Wednesday, January 31, 2007

This is NOT A Terror Hoax


It's a "Lite Brite."

Any city with a bomb squad that can't tell the difference needs a new bomb squad.

UPDATE: Listener Paul breaks the "Hasbro" terrorism connection that inspired the massive government reaction here in Boston.

HASBRO: "HAmaS BROtherhood."

'Nuff said.

Boston: Our Headlines Are America's Punchlines, Part XXXVII



These Lite-Brite toys appeared in 10 American cities over the past two weeks: Boston, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Portland, Ore., Austin, Texas, San Francisco and Philadelphia.

Only one city had a government clueless and/or panic-stricken enough to shut down bridges, roads, subways and, yes, even a river because of these toys.


Way to go, Boston!


Having been caught ridiculously over-reacting to a device that my seven-year-old could have identified for them, city and state officials have now decided the only way to save face is to over-react even further. It was the police/city/state government that screwed up on Wednesday, inconveniencing thousands of people without a single scrap of evidence--NONE--that there was any danger of any kind.


So now they're shooting the marketer. They've put one of the artists involved in this guerrilla marketing campaign in jail, and they're threatening civil and possibly criminal prosecution of the Turner Company, which owns the cable cartoon show the Lite-Brites were promoting.


There is plenty for us to debate about this story--and we certainly will on my radio show--but one fact is beyond debate: MA Attorney General Martha Coakley is lying when she says that we are the victim of a "hoax." Like the idiotic AP headline "Fake Bombs Found in Seattle," this is sheer nonsense.


A Lite-Brite is NOT a fake bomb. It doesn't look like a bomb. It's no more bomb-like than a toaster or a radio. If a dozen battery-operated radios designed to turn on every night to a local music show had been mounted above walkways and businesses, would the perpetrators be accused of a terrorist hoax? Of course not.


To be a hoax, there has to be some attempt to trick somebody. An empty shoebox with two paper towel tubes painted to look like dynamite is a hoax. The Lite-Brites were being used as Lite-Brites. No trickery, no bomb-like attributes. Just a toy with some batteries. Where's the hoax?


I challenge anyone with an IQ higher than a Boston City Councilor to look at the image of the "fake bomb" or "hoax device" at the top of this post and tell me that it looks ANYTHING like a bomb.


Yes, it's possible to take a bomb and make it look like a toaster, or radio, or Lite-Brite. That would be a hoax or a trick. But that is not the case here. This was a Lite-Brite, ingeniously disguised to look like...a Lite-Brite!


I understand why the police had to investigate the Lite-Brites. That's a smart thing to do, particularly post-9/11. And if the city wants to prosecute the clever people who did this for trespassing or public nuisance or some such, they certainly have the right to be jerks.


But it is a complete and utter CYA move by Patrick, Menino, et. al. to charge anyone under the "hoax" statute being used in this case. That decision borders on Nifong-like prosecutorial misconduct. It is an abuse of power, and it's only being done to distract the thousands of Bostonians who were stuck at their T stops because our government over-reacted.


Attorney General Martha Coakley told reporters Wednesday night that she's going to continue investigating to find out "who and what were responsible for the panic that hit Boston." All she had to do was look around her press conference. Most of the perps were on stage with her at the time.

How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away?


My take on Sen. John Kerry is in the Boston Herald today.

Michael "Mr. Fix-It" Ross Has A Ticket To Park

And that means to park anywhere he wants.

Councilman Michael Ross
is in trouble because, of the 105 parking tickets he got dismissed using his power as a Boston City Councilor, 35 of those tickets were for violations he committed on personal time. The Boston Globe-Democrat is outraged that he would abuse that power.

Down here on Planet Earth--where we mere mortals pay ALL of our own parking tickets, even ones we get while working--we're trying to figure out why the hell Boston City Council members get to park in front of fire hydrants and in handicapped parking in the first place.

Michael Ross calls this perk one of the "privileges that [councilors] receive because of their duties and responsibilities."

So obeying the law is NOT one of those duties? Playing by the rules that City Council imposes on the rest of us isn't his responsibility?

Apparently, parking in Granny's space at the Stop and Shop is an essential part of public service. Putting your car between the fire truck and a hydrant is just part of a city councilor's job.

Councilor Ross, proving that Boston has matched this man's talents to the job, issued a heartfelt apology in which he takes full responsibility for accidentally slipping his personal parking tickets into the fix-it machine. In other words "I didn't do it, and I promise I won't do it again."

Classic Boston politics. I predict Michael Ross will be re-elected in a landslide.

Menino Asks: "Mosque? WHAT Mosque?"

Kudos to 96.9 FM TALK's Eagan and Braude for asking Mayor Menino about his support for a taxpayer-subsidized mosque during an interview yesterday afternoon. While neither Jim nor Margery have been following this story as closely as we have, Mayor Menino knows even less about his position on the ISB mosque than they do!

When asked about why he supported giving $2 million in taxpayer-owned land to the terror-friendly folks running the Islamic Society of Boston for a mere $175k, Menino denied that he was even mayor when the deal went down. "That happened before me," Boston's four-term mayor told E&B. He claimed to know virtually nothing about the subject at all.

Really?

Then explain this from The New Republic:
In 2003 the city of Boston, through its development arm, the Boston Redevelopment Authority (BRA), agreed to transfer the ownership of this 1.9 acre parcel of city land to the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB). At a groundbreaking ceremony in 2002 in which Mayor Thomas Menino took part, Massachusetts politicians said the project would bring together Bostonians of all faiths. [emphasis added]

Or this, from the Boston Herald, as reported by Islam expert Daniel Pipes:
At the groundbreaking in November 2002, local politicians hailed the planned
construction of an Islamic Center by the Islamic Society of Boston as a bridge between Islam and Boston's other religions, the Boston Herald reported...Mayor Thomas M. Menino hailed the center for "creating a space for inter-faith dialog," and thereby bringing "both the Muslim community and the community at large closer together.[emphasis added]

Lessee....According to his official biography, Mayor Tom "Pimp My Ride" Menin-yo was elected to his first term on November 2, 1993. He spent nine years on the city council before that. The ISB groundbreaking was 2002, the transfer of city land, 2003. Then there's the ongoing lawsuit trying to uncover the facts of the ISB funding that his administration is fighting. In fact, city officials were in court trying to keep the lid on this story LAST week!

Anybody else see a problem here?

Hey-Massachusetts ACLU! We've got taxpayers subsidizing a religious facility. Any problem with you guys? (Guess they're too busy whining about bomb searches on the T.)

Hey--Boston city council members! Your constituents are getting ripped off for $1.8 million to help out the (ahem) problematic organization, the ISB. You see a problem here? Or is this just the church v. state equivalent of 103 parking tickets?

Hey--Boston Globe-Democrat! You folks are always denouncing the evil influence of religious (i.e. "Republican") voters on the political system. Well, we've got people who support executing homosexuals and wife beating getting a boost from the Boston city government. Do you see a problem here? Maybe you could publish a cartoon about it...er, probably not.

And finally...

Hey--Alzheimer's Association! You guys got the Mayor lined up for treatment? When you're handling a shovel at the groundbreaking of a $22 million mosque in your own city--after 9/11!--and don't even remember it? That's not a good sign.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

The Worst Economy Ever?


