Thursday, May 31, 2007

Out of the Shadows? WHAT Shadows?

One of the arguments pro-amnesty folks make is that America's heartless, draconian enforcement of our immigration laws is sending terrified illegal "undocumented workers" into the shadows of society.

Do these folks sound "terrorized" to you?

"[immigration] raids netted 23 workers from Orange County, CA who were asked to leave the country. At least four of them have re-entered the United States illegally and have since written to the federal Department of Labor to claim back wages, the Los Angeles Times reported. 'We didn't come back for a gift,' one of the Orange County workers, who like the others asked not to be identified because he feared deportation, told The Times. 'We came back for what we worked for. '" [emphasis added]

That's right--they're mailing letters to the federal government, presumably with return addresses, asking for checks. After re-entering the country illegally.

Could we get these folks BACK into the shadows, please?

Unauthorized Fun Will NOT Be Allowed!

First it was the city of Cambridge announcing their ban on (this is not a joke) "romping on mowed, grassy areas" by dogs in public parks.

Now the town of Holliston is threatening to throw the book at some high school seniors who pulled a brilliant and harmless prank to celebrate their upcoming graduation.

According to the MetroWest Daily News, four kids--including the class valedictorian--sneaked into the school and, using a master key, they went into Principal Mary Canty's office, moved her desk and some other belongings into a corridor, which were "left to resemble a crime scene."

In order to sneak in undetected, one of the kids figured out how to disable the school's computerized alarm system. This is described by school administrators as "hacking into the school computers."


The result was a great prank that harmed no one, did no damage, caused no great inconvenience and gave the kids a good laugh and a great memory from high school. What's the big deal?

The school's response is to ban the four students (who idiotically ID'd themselves at from participating in graduation. The valedictorian will not, therefore, be able to give a speech.

This seems a reasonable punishment for the four kids, a punishment they could have avoided if they'd kept their mouths shut until after graduation. But then again, whaddaya expect from a bunch of high school kids?

Unfortunately, the local police chief is involved, too. Holliston's own Barney Fife, Chief Thomas Lambert, has pulled his one bullet from his pocket and he's not afraid to use it.

Acknowledging that the whole incident was a prank, Chief Lambert still insists that these kids need to meet up with Mister John Law:

"I don't apologize. If you do something like this, if you go over the line, that's how we'll deal with it. ... We'll go to court."

What might Chief "Hang 'em High" Lambert charge these kids with? "...misdemeanors of breaking and entering, identity fraud (use of personal identifying information), unauthorized access to a computer system, and a felony of possession of a burglarious tool (the master key)."

That's right: Felony charges. We can't get local cops to help catch illegal immigrants, but we're going to threaten 18-year-old pranksters with five years in prison. Brilliant.

There are bad kids in the world, and their are troublemakers who could use a good smackdown, and it's possible that these kids are in that group. But I don't think so. You judge for yourself by reading a poem one of the "criminals" wrote after being caught:

Now napping and regretting what I've done,
I did not mean to deceive anyone.
To say, 'twas just a prank' is not quite fair,
More effort, thus more pain were plainly there.
While proud I stand to have accomplished such,
The penalties and trust lost are too much.
Woe be to any who would so confess,
'Yes, this is how I stole Ms. Canty's desk!"'

This kid doesn't belong in jail. He belongs in college.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Who IS This Idiot?

What moron said this about opponents of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan:

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like. If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it, you can use it to frighten people."

Oh, wait. It was George W. Bush.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

The Good Guys Win One!

The "good guys" in this case are the folks like the David Project, Fox 25 and the Boston Herald who were sued by the Islamic Society of Boston for telling the truth about Menino's Mosque.

The ISB strategy seemed to be "sue everyone until they shut up," a strategy I encountered when they served me with a subpoena for my phone records, emails and show prep notes.

Obviously, I ignored it, but the chilling message was sent: "Talk about the terror supporters who are part of the ISB, talk about the taxpayer money going to build our mosque, and we'll drag you into court over it."

Fortunately, the David Project is reporting:

the Islamic Society of Boston ("ISB") and its officers have withdrawn all of their claims against all of the citizens who raised concerns about the ISB, its funding and its leadership, as well as all of their claims against the Boston Herald, Fox-TV and the various journalists whose investigative pieces about the ISB in 2003 and 2004 disclosed damaging information about the ISB and its controversial land deal with the Boston Redevelopment Authority ("BRA"). The ISB and its officers have abandoned all of their claims against all of the defendants they sued 2 years ago, without payment to the ISB or to them of any money whatsoever.

