One of the best Al Gore debunkings I have ever read

Courtesy of George Reisman.

Why "comprehensive immigration reform" makes sense

It is no secret the overwhelming majority of Americans--even Mexican Americans--are against the legalization of 12-20 million illegal aliens–no matter what you call it. Yet in direct defiance of that majority, too many in Congress are STILL poised to thumb their noses at the electorate. Why?

It isn’t principle. Principle suggests that enforcing laws already on the books would trump the craven expediency that allows politicians to ignore them when it suits their purposes–as in ignoring all the enforcement aspects of the “Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986.”

It isn’t integrity. Integrity is about having core beliefs that can neither be bought, sold nor “horse-traded” away.

It isn’t patriotism. Patriotism would suggest that American interests come first. In various places around the country, American politicians have already granted illegal aliens drivers licenses, access to bank accounts, in-state college tuition, welfare, free schooling, free hospital services and sanctuary city protections from federal immigration officials. In some cases, you’re better off being an illegal than an American citizen when it comes to access or entitlement.

It isn’t statesmanship. The Congressional approval rating is at 14%, the lowest number since the Gallup poll began tracking it in 1973. Americans know the difference between statesman and a collection of self-interested political hacks–even if the hacks themselves don’t.

So what is it? In the words of “The Godfather’s” Vito Corleone: “It’s nothing personal. It’s strictly business.” Can you say "Wall Street Journal"? How about “trans-national corporations?” To be blunt, there are American elitists who, along with their fellow travelers in other parts of the world, believe that countries are “anachronistic” and that globalization, as in the free movement of products services–and people– without regard to culture, law or borders is the wave of the future.

American laws and American workers? Our culture, language and borders? Secondary to corporate “synchronization” on a world-wide scale. Global coordination of goods and services trumps national interest–period. American politicians? Accomplices to the ongoing sell-out of American sovereignty and the burgeoning influence of internationalist businessmen–who could care less about who produces what or where it’s done, as long as profits are maximized.

Within this odious framework, "comprehensive immigration reform" makes perfect sense.

Wonder why NYT subscriptions keep declining?

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom nails it, as does the Ace of Spades:

A tale of two advocacy groups

The New York Times: fair, balanced, and unafraid.

****related: Overheard at a Manhattan cocktail party (or a Marin / San Francisco / West LA cocktail party, for that matter):

Man: “How many hicks does it take to screw in a lightbulb?”

Woman: “I don’t know. How many?”

Second woman: ” — Excuse me, I’m sorry to interrupt. Consuela, dear? We’re running low on crab puffs again. Go fetch another tray and make the rounds again, would you?

“Now where were we. Oh yes. Hicks. Do tell, how many of them does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Because I suspect it would be plenty, given that they’re so, you know, stupid and poorly groomed.”

Marriage is a hate crime

According to the City Of Oakland. Well, elect Ron Dellums for Mayor and what do you expect?

Why don't enough Americans study computer science?

Because relative to business management or finance/insurance/real estate, it doesn't pay.

This is because of a high number of H-1B immigration visas issued, and foreign workers are driving wages in the tech fields down. Essentially, the H-1B workers are indentured servants for the tech industry.

This mass immigration is the least objectionable because the immigrants are skilled and usually English speaking. However, if you are an American student who studied your engineering and programming hard and played by the rules, doesn't it just annoy you that your hard work was just devalued? And they want American kids to work and study hard? When something pays less, you get less of it.

And so many native born Americans go work in business management or finance/insurance/real estate, where their English skills and cultural literacy give them a leg up on the people from India and China, which they definitely *don't* have in computer science.

In other words, what has happened with the H-1B visa is the white collar / upper class version of what happened to wages in the construction and building trades when large numbers of illegal alien day laborers showed up. Only in the latter case, it became easier for the unskilled and muscular to become welfare bums and "thugz".

Come on baby, light my fire...

You know that it would be untrue,
You know Karl Rove would be a liar,
If he was to say to you,
The problems couldn't get much higher....

And here's some clips of that song from Jose Feliciano, a real American of Latino heritage.

U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.

The wildfires have destroyed valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law-enforcement authorities and others.

In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild-land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law-enforcement officers.

Gee, I wonder where the environmentalists are on this??? But hey, the trees were burned by "people of color", not logged by American corporations, so I guess it's okay, right?

Illegal aliens--starting the forest fires that Americans won't start.

"As larger areas of the border come under operational control, we can expect violence to increase as smuggling operations can no longer operate with impunity and do not have unfettered access to the border for their criminal activities," Border Patrol Chief David V. Aguilar told a Homeland Security subcommittee this year.

"This explosion of aggression is an indicator how desperate and angry drug and human traffickers are at the increasing disruption of their smuggling routes," he said.

They all just want a better life, right?

"We Didn't Start The Fire"-- THEY DID!

Immigration: Three Quotables

1. "It is just a fiction that these are jobs Americans aren't willing to do. The main reason that big corporations want a guest worker program is that it will drive down U.S. wages." -- North Dakota Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan, Associated Press, 22 May 2007

Senator Dorgan gets it, and sadly the greedheads and "Hispandering" immigration dreamers in the Republican Party do not.

What was the key to Reagan's victories in 1980 and 1984? Former Democrats, disgusted with the Commiecrat factions that had taken over that party. The Democrat party became dominated by either racist hypocrite hucksters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, or America hating pseudo academics and communist leftovers (think Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich). Today it is a Demunist Commiecrat party.

The working class, disgusted, voted for a man like Reagan, who shared their patriotism and their contempt for nanny state Commiecrats who wanted (and still want) to be their overlords.
Unfortunately, Bush the Elder lost touch, which led to a charlatan like Ross Perot appealing to many of these people in 1992. Newt won them back in 1994, but now Bush The Younger is losing them again.

Sadly, Bush The Younger is cheered on by (1) the cheap labor greedheads at the Wall Street Journal and (2) by the dewy eyed dreamers who think we can "Hispander" and make people vote Republican who frankly will be seduced by the welfare state into voting Democrat, even hardcore Commiecrat, anyway.

Now dreamers and greedheads have their place in the Republican Party. The Contract With America was in large part idealistic; thinkers like Newt who dare big dreams can be very beneficial to the Party if they are tempered by realism. Greedhead economic policies HAVE stimulated our economy, in the face of terrorism and rising commodity prices.

But the greedheads and dreamers have run amok and need to be put in check. Hopefully Tancredo (or Hunter, or Thompson) can help to do it.

2. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people [illegal aliens] and forcing them at gunpoint from our country."-- Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Associated Press, 29 March 2006

Obviously, Mitt Romney is right, if only for pragmatic reasons--without a border wall to keep them out, the deported illegals are back within days, weeks tops, after they are thrown out. Dog chasing tail. It is EASILY cheaper for us to build a Great Wall from San Diego to Brownsville, stemming the flow of illegal aliens, than it is to hire that many ICE (formerly INS) agents and pay that large a bureaucracy staff to administer the roundups. Seriously. Local law enforcement is overwhelmed and cannot do it.

But this is a false argument, and very disappointing of Mitt. No significant politician, not even Tom Tancredo, has ever proposed such an action, so Governor Romney has stated a politically safe, yet useless point. Which, sadly, is all to familiar in present day American politics. Sure, we can't just round 'em up and throw 'em out, but we can better enforce our immigration laws, go after those who employ illegal aliens, secure our borders, and above all, STOP rewarding the illegals with "Z-Visa" de facto amnesty.

3. Michael Medved says that an "enforcement only" immigration bill is impossible in a Democrat controlled Congress, which is why he continues to insist on this fraud known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform". He continues the mantra that "it's better than the status quo" because it at least secures the borders a little bit more....

Sorry, a partial securing of the border is NOT ENOUGH, it must be a FULL securing, or else it is the 1986 scam all over again. Everyone with half a brain knows that.

For starters, I wouldn't be too sure of the impossibility of real immigration reform in a Democrat dominated congress, since Tom Tancredo, the congressman that Mr. Medved loves to impugn and smear, just managed to get a bill through the U.S. House of Representatives to withhold federal emergency services funding for "sanctuary cities" that protect illegal immigrants. The House passed the amendment, 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor.

But even if what Michael is saying is true, I can only reply: FINE. LET THE DEMOCRATS TAKE THE BLAME. Republican congressional victories in 2008 and 2010.

Why does Michael now suffer from the same "Do Something Disease" that he so rightly diagnoses in others, when it comes to this issue???? Is he that much of a Bushyrovie hack?

The "Delaware Plan" for primaries?

