This Is Pretty Amazing...
Michelle Malkin has the story of a young lady who gets it.
Kinda gives one hope for the future.
Michelle Malkin has the story of a young lady who gets it.
As we pass into a new year let's take time to pay tribute to the brave men and women who sacrifice each and every day to keep us safe and free.
I bet you've never heard of Ghada Jamshir. Neither had I, until I read this post and watched the video for myself.
A Muslim woman, hounded for her “heresy” in speaking out against this issue, goes to town on this male interviewer’s ass about everything from “pleasure marriages” to female circumcision! It’s a beautiful thing to see. And she ends with a bang (so be sure to watch it all). I was cheering by the end!I was cheering by the end too! This woman kicks ass and takes names. This woman is a shining example of why we have to do all we can to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Oriana commenced her lifelong insurrection against totalitarianism early, fighting the Axis powers as part of the Resistance. For her actions, the fascists tortured her father, who defiantly refused to collaborate. The lesson stuck. Oriana smuggled weapons to anti-Hitler forces within Germany. After Mussolini received his just deserts, she became a journalist, acting as a war correspondent in Vietnam. In the following decades, she would earn a reputation as one of the world’s most probing interviewers.
After all this she settled into a semi-retirement only to be rudely jerked back into the all too real world by the events of 9-11. She immediately launched into a campaign against radical Islam, writing several books absolutely devastating to Islamo-fascism.Her reward?
Her frank truthfulness was also too much for the sensibilities of unfree Europe. In 2002, she faced charges in France that her book The Rage and the Pride promoted “racism,” the plaintiffs apparently unaware “Muslim” is not a racial designation. (Fallaci supported Operation Iraqi Freedom to give Arabs the gift of self-determination.)
Two years later, she learned she would face similar charges in her native Italy, over the same book. In April 2004, an Italian leftist judge allowed the Muslim-instigated lawsuit to go forward on the grounds that her works were “without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith.” However, FrontPage Magazine columnist Robert Spencer has examined the allegedly “offensive” passages that “defame Islam” – 18 in all – and found each one undeniably rooted in Islamic theology and history.
This just in: Navy Chaplains' not allowed to pray in Jesus name!
During these holidays people practice many diverse faith's but it seems the war against Christmas has taken a turn for the worse, and now its become a war against the name of Jesus himself. I am a Navy Chaplain that may soon be kicked out of the Navy because I pray publicly in Jesus name.Go here to read more.
Admirals from the Pentagon, claiming to speak for the President of the United States, have already stripped me of my uniform and forbid me to pray in Jesus name in public unless Im wearing civilian clothes.
The Chief of Navy Chaplains told me in writing that if I pray publicly in Jesus name that Im denigrating other faiths. That same week he told the Washington Post we never tell chaplains how to pray,because we dont want to violate their First Amendment rights. His public statements and private statements contradict.
Yes! It's a shameless plug, from a shameless chick!
WOW! A bald woman! Now that’s something you don’t see every day. Well, I see it every day…when I look in the mirror and The Bald Chick stares back at me. I like her. I even think she’s kinda groovy, but I may have some small bias on the subject. At any rate, there are plenty of people who haven’t yet reached my level of acceptance.Intrigued? A girl can hope...
Some of them appear unable to get past the initial shock of seeing a bald woman stroll into their comfortable lives. Some have gotten past the shock, but can’t seem to make up their minds as to what they think about it. Some probably harbor resentment towards me because I am clearly very comfortable without the hair -- and without their approval. Still others, I’m sure, think that I’m a poor soul so desperate for attention that I’d shave my head to get it.
Whatever their initial gut reaction is, though, I’d bet cash money that what they all want to know, perhaps despite themselves, is this one simple thing: why the #$&!@ did I shave my head? Why in the world would a seemingly intelligent, relatively rational young woman shave her head? It’s a valid question. While seeing a man with a proudly shaven head strolling down the street has become quite common, a woman is another matter entirely. My shiny pate seems to cause not only questions, but also incredulity, alarm, and sometimes even anger. So let’s start out by clearing up a few obvious misapprehensions about my lack of hair.