This is terrific news, because it's a blow to the strategy of "silence through lawsuits" that Muslim groups such as CAIR have been using for years. Even a lawsuit that has no chance of victory--and this ISB lawsuit certainly meets that definition--is an expensive hassle, costing private businesses (like radio stations) time and money.

This time, the good guys won. Free speech prevailed. The truth about the ISB has come out.

This time.

Who Are The Illegal Immigrants?

When a driver fleeing the cops kills a young man in Somerville, it's a tragedy. When the driver's name is Javier Morales, a new level of "tragedy" is added: Every person reading the news story immediately wonders if Mr. Morales is an illegal immigrant.

That's a shame for all the Americans and legal residents named Morales, but they are not the victim of racism. Rather, they are the victims of a US government that has refused to enforce border security and essentially invited millions of people from Mexico and Central America to become criminals within America.

The act of violating our borders is a crime. The conduct required to remain here--fake IDs, fake Social Security numbers, false claims of a legal residence used to collect government benefits, etc--is fraudulent and criminal.

However, the Morales case (and just for the record, I have NO idea what his citizenship status is) highlight that additional level of crime that is also attendant to immigration crime.

There's a reason why the "Z-Visa" amnesty program specifically gives gang members a pathway to legal status. Would such a requirement be necessary if America had 12 million illegals from Great Britain or Belgium?

The fact is, low-skill immigrants cost America money whether they're legal or illegal. Added to that are
the specific behaviors of Hispanic immigrants--America's highest teen pregnancy rate, highest drop-out rate, etc.--and the current illegal immigrant population is not a "value-neutral" addition to American society.

When even the Bushies have to acknowledge that 20% of the current illegal immigrants have committed so many felonies and/or misdemeanors that they won't qualify for the Z-Visa program, they're acknowledging the problematic behavior of the illegals who live among us.

The point isn't that there's something wrong with being Hispanic or being from Mexico. Rather, the point is that those Mexicans and Central Americans who choose to become immigration criminals are telling us something about their overall attitudes towards the law and personal responsibility.

They're trying to tell us, but we Americans just don't have the guts to listen.

Monday, May 28, 2007

The ACLU Picks Its Battles

As regular listeners to my radio show know, the city of Boston is subsidizing the construction of a mosque in the Roxbury community, giving land worth an estimated $2 million to the Islamic Society of Boston for just $175,000.

It would appear to be a case designed with the ACLU in mind--tax dollars going directly to the aid of a religious group for the construction of a house of worship. So, where's the ACLU?

Nowhere. The Massachusetts and Boston branches have been eerily silent on this entire story.

Instead, the ACLU is focusing its efforts on puling down crosses from veterans memorials like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert (both pictured above).

Unlike the taxpayer-funded mosque, these quiet remembrances of veterans do not preach any specific message. They don't evangelize. They don't hand out religious tracts or (in the case of the Islamic Center of Boston) promote the teaching of supporters of suicide bombing like Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi.

And yet the ACLU is suing everyone in sight over the crosses and has nothing to say about the city-subsidized mosque.

Is it hypocrisy or p.c.-inspired cowardice? In either case, the ACLU should be ashamed.

Friday, May 25, 2007

Michael, What Can I Do--UPDATE!


If you are having trouble getting through the Capitol switchboard to express your opinion about the Bush-Kennedy shamnesty, there's a special hotline number you might like to try.

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Freepers picked up on it this morning. Bryan Preston dialed it earlier today and captured audio of the hotline. He reports:

The hotline is paid for by something called the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform and it’s being blasted to pro-open borders groups all over the country. The hotline gives its callers access to their senators that average Joes don’t have.

Meanwhile, here's the regular contact info for some local politicians.


Senator John Sununu
Washington, DC office
Phone: (202) 224-2841
Fax (202) 228-4131

Senator Judd Greg (R-NH)
Washington, DC office
Phone: (202) 224-3324
Fax: (202) 224-4952

Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter
Washington, DC office
Phone: (202) 225-5456
Fax: (202) 225-5822

Congressman Paul Hodes, II
Washington, DC
Phone: (202) 225-5206
Fax: (202) 225-2946


8TH District, Democrat
1232 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202)225-5111; Fax: (202) 225-9322
E-mail: Capuano@hr.housegov

10th District, Democrat
1317 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-3111; Fax: (202) 225-5658

4TH District
2252 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-5931; Fax: (202) 225-0182