Yet another primary reorganization proposal from Michael Barone:

If (every state moving its primary forward) turns out to be the case, we will have moved toward a de facto early national primary, which not only devalues retail politics but forces voters to make a decision all at once without seeing how candidates stand up under the rigors of campaigning. Is there an alternative? My favorite is the Delaware Plan, which came close to being endorsed by the 2000 Republican National Convention. It has four rounds of primaries or caucuses, with the 13 smallest states voting in March, followed by the 13 next largest in April, the next 12 in May, and ending with the final 12 largest states voting in June. This would leave plenty of room for retail politics, with candidates able to pick the states where they might run best.

Voters in later states would be able to judge how candidates run the gauntlet. The nominations could not be clinched until June, since the 12 largest states have 60 percent of the nation's population. The parties could endorse this system at their national conventions. Or if there was bipartisan consensus, Congress could impose it as federal law. Iowa and New Hampshire have been disproportionately powerful for 30-plus years now. But maybe not forever.

How out of touch can the Bushyrovies be???

Mac Johnson at Human Events Magazine has a good parody idea.

Aide: Sir, with all due respect, I don’t think you can just replace the American people as part of some political strategy.

GWB: Nonsense, boy! The Brain here’s got it all worked out. Tell him, Genius!

Karl Rove: White people are yesterday’s news, son. They don’t have kids anymore and they don’t vote in a bloc. Tomorrow is all about the Hispanic vote. It’s a plan I call “Tomorrow’s Manana,” and it’s working like a charm. Did you know that Dubya here got over 40% of the Hispanic vote in one of his elections? Now imagine if the Hispanic population were doubled! That’s over 40% of almost twice as many people!

Aide: Wouldn’t you need to get more than 50% of a group to benefit from its doubling?

Karl Rove: We may have us a bigot, here, Dubya.

John Fund still doesn't get it

John Fund, goober greedhead of the Wall Street Journal, asks: Americans overwhelmingly support voter ID. Are they all racists? He also points out how the eight attorneys fired by the Bush administration deserved to be fired for their willingness to look the other way at voter fraud.

But he just can't bring himself to admit that the border anarchy supported by the Wall Street Journal is precisely what has made voter fraud (and fake ID's) so rampant.

Repeat after me, goober greedhead: Stolen elections and rampant corruption means that illegal immigration is a very bad idea, no matter how cheap my maid and gardener happen to be.

Meanwhile Victor Davis Hanson points out who the real bigots are:

Most cynical of all, however, are the moralistic pundits, academics and journalists who deplore the "nativism" of Americans they consider to be less-educated yokels. Yet their own jobs of writing, commenting, reporting and teaching are rarely threatened by cheaper illegal workers.

Few of these well-paid and highly educated people live in communities altered by huge influxes of illegal aliens. Their professed liberality about illegal immigration usually derives from seeing hardworking waiters, maids, nannies and gardeners commute to their upscale cities and suburbs to serve them well — and cheaply.

In general, such elites don't use emergency rooms in the inner cities and rural counties overcrowded by illegal aliens. They don't drive on country roads frequented by those without licenses, registration and insurance. And their children don't struggle with school curricula altered to the needs of students who speak only Spanish.

For many professors, politicians and columnists, the gangs, increased crime and crowded jails that often result from massive illegal immigration and open borders are not daily concerns, but rather stereotypes hysterically evoked by paranoid and unenlightened others in places like Bakersfield and Laredo.

So, what is the truth on illegal immigration?

Simple. Millions of fair-minded white, African-, Asian-, and yes even Mexican-Americans fear that we are not assimilating millions of aliens from south of the border as fast as they are crossing illegally from Mexico.

In the frontline American Southwest, entire apartheid communities and enclaves within cities have sprung up whose distinct language, culture and routines are beginning to resemble more the tense divides in the Balkans or Middle East than the traditional melting pot of multiracial America.

Concern over this inevitable slowdown in integration and assimilation is neither racist nor nativist. It grows out of real worry that when millions of impoverished arrive in mass without legality, education and the ability to speak English, costly social problems follow that will not be offset by the transitory economic benefits cheap wages may provide.

Those fretting about delays in sealing the border along with proposed fast-track visas, millions of new guest workers and neglect of existing immigration law are neither illiberal nor cynical. But their self-righteous critics may well be both.

Is law school the best preparation for parenthood?

So says this lawyer / parent. Funny.

Immigration Bill goes down!

But Bush still doesn't get it, and wants to try again....he has just written off his base.

Jim De Mint, another Senate Hero along with Jeff Sessions, points out the flaws in the bills four "enforcement triggers".

Mickey Kaus brilliantly rips apart the "comprehensive" talking points:

1. If all these enforcement measures are so wonderful, why not enact just them and drop the questionable legalization part? Bush is holding the parts of the bill everyone says they want hostage to the parts he wants.

2. If we tried the enforcement parts first, then we wouldn't have to trust the federal government. We could make sure the measures work before we go ahead with legalization (and attract a new wave of legalization-seeking illegals).

3. The bill does require "that we meet border security objectives before certain other provisions can take effect." Unfortunately, legalization is not one of those "certain other provisions." Legalization is immediate under the bill.

4. "[I]f ... they're not obeying the law, they get sent out." Of course, most of them will be obeying the law ... because what was illegal will have been legalized! As for whether the government will actually get it together to send people home if, say, they've come illegally after the January, 2007 cutoff--well, again, let's see whether that "investment" in enforcement pays off.

5. If illegals "live in fear" under the status quo, as we're told, then how is the status quo "silent amnesty"?

Internet Killed The Porn Movie Star...

YouTube as well...

And of course, here is that classic "The Buggles" MTV Video link.

Hat Tip to Cap'n Ed, who makes the following very good points (I paraphrase):

The porno industry has discovered an old truth passed down from mothers to daughters: that no one buys a cow when they can get the milk for free. Pornographers helped transform the Internet into a bonanza of free pornography, but the new technology is a double-edged sword.

Moreover, production values in the porno industry have never been strong. They have spent decades turning out dull, repetitive crap in bright packages. It should come as no surprise that with the new technologies, their customers can turn out THEIR OWN equally dull, repetitive crap, and for free.

This puts the porno industry in a tough position. Having created the demand on the Web, they have undermined their position in traditional distribution channels, such as adult book stores and mail-order. None of the other channels have the impulse access and the privacy that the Web does, and they have too much overhead to compete with the freebies and the small-business model operations that have outsleazed them.

In many ways, this mirrors the problems of the traditional media. When everyone can become their own "blog" publisher, then content explodes -- and potential customers suddenly have a lot of choices, much of it free. At least Newspapers and other traditional media still have an advantge in that they create content outside of the reach of almost all of the New Media pioneers, hiring reporters around the nation and around the world. That creates a bright-line separation between them and the bloggers and independent journalists, even if the quality and the bias often leave the traditional media product open for well-deserved criticism from the bloggers.

I am reminded of an exchange from the movie, "Boogie Nights":

Porn financier Floyd Gondolli (Philip Baker Hall): "This here's the future. Videotape tells the truth."

Porn director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds): "Wait a minute. You come into my house, my party, to tell me about the future? That the future is tape, videotape, and not film? That it's amateurs and not professionals? I'm a filmmaker, which is why I will never make a movie on tape."

In 1979, the future was videotape and home VCR viewing, and those sleazy theatres went out of business.

But with the rise of YouTube and internet streaming, could "Jack Horner's" vision of actual porn films, with actual acting, elaborate storylines and professional production values, make a comeback on DVD? In other words, make an arty porn product that people might want to buy for its own sake?

(Think of it as an update on the straightlaced, and often conservative, men who used to read Playboy "for the articles" which were witty and well written.)

Probably not, because too many of the porn consumers are just interested in getting off and that's that.

US GDP compared to foreign countries GDPs

Whatever this country's drawbacks, this map really drives it home. Cali's economy is the size of France's.

Hillary Clinton fundraiser disrupted in Sacramento

...by the moonbat Left!

Inside a residence along the American River, some of Sacramento's most prominent Democrats rationed lamb chops and wine without their guest of honor Thursday. Outside stood anti-war protesters, a flag-draped coffin and more than 100 guests in dinner attire, all waiting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . . Mainstream Democrats mixed with liberal activists in the street outside the home of developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. . . .

"Mainstream Democrats" brought this upon themselves....you can't have your moonbat cake and eat it too...

The Sacramento developer and Democratic fundraiser was . . . upset with anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, partly because he had disrupted her reception and partly because she sees herself--and [Mrs.] Clinton--as opponents of the Iraq war.

"I don't understand why in the world he would disrupt something like our event because, frankly, it is simply appalling that he and his friends are not going after the people in this (Bush) administration who have caused this war," Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis said Monday. " . . . That man has got the wrong people, us and her, and he should be ashamed of himself. He should be absolutely ashamed." . . .

"I think a lot of people were somewhat irritated by these protesters," [guest Jim] Moose said. "On the other hand, I think people have the right to protest. I'm not outraged by these people expressing their free-speech rights, but I think these protesters are missing the boat. . . . They could have found someone more politically
conservative to protest than major Democratic candidates."