Well, of course it is. After all, George W. Bush is president. America is doomed. Everybody's broke, nobody can find a job, we're all starving, etc., etc.

Setting aside the 4.5% unemployment rate, the rising wages, the percentage of Americans who own homes, the low interest rates, the non-existent inflation and the new stock market boom that started last year--these critics are absolutely right.

But what to make of the steady economic growth for the past five years (see chart?) Could it be that the economy is, well, pretty good after all?

Naaaahhhh. I'm sure that's just all the money going to Haliburton.

Give Victory A Chance

Ever get the feeling, reading the papers and listening to the radio, that there are people who can't wait for a formal declaration of defeat in Iraq? That they WANT America to lose?

Many Americans hear this and assume, "Well, we've already lost. It's over." Are they right?

Before you shout "Damn straight!," all I ask is that you read these two contrarian opinions first.

One is a comparison to Vietnam that John Kerry WON'T like. The other outlines why Gen. Petraeus--who might just know a little more about fighting in Iraq than the average MSNBC pundit--deserves our support. Who knows? Maybe the guy who just re-wrote our entire military counterinsurgency manual based on his experiences in Iraq might be onto something.

It is true that the Iraq war is costing America billions of dollars and, most tragic, thousands of lives. But have you noticed that the advocates of defeat never sell price? They never talk about the cost in lives if we abandon the Iraq mission now. Estimates start in the tens of thousands, and go all the way up to the hundreds of thousands. And those most likely to die will be those Iraqis who reject Islamism or militant factionalism. The moderates will be dead or driven out. The extremists will govern.

Then there's the dollar amount. Instability means $3 a gallon gasoline. Islamists controlling the oil means the same, and maybe worse. Oil money flowing to Islamists means (as Iran proves every day) more money for terrorism.

The events of September 11, 2001 cost America a minimum of half a TRILLION dollars, not to mention to horrific losses of life, the echoing health effects to rescue workers, etc. etc. Will a defeat of democracy in Iraq mean another attack is more or less likely? How many $500 billion paydays are the advocates of defeat willing to accept?

Is it possible we can help the wobbling Iraqis erect a third-way society amid the Islamists and dictators of the Middle East? Gen. Petraeus says yes. The cost of giving our military the chance to finish the job is a few more billion dollars (a tenth of the cost of another 9/11), and yes--the lives of some Americans who have bravely volunteered to defend our nation.

What happens, however, if we say "no, the price is too high" today, and the Islamist-dominated Middle East that follows America's full retreat attack us again? Thousands of dead Americans will pay the price in Boston or Detroit or LA, and we will be forced to turn our attention to the Middle East AGAIN. What will the advocates of defeat say on that day? "Boy, I'm sure glad we got out of Iraq so we could rest up before we have to go back again!"

People who are unwilling to give victory a chance are those who simply have not calculated the true cost of defeat.

UPDATE: Of course, not everyone agrees. Some say 9/11 wasn't such a big deal in the first place, and war is an overreaction.

Monday, January 29, 2007

Massachusetts Tries "Pay As You Stay"

A Massachusetts Democrat sees what the rest of us see: young people fleeing, jobs moving to other states, slower economic growth here than in the rest of the nation.

His solution? Lowering taxes to make it easier for working families to pay their bills? Reducing the cost of doing business here? Stemming the tide of illegal immigrants who cost everyone millions in government services and take jobs from blue-collar citizens?

Uh, no.

Instead, he wants to pay people $10,000 in tax money not to move away.

State Senator Brian A. Joyce, a Milton Democrat, this month filed legislation that would provide any graduate of a Bay State college $10,000 for a down payment on a house or condo. Joyce hopes the payment would soften the blow from the high cost of living and might persuade some graduates to stay and raise families here.

The stipend would go to anyone who graduated from a state-accredited post secondary school, vocational-technical program, or apprentice program in the last 10 years. The catch: The recipient would have to agree to stay in Massachusetts for at least five years, or repay the money with interest. Also, the graduate's yearly salary could not exceed 135 percent of the community's median income.


Where will he get the $25 million to fund this bumbling bribery attempt? Why, from Massachusetts taxpayers, of course! And since Governor Patrick says we're already broke, we'll have to raise taxes to get it. And higher taxes mean it will be even harder for young workers to afford to live here, so they'll need bigger bribes, which will mean higher taxes, which will make it ever harder....

Meanwhile, Rep. Joyce--and every other politician in Massachusetts--is avoiding the huge, obvious, "natural truth" question: Who wants to live in a state that has to PAY YOU to live there?

Hey, geniuses! Think maybe the taxes and the goofy government and the tolls and the abusive political system that ignores the basic rights of the people and the welcoming of illegals and the bans on playing tag and on and on and on...think maybe all this is driving people away? How about this crazy idea: Making Massachusetts such a great place to live that people will pay us to come here!

My lovely bride The Warden and I love living in Massachusetts. It would take more than $10,000 to get us to move away. But every day, our political overlords make it a little bit harder for normal people (average, hard-working, taxpaying families) to stay. They seem to believe we have a bottomless capacity to take abuse. Young workers respond by fleeing to New Hampshire or North Carolina, and the solution? Another multi-million government program.

How do you explain to people who just don't get it that the problem is they just don't get it?

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Two Of A Kind


Why doesn't John Kerry just move to France and end everyone's misery? He'll be happier having escaped the Great Satan, America will be happy, thoughtful citizens of Massachusetts will be VERY happy...and the French will be miserable.
Everybody wins!
Less than 48 hours after the hagiographic media coverage he got for heroically withdrawing from the presidential race (i.e., admitting he's so overwhelmingly unpopular that he'd come in second if he ran unopposed), Sen. Kerry was back doing what he does best: Hanging out with people who hate America, and lying to make them happy.

The same "hero" who returned from Vietnam to falsely accuse American soldiers of being rapists and murderers spent the weekend in Davos, Switzerland with terror supporters like former Iranian president Khatami. He took the opportunity to bash the Bush administration's record on global warming and AIDS in Africa:

"When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy," Kerry said.

"So we have a crisis of confidence in the Middle East - in the world, really. I've never seen our country as isolated, as much as a sort of international pariah for a number of reasons as it is today."

As others have pointed out, he's wrong on both counts. It was the Clinton administration who "walked away" from the Kyoto Treaty, never even presenting it to the US Senate. Why? Because the Senate voted unanimously in 1997 to reject it...in advance!

Oh, and if you happened to notice that John F. Kerry was a US Senator himself in 1997, you're smarter than he is.

As for AIDS in Africa, funding under the Bush administration is three times higher than it was when Clinton left office. Sen. Kerry, when did YOU propose a bill raising AIDS funding 300% for President Clinton to sign?

Uh, that would be "never."

John Kerry doesn't care. He knows the Euroweenies love to hate Bush and there's nothing negative you can say about America today that is negative enough for the Davos crowd.

But our junior senator from Massachusetts was more than happy to try.
Hat tip: Instapundit.com
UPDATE: This is the sort of headline that should make every Massachusetts voter shake his head in astonishment. The fact that it doesn't may be the most disturbing aspect of the Kerry story.

Hanscom Heroes Homecoming





Here are just a few photos from the terrific event at Hanscom Air Force Base honoring local airmen who've recently returned from serving America abroad. Some served in Iraq and Afghanistan, while others were in less-familiar places like Qatar and Djibouti.