7th District, Democrat
2108 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-2836; Fax: (202) 225-1716

3rd District, Democrat
430 Cannon House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-6101; Fax: (202) 225-5759
E-mail: mcgovern

5TH District, Democrat
2447 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-3411; TTY: (202) 225-1904; Fax: (202)226-0771

2ND District, Democrat
2133 Rayburn House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-5601; Fax: (202) 225-8112

1ST District, Democrat
1027 Longworth House Office Bldg.,
Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-5335; Fax: (202) 226-1224

6TH District Democrat
120 Chatham House Office Bldg., Washington, DC 20515
Tel: (202) 225-8020; Fax: (202) 225-5915

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Listening To Politicians Gives Me Gas

Particularly when they start talking economics. The only economics they know is "I need more of your money to buy your neighbor's vote."

Alas, they're at it again, passing laws against "excessive prices" for gasoline by evil oil companies. No definition of "excessive" is ever included, of course.

Meanwhile, Ronald Bailey at Reason magazine explains the real reasons why gas prices are so high. And you'll be stunned to discover one of the major reasons is (shock!) the same politicians whining about gas prices.

For example, government subsidies of ethanol and federal targets for increased ethanol use are sending a message to oil companies NOT to build new gasoline refineries. After all, who knows how much market share will have gone to taxpayer-subsidized ethanol 10 years from now.

Ethanol has more problems than that as Bailey points out:

Every one of the six (oil industry) analysts I talked with pointed out that the federal ethanol mandate adds substantially to gasoline prices. Ethanol costs more per gallon than gasoline; it contains less energy per volume so a blend of 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol delivers 3 percent fewer miles per gallon; and ethanol has a higher vapor pressure which makes it even more expensive for refiners to meet EPA summertime vapor pressure maximums. The ethanol mandate also adds to costs for blending gasoline because companies now have to manage different two fuel supply chains. Lundberg notes that when California adopted its ethanol mandate, it boosted prices by 10 cents per gallon.

In fact, some research suggests that it actually takes more energy to make a gallon of ethanol than that gallon can produce. The net effect of ethanol could well be more pollution. It's certainly not energy independence.

UPDATE: If you heard my interview with Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute, his latest article on Congress's oil-price idiocy is here.

It's A Wonderful Life In Waltham

I wonder how many of the good, taxpaying citizens in Waltham are aware of this fact, mentioned in passing in the Boston Globe-Democrat:

Alex Marthews, executive director of the Waltham housing organization, known as WATCH, estimates that about 40 percent of its clients are foreign born, including naturalized citizens and legal and illegal immigrants. (emphasis added)

Now, it's possible that every legal resident in Waltham has the housing they need. It's possible that there's no housing shortage in Waltham at all. Possible...but very, very doubtful.

And yet, right now, there are illegal immigrants getting taxpayer-subsidized housing while needy citizens and legal residents wait in line. Is this really what the citizens of Waltham want?

UPDATE: Oh, and if you're lucky, there's a chance that illegal immigrant getting tax-funded housing could be a gang member!

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other...

Same story, same Pew Research poll of American Muslims, two different headlines:

Detroit News-- Survey: Muslims largely assimilated in U.S.
CBS/AP-- Poll: 26% Of Young U.S. Muslims OK Bombs

Apparently the message is "We love living in America--it's a great place to kill the infidels! Allahu Akbar!"

Hat tip: Jay Severin

Slow Down, You Crazy Kids!

You're going 42 mph in a 30 mph zone, you've never gotten a ticket before in your life, and you get caught. Your punishment: A $130 fine, a 90-day license suspension, a $500 reinstatement fee and mandatory classes on road rage and attitudinal training.

Why? Because you're guilty of DWT: Driving While Teen.

Sure, teen drivers are, as a group, higher risk drivers, but still: mandatory ROAD RAGE classes? Do we know if this 17-year-old girl was even in a bad mood at the time? Plus, she's got to re-take the driver's exam AND the road test?

The chart above shows fatal accidents per 100,000 drivers. Notice that, while drivers 16-19 years old are risky drivers, they're not the most dangerous. That "honor" goes to drivers 20-24 years old. Why aren't they losing their licenses for going 10 mph over the limit?

And notice how dangerous drivers 75 and old are, too. But no politician is going to take away their permit to drive as long as the "Early Bird Special" crowd hold onto their permission to vote. Which they do. A lot.