In other words, don't these moonbats understand that they're supposed to be political pawns who serve the Democrats? They have some nerve to protest them instead. Some people just don't know their place!

Also in other words, the "Mainstream Democrats", who know that we just can't pull out of Iraq and turn Baghdad 2007 into Saigon 1975, are fellow traveling opportunists. Nice....

Robert Novak: Immigration Bill May Go Down?

Let's hope so.

You know, if there was a smart Democrat candidate, or even just one of the old-school labor union types, he would push an enforcement only package deal and call it "The American Worker's Living Wage Act". It would be a Nixon-To-China moment, only domestic. And by gum, he would even WIN on it.

Lucky for Republicans, the multi-commiecrat hate-Whitey (and increasingly hate the Jews and Asians too) "identity politics" faction in the party is too strong to ever contemplate that.

Medved Has The "Do Something" Disease

Lately, the proponents of this shamnesty known as "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" are trying a new tack. Essentially, they are saying we must do something, and if we do nothing it will even be worse.

Michael Medved, a talk show host and commentator I used to respect, had a great phrase to describe this mentality--the "do something disease", a term he used to describe legislation that wouldn't work but was being peddled to show that the legislators cared or because it made people feel better. Unfortunately, he has fallen victim to his own disease, and he is urging his listeners to go along with this "comprehensive" crap.

So… it’s unacceptable, even dangerous to do “nothing,” about illegal immigration? Let’s take a look at what doing “nothing” actually does for us.

Last year, the Congress passed a bill which the president signed creating close to 800 miles of security fencing along America’s southern border. The “grand bargain,” as it’s being called in the Senate, calls for hundreds fewer miles of border fencing. Hmmm… let’s see… this means by doing “nothing” and not passing this terrible immigration bill, we actually get MORE border fence. That doesn’t sound unacceptable or dangerous to me.

Next, let’s look at employer enforcement. There are numerous laws on the books right now to crack down on the hiring of illegal aliens. What’s lacking, of course, is the political will to enforce those laws. For some reason, the White House and some members of the Senate want America to believe that with the new bill will come a new courage to enforce those laws?

Show of hands… how many believe that???

So, by doing “nothing,” we still have laws against hiring illegal aliens and still have an administration with no spine for enforcement. I guess it’s not really dangerous or unacceptable to not pass the bill in this case either… let’s just enforce the laws we have.

In addition, the “temporary” worker plan does more than provide for cheap labor to come into America. According to the bill, each “temporary” worker is allowed to bring his spouse and children with him. Thus, the temporary worker has now become a permanent family in America which will likely draw more social services. The bill has yet to address the problem of “anchor babies,” so if these temporary workers have children in America, those children are now U.S. citizens. That doesn’t sound very temporary to me.

Then, there is the concept of deporting those who continue to break the law. As Bobby Eberle noted, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that “illegal immigrants living in the United States who don’t try to gain legal worker status will be forced to leave.”

“The people who don’t apply and don’t get the Z visa are going to be hunted down and they’re going to get deported,” Chertoff told FOX News. “So there’s a very clear choice: You can either bring yourself into the system and find, you know, safety, pay your fine, and work within the law, or you can stay outside the law and we’re going to focus our attention on those people and deport them.”

What the administration and Senate “leaders” are saying is that with the passage of this bill, America will deport the law breakers. Wait a second… Didn’t they say it was impractical to consider mass deportation? And they are right, it is....

YET: Isn’t that what they are saying they will do if the new bill is passed? Ok, then let’s go after law breakers now and deport them! We don’t need a new bill to do that, do we?

Sorry, Bushyrovies, you can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama gives us 20 reasons why this bill is worse than "doing nothing".

Above all, why can't we just pass a secure the borders and enforcement only bill, and then take up the issue of what to do with the illegals trapped north of the now impenetrable border later?

Is it because the Democrats will block it? GOOD--THEN THEY, THE DEMOCRATS, TAKE THE BLAME. Republican landslides in 2008 and the Congressional elections of 2010.

(Real Republicans that is, not Bushyrovie greedheads or Hispandering romantic fools)

John Edwards Is Right, There ARE "Two Americas"

John Edwards says in this YouTube clip (Ace of Spades Link) that Illegals Have A Right To American Citizenship.

I've concluded that John Edwards is right! There ARE "Two Americas", largely because of people like him.

No, I'm not talking exactly about how Edwards lives in a mansion and sports $400 haircuts while charging in excess of $50,000 for speeches on the subject of "poverty in America" to breathless university crowds, all the while he assures us that he has never forgotten his meager origins (which were actually quite middle class, even well to do by Deep South standards) and how he wants us to believe that he still identifies with those who have been left out of what Bill Clinton once called "life's lottery."

Sure, that may annoy, but that's really NOT the "Two Americas" difference.

The REAL "Two Americas" divide is not one of lifestyle, of claiming to be for the poor while being filthy rich, but rather one of an attitude, a state of mind, a world view.

That world view is at the heart of the cultural divide over illegal immigration.

Their America, consisting of elites like the Breck Girl, is pushing this monstrosity of an immigration bill. And rest assured, they are not among those of us in Our America who will have to suffer the consequences of their actions.

There are, indeed, two Americas. Our America lives in homes on the streets, avenues and boulevards of this country, in increasingly close proximity to Mexican street gangs, many of which are encroaching on previously nice neighborhoods. Their America lives in gated communities. They don't even see the illegals. They hear about them on the news. They know they exist, but unless they hire them to clean their homes, they will never have contact with them.

Our America watches as our teens are decimated by methamphetamines, 75 percent of which comes across our porous southern border and straight into our communities. Their America believes such risks are worth it to ensure a plentiful supply of cheap labor.

Our America is exposed to unknown diseases every day while shopping among the illegals at Wal-Mart. Their America wouldn't be caught dead at Wal-Mart.

Our America depends on education and health care systems that are being crippled by a flood of illegals. Their America does not.

Most of Our America watches as our already mediocre government school systems are overburdened by mandates to teach the children of people who don't belong in our country. Their America sends their children to private schools.

Sometimes Our America digs deep to send our kids to private schools too, at the price of foregoing services, like the cheap immigrant gardeners and maids that service Their America.

Sadly, George W. Bush, despite our support of him, has cast his lot with Their America.

How many pregnancies are really "unwanted"?

Naomi Schaefer Riley reveals a dirty little secret about the abortion debate: For the most part, unwanted pregnancies do not happen because of a lack of "sex education", or a lack of "abstinence education". In fact, a good many of these "unwanted" pregnancies are not really unwanted:

Maybe the answer is obvious: Women get pregnant because they want to have babies. As Kay S. Hymowitz, author of "Marriage and Caste in America," puts it, "There isn't really a bright line between wanted and unwanted pregnancies." There are plenty of women who become careless about birth control on purpose.

Whether they're suburban professionals with two sons who really want a daughter and hope to "convince" hubby for a third try with a "mistake", or poor inner-city women who hope their boyfriends will stay around if there is a child in the picture, women will often subvert their better judgment to fulfill a biological urge.

This is not the sort of sentiment that sits well with the leftist feminists, who have a dogma that women are *always* the ones thinking with their heads instead of their hormones. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, there are about three million unintended pregnancies in the U.S. every year, and six in 10 U.S. women having abortions are already mothers. More than half intend to have (more) children in the future. These ladies know exactly how one gets pregnant, and how one does not.

...A disproportionate number of poor women, it turns out, account for those 1.3 million abortions every year. But this is not because, as (the "sex educators") might argue, they are disproportionately uneducated when it comes to sex and birth control. It's because, having decided to "unintentionally" get pregnant, they quickly realize that having a baby is not feasible. Whereas the suburban married professional might have to stretch her family's income a bit further to make room for an unplanned third child, the poor single woman might find herself without a man in her life four months into her pregnancy and determine that raising a child by herself just isn't an option.

(The "abstinence educators") could conclude that the poor woman simply needs a stronger education in values. But that is not quite right, either. However unfortunate her decision to abort, the poor woman probably knows that it would be better for everyone involved if her child were raised in a stable two-parent household. She just hoped that she would have one in time. Education, it seems, can do only so much.

Death Penalty Inmate "Took Too Long To Die"

...say the usual suspects:

The 16 minutes it took Christopher Newton to die once chemicals began flowing into his veins was the longest stretch that any of the state's inmates executed since 1999 has endured, an Associated Press review shows.

During that span Thursday--more than twice as long as usual, and 5 minutes longer than the state's previous longest on record--Newton's stomach heaved, his chin quivered and twitched, and his 6-foot, 265-pound body twice mildly convulsed within the restraints. . . .

"It seems too long," Ohio State University surgeon Jonathan Groner said. "The whole thing seems agonizing."

