago Tribune, the Miller-sponsored event "will promote a controversial plan to end deportations and offer legal status for all 11 million to 12 million [illegal] immigrants."

Plenty of Americans are, obviously, not happy with Miller for supporting criminal behavior and the subversion of American democracy. Thanks to my pal, Michelle Malkin, they have a list of Miller products to avoid this Labor Day weekend. Miller is already feeling the heat.

Not surprisingly, Miller is denying that they're spending money in support of criminal aliens. Their spokesperson is now telling the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that they didn't give money directly for the pro-illegal event, but merely funded the organization organizing the march. But notice this interesting admission by Miller from this story:

Miller recently had to deal with a boycott threat from an umbrella group of Midwestern Latino community organizations upset that Miller's political action committee had made $2,000 in campaign contributions to U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), sponsor of an immigration bill the group viewed as too harsh. The boycott was quickly canceled after the two sides met in Chicago, and Miller agreed to run newspaper ads against the bill and help the group fight it...

As Miller denied involvement in the Chicago march, meanwhile, the leader of a Milwaukee immigrant-rights group that has held two large marches here said Miller had helped that organization financially. Christine Neumann-Ortiz, executive director of Voces de la Frontera, said Miller contacted the group earlier this year and offered a donation before a May 1 march. She said the company provided what she believed was a couple hundred dollars used for buses to bring marchers from Racine and Kenosha.

Not so, Miller spokesman Peter J. Marino said. "The money supported a recent convention on immigration issues in Chicago, which provided attendees with information on how to become legally naturalized citizens of the U.S.," he said.
Miller isn't sponsoring the march and didn't authorize use of its trademarks in association with the event, Marino said. The Tribune reported that advertisements for the march bear Miller's logo.

So, who's telling the truth? And does it matter? Now that Miller Brewing has agreed to run ads against enforcing our immigration laws, and now that they've acknowledged funding groups supporing illegal immigration, does it really matter if the marchers had specific permission to use the Miller logos at this particular march?

Miller Beer has clearly chosen sides. It's time for us drunks to choose sides, too.

I'm having another Sam Adams.