In the case of this 17-year-old, a suspended liscense for a short time is a tough, but not irrational, punishment. And re-taking the driver's exam can't hurt. But the rest--sheesh! Could we show some common sense here?

The Boston Herald article notes that Massachusetts law treats teen drivers the same whether they're going 42mph or 92mph--a sure sign that Massachusetts law must be pretty stupid.

Read MY Dear John Letter Here

It's in today's Boston Herald. Send your own at

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Everything You Need To Know About The McCain Amnesty Bill

From the New York Times:

Leading the opposition to the bill, which the president says he wants to sign in its current form, were three Republican senators: Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.

Sessions said the measure was written behind closed doors, with no hearings or review by the Senate Judiciary Committee and no cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. (emphasis added).

If Senate leaders had pushed the bill to passage in one week, Sessions said, that would have been "a railroad job, for sure."

If this plan is as terrific as Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy keep saying, why are they rushing to shove it down out throats? Why won't they let it go through the usual review process? Why not tell us taxpayers how much it's going to cost BEFORE they pass it?

What else do you need to know?

Quick-Draw McCain Shoots (and misses) Again!

Sen. McCain does not respond well to criticism. Just ask Sen. John Cornyn.

Now he's
firing wildly at Mitt Romney over the former governor's criticism of the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill.

"In the case of Governor Romney, you know, maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes, because it's changed in less than a year from his position before," the senator said of Mr. Romney's position on immigration. "And maybe his solution will be to get out his small-varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his lawn."
The jokes are pretty funny, but notice what Sen. McCain's comments don't do. They don't answer the arguments against the amnesty bill. They don't explain how "letting all the illegals stay" ISN'T amnesty.

In fact, amnesty supporters never defend their plan. Instead, they label those who don't agree with them "bigots" or throw out irrelevant straw men like "we'll never deport 12 million people," blah, blah, blah.

If Sen. McCain's amnesty plan is such a good idea, why does he have to insult people who don't like it? Why can't he simply point out why his plan works and his opponents are wrong?

Why? Because McCain's amnesty is a disaster. It won't stop--or even slow--future illegal immigration. It won't protect us from those illegals who are here to do America harm. It doesn't address
the $2.2 TRILLION burden these immigrants place on the backs of American taxpayers.

This "reform" bill fixes nothing. It fundamentally changes nothing. That's why Sen. McCain is fighting instead of talking.

Sunday, May 20, 2007

The Big Lie Behind The Amnesty Bill

There are so many inaccurate statements and intentionally misleading representations about the newest McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill that you might be surprised to know that one of them stands out. In fact, the biggest lie of all is one that virtually nobody has commented upon. It was mentioned in passing--with no contradictions--by Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia while he was getting booed by his constituents this weekend:

“We have the opportunity and a narrow window to change what has plagued our society for 21 years." Or as many amnesty supporters put it, "We have to fix this problem."

What problem? What problem are we talking about that this bill will fix? I thought the problem was illegal immigration. This bill does nothing whatsoever to solve the problem of illegal immigration. It won't stop them from coming; it won't try to catch them once they're here; it won't deport them when they're caught.

Sure, there are a few token provisions "promising" workplace and interior enforcement one day in the future. We had those promises in 1986. It didn't happen.

Nobody, not even the McCain-Kennedy bill's most ardent supporters, believes that there will be a significant reduction in illegal immigration. Sure, more illegals might come legally through the guest worker program, but those who decide life in Michigan is better than Mexico (or Ireland or Chad) will just stay, knowing that there'll be another amnesty right around the corner.

The only problem this bill "solves" is that illegal immigrants are, er, illegal. It simply declares at least 90% of them legal by executive fiat. It doesn't change their behavior, it doesn't get back taxes or keep them from using tax-funded services. It just makes them legal.

Problem solved...if you think the way to solve the problem of "bank robbery" is to give the bank robbers a toaster if they promise to use their stolen wealth to open an account in your bank.

Friday, May 18, 2007

McCain Is McToast

I'm prepared to say it: Sen. John McCain is done as a presidential candidate. There are half a dozen reasons, each of them strong enough to end a typical presidential bid: Age, antagonizing the Republican base, an inability to connect with the moment, etc. But here's a simple and visceral one: Does anyone really want THIS guy to be president?

Things got really heated when [TX Sen. John] Cornyn accused McCain of being too busy campaigning for president to take part in the negotiations, which have gone on for months behind closed doors. "Wait a second here," Cornyn said to McCain. I've been sitting in here for all of these negotiations and you just parachute in here on the last day. You're out of line."