But wherever they went and whatever their duty, they left families and comfort behind to serve our nation. I was extremely honored to be asked to participate in the Hancom Heroes Homecoming ceremony.




Some of the New England Patriots Cheerleaders were there, along with their counterparts from Minuteman High School. The Lowell Devils sent their mascot, who joined Freddie Freedom, representing the 66th Airlift Wing.




Special thanks to Gen. Rooney, Col. Schluckebier, Chief Master Sergeant Sirois, Master Sergeant Thompson, JB and everyone who made this well-earned homecoming possible.

Friday, January 26, 2007

Silence Is Golden?

No, this time it's stupid. A Catholic school in Warwick, RI has declared a "silent lunch" policy--no talking, no getting up, and only one trip to the trash can....or ELSE!

Kids? Talking during lunch? Telling jokes and talking about their favorite TV shows? This has got to be stopped!

The principal claims it's because there were "three choking incidents," and "if the lunch room is loud, we cannot hear if a child is choking."

First of all, people who are choking don't make noise, at least not much. But why stop there? A kid could be dying of food poison, and how would you know if they slumped down on the table. I say make all the kids stand at attention while eating!

And we wouldn't even have choking if the schools didn't serve their dangerous foods. From now on: pudding, jell-0 and liquified protein--all eaten through a straw!

I mean, come on, folks: Don't you love your children? If you do, how can you possibly keep exposing them to the dangers of spaghetti, pizza and (shudder) hot dogs?! It's time to get serious about safety. And when I see kids walking the halls of St. Rose of Lima in helmets and kevlar uniforms, maybe I'll be able to finally sleep easily at night.

UPDATE: This came in from Philip, who works with the Boston schools to provide lunches:


I’ve got a story for you. We use what are called sporks (fork and a spoon mixed); at one of our middle schools we had sent tuna fish salad for one of the lunch items. In this situation we would send the bread in a bag with the rest in a plastic container, tuna in one section, lettuce and tomato in another. We would do this so the kids could enjoy a fresh tuna sandwich without the soggy bread.

I got a call from one of my staff asking me to immediately come out to her school. When I got there I watched as students that wanted a tuna sandwich try to make them without a spork. Do you know what they used? Yes you are correct: their hands. When was the last time you made your children make a
sandwich with only their hands? Nice and we wonder why they act like animals.

As I found out from my employee that it was the Asst. Principal that told her not to use the sporks, I approached the Asst. Principals to ask why. You’re right: because sporks are "weapons." I had to call [a co-worker] who had to call the director of operations who had to call the principal to get the children sporks. Efficient.

Yes he is still working for our great city. He also has stopped us from sending them grapes. They are slippery on the floor. Now understand this from my view other than just being stupid, grapes fall into the fruit category fruits and vegetables are the hardest food group for us to get kids to eat. They love grapes, they eat grapes and yes there are some that might even throw grapes. So yes lets deny kids grapes now.

Brilliant.

The Company She Keeps

I mean this as a sincere and direct challenge to every supporter of Sen. Rodham's bid for the presidency: How can you possibly support this person to be President Of The United States?

Mrs. Clinton was waiting to speak at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Iraq when the time for her appointment with Mr. Sharpton came and went. So one of her aides escorted Mr. Sharpton to an office near the hearing room, and Mrs. Clinton left the discussion about troop levels in Baghdad to meet him.
Mr. Sharpton and Mrs. Clinton met behind closed doors for 15 minutes, then merged with big smiles. Mrs. Clinton seemed surprised to see a dozen reporters waiting; Mr. Sharpton had sent out two news releases, one at 2 a.m. on Thursday, with his itinerary.
“I’m delighted that Reverend Sharpton is here today to talk about issues that are important to our country,” Mrs. Clinton said as they stood in a Senate hallway. “His commitment to the 21st-century civil rights agenda is one that I share.”


He's an anti-semitic, race-baiting thug who incited murder at least once and still owes millions in court judgments after falsely trashing an innocent man in the Tawana Brawley fiasco. He supports race-based government policies including reparations. And she's PROUD?

Isn't that a disqualifier for president on its face?

Thursday, January 25, 2007

How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away?


Much has been made of Sen. Kerry's tearful goodbye to his life-long presidential ambitions on the floor of the senate. And I assume that even Kerry himself was a bit uncomfortable with Harry Reid's borderline "Brokeback Mountain" declarations of love.


I've heard quite a bit of sympathy expressed for John Kerry, but where's the sympathy for Massachusetts?


As the 9/11 Commission noted, Sen. Kerry and his fellow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee could hardly have done less during the terror surge of the 1990s. There were almost as many actual terror attacks on the US as there were Intelligence Committee meetings about the subject.


While the terrorists for looking for ways to kill us, Sen. Kerry was looking for ways to cut the intelligence community's budget. As Barbara Comstock wrote:


during the eight years Kerry served on the Intelligence Committee, he proposed budget cuts at least three times. So how many times during his eight-year tenure on the Intelligence Committee did he propose legislation to increase funding for human intelligence or to reform the intelligence community? You guessed it: zilch, zero. That about sums up John Kerry's "leadership" on intelligence and national-security matters.


While America has been spared a hopeless and embarrassing White House run by the man even liberals admit has been "running for president since the day he returned from Vietnam," the people of Massachusetts will continue to suffer as the audience for his pompous, self-important performance as "Man Of the People (who happen to own six homes)".


Sen. Kerry can not point to a single major accomplishment in the senate. Not one significant bill bears his name. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the Reagan economic revolution wrong. He got welfare reform wrong. He got the war on terror wrong. He voted for going to Iraq before voting against it. Wrong, wrong, wrong.


He got one thing right. He's not running for president.


Given he record, I guess we should be thankful for even that small blessing.

Don't Tell Sen. Kennedy...

This report from Baghdad isn't all of the truth from Iraq, but it is certainly part of it. A part, alas, you will never hear in the mainstream media:

The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life
outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein.

Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces.

In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment.



Be sure to read the entire article, including the comments about Gen. Petraeus's two major failures in Iraq thus far. They involved trying to avoid bloodshed by setting up "institutions" to create outlets for conflict. Mistake.

The loonies have only one outlet--violence--and they will only be stopped by greater violence on behalf of peace.

UPDATE: Here's another take on Iraq that's hard to find here in Boston.

"Don't Judge Me On How I Look"


How can we, Ms. Muhammad? We can't freakin' SEE you! That's the point the judge in Detroit was making when he refused to let her testify in an American court of law dressed like a ninja.


Ms. Muhammad has now been granted another hearing and she claims she has the right to wear her niqab whether the judge likes it or not. After all, she is answering to sharia law, not ours.


What's frightening is that there's a real chance she might prevail.


(hat tip: Little Green Footballs)

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

"We Would NEVER Ship to Iraq!"

Another moderate Muslim shows how they feel about bringing democracy and hope to the Middle East.

SOTU?

SOSO. (Same ol', same ol').

The speech was fine, President Bush handled Speaker Pelosi perfectly, the delivery was good and...who cares?

Not only did the speech accomplish nothing, there was never a moment in which anyone believed it would. The Bush Presidency is essentially dead. He can veto (will he?), he can deal (will he?), but the idea that a policy like raising taxes on gasoline is suddenly in play because it's been proposed by George Bush is like saying a day care center should expect new business after getting the John Mark Karr seal of approval.