To quote Tony Soprano: "You don't say..."

He's UNCONSCIOUS, right? Why all the boo hoo hooing?

How about a little perspective, huh?

11:37 a.m.: Signal given for chemicals to begin flowing.
11:39 a.m.: Newton's eyes close.
11:40 a.m.: Newton's belly begins to heave, his chin and face shudder and twitch, and his body twice mildly convulses on the table within his restraints.
11:45 a.m.: Movements stop. (In other words, off to permanent slumberland, asshole)
11:51 a.m.: Curtain between witnesses and death chamber is pulled for coroner examination.
11:53 a.m.: Newton declared dead.

This is all that the AP story had to say about the victim:

Newton had insisted on the death penalty as punishment for choking and beating the victim, 27, his cellmate at the Mansfield Correctional Center, over a chess game in 2001.

OK, but how long did the victim take to die? A rough estimate in a January 2006 AP dispatch:

The man died a few hours after the attack at Ohio State University Medical Center. Newton told authorities he made a rope and later cut a strip from his prison jumpsuit to strangle the victim when the rope broke. He also stomped on the man's head, throat and chest.

Presumably "a few hours" means at least three, so that the victim took at least 164 minutes longer than Newton to die, or at least 11 times as long.

DME NOTE:

The actually time of death was 11 hours after the savage beating began, or 660 minutes, at least 41 times as long as Newton's sixteen minutes.

You'd think the criminal-coddling crowd would have some sympathy for the victim in this case, since he was a fellow felon, but he was only in for attempted burglary, which we suppose means his life wasn't as valuable as a murderer's.

More on those "few" hours: MANCI nurse Diane Burson testified that when she responded to cell 115, the man was not breathing and had no pulse. Burson and responding paramedics worked diligently, and eventually the victim's heart began to beat. Ditmars testified that while medical personnel were trying to save the man's life, Newton was laughing and yelling, “ ‘Let him die. I killed him.’ ” According to Douglas, Newton said, “ ‘[F]uck that bitch [the victim]. You might as well not even work on him. He is already dead.’ ” Nurse Butcher recalls Newton periodically shouting to the paramedics, “ ‘Stop, let the fucker die.’ ” State Highway Patrol Trooper Doug Hamman described Newton as singing, “‘[T]here is nothing like the taste of fresh blood in the morning.’”

After paramedics established a heartbeat, the man was taken to MedCentral Hospital, then flown to the Ohio State University Medical Center, where he was
declared brain dead around 2:30 p.m. After an autopsy, Dr. Dorothy Dean, a
forensic pathologist, concluded that he had died from a ligature strangulation. The victim also suffered other injuries to his head and body consistent with his having been kicked or stomped on.

After the assault, Newton told Lieutenant Hilbert Mealey, a MANCI CO, that he had allowed the man to lie for an hour in the cell because Newton knew that paramedics would try to save his life. Newton told Mealey that he had more fun in prison than on the outside. MANCI Lieutenant Joe Albert recalled that Newton had seemed very happy and had repeatedly asked, “ ‘Did I kill him? Is he dead?’ ” Newton also said, “[I]f he is not dead, I hope he is going to be a vegetable.”

And the murderer had it too hard, huh?

This event is also YET ANOTHER justification for capital punishment, besides the deterrent effects. Not only do I not trust death penalty opponents when they claim that they will "lock murderers up and throw away the key" instead, but what do you do when the lifer murders, or even maims or disfigures or severely brutalizes, other inmates or guards? Sentence him to another life term?

Thanks, to "Dead Man Eating".

Bush Disses His Base

Next time I get a GOP fundraising letter, I will send them this:

Hat tips to the Ace of Spades and to Geoff.

You know, I stuck up for Bush when the Demunist Commiecrats tried to make scandals out of nothing:

--Fired Attorneys--that serve as appointees at the President's discretion and deserve to be fired when they disobey his directives.

--Scooter Libby--that bitch Valerie Plame and her asshat hubby are a disgrace, and Richard Armitage leaked, not Scooter Libby.

--Hurricane Katrina--Ray "chocolate city school bus" Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco are to blame, simple as that; Demunist liberals are stuck on stupid.

--And of course, the War In Iraq--Saddam DID have alliances of convenience with Al-Qaeda, Zarquawi was a guest there before we found him and killed him, the world is a better place with them gone, we must create a functioning government, or governments if we partition, and not pull out and reenact Saigon 1975, like the Commiecrats want.

And THIS is how we, the loyal supporters, are rewarded? By being called Klansmen because we don't want our country overrun and our public services bled dry by ingrates, just so the Bushyrovies can have cheap gardeners and maids?

Kiss off, Dubby. The Bushyrovies think they can get by without us. So, let them...with "allies" like Bush, who needs political enemies?

I used to think, "hey, lesser of evils..." But, sorry, but there ARE some "sine qua non" issues, and, along with the GWOT and Supreme Court nominees, this is one of them.

We always knew Bush was a softie on immigration and suffered from the "winning through Hispandering" delusion (sorry, votes in every election since 2000 prove this a failure), but we at LEAST thought he would "do thy patient no harm" and not do something significantly worse. This bill IS significantly worse.

"No Child Left Behind" farce? Prescription drug entitlement boondoggle? Disappointing, but not deal breakers. This issue is.

Sadly, Bush and half the GOP either (1) just don't get it, or (2) are suffering from the political equivalent of Battered Wife Syndrome. This delusion of "winning through Hispandering" suggests (3) both.

The Wall Street Journal Cocoon

Hat tip to Ace of Spades.

Never mind the insults, they just don't get it. So they just insult us. We have to be "for something, not just against" they say. Well, we are for something--walling off the southern border and tightening up the immigration enforcement, rather than being overrun by any "comprehensive" act (of amnesty, followed by a repeat of the 1986 fiasco).

Stephen Moore continues to live in delusions of Republican vitcory through Hispandering, with the same horribly faulty statistical figures! And then Paul Gigot chimes in about the Irish, Italians, and other immigrant groups of the past.

(Which only proves the point about immigration being a net loss for Republicans, Paul, those groups became part of Democrat machine politics for decades! Only in recent years have snapped out of that, and that is largely due to the anti-white sentiments of the Democrats today, pandering to the more often than not browner immigrants.)

The greedheads call the National Review "foaming at the mouth", yet when NRO tells them to put up (some facts) or shut up, of course the WSJ hacks skulk off.

And Robert Pollock claims that we have "a circular argument" when we want to enforce our laws. "But who's being hurt by the silly immigration laws we have?", he asks. Gee, Robbie, how about victims of illegal alien gangs, the overflowing jails, the public schools that no longer teach, the public hospitals that are closing down, the entry level American workers who watch their wages plummet? Are you THAT out of touch in Manhattan, Robbie?

Love how "bigotry" is thrown there just for kicks. How commie liberal of Pauly Gigot. I am told that I "just hate immigrants". I guess that is why I married one. Is this about anger? You betcha, Pauly. Anger at greedheads like you, who just want to shaft the rest of us and the country as a whole, just so you can have your cheap labor....

Well, Stephen Moore, I'll say it proudly. I AM anti-LEGAL immigration in certain areas:

1. "Refugee" status. Has been abused too often and the people who use it tend to become welfare junkies. Look up the Hmong people for a very sharp case in point. Sure from 1975-1990 they could claim justifiable persecution from the communists. But today, the Soviet empire is gone and Vietnam and Laos are trying to curry favor with the West. And even our vets are returning there for visits.

2. Family immigration "daisy chains". The result here was bringing in Grandma and Grandpa to get on SSI. (Recent legislation has tightened this up, thank goodness).

3. H-1B visas. Indentured servants for the tech industry, and sometimes it does not stop there. These are the least objectionable because they are skilled and English speaking. However, if you are an American student who studied your engineering and programming hard and played by the rules, doesn't it just annoy you that your hard work was just devalued? And they want American kids to work and study hard? When something pays less, you get less of it.

4. The "Diversity Immigrant Visa". Here we have a program that treats Citizenship as a lotto prize, has a stated goal of importing people LEAST likely to immigrate into American society, and does not select immigrants based upon skills, or even family ties. But we are propagandized into believing that "Diversity Is Strength". (War Is Peace, Freedom Is Slavery)

5. And frankly, culture does matter, Robert Henninger, and yes I CAN say that.

WSJ hack John Fund points this out when he speaks disapprovingly of a lack of assimilation and of political opportunists like Mayor Villagarosa of Los Angeles. But he never can make the connection that their his open borders policies brought too many people to assimilate too soon, and also brought people like Antonio the Asshole into power. And he claims to be from SoCal.

Telling line from John Fund:

There are actual groups now, that didn't use to be a hundred years ago, that want to keep people in linguistic, if I dare use the word, Barrios...