McCain, a former Navy pilot, then used language more accustomed to sailors (not to mention the current vice president, who made news a few years back after a verbal encounter with Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont).

"[Expletive] you! I know more about this than anyone else in the room," shouted McCain at Cornyn. McCain helped craft a bill in 2006 that passed the Senate but couldn't be compromised with a House bill that was much tougher on illegal immigrants.

It's what I've been talking about since 2000, John McCain's "loose vent flap" problem. He's not stable. He's not disciplined. And he makes Rudy Giuliani look like an affable fellow.

The McCain Moment was 2000. He missed it--perhaps to America's detriment. But it's over. Nothing to see here, time to move on.

John McCain's "Banana" Republic

John McCain may call it a "banana," but the rest of us know exactly what he and Sen. Kennedy are shoving down our throats: Amnesty.

Republican Sen. Jon Kyl insists that "This is a parole, not an amnesty," but paroled bank robbers don't get to keep the money. Paroled shoplifters have to give back the jewelry.

Based on what we know now, the McCain/Kennedy deal is a great deal for illegal immigrants and a lousy deal for everyone else.

Legal immigrants are immediately declared suckers. Any benefit they got from going through the hassles of obeying the law are gone.

Blue collar workers who were losing jobs yesterday to illegals still won't have a shot at those jobs because the immigration criminal who stole it gets to keep it.

Low-skill workers whose wages have suffered will still be in a glutted labor market, working harder and earning less.

And border guards will be screwed because every amnesty offer--or even a rumor of one--inspires yet another wave of illegal immigration.

Oh, and don't forget the other people screwed by this deal: the Americans who will die one day when the Islamist whackjob being granted amnesty uses his new privileges to carry out his attack one day in the future. Somewhere out there is a "Yugoslavian roofer of Albanian ethnicity" whose life in the US is about to get easier.

Sen. McCain says I'm wrong. Sen. McCain says this plan doesn't reward immigration criminals. OK, fine. Here's a simple test.

Right now, a former employee of my father's, a Romanian electronics technician named Eugen, is sitting in Canada waiting to come back to the US. He had a great job and was very happy here, but his visa expired and he did the right thing and left, as the law required. It's been two years and he's heard nothing about when he can return.

Right now, there's an illegal immigrant working in my father's town, right down the street. He came to the US a few years before Eugen, he's still here, and he's still working. While Eugen is washing dishes in Canada just to get by, the illegal immigrant is working a good job, evading his taxes and--best of all--living and enjoying life in the US of A.

If the McCain/Kennedy amnesty becomes law, which of these two men would you rather be?

Debate's over.

How Ted Kennedy And His Pals REALLY Feel About The Immigration Deal

"And then I said 'Amnesty? What Amnesty?' And they BOUGHT it!"

Thursday, May 17, 2007

It Was Rudy's Night

Read my take on the SC debate in today's Boston Herald.

The Teacher Video Is Here

Here's the video of the teacher in Lawrence, MA facing felony charges for grabbing a fleeing 7-year-old by the shirt collar and dragging him to the principal's office.

Was the substitute teacher too rough with this kid? Maybe. Should the teacher be disciplined? Maybe. Does the teacher's treatment of the fleeing kid really deserve five years in prison? No way.

The reason for this extreme reaction is entirely political. The sub is a very big, very white guy. The student comes from a home where the mother speaks so little English she had to answer questions in Spanish. The Lawrence school system has a superintendent who repeatedly failed the English proficiency test and is widely viewed as an incompetent. But he's very popular among one key constituency, which means he keeps his job.

So why is the guy facing felony charges, really? Let me put it this way: If the teacher's name in this case had been Jose Gonzales, no charges would ever have been filed.

The Trouble With Harry, Part III

First it was Haleigh Poutre beaten with a baseball bat. Then it was Rebecca Riley drugged to death. Both on DSS's watch, and both outrages defended by DSS Chief Harry Spence.

Now it's 18-year-old Edward Harrison,
repeately sexually assaulted by a local minister for months. Harry Spence's DSS knew about it and did what they always do: Nothing.

That Harry Spence is an incompetent oaf is beyond question. Anyone who says the DSS employees who allowed Haleigh to be beaten into a coma "have nothing to be ashamed of" is too stupid to collect a paycheck.

But Harry Spence has a boss, a boss who could fire him today. That boss is Deval Patrick. Gov. Patrick knows about Haleigh, and he gave Spence a pass. He knows about ???? Another pass. Now it's Edward Harrison and a sexual predator on the streets of Boston for months, thanks to Harry Spence.