I do not have cancer or alopecia. I am not a Buddhist. I am not the victim of a terrible industrial accident. I am not (officially) mentally ill. I did not lose a bet. I did not “slip” while shaving my armpits. I do not have a disturbing and inexplicable desire to resemble a light bulb. I have not embarked on a fervent but misguided mission to get myself cast in an embarrassingly bad sci-fi project. While I do find Michael Jordan, Bruce Willis, Andre Agassi, Patrick Stewart, Vin Diesel and Michael Chiklis madly attractive, my own willful baldness is in no way homage to any of the aforementioned stud muffins.
Matthew Yglesias from the American Prospect would like to explain a couple of things to us.
The Moose would readily sign up for the Democratic Party of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Scoop. Alas, it doesn't exist and there is no sign that it will return anytime soon. And it is hard to believe that any of those great Democrats would recognize their party. Neither party represents their followers. Progressive hawks dwell in a political Diaspora.
Hispanic community activists gathered Wednesday in front of the office of U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) on the Southwest Side to protest his vote for a bill that would impose stricter regulations on undocumented immigrants and make illegal entry into the country a criminal act.Read the Trib article here.
"The Mexican community is incensed by his voting in the bill," said Juan Salgado, director of the non-profit Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. "Immigration is one of the main reasons Chicago continues to be prosperous ... This is just not sensible."OK, first of all, Salgado managed to lose the ILLEGAL that was supposed to be in front of his "immigration." Don't feel bad, Juan -- you're far from alone.
Change is needed because the congressman has not sufficiently addressed the concerns of the Hispanic population in the 3rd District, which covers parts of the Southwest Side and surrounding suburbs, Salgado said.
About 21 percent of the district's approximately 653,600 people considered themselves Hispanic, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, Mr. Salgado, but 21% Hispanic in 2000 does not indicate that Lipinski voted against the wishes of the majority of his district. He just didn't vote how you and the ICIRR wanted him to vote.
As seen @
10ft.2ft. Adam's blog Cao's blog (we love Cao!) Conservative cat Right wing nation TMH's bacon bits third world county stray dog Bloggin' outloud
Jo's cafe basil's blog bright & early
I was just checking out the RealPlayer site looking for a media device to install on our website.
Maybe it was the time the taxi dumped him at the Iraq-Kuwait border, leaving him alone in the middle of the desert. Or when he drew a crowd at a Baghdad food stand after using an Arabic phrase book to order. Or the moment a Kuwaiti cab driver almost punched him in the face when he balked at the $100 fare.Read the whole story of Hassan's misadventure here.
But at some point, Farris Hassan, a 16-year-old from Florida, realized that traveling to Iraq by himself was not the safest thing he could have done with his Christmas vacation.
And he didn't even tell his parents.
"I don't think I will ever leave him in the house alone again," she said. "He showed a lack of judgment."Who can blame him?
Hassan may not mind, at least for a while. He now understands how dangerous his trip was, that he was only a whisker away from death.
His plans on his return to Florida: "Kiss the ground and hug everyone."
Workers kill statehouse Christmas tree
More Indians Taking Part in State Politics
WALKER, Minn. - Irene Folstrom traveled a long way from the Indian reservation where she was born — to Stanford University, then on to law school at Cornell.
Tribal members often urged her to bring her talents back home to help tackle drugs, gangs and violence on the impoverished Ojibwe reservation. But Folstrom would just smile and nod — until her uncle was stabbed to death on the Leech Lake reservation and a cousin was killed by a drunken driver. *snip*
Leech Lake tribal chairman George Goggleye, who backs Folstrom, blames the dearth of Indian lawmakers on racism, lack of political experience and money, and the tribes' relatively small numbers. Nighthorse Campbell suggested another reason: hostility toward the U.S. political system. He said that when he first ran for office, militant Indian friends questioned why he would get involved with a government they viewed as the enemy.MJ & I were fortunate enough to make several good Native American friends when we lived out west. The poverty these folks deal with is staggering and long standing.
A plan to move it gets tentative OK
The Mount Soledad cross would be taken down and moved to a church or other privately owned land under a tentative agreement presented to the San Diego City Council in a closed meeting yesterday. The proposed deal to end a 15-year legal fight has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lawyer for the self-described atheist who filed the federal lawsuit challenging the cross' presence on city-owned land and the Mount Soledad Association, which maintains the 43-foot-tall cross and a veterans memorial around it. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the cross violates the California Constitution's "no preference clause," which prohibits religious symbols on public land. *snip*
Jordan Budd, managing attorney for the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, said relocating the cross and allowing the association to keep the land as a nonsectarian memorial is the least complicated option. The ACLU joined McElroy in handling court appeals of the cross litigation. "We would prefer that the city not destroy the cross but remove it to some other venue, somehow place it in the hands of a private party that would like to display the cross on private land," Budd said. *snip*Reading this makes me think about growing up in the restaurant business. When I was a kid I worked for mostly single unit restaurants, often working elbow to elbow with the owner. When there was a dispute we worked it out.