Speaking of policies....was I the only person who found the president's list of priorities eerily familiar? I don't just mean "more of the same" on Iraq. I mean everything.

For example, how many times have I been told in a SOTU that "we must save Social Security." Ronald Reagan talked about that subject in HIS SOTU speeches. So did Bush the Lesser, and President Clinton.

Energy dependency? Balancing the budget? Fixing Medicare? Rescue kids from failing schools? Does the phrase "Been There, Will Never Do That" spring to mind?

My entire adult life, people have been pointing out that Social Security will go broke around 2017. My entire adult life, the obvious solutions have been available: Stop giving retirement welfare to rich people, let young people opt out and invest their own money, tax the opt-outers to keep the retirement welfare system working for those in need. Viola.

Simple. Obvious. Fair. Ever gonna happen? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Same with kids in crappy schools (vouchers), Medicare (give it only to the needy), energy dependency (drill more, raise gas taxes), etc. Knowing what to do is easy. Giving yet another SOTU about it, very easy.

Actually doing something? No chance. Which is why the SOTU is, yet again, NBD.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Still Whining About The Economy?


Then you need to read The Inheritance, an excellent book about how Roosevelt Democrats became Reagan Republicans, and why they're still uncomfortable in the Democratic Party. While this book is more about politics than economics, the story it tells of how the Great Depression affected three middle-class families in New York has lingered with me for the 10 years since I first read it.

My show today was yet another reminder of how prosperous and spoiled we Americans are. When I've got callers complaining that the economy is lousy because of how much it costs to get your kids in Little League, I know we've got it too easy.

Read The Inheritance, and be reminded of what real economic struggle looks like. During the Depression, nobody was poor-mouthing the economy because the housing market was flat. Instead, once-prosperous middle-class families from Manhattan were being evicted from their homes and forced to live in unheated shacks along the Hudson River.

By any standard, our economy today is either good or great. Chances are, if it changes, it will almost certainly change for the worse. For a reminder of how bad "worse" can get, study your history.

Then thank heaven for tax cuts.

Monday, January 22, 2007

It's For The Children, Vol. XXXVII

Sixteen-year-old John Odgren was on two forms of medication for mental issues. He was in a special school program in which he was overseen by counselors, a clinical psychologist and a "classroom coordinator" (your guess is as good as mine). His parents, who enrolled him in this program and had him treated for a mild case of Asperger's Syndrome, obviously cared about his health and his education.

Friday, John Odgren stabbed a fellow student to death in a bathroom at Lincoln-Sudbury High School. Which means...

IT'S TIME TO PANIC!! METAL DETECTORS! BODY CAVITY SEARCHES! HOME SCHOOLING! THE GOVERNMENT'S GOTTA DO SOMETHING!

Sigh.

Poor James Aleson is dead, the victim of a painfully senseless, inexplicable crime. I can't even imagine how his parents can get out of bed on a day like today.

I feel just as badly for the parents of John Odgren. They have all the sorrow of the victim's parents, plus the additional burdens of guilt and shame--not to mention a lifetime ahead of trying to find a way to be the loving parents to a self-destructive, criminal son. There is horror in this story all the way around.

But please--let's stop the overreacting. Lincoln-Sudbury High is not a hotbed of violence. The students don't need to be wanded every day at the walk onto campus.

Here is the Natural Truth: Children are safer from crime when they're at school than they are anywhere else, including at home. Crime against kids is falling--not rising. Our kids are the safest generation of children ever to walk this planet.

The lesson of John Odgren is that we live on a planet where there are often no lessons, where stuff just happens. Sometimes it's bad stuff: Tsunamis, bird flu and, yes, sick people. Turning out public schools into prison because of a one in a 2 million tragedy like this would simply be yet another tragedy--this time, an avoidable one.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Children Of Chumps

Great works of art teach us undying truths and, by that standard, the film "Children of Men" is great art. It proves that American film critics are scared, pretentious morons.

"Children of Men" is not a horrible movie. It's merely bad. It's not unwatchable, but there is no reason for anyone to waste two hours and watch it. Clive Owen is a great actor who does a good job. But if anyone in the audience knows what the hell he's doing at any given moment in this movie, they must be psychic.

And yet, this film is receiving rave reviews from the biggies-- NYTimes, Chicago Trib, et.al. Why? If you've seen it, please email your answer to michaelgraham@969fmtalk.com because I'd love to hear it. Meanwhile, let me give you mine.

If you haven't seen the film, the premise is that the world has gone so bad between 2006 and 2027 that the human race can no longer reproduce. There's unspecified chaos around the world, nukes have (apparently) gone off in NYC, and Great Britain, where the movie takes place, is run by some Gestapo government or other. The plot involves the first pregnancy in 18 years, some "freedom fighters" and lots of chasing.

Nearly every reviewer refers to "Children of Men" as a political thriller. This is sheer idiocy. I challenge anyone who's seen the movie to tell me the politics of anyone in it. The resistance--what's their politics? The government? The mom? Anyone?

You don't know who's blowing up what or why. The characters and plot present no political view. The politics are all in the setting, and the hints are far from subtle.

The evil British government is rounding up illegal immigrants (right-wing bastards!). The illegals are herded into Guantanamo-like camps (right-win BUSH bastards!) where some are abused and killed, ala Abu Ghraib (pro-IRAQ right-wing Bush bastards!). And the infertility is vaguely linked to "pollution," while the main character works at the Ministry of Energy and smoke stacks belch poison into the sky (evil OIL COMPANY etc., etc.!!!)

In other words, it's a political film in the eyes of those who believe George W. Bush is going to destroy the entire planet in the next 18 months. It looks like the masturbatory fantasies of the future dystopia in Michael Moore's mind when he imagines Dictator Bush seizing power next week and imposing his jack-booted will upon an innocent world.

Any movie that hates Bush and loves babies must be good, is the thinking at the NYTimes, and so this pile of incomprehensible mush is celebrated as "transporting you with the greatness of its filmmaking."

The NYTimes reviewer--an utter dope named Manohla Dargis--reveals all about the "nervously plausible future" (did I mention Dargis is a poor writer, too?) in "Children of Men" when claims the film "holds up a mirror to these times" by showing the characters in "a hell that looks chillingly similar to the Iraqi combat areas of newspaper reportage, television news and mostly uncensored documentaries."

That's all that's required. Making a statement, no matter how muddled or unfathomable, about Iraq, war, give peace a chance, blah, blah, blah. The reviewers will love you.

Even worse is how the reviewers largely skip over the one indisputable fact about the movie--the utterly incoherent plot. Nearly everyone leaving the theater I attended was having the same conversation as they left. "What the hell was THAT?"

Yet the reviewers don't admit this. Why? I suspect it's because they don't have the guts. They sit in these screenings thinking of their Euroweenie counterparts and telling themselves "This must be a movie for super-smart people, and I don't want to look dumb. I better give it a big thumbs up. Man, I wish I was French. Then I bet this movie would totally make sense!"

It doesn't. The plot is utter crap.

If you disagree with me, I'd like to challenge you to answer a few simple questions.

1--The premise of the movie is that the human race is dying out, right? Then why would this evil government be trying to keep immigrants out? Wouldn't they need MORE people?