Gov. Patrick, how many kids have to be raped, beated and killed before you do something about it? How many children have to end up on a ventilator or in a morgue before you start to care?

So far, Gov. Patrick's answer is "more than three."

Boston to America's Taxpayers: "Thanks, Suckers!"

The price tag of the infamous Big Dig is now $15 billion and climbing, and the majority of that money--about $9 billion-- came from federal taxpayers, not local ones.

And when the most expensive public works project in American history isn't killing drivers, it's using them. And putters and irons, too.

The I-Team folks at Channel 4 have discovered an indoor driving range set up by government employees in one of the Big Dig buildings. The net is more than one story high, and its installation showed more engineering acumen than was used when 6,000 lb. slabs were suspended from tunnel ceilings with Super Glue.

Nobody's taking credit, alas, for this marvel of recreational engineering. Channel 4 reports that the driving range was either used by State Police earning overtime while "working" security at the Big Dig, or by state turnpike employees "working" at the project, or both.

Hey, for $15 billion, this tunnel OUGHT to come with a driving range, as well as tennis courts, a sauna and an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Monday, May 14, 2007

If Only Al Sharpton Asked Himself This Question Once In Awhile...

"Should I call someone or is that being racist?"

Welcome to America, where a citizen who's alarmed by a video of whackjob Islamists firing AK-47s and screaming "Allah Akbar" immediately wonders if there's something wrong with him.

If only Al Sharpton would use the same discretion before shooting off his mouth about Jews or Mormons. Ah, but he doesn't have to. He's black. Which means, not only is he an unrepentant bigot responsible for the deaths of Jews and others at the hands of his inflamed followers, but he will also be a speaker at the Democratic National Convention. Again.

What if the young employee of Circuit City who saw these disturbing videos had done what CAIR and the Boston Globe-Democrat wanted him to do, and ignored them? What if, instead of six jihadis in jail, we had 100 American soldiers in a morgue. Would members of the American Muslim community and their media friends still insist that the Circuit City employee was right to no make judgments about Muslims?

Would the nine Massachusetts congressmen who voted against protecting "John Does" who report suspicious activity from lawsuits, would they still support that idiotic vote if the kid in question had said "Hey, I don't want to get sued and called a racist. I'm keeping my mouth shut!"

Friday, May 11, 2007

Deval Patrick's Immigration Policy At Work!

What happens when states follow Gov. Patrick's policy of ordering local authorities to ignore the illegal immigration status of the people they encounter every day? You get stories like this:

Suspect Dritan Duka has past arrests on charges of disorderly conduct and possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. He also has six separate speeding and driving with a suspended license infractions, records show.

Shain Duka has past arrests on charges of obstruction of justice, hindering apprehension and making physical threats. He also has five separate traffic infractions.

Eljvir Duka has past drug counts and at least two motor vehicle infractions.

If those names sound familiar (odd, but familiar), they should. These were three of the six "Yugoslav Roofers of Albanian Descent" plotting to murder hundreds of American soldiers at Ft. Dix.

If they hadn't been stopped, would you blame the politicians like Deval Patrick whose policies allowed them to remain in the US illegally, even after multiple arrests?

I sure would.

Thursday, May 10, 2007

John Edwards Will "Look Into" The 9/11 Kooks Theory

Watch him pander to these whackjobs here.

Then again, given that
only 39% of Democrats believe Bush DIDN'T know about 9/11 in advance, he could be working his base.

That certainly seems to be
Gov. Deval Patrick's strategy.

Quit Yer Belly Achin'!

You stole all the campus papers because you thought this picture made you look FAT?

Pardon me, ladies, but it's not your cellulite that's showing. It's your narcissism.

A larger photo is up at the Boston Herald.

What If The Islamists Targeted Ft. Devens Instead Of Ft. Dix?

Three of the six men being detained for their plans to bring jihad to New Jersey have something in common other than their faith. They are also in the US illegally. And they have been for more than 23 years.

During that time, they have had repeated run-ins with local law enforcement, and yet they were able to stay in the US and train for their planned attack on American soldiers.

Fortunately they were captured thanks to the help of private citizens who stepped forward and reported these would-be murderers to the authorities.

But what if....

What if, instead of New Jersey, these Islamist illegal immigrants had come to Massachusetts, perhaps to attack Hanscomb AFB or some other facility? What would have happened then?