William Kellogg, the association's president, said his group would prefer to keep the cross in place, "but that appears to be impossible at this point. "Our goal is to honor veterans, whatever happens," he said, and keeping the site as a memorial would make that possible.
"We would prefer that the city not destroy the cross but remove it to some other venue, somehow place it in the hands of a private party that would like to display the cross on private land," Budd said.
Want to see WWIII?
I signed up for this a couple of days ago and meant to blog about it, but forgot...
I agree with most of this article but one paragraph jumped off the page at me.
For instance, with each new episode of Survivor they soak up, aren't we teaching kids that duplicity and betrayal are character traits to be rewarded? For every gratuitous tongue-lashing they hear delivered by American Idol judge Simon Cowell, aren't we saying it's OK to be cruel? Doesn't The Apprentice tell them that cutthroat is the only way to go?
I haven't weighed in on this at all.
If you read this blog you are well aware that I take after the Daddy Warbucks with a passion for being Cappucino breathed weasels.
* The results of the survey indicate that the gap between the opinions of the American people on immigration and those of their leaders is enormous. The poll found that 60 percent of the public regards the present level of immigration to be a "critical threat to the vital interests of the United States," compared to only 14 percent of the nation?s leadership ? a 46 percentage point gap.Study breakdown here.
* The current gap is even wider than that found in 1998, when 55 percent of the public viewed immigration as a "critical threat," compared to 18 percent of opinion leaders ? a 37 percentage point gap.
* The poll results indicate that there is no other foreign policy-related issue on which the American people and their leaders disagreed more profoundly than immigration. Even on such divisive issues as globalization or strengthening the United Nations, the public and the elite are much closer together than they are on immigration.
* When asked a specific question about whether legal immigration should be reduced, kept the same, or increased, 55 percent of the public said it should be reduced, and 27 percent said it should remain the same. In contrast, only 18 percent of opinion leaders said it should be reduced and 60 percent said it should remain the same. There was no other issue-specific question on which the public and elites differed more widely.
* The enormous difference between elite and public opinion can also be seen on the issue of illegal immigration. The survey found that 70 percent of the public said that reducing illegal immigration should be a "very important" foreign-policy goal of the United States, compared to only 22 percent of elites.
* Also with respect to illegal immigration, when the public was asked to rank the biggest foreign policy problems, the public ranked illegal immigration sixth, while elites ranked it 26th.
* The very large difference between elite and public opinion explains the current
political stalemate on immigration. For example, supporters of an amnesty for illegal immigrants have broad elite support ranging from religious to business and union leaders. Normally elite support of this kind would lead to policy changes, but on this issue public opposition is so strong that it creates a political stalemate.
* Continued deep public dissatisfaction with current immigration policy indicates that candidates or political parties that advocate a reduction in immigration might reap a significant political benefit. This is especially true because it could be marketed as "anti-elite" and more in sync with the American people, a message that has traditionally been well received by voters.
* President Bush?s efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants appear to be hurting him politically. While 53 percent of the public said his handling of foreign policy overall was excellent or good, on immigration only 27 percent said his handling of immigration was good or excellent; moreover, 70 percent rated Bush as poor or fair on immigration. the lowest rating he received on any foreign policy-related issue.
* Dick Gephardt, then-House Democratic Minority Leader, proposed in October 2002 an amnesty for most of the 8.5 million illegal aliens in the country. The White House has also indicated its desire for amnesty, although at least so far only the three to four million illegal aliens from Mexico would be eligible. The administration also wishes to create a new guest worker program for Mexicans.And this is from 2002, just imagine the asshattery since then, the mind boggles.
* President George W. Bush has repeatedly pressured Congress to pass an amnesty for perhaps 500,000 to a million illegal aliens under a provision known as Section 245(i).
Utah Republicans Sen. Orin Hatch and Rep. Chris Cannon are leading a vigorous
effort to let illegal aliens pay in-state tuition to attend college.
* Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) succeeded in moving a bill through the House Judiciary Committee to make it much easier for immigrants convicted of
felonies to remain in the United States.
* Senate Democrats inserted without debate into the Homeland Security bill provisions that reversed changes to asylum procedures enacted in 1996. The changes would have again allowed a larger share of applicants for asylum to be paroled into the country rather than remaining in detention.
It was this sense that the electorate is demanding real immigration enforcement, and would no longer be fooled by the usual cliches and bromides, that led the House leadership to craft a relatively strong bill and stand fast in the face of business opposition. Even the White House strongly endorsed the Sensenbrenner legislation. Public fury has moved the center on immigration in Congress so much that Rep. Tom Tancredo, who has worked for years to get his colleagues to take the issue seriously, was able to sit back last week and let others do the heavy lifting for a change.Let me challenge you dear reader. If you've never taken the time to call your Congresscritter now would be a good time to start.
Parents and children challenging a California school district for its practice of teaching 12-year-old students to "become Muslims" are asking a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling in front of the entire panel of judges.Read the entire article here. Read my previous coverage of this case here.
The (Thomas More) Law Center says that for three weeks, "impressionable 12-year-old students" were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to 'Remember Allah always so that you may prosper'; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the 'Bismillah' or 'In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,' which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.This clearly crosses a line that we, as a society, have drawn for our public schools. We do not teach religion in that environment.
Students also played "jihad games" during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
The lawsuit also alleges students were encouraged to use such phrases in their speech as "Allahu Akbar," which is Arabic for "God is greatest," and were required to fast during lunch period to simulate fasting during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.
Nevertheless, Judge Hamilton ruled the program was devoid of "any devotional or religious intent" and was, therefore, educational, not religious in nature.
Oh, come on! I'll tell you what. Let's try implementing a three-week program where we encourage the same students to use phrases such as "Christ is Exalted," and require them to give something up to simulate Lent, or take bread & grape juice to simulate communion.
I wonder if Judge Hamilton would rule that devoid of any devotional or religious intent and educational, not religious in nature?
49 People Accused of Bilking Red Cross of Hurricane Katrina AidWhy not kill two birds with one stone here? Anyone convicted of this despicable crime should be sentenced to help rebuild New Orleans without compensation. They could replace one of the many ILLEGAL immigrants working there now. The employer would pay to ship the ILLEGAL worker back where they came from, and then keep the difference in that cost and what they would have paid the worker had they continued to be scumbag employers of ILLEGAL immigrants.
The fake claims drained at least $200,000 from the fund, with an average payout of about $1,000, Red Cross spokeswoman Devorah Goldburg said. The total could rise as the investigation continues, she said.
The indicted employees were providing PIN numbers to their friends and family who would then go to Western Union to collect the funds, Scott said in October.
"Sometimes they'd give a victim a PIN number and turn around and call a buddy with the same PIN, and there'd be a race to Western Union," he said.
A friend sent me this link on The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website.
I invite you to join in the 25th anniversary observance of National Migration Week. The theme for 2006 is Journey to Justice, a journey which each of us is called to make in solidarity with migrants, immigrants, refugees, human trafficking victims, and other people on the move seeking justice and peace. As the U.S. bishops wrote with our brother bishops from Mexico in the pastoral letter "Strangers No Longer, Together on the Journey of Hope":
From its founding to the present, the United States remains a nation of immigrants grounded in the firm belief that newcomers offer new energy, hope and cultural diversity. Our common faith in Jesus Christ moves us to search for ways that favor a spirit of solidarity. It is a faith that transcends borders and bids us to overcome all forms of discrimination and violence so that we may build relationships that are just and loving.
Does the Catholic Church support illegal immigration?Yeah, that's what I thought. The answer is: no, BUT...
The Catholic Bishops do not condone unlawful entry or circumventions of our nation’s immigration laws. The bishops believe that reforms are necessary in order for our nation’s immigration system to respond to the realities of separated families and labor demands that compel people to immigrate to the United States, whether in an authorized or unauthorized fashion.
Our nation’s economy demands foreign labor, yet there are insufficient visas to meet this demand. Close family members of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents face interminable separations, sometimes of twenty years or longer, due to backlogs of available visas. U.S. immigration laws and policies need to be updated to reflect these realities.