2--Why does the evil government want to kill the miracle baby? Wouldn't they want to rally 'round it, put it in a government lab, find a solution to the biggest problem ever? What the heck is accomplished by killing it for any reason? In other words, isn't the entire premise of the movie idiotic on its face?

3--Why are the rebels pro-immigrant? If the answer to question one is "immigrants are banned because England is already starving," (sheer speculation on my part) are the rebels really willing to blow things up so more people can starve to death?

I could go on, but the bottom line is that this movie never made a legitimate point, it never made a statement--hell, it never even made sense. The only people who will "understand" this movie are the "Bush Lied, People Died" idiots who believe that the destruction of mankind is just a matter of time.

Everyone else should go see something more rational and plausible.

Like "Night At The Museum."

Rodham For President!


The big announcement has finally been made, bringing with it a return of a minor controversy from my early days in talk radio.

When President Bill Clinton's wife first entered the political arena as a candidate and, later, as a US Senator, I always referred to her as "Senator Rodham." I did so out of respect for her wishes. After all, she called herself "Hillary Rodham" during Bill's first term as governor of Arkansas--a decision that contributed to the voters denying him a second term when he first ran for re-election.

She promptly dropped the "Rodham," picked up the "Clinton" and baked enough cookies to help rescue her husband's political career. He returned to the state house, then the White House and, well, the rest is (effluvia-spattered, subpoena-hiding, perjury-filled) history.

I was stunned by the negative reaction from my listeners on the Left, who felt I was attempting to disparage or demean Sen. Rodham in some way. They repeatedly lobbied for me to drop the "Rodham." I reminded them that, when President Clinton first took office, the "Rodham" returned for awhile. After the GOP took back the Congress in 1994, the "Rodham" once again disappeared from view.

Now, Mrs. Clinton is a candidate for president, and notice what name does NOT appear on her website--at least, not large enough for us to find it. Look around (see above). Look closely. No, there's no "Rodham," you're right. But there's also no "CLINTON," either.

Just "Hillary."

Well, I'm certainly not going to call a member of the US Senate "Senator Hillary" (unless Sir Edmund rises from the dead) and she obviously does not want to be "Senator Clinton." So I am going to return to my previous position of calling her what she obviously would call herself if she were a private citizen: Senator Rodham.

And speaking as someone who hopes the Republicans retain control of the White House in 2008 (assuming Joe Lieberman isn't in the race), all I can say is "Run, Rodham, Run!"

I'll be putting my check in the mail later this week.

Friday, January 19, 2007

Simon Cowell's Big-Eyed Animal Is...



a "tarsier."

And he's got it just about right.

24 Hours, But No Clue




My friends at CAIR (the Council of Angry, Islamic Radicals) are at it again, whining about the fact that the terrorists on the TV show "24" are Muslims. This, they fear, might make Islam look bad.




Yeah, that's Islam's problem--a fictional TV show. Not 9/11 or 7/7 or 3/3 or the suicide bombers screaming Allahu Akbar in Baghdad, Kandahar and Tel Aviv, no, no, no. The reason people are concerned about the current state of Islam is because of Jack Bauer.




Far be it from me to tell folks how to run their religion, but if I were CAIR, I'd forget about the drama and worry about the documentaries. Any rational person watching these real-live videos of real-live Muslims in British mosques will see that "24" is actually giving the Islamic world a pass.




The CAIR spokesperson who said she was worried that "24" would endanger her life at the grocery store because "I wasn't sure the person next to me would be able to differentiate between fiction and reality" is hopelessly clueless. Does she really believe that the REALITY of the relationship between Islam and terrorism is a reason for the guy at the grocery counter to trust her?



Every Muslim is paying a price for the terrorism inspired by the teachings of jihad. Those teachings might be wrong, and it is an indisputable fact that most Muslims would never, ever commit an act of terrorism. But that's not the end of the story.



Every Muslim should pay a price for terrorism--the price of being ashamed of the current state of their religion. If the shame becomes great enough, perhaps the moderate Muslim majority will one day spend as much time fighting violent extremists as they do TV executives.


UPDATE: For a brief history of my relationship with CAIR, go here. For a brief history of CAIR's long-standing links to terror, go here.

Thursday, January 18, 2007

"Michael, What Can I Do To Support Our Border Patrol Agents?"

That's the question I've been asked most often today as two American Border Patrol agents report to prison for committing the "crime" of defending our borders.

Agents Ramos and Campean were doing their job when they

a) stopped an immigration criminal from entering America;

b) stopped his drug-laden van from making it to an American neighborhood

c) shot the criminal as he fled, believing that he was point a gun at the agents at the time.

Criminals? They sound like heroes to me. At the worst, their actions should be covered by the "no harm, no foul" rule.

Ah, but this is America. The Bush administration tracked down the wounded criminal in Mexico, brought him to America, dropped all charges against him and then had him testify against the Border Patrol agents who denied him his right to deal drugs in the US.

The dirtbag drug dealer thanked the American government by promptly filing a $5 million lawsuit against the US for violating his civil right to violate our immigration laws.

The US Asst. Attorney who prosecuted these two claimed that one reason she went after them is that they pursued the illegal immigrant, and that's against policy. "The Border Patrol pursuit policy does not allow pursuit," she said.

Oh, I feel a LOT safer now...

It's absolutely outrageous. So what do we do about it?

You can start by signing this petition on behalf of Ramos and Compean.

Then email your Congressman and ask him/her to join the members of Congress asking President Bush to pardon these two agents.

Then call the White House at 202-456-1111.

These two Border Patrol agents each face at least 10 years in prison. Every year of that 10 years, more and more immigration criminals will cross our border, welcomed by politicians like Sen. Kennedy and Gov. Patrick.

President Bush, before you grant an amnesty to the 20 million immigration criminals who violated our borders, couldn't you find time to grant it to two Americans who tried to protect it?

Congress's "Boneless Wonders"

That's how Bill Kristol accurately describes those in Congress about to vote against sending more troops to Iraq, but lack the guts to vote to STOP the troops from going to Iraq.

Smoke Nazis: Wrong Again!


Once again, my angry, anti-smoking friends, you have the power, but I have the facts.

And, as I point out in my latest column, there simply is no evidence--NONE--that a normal, healthy person will suffer any ill effects from second-hand smoke at bars and restaurants.

More proof comes in today, courtesy of the American Cancer Society:



  • Death rates for all cancer sites combined decreased 1.6 percent per year between 1993 and 2003 in males, and by 0.8 percent in females between 1992 and 2003.

  • Lung cancer incidence rates are declining in men and appear to be plateauing in women after increasing for many decades.

  • Among males age 40 and under, leukemia is the most common fatal cancer, while cancer of the lung and bronchus predominates in men 40 and over.

But how can this be? How can we children of smokers be dying of rare cancers like leukemia more often than lung cancer? After all those years of our parents gassing us with nicotine in the family car, after all those nights we spent in smoky bars back in the '80s and '90s--why aren't we all dead?

If the Smoke Nazis are right, shouldn't the death rate from lung cancer at least be holding steady? After all, one smoker per household was "poisoning" entire families. We ought to be dropping like flies!

And yet there isn't one major study--not ONE--that shows people who never smoked but grew up with smokers have a clearly higher rate of lung cancer than the children of non-smokers. Why not?

Instead, the death rate from lung cancer for women tracks the rise in smoking among women. Liberated women smoked more in the '60s and '70s, and today they are dying of lung cancer. Their moms--who sat next to dad, inhaling the smoke from his evil cigarette for 40 years--died of something else.