Exactly! You are too cowed by the UnAmerican Left that you are afraid to speak the truth, Mr. Fund! Do you really NOT get that???

So yes, some of us ARE anti-immigration to some extent. And there is nothing wrong with that.

Above all, what on earth is wrong with building and manning a wall fence--NOW, and tightening up the ICE to stop visa overstayers, and coming back LATER for other immigration reforms, in a few years, when we can measurably see progress?

Maybe we DO need many many more legal immigrants as some of the romantics suggest. Frankly, I am skeptical (see my examples of bad LEGAL immigration above) but at least we would have control over our own nation and we could calmly discuss the pros and cons. As it is, we are being stampeded into something awful, by people with romantic delusions, sinister agendas, or both. And they call us evil when we dare suggest we want control of our own country.

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson DOES get it, and notes that this immigration is not just an American problem:

Employers may console themselves that they pay better than what the immigrants earned back at home. This might be true, but the wages are never enough to allow such newcomers to achieve parity with their hosts.

Naturally, immigrants soon get angry. And rather than showing thanks for a ticket out of the slums of Mexico City or Tunis, blatant hypocrisy can follow: The once thankful, but now exhausted, alien may wave the flag of the country he would never return to while shunning the culture of the host county he would never leave.

In the second generation — as we see from riots in France or gangs in Los Angeles — things can get even worse.

The moment illegal immigrants arrive, a sort of race begins: Can these newcomers become legal, speak the host language and get educated before they age, get hurt or lose their job? If so, then they assimilate and their children are held up as models of diversity. If not, the end of the story can be welfare or jail.

Hypocrisy abounds on all sides. Free-marketers claim they must have cheap workers to stay competitive. Yet they also count on public subsidies to take care of their former employees when old, sick or in trouble.

Governments in countries such as Mexico and Morocco usually care far more about their emigrants once they are long gone. Then these poor are no longer volatile proof of their own failures, but victims of some wealthy foreign government's indifference. And these pawns usually send cash home.

The lower middle classes complain most about massive immigration, but then they have to compete with aliens for jobs, often live among them and don't use their services. The wealthier, who hire immigrants for low wages and see them only at work, often think mass immigration, even if illegal, is wonderful.

Condo Conversions Beat Rent Control

Condo conflict Apartment refugees stranded in a sea of high rents

This story is about how rent control is causing landlords to convert their apartments houses to condos. Then the middle class is forced to rent lower quality place, further from their work. This is a good way to get families to leave Los Angeles. Of course those apartments that are available are becoming very expensive—why? because illegal aliens, 3,4, even five families will rent one apartment. This prices honest citizens out of the housing market. The condo’s get bought by the well to do—hence LA becomes a rich/poor city—the middle class squeezed out by government policy.

And you can just bet your ass that when the packing in becomes too difficult to ignore, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will get money for projects—in other words, a permanent underclass that will vote for him in perpetuity.

The 80% Women's Pay fraud

This year the gender victimologists came armed with a new report from the American Association of University Women, Behind the Pay Gap, which purports to show that one year after graduation, women are paid 80% of what men earn.

But it's full of crap, like much else the femi-communists put out.

I admit it's more clever than the usual pap. The fact that women often drop out of the workforce to raise children is acknowledged by this time making a discrimination study based upon a narrow post graduation time frame.

But once again, the AAUW tries the "comparable worth" (a.k.a., communist worth) approach: the AAUW shoe-horned many thousands of jobs into 11 broad occupational categories.

Take the medical profession which is evenly divided between the sexes, compared to nursing which is overwhelmingly female. The AAUW lumped all doctors and nurses into the same "medical professions" group. So you guessed it -- doctors are paid more than nurses, and that's discrimination!

And women who major in business administration gravitate to human resources administration, while men often specialize in finance. Employees who manage a corporation's financial lifeblood tend to be paid well. But the AAUW put both groups into the "business and management" category. Yikes, more discrimination!

But beyond the claims of sex discrimination, Behind the Pay Gap contains a put-down to all working women. That message reads, Ladies, you are unwilling to accept the financial consequences of your decision to work shorter hours and in less lucrative occupations.

That's patronizing and insulting to the women who don't believe they need a government mandate or gender quota to get ahead in life. Hopefully this time around not so many will be taken in by the AAUW's creative calculations.

Mexico's Immigration Policy

American expatriate Allan Wall explains it.

Almost everybody believes that the U.S.A. needs immigration reform. I’d like to propose that we study immigration systems in other countries, to see what we can learn from them.

It's arrogant to assume that we Americans have all the answers, and that no other country can do anything better than we can.

Some of the biggest critics of our immigration policy are Mexicans. So let's examine Mexico’s immigration policy and see what we can learn from it.

We might even decide that Mexico has some approaches to the issue that we could copy. Surely they wouldn’t object to that.

Would they?

Did you know Mexico has its own serious illegal alien problem? Illegal aliens from Guatemala and other Central American countries try to sneak into Mexico. These are people who look the same, talk the same Spanish with Indian dialect, and are culturally very similar. Does Mexico tolerate it? Hell no.

The Bushyrovies STILL don't get it...

And Hot Air has the grisly details.

Sadly, some of the still patriotic "Blue Dog" Joe Lunchbucket Democrats don't get it either. Mickey Kaus, for example, who keeps touting “leftist” objections that might derail the amnesty, “e.g., that the bill, by encouraging another flood of illegals, will drive down the wages of unskilled Americans.” Really? Which “leftists” are touting this except for centrists like himself and Ben Nelson, whom the left regularly deride as Republicans in Democrats’ clothing? Suppressed wages for unskilled workers might have bothered them 50 years ago, but it doesn’t anymore. Not only because multiculturalism has supplanted labor as a core leftist principle, but because they’re about to climb on board a political gravy train here and they damned well know it.

The greatest school massacre in the USA

...happened on this day in 1927. A schoolhouse in Bath, Michigan, was blown up with explosives planted by local farmer Andrew Kehoe, who then set off a dynamite-laden automobile; the attacks killed 38 children and six adults, including Kehoe, who had earlier killed his wife.

They won't have Jerry Falwell to kick around anymore

Jerry Falwell expired of a heart attack, and the liberal media just can't stop smearing him, even over issues long since debunked:

On ABC's World News, which unlike CBS and NBC did not lead with Falwell's death, Dan Harris asserted: "In the final years of his life Falwell alienated some in his own movement with a series of controversial statements. For example, he said the children's TV character 'Tinky Winky' was a gay role model." CBS's Richard Schlesinger recalled that in later years "Falwell started making embarrassing missteps, denouncing a popular cartoon character as a gay role model." Over on the NBC Nightly News, Bob Faw, who concluded his piece by asserting that "the Reverend Jerry Falwell -- crusader and polarizer -- was 73," raised the PBS show: "In 1999, Falwell was ridiculed when he complained one of the PBS Teletubbies was gay."

But a 1999 Cox News story archived on a gay news Web site, began:

"In the flap over whether Tinky Winky the Teletubby is gay, the real news is that the Rev. Jerry Falwell is late to the party." Phil Kloer pointed out that in 1998, the year before Falwell spoke out, "the gay magazine The Advocate presciently wrote that 'PBS is clearly terrified that the same fundamentalists who boycott Disney are going to flip once they get wind of the latest lavender love puppet.'"

And that's not the only place. In the Nexis archives for 1998 alone, there are dozens and dozens of mentions of Tinky Winky being gay — in periodicals such as Newsweek, The Toronto Star, The Washington Post (twice!), The New York Times and Time magazine (also twice).

All this appeared before Falwell made his first mention of Tinky Winky.

After one year of the leftist mainstream media laughing at having put one over on stupid bourgeois religious Americans by promoting a gay cartoon character in a TV show for children, when Falwell criticized the cartoon in February 1999, that same mainstream media howled with derision that Falwell thought a cartoon character could be gay.

Now Falwell should have done it differently--he should have said: why must gays take a nice cartoon character and pervert him?

Then again, the liberal media would have only smeared him and taken out of context anyway.

Like they did when they attributed to Falwell a quote that "God does not hear the prayer of a Jew."

In reality, Falwell rebuked the pastor who stated that. In reality, Jerry Falwell went out of its way to recruit Jews and Catholics who were as disgusted with what was going on the culture as he was, and his Moral Majority was not by any means restricted to evangelical Protestants. The "Christian Right" was quite ecumenical.

Now I was never a big fan nor a supporter of Falwell's. I would never have attended a place like Liberty Baptist University as a student. After a difficult day at school, I liked to go home and blast Metallica on the stereo--something not permitted at Fallwell's campus. But there are three undeniable facts about Jerry Falwell:

1) In a profession chock full of scandals of a sexual and financial nature, his reputation remained clean and honorable. The controversies in his long career involved ill-considered statements or unpopular policy positions, but never any financial or sexual wrongdoing. Even his opponents, like Larry Flynt of Hustler, admitted to Falwell's dedication and passionate sincerity.