Does the Catholic Church support “amnesty”?Yeah, that's what I thought. The answer is: YES, but we're not going to just come out and say it, silly!
The Catholic bishops are proposing an earned legalization for those in this country in an unauthorized status and who have built up equities and are otherwise admissible. “Amnesty,” as commonly understood, implies a pardon and a reward for those who did not obey immigration laws, creating inequities for those who wait for legal entry. The bishops’ proposal is not an “amnesty.”
The Bishops’ earned legalization proposal provides a window of opportunity for undocumented immigrants who are already living in our communities and contributing to our nation to come forward, pay a fine and application fee, go through rigorous criminal background checks and security screenings, demonstrate that they have paid taxes and are learning English, and obtain a visa that could lead to permanent residency, over time.
The Uncooperative Blogger Is it just me? The biz o' America TMH's bacon bits Liberal common sense Customer servant NIF Macstansbury Right wing nation The Conservative cat Jo's cafe
For generations, diners with a craving for apple strudel or a stein of cold German beer have sidled up to the bar at The Berghoff Restaurant, which is closing after 107 years in business, its owners announced Wednesday.Sadness, indeed. Read the whole story here.
"We share the sadness that many feel about the closing of the restaurant," Herman Berghoff, 70, who owns the restaurant with his wife, Jan, said in a statement.
The restaurant's history is intermingled with Chicago's. It was such a downtown staple that after Prohibition ended in December 1933, the city issued The Berghoff Liquor License No. 1.If you've ever been to Berghoff, you know that Chicago will be losing a fine eatery but, more importantly, a piece of history and a fond reminder of days gone by. If you've never been, and have the opportunity to do so before their doors close on February 28th, you won't regret it.
Herman Joseph Berghoff, a German immigrant, and his three brothers began brewing Berghoff Beer in Fort Wayne, Ind., in 1887, according to the restaurant's Web site. Six years later, he sold it to fairgoers at The Chicago World's Fair, and in 1898 he opened a cafe to showcase the beer, which sold for a nickel.
My Homie Dragon Master Gunner @ Tanker Bros. has a good piece up today.
Although we're getting a little now, Christmas in Britain passed
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they keep a tally of who writes the most and best misleading/slanted headlines to determine who gets the biggest bonus at the end of the year. Because the MSM knows there is power in headlines like this:
Oh, no, the world cries! Israel is blowing things up again! Until, of course, you read the very first paragraph and find out that...
Israeli jets blasted a Palestinian militant group's base a few miles outside the Lebanese capital Beirut on Wednesday, hours after rockets fired from Lebanon hit a northern Israeli border town. (Emphasis is mine...but you already guessed that, didn't you?)I guess the fact that Israel was retaliating -- AGAIN -- wasn't important enough to include in the attention-grabbing headline. And, speaking of propaganda, why do think it is that the Israeli jets blasted, while the pro-Palestinian rockets only hit?
In their deepest strike into Lebanon in 18 months, the Israeli planes attacked a base of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command, a small, Syrian-backed group that has been fighting the Jewish state for decades.Ah, the art of propaganda in action...use words that can't be dismissed by definition, but which suggest connotative meaning, adding color and nuance "under the radar." Note that the Israelis strike and attack, while the small pro-Palestine group has been fighting...for decades.
The PFLP-GC gained notoriety with a string of bloody incidents since it was formed in 1968: It has hijacked an Israeli airliner, machine-gunned another at Zurich's airport, and blown up a Tel Aviv-bound Swissair plane, killing all 47 aboard.Spectacular? That word is usually reserved, connotatively speaking, for something awesome, inspiring, and beautiful -- like fireworks on the 4th of July.
In one of its spectacular attacks on Israel, a PFLP-GC fighter on a hang-glider flew into northern Israel in 1987 and killed six soldiers before being shot dead.
It seems Mexico is trying to get other Latin American nations to stand with it against America building a wall on our southern border. Shocker. You may read the whole article here, at the Prensa Latina (Latin American News Agency) website, although I've pulled most of it into this post to perform an emergency fisking that goes a little something like this:
US Wall Negative Effects DecriedWhat do they care if we build an anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant wall on our southern border? Hey, wait a minute! Don't tell me that the governments of Venezuela, Chile, Spain, etc. are issuing pamphlets on how to illegally enter the U.S. across the Mexican border, too?