Sadly, the Smoke Nazis don't care. They've got the power to strip smokers of their property rights and they are going to use it. This was never about the facts. It was always about the power.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Separated At Birth?


The question has NOTHING to do with race and everything to do with rhetoric. And every Massachusetts voter has noted by now the eerie familiarity of the words of presidential hopeful Sen. Barak Obama.
For example, the following are direct quotes made in the past 90 days by either Sen. Obama or Gov. Patrick. Can you identify who said what? (Answers at bottom of post)

A) "We have to change our politics, and come together around our common interests and concerns as Americans."
B) "You know what else has to change? Our politics."
C) "Grassroots governing, like grassroots campaigning, is about listening to people."
D) "I've learned that meaningful change always begins at the grassroots."
E) "There are people just like me who are hungry for a reason to hope."
F) "People are hungry for a different kind of politics."
G) "I have great faith and hope about the future - because I believe in you."
H) "Changing our politics can only come from you."
I) "The change I’m talking about is up to you. "
J) "Take a chance on hope."
K) "We must draw a line in the sand between the politics of cynicism and the politics of hope."
L) "Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"
Massachusetts voters decided to give hope a chance in November. Less than a month after taking office, Gov. Patrick has already abandoned his plan to cut spending, has announced he will not be keeping his pledge to cut property taxes, added an addition $300+ million in new spending, abandoned any state role in apprehending illegal immigrants and announced his opposition to voters participating in the state constitution's initiative and petition process.
Oh, and he's denounced opponents of race-based government programs as racist.
There may be many good reasons to support Sen. Obama for president, but like Deval Patrick's supporters last year, nobody's offering them. Instead, we are yet again being asked to cast a vote for "hope," for "change" and for "faith in the system."

In other words, we're being asked to make someone our next president because of race.
Well, voting for someone based on race is just as stupid as voting against them for the same reason, so as with Gov. Patrick, I'll be listening for whatever Barak Obama's positions on the issues might be.
Let's just hope that, in Sen. Obama's case, we find out BEFORE the election.
ANSWERS: A, D, E G H and L are all Sen. Barak Obama. The others are Gov. Patrick.

"What I Saw In Iraq"


My friend Michelle Malkin just returned. Her observations are a "must-read" to add to your input and understanding of what's really happening in the war.


An example:


In Washington, counterinsurgency theory (COIN) is a neat, elite intellectual abstraction. Since coalition forces simply can't catch and kill every insurgent lurking in the populace, the theory goes, it's up to the military to persuade the Iraqi people to turn on the insurgents, join the political process and help themselves.

At FOB Justice -- former headquarters of Saddam Hussein's ruthless military intelligence unit, the site of the dictator's execution by hanging and home to the Dagger Brigade 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division -- COIN is a vivid, hands-on reality. Here, a task force of brainy commanders, brawny patrol officers, courageous Arab-American interpreters, wizened trainers and intel gatherers, baby-faced convoy drivers and grim-humored gunners attempts to put President Bush's "winning hearts and minds" idealism into daily practice.

Michelle is reporting what she saw and how she saw it. It's not the "whole truth" from Iraq anymore than the knee-jerk pessimism of the "We're doomed! Run away!" crowd is. But it is worth noting how everyone from Michelle Malkin to John Burns at the New York Times continues to find support for--and a belief in--the mission by the soldiers on the ground in Iraq.


When I was in Iraq 18 months ago, I trusted the soldiers more than the angry agenda-driven reporters of the mainstream media. I still do.


Monday, January 15, 2007

Will Gov. Patrick Celebrate Martin Luther King Day?

A nonsensical question from a political standpoint, but given Gov. Patrick's personal beliefs, why should he?

Unlike Dr. King, Gov. Patrick supports judging people solely on the color of the skin. As a member of the Clinton administration, Patrick pushed for years to give a school system the right to fire a teacher solely for being white.

Unlike Dr. King, Gov. Patrick believes in "race guilt"--the idea that a group of people can be judged and punished for the behavior of some of its members. That's why Gov. Patrick supports reparations for slavery. This bizarre idea would have the net effect of forcing the white descendants of Union soldiers killed in the Civil War to pay money to black descendants of West African slave traders who did business with their white counterparts from Europe.

Unlike Dr. King, Gov. Patrick supports denying voters their constitutionally protected civil rights. Just as Bull Connor stood in the doorway of polling places and stopped blacks from entering, Gov. Patrick stood at the state house and tried to turn away 170,000 voters who had legally earned the right to be heard on the issue of same-sex marriage.

Is there any part of Dr. King's legacy that Gov. Patrick actually supports? Here's an excellent article by Jon Keller about Deval Patrick's position on race. The unintended answer is "no."

Racism Gets An "Affirmative" At The Boston Globe-Democrat

When the support for state-sponsored racism--already on the wane, thank God--has dwindled to the single digits, one of the last vestiges of modern Klanism will be the Boston Globe-Democrat. They simply cannot give up their heartfelt support for racism or the racists it benefits.

The Sunday before MLK, Jr. Day, the Globe-Democrat enthusiastically reiterated their racist ideology, a belief completely at odds with Dr. King's statement above. They shamelessly defended (and I quote) "discriminat[ing] against...people based on race, gender ethnicity or national origin," and rejected as offensive the idea that "Either America treats everyone fairly or it doesn't."

Now, obviously, the Boston Globe-Democrat doesn't support fairness and has never pretended to. They support forcing poor black kids to attend hideous public schools rather than letting those kids escape to quality private or parochial schools using the same tax dollars we're currently blowing to leave them illiterate. The Globe-Democrat also thinks it's completely reasonable to give taxpayer subsidies to a Roxbury mosque that the BG-D would find horrifying if given to a church or synagogue.

What can I say? It's the Boston Globe-Democrat: They're bigots.

What's unusual is the shamelessness of the Globe's overt racism on the weekend celebrating (I thought) racial equality.

Consider this BG-D comment from their MLK editorial:

"Proposal 2 [which bans government action based on race] is less a victory for fairness and more of a vote for inequality. Rather than helping students who need it most, the public system can merely shrug at the consequences of racism."

Think about that: If the only thing you know about two kids is that one's white and the other's black, the BG-D assumes that the black kid is the lousy student ("needs help the most"). I guess the Globe quoting Dr. King's famous "all us black folks are lazy and ignorant" speech with which the rest of us are unfamiliar.

They also call the desire by voters to treat all citizens equally an issue "drenched in controversy." Where? Other than the editorial board of a few fringe-lefty newspapers, where is the statement "equal treatment for all" even debatable, much less controversial?

The American Left has been obsessed with race for years, and that obsession is only growing stronger. Their support for open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants would all but disappear if the folks coming here illegally were white evangelicals from Canada. Gov. Deval Patrick and Sen. Barak Obama would still be working in the private sector if not for a) their race and b) the Democratic party's open acceptance of the idea that people should, in fact, cast votes based on race.

The punchline on this entire conversation? For pointing out the Globe's support for discriminating based on race and opposing race-based government action, I am going to be called...a racist.

Classic.

Friday, January 12, 2007

Gracias, Amigo! (And Allahu Akbar!)