2) He helped to build unity among conservative believers of many faith traditions. Despite the long history of Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Jewish antagonism, the Baptist Falwell changed the world by uniting every denomination in the pro-life cause. The Moral Majority enjoyed an unprecedented impact in the 1980’s precisely because it put aside doctrinal disagreements. Without hesitation, he enthusiastically appealed to Jews, Mormons and other minority religions who shared his politics.

3) He nobly illustrated the conservative model for reforming and improving the world – working from inside out and the bottom up, rather than from the top down. The left emphasizes sweeping change, initiated by the federal government or other central planners, as the basis for bettering the lives of the populace. Falwell understood that durable transformations begin with individuals, families, neighborhoods, communities, and then can spread outward to impact millions. He began by organizing the Thomas Road Baptist Church in out-of-the-way Lynchburg in 1971, then gained national influence and worldwide fame, but finally returned his emphasis to the local institutions he had launched and nourished (including Liberty University).

It was 40 years ago today....

...that the Six Day War REALLY began. Charles Krauthammer explains:

On May 16, 1967, Egyptian President Gamal Nasser ordered the evacuation from the Sinai Peninsula of the U.N. buffer force that had kept Israel and Egypt at peace for 10 years. The United Nations complied, at which point Nasser imposed a naval blockade of Israel's only outlet to the south, the port of Eilat — an open act of war.

He goes on:

How Egypt came to this reckless provocation is a complicated tale (chronicled in Michael Oren's magisterial "Six Days of War") of aggressive intent compounded with miscommunication and, most fatefully, disinformation. The Soviet Union had reported urgently and falsely to its Middle East clients, Syria and Egypt, that Israel was massing troops on the Syrian border for an attack. Israel desperately tried to disprove this charge by three times inviting the Soviet ambassador in Israel to visit the front. He refused. The Soviet warnings led to a cascade of intra-Arab maneuvers that in turn led Nasser, the champion of pan-Arabism, to mortally confront Israel with a remilitarized Sinai and a southern blockade.

Why is this still important? Because that three-week period between May 16 and June 5 helps explain Israel's 40-year reluctance to give up the fruits of that war — the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, the West Bank and Gaza — in return for paper guarantees of peace. Israel had similar guarantees from the 1956 Suez war, after which it evacuated the Sinai in return for that U.N. buffer force and for assurances from the Western powers of free passage through the Straits of Tiran.

All this disappeared with a wave of Nasser's hand. During those three interminable weeks, President Lyndon Johnson did try to rustle up an armada of countries to run the blockade and open Israel's south. The effort failed dismally.

It is hard to exaggerate what it was like for Israel in those three weeks. Egypt, already in an alliance with Syria, formed an emergency military pact with Jordan. Iraq, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Libya and Morocco began sending forces to join the coming fight. With troops and armor massing on Israel's every frontier, jubilant broadcasts in every Arab capital hailed the imminent final war for the extermination of Israel. "We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants," declared PLO head Ahmed Shuqayri, "and as for the survivors — if there are any — the boats are ready to deport them."

For Israel, the waiting was excruciating and debilitating. Israel's citizen army had to be mobilized. As its soldiers waited on the various fronts for the world to rescue the nation from its peril, Israeli society ground to a halt and its economy began bleeding to death. Army Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin, later to be hailed as a war hero and even later as a martyred man of peace, had a nervous breakdown. He was incapacitated to the point of incoherence by the unbearable tension of waiting with the life of his country in the balance, knowing that waiting too long would allow the armies of 100 million Arabs to strike first his country of 3 million.

We know the rest of the story. Rabin did recover in time to lead Israel to victory. But we forget how perilous was Israel's condition. The victory hinged on a successful attack on Egypt's air force on the morning of June 5. It was a gamble of astonishing proportions. Israel sent the bulk of its 200-plane air force on the mission, fully exposed to antiaircraft fire and missiles. Had they been detected and the force destroyed, the number of planes remaining behind to defend the Israeli homeland — its cities and civilians — from the Arab air forces' combined 900 planes was . . . 12.

We also forget that Israel's occupation of the West Bank was entirely unsought. Israel begged King Hussein of Jordan to stay out of the conflict. Engaged in fierce combat with a numerically superior Egypt, Israel had no desire to open a new front just yards from Jewish Jerusalem and just miles from Tel Aviv. But Nasser personally told Hussein that Egypt had destroyed Israel's air force and airfields and that total victory was at hand. Hussein could not resist the temptation to join the fight. He joined. He lost.

The world will soon be awash with 40th-anniversary retrospectives of the war — and exegeses on the peace of the ages that awaits if Israel would only to return to lines of June 4, 1967. But Israelis are cautious. They remember the terror of that June 4 and of that unbearable May when, with Israel in possession of no occupied territories whatsoever, the entire Arab world was furiously preparing Israel's imminent extinction. And the world did nothing.

Another insidious tax on developers

An utterly insidious practice now spreading across California is the “private transfer fee.” It is a new invention of developers who want to build housing tracts, but are faced with hysterical opposition by the usual suspects. In order to buy off the opposition, the developer agrees to sell the homes with a condition that every time the property is sold, a percentage of the sale price will be paid to the pet causes of the opponents. (Funny how a little cash can melt away the most fervent and heartfelt objections of Leftist activists). The first funds have been used to line the pockets of environmental and homeless advocates, but anyone can play. These “private transfer fees” have already gone as high as 1.75 percent of the sales price – or $8,700 for a $500,000 home – each and every time that home is sold. Ka-ching.

Bear in mind, there is no legal authority for this larceny. It is an invention concocted from thin air that turns the entire concept of contracts upside down, by binding innocent third parties – in this case, future homebuyers -- to conditions of an agreement to which they were never a party.

Sen. Lou Correa introduced SB 670 to forbid this private property tax – a reform that ought to command overwhelming support among Californians. Correa, although a Democrat, is not a Commiecrat, and has been a defender of property rights.

Against his better judgment, the bill’s sponsors (the California Association of Realtors) agreed to amendments that would authorize and legalize this outrageous practice – making any court challenges moot. Their rationale was that by legitimizing the tax, they could place limits on how much and for how long this theft could go on. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

This immediately provoked a bidding war among the interest groups represented by the Senate’s other Democrats. After all, the amendments created a legalized cash machine with an adjustable knob, and they wanted more. The bill’s sponsors got whacked, and do did future homeowners.

The “private transfer fee” shouldn’t be regulated, adjusted, managed, monitored, or refined. It should be OUTLAWED – as Correa originally proposed. And if the legislature won’t do it, the issue should be fought all the way to the Supreme Court or taken to voters through the initiative.

A generation ago, it was the Realtors who led the property tax revolt that culminated with Prop. 13 and the Gann Spending Limit. How sad to watch them today.

Let's hear it for MSNBC

No really! An actually fair and balanced telecast that explains to Average Joe and Jane Sixpack the Iraq situation, the regional players, and above all, why the U.S. must see it through and not just "retreat and defeat", as some rather foolish people advocate.

Let's hear it for the NBC TV network

An actual promotion from a few months back....

"Moderate" Muslim Joke

A Muslim was killed in a car accident. He arrives at the gates of heaven.

St. Peter says "I'm St. Peter. Welcome to Heaven".

The Muslim says "Nice to meet you Peter, but I'm a Muslim and I want to meet Mohammed."

St. Peter says "Sure no problem. Climb up that ladder behind you and you will meet Mohammed."

The Muslim climbs up the ladder, gets to the top and there is Moses.

Moses says "Hi I'm Moses. Welcome to Heaven".

The Muslim is very excited - "Moses, it's such an honour to meet you. But like I told St. Peter, I'm a Muslim and I really want to meet Mohammed".

Moses says "No problem. Climb up the ladder behind you and you will meet Mohammed."

The Muslim climbs up the ladder, gets to the top, he can't see anything but bright light. He sees this figure before him and asks, "Who are you?"

The figure responds, "I am God. Nice to meet you. Welcome to Heaven." God walks over and shakes his hand.

The Muslim is stunned - he can hardly speak. He says to God, "Sir, it is such an honour to meet you - I can't believe it - this place is great. But I'm a Muslim and, no disrespect intended, but I really want to meet Mohammed."

God says "Ohh.. You're here to see Mohammed. I see. No problem. Have a seat. Get comfortable. Can I get you some coffee or something to eat?"

The Muslim says "I would love a cup of coffee."

God yells into the kitchen, "Hey Mohammed, two coffees!!"