Well, here in Massachusetts our new governor, Deval Patrick, killed a plan that would have allowed a handful of state troopers to help enforce immigration laws. As a result, the terrorists could drive around the commonwealth without fear that a traffic violation might get them deported and end their jihadist career.

In addition, they would have found a warm welcome in Cambridge, Amherst and other "sanctuary cities" around Massachusetts whose local governments greed immigration criminals like the Duka Brothers with open arms. In fact, in some towns, the terrorists might even get the opportunity to vote in local elections! Who wouldn't want these six young men casting a vote for the people who'll pick your town's next police chief?

And don't forget that terrorists do not live on bin Laden downloads alone. They gotta eat and pay the rent. Here in Massachusetts, being an illegal immigrant won't stop you from getting a job. In fact, these guys could have been working on taxpayer-funded public works projects and, if their illegal status had been uncovered, the only thing the state Attorney General would do is make sure they received prevailing wage.

Why, Governor Patrick wants these boys to have access to a U Mass education at the same tuition rate as a legal resident! Hey, who wouldn't be proud to see our tax-subsidized college chemistry classes being used by young men like these in some future Allah-inspired "science fair project" involving a back pack and a synagogue?

And don't forget their access to taxpayer-funded public housing, too!

Yes, Massachusetts under Deval Patrick couldn't be more welcoming to Islamist illegal aliens. What's amazing is that, despite what we've learned this week, the liberals running this state plan to keep it that way.

Monday, May 07, 2007

Save The Earth! Kill A Mommy!

The global-warming-panic-lefty-loonie-Brookline-liberals want you to know who's killing Planet Earth:

Mom and Dad.

If you greedy, selfish, reproducing pigs would stop having children, you wouldn't need an SUV or (horrors!) minivan to haul them around. Your carbon footprint is crushing Mother Earth beneath the pitter patter of your children's feet.

Kids and cars--those are the planet killers. It's time, the lefties say, to get rid of both.

In Brookine, MA, the plan is to tax you out of your SUV.

At the "Optimum Population Trust," they have declared Mom and Dad to be "eco-criminals."

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said...: “The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.”

This is nothing new. Enviro-Whackjob Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, describes humans as "the AIDS of the Earth," and wants 80% of us dead so we can have a "sustainable" population of 1 billion people.

"I make no apologies for that statement," Watson says.

Here's my idea for the Brookline booboisie and their loony-lefty pals like Watson and Sheryl Crow: If you really believe human beings are destroying the earth, if you really believe that every baby born is a natural disaster, then why don't you do the one thing guaranteed to reduce your own carbon footprint to zero, and kill yourself?

Please do the Gaia Giver Goddess (and the rest of us, too) a huge favor and blow your brains out right now. Don't wait for the Earth Day rush--off yourself today!

OK, so you can't shoot yourself, I understand. Shotgun shells emit greenhouse gases, and you're all anti-2nd Amendment wimps, anyway. And you're certainly not going to sit in your garage with the CAR running (would that even work with a hybrid? Hmmm....). You could always jump off a bridge, but that would shut down traffic and leave thousands of cars idling and emitting for hours.

There's got to be an eco-friendly way for you to off yourself and show that you really do believe in the principles you are trying to foist on the rest of us. All the rest of us can do is wish you "Bon Voyage."

Friday, May 04, 2007

Kathleen Parker Covers The GOP Debate

...and, as she often does, pretty much says it all in 300 words or less:

The clear winner was Ronald Reagan, bless his optimistic heart. And those eyes! When evildoers looked into Reagan’s eyes, they handed over all their hostages and their spare change.Or something like that, according to Rudy Giuliani, who did not rise to his poll numbers tonight. In fact, he lost the debate, beginning with the first question when he seemed nervous and disorganized. At no time did he manage to convey the strength and confidence of America’s mayor.

Clearly, Rudy doesn’t do panels well. Worst two answers of the night: He fumbled badly on the difference between Sunni and Shia. Then, when asked whether the increased influence of Christians is good for the U.S., he deflected, saying something like: “Sure, the influence of large numbers of people is always good for the U.S. . . but we have to reach out to others. We need to bring in Democrats.” And, you know, whatever.

McCain made me want to spirit valium to Simi Valley before he followed Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell. His answers and delivery seemed canned and cartoonish. But the man gets credit for steely resolve and the most impressive segue of the night: When asked about public funding for stem cell research, he thanked Nancy Reagan for her kindness when he was a POW. No way. McCain was a POW?