That's what immigration criminals cruising through red lights must be saying to Gov. Deval Patrick today as he shoots down a program that would have allowed some state troopers to detain illegals they came across during the normal course of their duties.

So the next time you're in an accident with an (ahem) "unauthorized entrant," ask yourself this: How many times has this same guy been pulled by the cops before? How many times has the guy who crushed your car been in the custody of the cops, only to be returned to his life of crime on your streets?

There are at least three other people applauding Gov. Patrick's "let 'em ride" welcome of immigration criminals: Hani Hanjour, Ziad Jarrah and Mohammed Atta. All three were stopped by cops for traffic violations. All three were here ilelgally at the time. All three were allowed to go on their way. All three died on 9/11/01...just weeks after their encounters with state police.

Take Atta as one example. According to CNN: "Hijacker Mohamed Atta was stopped by police last July ('01) in Tamarac, Fla., and ticketed for an invalid license, officials there have said. He ignored the ticket and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. But, when he was stopped for speeding a few weeks later in a nearby town, the officer, unaware of the bench warrant, let him go with a warning."

Thanks to Gov. Patrick, a Statie here in Massachusetts could be doing the same thing to the next Mohammad Atta right now.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

"The Speech Didn't Matter"

John Podheretz is absolutely right. That's why he's going to be on the show today, along with Lt. Col. Ralph Peters and former terrorism prosecutor Andy McCarthy.

Be there!

A Reality Check On Iraq

That's the subject of my latest Usual Suspects column.

There are many, many legitimate criticisms of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, and there are some legitimate (though not persuasive) arguments supporting his critics' contention that we should just get out of Iraq and leave the Middle East to the Islamists.

However, the one argument that gives me the worst migrane is the complaint that fighting to win in Iraq is "delusional" or shows an inability to grasp "reality." Oh, there's some self-delusion on Iraq, all right, and it's in the minds of those who refuse to deal with the reality of what happens if we leave.

1--The Islamists get another country, and its one with lots of oil generating lots of money to fund lots more terror.

2--America is defeated in the Middle East. We lose, and we lose in a region where the brutal tribal culture values strength over all. People in the region looking to back a winner have yet another reason to back the whackjobs. More whackjobs who want to kill us will have more power, and the moderates will have less. Or be dead. Which brings up point #3:

3--Blood in the streets. LOTS of it. You think 1,000 Iraqis killed in a month is a lot? You're not paying attention. Rwandans died by the thousands per day, and they only had machetes. Imagine how ugly a real religious cleansing campaign would look. Are you prepared to say "Yep, 100,000 Iraqi women and children had to die in 2007 because we weren't sure we could win?"

4--If we lose in Iraq, the biggest winner will be Iran. President Ahmedwhack-i-job of Iran already has plans to do the Holocaust right this time, will have a new ally. And soon, he'll have nukes, too. (Thanks, Europe!) How do you feel about handing Whack-I-Job a major victory?

5--The Iraq training camps that were training terrorists in the 1990s re-open under new management. It is indisputable that life will be better for Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas if we leave Iraq. Is that OK with you?

6--Leaving Iraq will do nothing to stop the Big War, the war of terrorism the Islamists have been waging seriously since 1993. Another attack on America is inevitable, no matter what we do in Iraq. When that day comes, an Islamist Iraq will be allied with the terrorists. We will have more--and stronger--enemies to fight after the next 9/11. And what will you say if the next 9/11 is made possible by an Islamist Iraq? If the terrorists are trained or funded there? Will those 3,000, 5,000 or 10,000 American casualties be worth it to "get out now?"

These are the "realities" of getting out of Iraq. You may decide that they are worth it, that the price of staying is still higher than the price of leaving. But don't kid yourself about what's going to happen if you get your way. At least be realistic about it.

Trust Us, We're the Media!

No rational person can be surprised by the Mainstream Media's instant pounding of President Bush's new Iraq strategy. This knee-jerk "He must be wrong--he's BUSH!!!!" reaction is one reason why I have absolutely no sympathy for my pal Brian McGrory when he complains about our references to the Boston Globe-Democrat. (For more anti-McGrory evidence, see their juvenile editorial this morning.)

But today's Washington Post front page is a classic. Headline? Poll: Most Americans Opposed to Bush's Iraq Plan

Actual story? Well, if you read past the lede ("61 percent oppose the force increase"), you eventually get to this (apparently less relevant) tidbit:

"Support for adding troops is somewhat higher among the 42 percent of Americans who tuned into Bush's speech. "[emphasis added].

Oh, so people who didn't bother to watch the president don't like what he had to say? Wow, thanks for that helpful information.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Menino's Mosque Welcomes Whack-job Wahhabi Wealth to West Roxbury


OK, OK, it's not WEST Roxbury (I'm addicted to annoying alliteration), but it's close. As the Boston Globe-Democrat and Jeff Jacoby report today, my good friends at the ISB have taken about $1 million from the Saudi-Iranian-Libyan central bank for terror support.

You remember the Islamic Society of Boston, those fine folks who tried to tried to force me to release my show prep notes and personal phone records as part of their extortionary lawsuits against the "anti-Islamic conspiracy." Yeah, right.

Regular listeners are hardly surprised at yet another link between people who support terrorism and the Islamic Society of Boston. What I still can't figure out is how Mayor Menino sees supporting the ISB with $1.8 million in tax dollars as a winning issue. How many Islamic extremists are also registered voters in the city limits of Boston? Doesn't all the drinking and prostitution drive them into the suburbs?

Whatever. We still have a mosque with ties to terror supporters being built with taxpayer support in Roxbury, and no "public servants" are willing to do anything about it.
UPDATE: Here's what everyone ought to know--and Mayor Menino already knows--about the ISB and their taxpayer-subsidized mosque in Boston.

Smoke 'Em While You Got 'Em


The Smoke Nazis have won another victory against reason and liberty, this time in Bangor, ME. The cops now have the right to pull over drivers and ticket them if the cop sees a) what appears to be a smoker in the car, and b) what appears to be a child in the car.

Your car. Your kids. Your cigarette. But the government is now reaching right in the driver's side window and slapping the Marlboro right out of your mouth.

Smoking around kids may be a bad thing. It may set a bad example, encourage self-destructive behavior, etc., etc. However, there is absolutely no proof that a normal kid sitting in a car with a smoker is suffering any measurable health hazard. The science on this is in, and the results are that the science isn't in for the Smoke Nazis.

If you're suffering under the delusion that second-hand smoke causes cancer, then ask yourself this: Why has the incidence of lung cancer among people like me who grew up in households filled with smokers gone DOWN? Why isn't there a huge surge in the number of 40-somethings dropping dead from heart disease? Instead, we children of smokers are just as healthy as our Mormon peers--at least, from an "exposure to smoke" standpoint. (No comment on replacing Manhattans with whole milk in your diet).

And why is a smoker sitting in a Lexus any more harmful to his child than when he's in the living room? And if a smoker--who probably spends a few minutes a day smoking with his kid in the car--is a killer, what about the hours he spends in the home with his little hostages?

So why didn't Bangor ban smoking around kids in your home? Because they can't get away with it. Yet. But they will, and that will be followed by folks being pulled over when a Bangor cop spots a kid in the back seat with a box of trans-fatty Ho Hos.

Do the Smoke Nazis even care about the lack of science backing up this abuse of the citizens? Do they feel any need to prove a problem before they start annoying their neighbors? Of course not.