Michael Barone: "The Realignment Of America"

Michael Barone is a Wall Street Journal hack, and as such, he just can't help but gush over the political realignment of the USA. He thinks as the "Red States" boom and the "Blue States" either decline or become unaffordable, it's Republican happy trails. But like any Wall Street Journal hack, he ignores how immigration, so much of it illegal and undesirable, is shaping the nation.

This is not to say that his analysis isn't astute, for it very much is. He divides the nation into five regions:

1. The Coastal Megalopolises.

New York, Los Angeles/Orange County, San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose, San Diego, Chicago (on the coast of Lake Michigan), Miami, Washington/Baltimore and Boston. Here is a pattern you don't find in other big cities: Americans moving out and immigrants moving in, in very large numbers, with low overall population growth. Los Angeles, defined by the Census Bureau as Los Angeles and Orange Counties, had a domestic outflow of 6% of 2000 population in six years--balanced by an immigrant inflow of 6%. The numbers are the same for these eight metro areas as a whole.

There are some variations. New York had a domestic outflow of 8% and an immigrant inflow of 6%; San Francisco a whopping domestic outflow of 10% (the bursting of the tech bubble hurt) and an immigrant inflow of 7%. Miami and Washington had domestic outflows of only 2%, overshadowed by immigrant inflows of 8% and 5%, respectively.

This is something few would have predicted 20 years ago. Americans are now moving out of, not into, coastal California and South Florida, and in very large numbers they're moving out of our largest metro areas. They're fleeing hip Boston and San Francisco, and after eight decades of moving to Washington they're moving out. The domestic outflow from these metro areas is 3.9 million people, 650,000 a year. High housing costs, high taxes, a distaste in some cases for the burgeoning immigrant populations--these are driving many Americans elsewhere.

Gee, could it be that the "distaste" for the "burgeoning immigrant populations"is due to the fact that too many of them are arriving too fast and contributing to high housing costs, and too many of them are net takers of social services, contributing to high taxes? And that's the better and legal ones. Meanwhile the illegal aliens contribute crime and drugs. But the Wall Street Journal just keeps on whistling past the national graveyard, and disrespecting patriotic Americans who don't like what has happened to their country.

Mr. Barone goes on:

(Democrat) politicians like to decry what they describe as a widening economic gap in the nation. But the part of the nation where it is widening most visibly is their home turf, the place where they win their biggest margins (these metro areas voted 61% for John Kerry) and where, in exquisitely decorated Park Avenue apartments and Beverly Hills mansions with immigrant servants passing the hors d'oeuvres, they raise most of their money.

The result is that these Coastal Megalopolises are increasingly a two-tiered society, with large affluent populations happily contemplating (at least until recently) their rapidly rising housing values, and a large, mostly immigrant working class working at low wages and struggling to move up the economic ladder. The economic divide in New York and Los Angeles is starting to look like the economic divide in Mexico City and São Paulo.

But Mr. Barone won't admit that his paper's immigration policies have just about everything to do with that. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal policies have turned once reasonably and even solidly conservative areas of California (Orange County, San Jose, Contra Costa County) into elitist liberal zones.

The bad news for them is that the Coastal Megalopolises grew only 4% in 2000-06, while the nation grew 6%. Coastal Megalopolitan states--New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois--are projected to lose five House seats in the 2010 Census, while California, which has gained seats in every census since it was admitted to the Union in 1850, is projected to pick up none and may even lose one.

So where are the middle and working class people fleeing the Coastal Megalopolises going? They are going to:

2. Interior Boomtowns (none touches the Atlantic or Pacific coasts).

Their population has grown 18% in six years. They've had considerable immigrant inflow, 4%, but with the exceptions of Dallas and Houston, this immigrant inflow has been dwarfed by a much larger domestic inflow--three million to 1.5 million overall.

Domestic inflow has been a whopping 19% in Las Vegas, 15% in the Inland Empire (California's Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, where much of the outflow from Los Angeles has gone), 13% in Orlando and Charlotte, 12% in Phoenix, 10% in Tampa, 9% in Jacksonville.

Domestic inflow was over 200,000 in the Inland Empire, Phoenix, Atlanta, Las Vegas and Orlando. These are economic dynamos that are driving much of America's growth. There's much less economic polarization here than in the Coastal Megalopolises, and a higher percentage of traditional families: Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) in the Interior Boomtowns is 6%, well above the 4% in the Coastal Megalopolises.

The nation's center of gravity is shifting: Dallas is now larger than San Francisco, Houston is now larger than Detroit, Atlanta is now larger than Boston, Charlotte is now larger than Milwaukee. State capitals that were just medium-sized cities dominated by government employees in the 1950s--Sacramento, Austin, Raleigh, Nashville, Richmond--are now booming centers of high-tech and other growing private-sector businesses. San Antonio has more domestic than immigrant inflow even though the border is only three hours' drive away. The Interior Boomtowns generated 38% of the nation's population growth in 2000-06.

This is another political world from the Coastal Megalopolises: the Interior Boomtowns voted 56% for George W. Bush in 2004. Texas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia and Nevada--states dominated by Interior Boomtowns--are projected to pick up 10 House seats in the 2010 Census.

In other words, Republicans fleeing one desirable coastal areas from which they once could be elected. Why is Mr. Barone trying to call this a Republican victory, when it's really a retreat? A retreat in the face of immigrants to whom the Wall Street Journal tries to Hispander, to no avail? Two thirds will hate the Republicans anyway. And it wasn't like these interior cities were not voting Republican already. But the WSJ just keeps on dreaming...

One other stubborn fact remains: Not everybody is moving by choice. Coastal cities have some of the most expensive housing costs in the country; many of the people who've moved inland still work at jobs within 10 miles of the ocean, and their 75-100 mile daily treks contribute to the nation's worst traffic commutes. (Think Sacramento to Bay Area, or San Berdoo/Riverside to LA). If you ask many inland people if they would move back to the coast if housing costs for pleasant neighborhoods were not a factor, most say yes.

The other three regions consist of:

3. The Rust Belt Cities. (One could argue Chicago belongs here, not in Coastal Megalopolis Category 1)

Their domestic outflow of 4% has been only partially offset by an immigrant inflow of 1%. If the outflow seems smaller than in the 1980s, it's because so many young people have already left. Natural increase is only 2%, lower than in Orlando or Jacksonville in supposedly elderly Florida. Their economies are ailing, more of a drag on, than an engine for, the nation. They're not the source of dynamism they were 80 or 100 years ago. They continue to vote Democratic, but their 54% for John Kerry was much lower than the Coastal Megalopolis's 61%. Their states are projected to lose six House seats in the 2010 Census.

4. "The Static Cities".

These are 18 metropolitan areas with immigrant inflow between zero and 4%, with domestic inflow up to 3% and domestic outflow no higher than 1%. They seem to be holding their own economically, but are not surging ahead and some are in danger of falling back. Philadelphia makes the list, and so do Baltimore, Hartford and Providence in the East.

Surprisingly, some Western cities that boomed in the 1990s are in this category too: Seattle (the tech bust again), Denver, Portland. In the Midwest, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus and Indianapolis are doing better than their Rust Belt neighbors and make the list. In the South, Norfolk, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Birmingham are lagging enough behind the Interior Boomtowns to do so. Overall the Static Cities had a domestic inflow of just 18,000 people (.048%) and an immigrant inflow of 2%. Politically, they're a mixed bag, a bit more Democratic than the nation as a whole: 52% for Kerry, 47% for Bush.

5. The Countryside.

What of the rest of the nation? You can find a few smaller metro areas that look like the Coastal Megalopolises (Santa Barbara, university towns like Iowa City), many that resemble the Interior Boomtowns (Fort Myers, Tucson) and the Rust Belt (Canton, Muncie). You can find rural counties that are losing population (as are most counties in North Dakota) and, even amid them, towns that have solid growth (Fargo, Bismarck).

But overall the nation beyond these 49 metro areas looks like the Static Cities: 1% domestic inflow, 1% immigrant inflow, 4% population growth. But politically it is more Republican, taking in as it does large swathes of the South, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and in line with the historical record of non-metropolitan areas being less Democratic than metro areas: 56% for Bush, 42% for Kerry.

What's now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.

But given the immigration factor, that isn't exactly comforting for Republicans.

Another writer, Steve Sailer, commented on this phenomenon: He called it "Affordable Family Formation".

"dialogues" with "comprehensive immigration reformers"

In the spirit of Cinco De Mayo, I just had to repost some real-life "dialogues" I have had with the advocates of the farce and fraud known as "comprehensive immigration reform", a.k.a. Simpson-Mazzoli Redux. It saddens me to see how many "conservative" Republicans just don't get it. Their arguments in italics, my responses in plain type:

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" advocate: "Well I guess I just do not have a brain then. Or maybe I am just dishonest because I still want to know who is going to pick the lettuce while you are building your wall."