And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated for those who haven’t yet read the Cliff Notes on altered nuclear stem cells. His answer on stem-cell research showed that he has delved deeply into the issue while shedding light on his apparent flip-flop on abortion. Best answer of the night: When asked (ridiculously) about government intervening when Catholic bishops withhold communion from certain pols, Romney blasted the idea with humor, saying that Roman Catholic bishops “can do whatever the heck they want,” while simultaneously defusing the Mormon issue and shifting focus to radical Islamists.

“This is a nation after all that wants a leader who is a person of faith, but we don’t choose our leader based on what church they go to.” Mormon issue, check. And, “This a nation which also comes together over faith . . . the people we’re fighting, they’re the ones who divide over faith and who decide matters of this nature in the public forum.”

That was a twofer.

Runner-up goes to Mike Huckabee. Smart, pleasant, knowledgeable, and straightforward, he was the surprise in the Cracker Jack box. “Live Carb-Free: Vote Romney/Huckabee.”

Thursday, May 03, 2007

Bad Dog! Bad Dog!

The same nanny-state nuisances who want to take away your cigarettes, your cell phones and your tasty trans-fat-laden snacks have now turned their sights on your family pet. Their plan? Banning pit bulls.

It is very possible that Boston police officers may soon be kicking in your doors and rounding up your dogs. And if you think I'm exaggerating,
read it for yourself.

Their "argument," for lack of a better term, is that some pit bulls bite people. It's true. So do some
Labrador retrievers, but nobody's talking about banning them. Rottweilers are at least as dangerous as pit bulls, but the government stooges say they're OK.

For the moment.

Every day, somebody is bitten by a dog, a cat, a hamster and an unlicensed child, and in 99% of the cases we understand that the responsible party isn't the pet, but the alleged adult in charge of the animal. How does banning the pit bull make sense?

It makes sense once you buy into the idea that what kind of dog you have--or cookie or cell phone, for that matter--is your neighbor's business. We used to believe that what you had wasn't as important as what you DO with what you have (Do I care that you killed your wife with a baseball bat instead of a gun?). Those days are gone.

We're back to the stupid argument made by 2nd Amendment opponents that the problem is the thing, not the person. The fact is, there's
nothing wrong with pit bulls. But there can be a LOT wrong with pit bull owners.

The other, more disturbing argument the ban-the-bulls folks make is that simply being a member of the wrong group (the "pit bull" kind of dog) makes you inherently too dangerous. They say that, since pit bulls are involved in an inordinate number of dog-on-human attacks, and since these attacks can be attributed to the work these creatures were bred to do hundreds of years ago, that we are justified in judging ALL the members of this group as unacceptable.

Look at American crime statistics and think about that argument for awhile, and you'll find yourself in a very disturbing--and unacceptable--place.

George Tenet's Whining? "Untenable"

That's the Boston Herald's headline on my analysis of the World's Most Pathetic Hack.

Tuesday, May 01, 2007

"I'm illegal. So what?"

So read the t-shirts of some illegal immigrants at last year's rallies for open borders and amnesty. Thanks to a few token (very token) enforcement efforts like those in New Bedford earlier this year, some illegal immigrants are actually afraid of getting caught.

Wow! Law breakers afraid of law enforcers? Now that's progress! Or maybe not...

As Michelle Malkin points out, "There are nearly three times as many officially designated illegal alien fugitives freed by the feds as there are illegal aliens who have been removed over the last year."

Meanwhile, President Bush, Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy continue to push for amnesty for all and law enforcement for none. Union leaders like the AFL-CIO's John Sweeney continue to screw their rank-and-file by opposing immigration law enforcement.

Illegals hear them loud and clear, which is why even AFTER they've been caught, immigration criminals like Lilo Mancia insist they're going to "stand my ground here until I win!"

The ground here is America. The ground where he's a lawful citizen is in Honduras. Does he care? No. How about the folks at ICE? No, they don't care, either. In the NYTimes today, they all but apologized that their enforcement actions targeting felons have unintentionally also caught illegal immigrants, too.

Darn! Border security agents catching people violating our border security laws. I hate when that happens!

If you're not in a lousy enough mood, you can read much more here.

If You Thought I Was Mean To George Tenet... Christopher Hitchen's review of the World's Biggest Ingrate today.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry's not too impressed, either:

"Alas, Tenet felt forced to take a $4 million advance for a book settling scores against his bureaucratic enemies and putting his failures in the best possible light. Poor, poor George."