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

This Is A Senator Who Actually Might Be Elected President


Unfortunately for John Kerry, it's Senator Barak Obama.


(Check out the heading on this Yahoo.com news report.)

The Other News From Iraq

This update of unreported news from Iraq does not prove that George W. Bush is a genius or that Don Rumsfeld should be named Dictator for Life. It is, however, a factual account of events from Iraq that, I bet, you haven't read in the Boston Globe-Democrat or seen on CNN.

Just the facts, folks. Just the facts.

Monday, January 08, 2007

New Time Slot, Same Natural Truth

The Natural Truth can be heard every weekday from 10-noon right here on 96.9 FM TALK.

And with streaming audio goodness, too!

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Does The "K" Stand For Klueless?


So let me see if I've got this straight:


There's an AM talk radio station in Boston that's about to hire a felon and convicted liar to host a talk show?


It's the same station that, two months ago, fired a talk host for telling the truth?


And this station honestly expect Boston radio listeners to tune them in and trust that they're getting the "Natural Truth?"


Wow. They must really think Boston talk listeners are a bunch of suckers.


We'll see if they're right.




Friday, January 05, 2007

But Can He Fight?


President Bush is finally making the kinds of changes in our military and diplomatic leadership that he should have made in January of 2005 (if not sooner). The most important change--the one that is absolutely vital to the Bush legacy and America's fortunes in the coming years--is putting Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus in charge of the military mission in Iraq.

Retired Col. Ralph Peters is a fan (mostly) of Gen. Patraeus. Others are openly critical of the general or believe the mission is lost anyway and oppose even trying to win in Iraq at this point.
I agree with Peters' point that the number one mission for our soldiers in Iraq at this moment must be to fight and kill. Not train, maintain, detain or ingrain. Fight. Kill. Scare the crap out of insurgents and convince their allies that they're on the wrong team.
The Democrats are ready to quit and quit now. Maybe a token "surge" of non-fighting soldiers on tucked-away bases, but no more conflict. If that's the plan, then let's come hope now. But what if there is a military strategy that could change the security landscape six or 12 months from now? What if it is still possible to win the military part of this struggle?

The posturing of Pelosi & Co. aside, if Gen. Patraeus can find a military strategy that works in supressing the insurgency, re-building respect for the lethality of our military in the Middle East, and (this the big question) buy time for the Iraqis who want a modern nation to work out a political deal and establish a functioning government, then America wins in Iraq. And if victory were suddenly to appear on the horizon (another HUGE "if"), the Democrats would suddenly discover their support for the evil, criminal, stupid, unconstitutional war in Iraq.

But if we can't accomplish all of the above, we lose. That might be a short-term boon to the Democrats, but that defeat would have terrible consequences for the entire free world.

Oh, I Feel A Lot Safer Now...

In a desperate attempt to salvage his amnesty program for illegals, President Bush asked several states to send National Guard troops to the US/Mexican border to increase our security. It's his way of letting Mexico know they're dealing with one tough hombre.

So what happens when a squad of armed Mexicans crosses the borders and launches an assault on our National Guardsmen? Why, we run away, of course!

That's right: American soldiers abandoning America's border in the face of a violent attack from armed foreigners on our soil.

Why would our soldiers do something so cowardly? Because President Bush told them to, of course. The protocol for our soldiers is that they are not allowed to defend the border, apprehend immigration criminals or (according to some reports) have live ammo in their weapons. Their instructions when faced with a bunch of dirtbag drug dealers or coyotes are to call the Border Patrol and run away.

Another great moment in border security, brought to you by Bush, McCain and Kennedy, undermining the Constitution since (at least) 2001.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Congratulations, Governor Patrick!


I hope you have a terrific day today. You earned it. The politics can wait. As my mom used to tell me, "Have fun--but don't get dirty!"

Well That Didn't Take Long

It may take weeks for state agencies to respond to your requests, and hours to get your driver's license renewed, but getting Governor Patrick's photo up on the state webpage in place of Romney's?

Voila!

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

Greetings Fellow Haters!

If you think it's reasonable for the citizens of a state to be involved in governing yourselves and making your own laws, the Massachusetts' media have a message for you...you're HATERS! BIGOTS! HOMOPHOBES!

And that's when the Boston Globe- Democrat is being subtle.

I got the same message from FOX 25 this morning and from some of my fellow hosts here at 96.9 FM TALK. If we have a debate on whether or not to undue thousands of years of human social evolution, those who aren't convinced it's time to abandon marriage are going to "spew hate," "can you imagine how hateful the anti-gay-marriage ads are going to be," blah, blah, blah.

It's fascinating, really. Liberals activists are screaming foul insults at you, accusing you without any evidence of being a bigot and/or idiot, insulting the idea that you should be allowed into a ballot box...and YOU'RE the "hater."

Enlightened lefites like Eileen McNamara at the BG-D would argue (for lack of a better word) that the mere fact that you don't support abandoning a social institution that's been working for thousands of years makes you a bigot. You can't support keeping marriage unchanged, she argues, without being evil.

Well, Ms. McNamara, here's a little objective science on the unanswered questions about the costs to all of society from re-defining marriage. I'll be presenting more questions of social, biological and ethical issues raised by re-defining marriage on my show today. Some smart people will agree; some smart people will disagree. None of them will be evil, bigoted or Klansmen for doing so.

Not in my opinion, anyway. I guess that's what makes me a "hater."

Tuesday, January 02, 2007

Deval Patrick's Big Love


For months now, reporters have been grilling Gov. Mitt Romney (R.- Moroni) over his position on polygamy. Romney--no surprise--opposes legalizing polygamous marriage.

Here's the real question: When is someone going to quiz Gov.-elect Patrick on his position re: Big Love?

Actually, there's no need to. Deval Patrick announced his position today:


"I believe adults should be free to choose whom they wish to love and to marry....it's a basic human right, and I support it."

There. That was easy.

So adults (including close family members, entire swim teams and those with an affection for the deceased), Deval Patrick says "Have at it!" He'll happily issue an official Massachusetts marriage license recognizing all of your various husbands and wives in the eyes of the citizens of Massachusetts.

Whether the citizens like it or not.

Deval Loses...AGAIN!


What's worse than announcing publicly that you are a total political hack with no principles? Making that announcement on the eve of a vote..and then LOSING.
That's Deval Patrick's legacy, and the poor guy hasn't even taken office yet.

He's already abandoned his promise to lower property taxes. He's already announced his support for a tax hike. And he's already given up on cutting $700 million in government waste.

Today, he utterly shamed himself by directly asking the legislature to ignore the Constitution and adjourn without voting on the people's petition re: marriage. Even the SJC's direct statement that the legislature's mandate to act is "beyond serious debate" didn't stop super-lefty Deval. He still says "The law? SCREW the law. I'm lookin' for votes!"

The Massachusetts legislature, it turns out, isn't quite as shameless as our new governor. The unanimous court announcement in favor of (shock!) the rule of law was too much for even DiMasi and Travaglini.
Deval Patrick, by the way, is scheduled to take an oath to uphold a Constitution he has already announced he plans to ignore--which proves what a go-getter Deval Patrick really is.

Most politicians usually wait until AFTER they're sworn in before they start lying. We'll get to see Deval Patrick commit perjury at his own swearing ceremony, live on TV!