Me: Gee, how about the 11 million or more ALREADY here? I didn't say mass deport them, simply because that isn't possible. (For starters, in the absence of a secure border, they would be back in a week!) Never mind the lack of personnel and facilities and political will with which to do it.
However, what IS possible--and in fact necessary--is to secure the border, FIRST.

THEN, and only then, can we discuss what sort of immigration policy we can have, and contemplate either legalization or deportation of those who will by then be trapped up here, north of the border.

Without secure borders, we cannot choose our immigration policy; Mexico and other nations will choose it for us. And at that point, we lose our country, given the Reconquista Treason element we saw last May Day. It is really as simple as that. Why can you not comprehend this?

"Let me get this straight. You do not want mass roundups you just want them all gone. Like magic."

Another straw man to pitchfork. I NEVER said I wanted them all gone. I said I wanted the inflow to STOP. Then we can calmly discuss legalization of those who have been working and obeying the law here. However, in the absence of border enforcement FIRST, we might as well just give up the nation. Do you really not get this???

"You do not want to consider a bill that allows for more than one thing because it is impossible to build a wall and implement a guest worker program at the same time. The laws of physics dictate this."

That's right. Simpson-Mazzoli proved this. In the absence of enforcement, FIRST, it doesn't matter a whit what kind of program you pass, because it will be violated! It is really as simple as that! Moreover, Victor Davis Hanson has eloquently written about the "helot" problem that guest worker programs create, a problem that the Euros are discovering to their dismay as well.

"So what if the comprehensive program can take pressure off the border?"

You really don't get it, do you? The program The Demunists are pushing, and the RINOs are going along with, will ADD pressure to the border, as it effectively says "olly olly oxen free, come and get it" to those south of the border, and another "bum rush for the border" occurs just as it did in 1986. I will hammer this home until it sinks into your skull: enforcement must come first.

"ten years minimum (moratorium on immigration and wall building period) you say. Why? Because you say so."

Yes, that was a guesstimate on my part. It will probably take that long to get the physical barriers completely finished, the detention centers built, the visa tracking system in place, and the personnel fully hired and trained.

I will be more than happy to be proven wrong.

Once upon a time, Seabees could hack airbases out of the jungles in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in a matter of weeks, but that was sixty-odd years ago, and that kind of American spirit has been lost, sadly.

"better not to deal with it at all than to compromise one iota, because anyone who does not see things your way is dishonest or stupid."We can compromise on the numbers of former illegals we ultimately let in, a decade or so down the road. We can compromise on the fine they will pay. We can compromise on citizenship vs. resident alien vs. guest worker status. But NO, we cannot compromise on the order in which what has to be done is done. We cannot put the cart before the horse. Do you really not get that???

"Fine, so what are you going to do with these people if not round them up and deport them?"

Until we have enforcement to deal with them, leave them in the shadows where they have been. They have been there for decades already, right? But for heavens sake, don't encourage more of them, which is what the Senate's Demunist-RINO sellout does.

"And what are you going to do about all the folks who come in here illegally but do not cross that border and for whom your wall will be no obstacle?"

That's what the (change to) felony status and building of detention facilities are for....moreover the overwhelming bulk of them are crossing the unguarded border. Furthermore, the Eurotrash who decide they like America and overstay their tourist visas are typically educated and professional and DO NOT become net takers from the welfare and social service systems, unlike the Mexican illegal aliens. And if you think it's "racist" to say that, then you are a dupe. It's "classist" I grant you, but there is nothing wrong with that. Americans should be wanting more professional immigrants, even more professional illegal ones.

"Ten years is a long time to go without any kind of immigration reform to a system so many say is broken."Enforcement first, simple as that. The enforcement process make take ten years to fully implement, but we can begin it right now! Any legalization provisions before enforcement is complete simply means another amnesty, another Simpson-Mazzoli farce, and 30 million or more illegal aliens before we know it.

Instead of keeping on chasing that dead horse (of border enforcement), why not pass some flag laws? Why not pass some laws about English? Why not pass some laws so we can clean up the social programs?

Okay here we have a core concept to the debate. What would be the point of passing yet another set of laws? We have laws appropriate to addressing illegal immigration and employer sanctions as well as any other peripheral issue arising from illegal immigration. The problem isn't with law, it is with enforcement. It would seem to me that all of these extra laws being considered are a method to obfuscate and bureaucratize. In fact it may be more of a cover so that bad policy may be attached to these "urgent" laws in a stealthy attempt to do the very opposite of what the constituency demands.

But lets look at this a bit further. Let's say we reward illegal aliens with amnesty, albeit an amnesty that demands assimilation - including those recent arrivals expediting their trek into the nation because they see Americans demanding law enforcement. Will those assimilation encouragement laws stand a chance of being enforced at a future date when a voting bloc who assuredly opposed similar laws (while they were breaking them to enter this country and get benefits/employment) grows in significance? If legalized will they not just vote for officials who will reverse course once again? Will we not have an even larger and more influential voting bloc which would reward future illegal immigration (like the rest of their family and friends in economically depressed areas and not political refugees) and either ignore current law or reverse it?

This is the natural progression of such a policy. So, are we a nation of laws? Do we need to amend that principle to "we are a nation of enforced laws"? It seems we are at that point here because unenforced law is no longer a law - it is mere filler in the expansive texts that keep lawyers employed. We will have abandoned the singular component that separates us from everyone on the planet.

Some would retort that the singular component that makes us unique is, in fact, our immigration - you know, "nation of immigrants" and all.

And that would be false. Many other countries on the planet are nations of immigrants, so in this regard, we really aren't that unique. It is our regard for law, individual rights and equal justice for its citizens that is our crowning jewel. Sadly, too many would just give it away.

"No! Don't enforce the borders! The all-important Latino vote will hate us!" Bush, Rove, and the Wall Street Journal counsel a strategy of "Hispandering".

It won't work. Republicans can't out-pander the "Party of Pandering"! We offer amnesty for 5 million Mexicans, the Democrats make it TEN, and offer them more Medicaid!

MOST OF THEM ARE ONLY GOING TO HATE US ANYWAY....repeat this until it sinks in.

With the notable exception of Cuban Americans, most Latinos will go Democrat no matter what we do. Here's why:

1. They are net takers of social services, and net takers vote Democrat. It's really as simple as that. They are obviously not bad people, mind you, but they are poorer and hence net takers. Always remember that.

2. The Demunist Commiecrat element of the Democrat Party, which now controls that party, will seduce them with the feel-good but utterly destructive "identity politics" of Multi-culturalism. You know, hate whitey, you owe us, acquit the criminal who happens to be of our color, gimmie gimmie gimmie socialism. Most of the African American population is hopelessly lost to this.

Multi-culturalism should really be called multi-communism, given that it is just communist propaganda in racial terms.

And I say Demunist Commiecrats for a reason. Michael Moore and Howard Dean now run that party. Noam Chomsky is their Godhead.

These were the same people who looked the other way or even cheered it on when the communists took over Southeast Asia and the killing fields emerged. They urged appeasement and surrender in the face of the Soviet threat. They knelt down and bent over to perform political fellatio on the Sandinistas.
Where are they now? Why, they are entrenched in academia, the media and much of the bureaucracy. Their Communist dreams failed, so they have changed their tack, playing the racial tragedies in American history to their advantage.

Note that Cuban Americans, who know better about the communists, are resistant to this. You don't see them wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and taking down or burning American flags. But Mexican American youth, indoctrinated by the 5th column in Academia, went out and rallied on Communist May Day.

"Are you in the camp that thinks Bush is just stupid? He understood that this was a done deal when he ran. This is the next voter block."

Then Bush IS stupid, because the bloc won't vote for us (see above), so stop importing more of it!

"Why do you think all the minority groups tried to get these people on board? What makes me disgusted.....I actually know people that Bush changed their minds about the Republicans. Mexicans that voted Bush(Republican!!). "

While it is true that a good many Latinos are disgusted with the Homo-crat element in the Democrat Party, that won't be enough to overcome the seduction of welfare and of an easy scapegoat to hate, which is what multiculturalism is.

"Why not pass some flag laws? Why not pass some laws about English? Why not pass some laws demanding assimilation?" (similiar to an argument above, repeated by someone else)

I am all for fighting the poison of multiculturalism. But don't you see? The Demunists WANT more of an imported underclass, non English speaking, to create a bigger need for the social(ist) programs and to further their goal of Balkanizing America. Mass immigration and lack of assimilation is their tool!

I used to wonder why people who harped about the need for a "living wage" supported immigration policies that reduced wages! But upon reflection I know why they do it; to import a larger and larger underclass that they can manipulate. Heads they win, tails we lose....don't you see?

"Why not welcome them but insist that they become Americans if they live here."
Because the Demunists will say, "vote for us, and you don't even have to become Americans." And people of all races are seduced by the easy way out, even if it is a dead end.