Mexico, Dec 27 (Prensa Latina) US construction of a wall in its border with Mexico, which is being promoted by the US House, "would have very negative effects on our countries," the Congress of the Union has warned.
In a letter addressed to counterparts in Latin America, Spain and Portugal, chief of Mexico's parliamentary diplomacy Heliodoro Diaz urged them to express their concern about the issue and condemn the anti-immigrant wall.
According to the Chamber of Deputies speaker, the draft law on border protection, anti-terrorism and illegal immigration control calls for the construction of a wall in four states bordering Mexico. It also includes stepped-up sanctions against those who hire undocumented workers.The nerve of those Americans! Taking steps to enforce their laws and punish those who break them!
Implementation of this proposal means to consider immigration a crime, exacerbate racism, violate human rights of those who migrate to the US and contravene agreements reached through existing free trade accords, the letter adds.Oopsie. Evidently "misplacing" the word ILLEGAL when it comes to ILLEGAL immigration ain't just an American thang. For the record, mis amigos, immigration is only a crime when it is done ILLEGALLY (try not to drop that word, willya?), I've read HR4437 and it never mentions race, and it is most decidedly NOT a human right to enter the U.S. at will.
The letter admits that approval of the said legislation stems from sovereign exercise of legislative duties in the US. However, it recalls that Mexico has pleaded for finding a comprehensive, bilateral solution to the migration issue.Mighty big of you to admit that, as a sovereign nation, we have a right to exercise legislative duties to protect said sovereignty. Mexico can plead all it wants -- as long as its "bilateral solution" includes encouraging and assisting its citizens to enter our country ILLEGALLY (I'm really hoping that at least one of these big, bold words will stick here), Mexico can pucker up and plant a big one...well, you get the picture.
We, thus, request from you that, in an act of unity among Ibero American parliaments, let us share our concern and condemnation regarding this issue and urge you to express solidarity with the Mexican Congress.Blah, blah, blah. Translation: America won't let me play with its toys! But I wanna! WAAAAAAAH! I wanna play with America's toys! America is a big meanie!
The underground economy may indeed be growing, but tension is high on the question of immigration.I just read this piece about the underground economy of illegal immigrants.
"The toleration of illegal immigration undermines all of our labor," said Vernon Briggs, a Cornell University labor economics professor.The author references this article from the Detroit News.
"It rips at the social fabric. It's a race to the bottom. The one who plays by the rules is penalized. It becomes a system that feeds on itself. It just goes on and on and on."
A "Need" for Workers?Our politicians are really having to practice their juggling skills, aren't they? They've got companies that want to make money by employing illegal aliens. They got banks that want to profit from illegal aliens. They've got this organization and that organization yelling about the votes they would love to add to their political coffers. And, last and evidently least, they've got the citizens of this great country. The ones who voted them into office in the first place. The ones they swore to represent. The ones they are supposed to be looking out for.
Therein lies the problem: A "need for workers" versus a need for security, immigration reform, and angry U.S. citizens who feel their jobs are being taken by illegal aliens. Of course, it goes even deeper. Banks are only too happy to lend money to illegal aliens to buy a house, given the fact that they can pass off the loan to Fannie Mae or sanitize and collateralize into a mortgage-backed security and sell it to pension plans or hedge funds willing to take the risk. In reality, there is absolutely no real need for workers. What there is a need for, if you can call it a need, is a need for the cheapest labor possible so corporations can make more profit.
"In communities near our border, illegal immigration strains the resources of schools, hospitals and law enforcement. And it involves smugglers and gangs that bring crime to our neighborhoods. Faced with this serious challenge our government's responsibility is clear. We're going to protect our borders."Then you go on to talk about how you are against rewarding lawbreakers out one side of you mouth, while you spout about temporary worker programs from the other.
What kind of plan is it to let illegals stay for six years only to kick them out for a year, then let them back in for another six? That is one of the silliest ideas I have heard proposed about anything. If you are going to kick out illegal aliens, wouldn't it make more sense to kick them out immediately, rather than after six years when many of them will have purchased a house or had children who would then be U.S. citizens?Silly, indeed. Ridiculous, even. It's as if the politicians have run away to join the circus.
Here Is the Crux of the Problem: Corporations benefiting from cheap illegal labor want to keep the status quo, while ordinary U.S. taxpayers losing jobs want to keep the illegal aliens out.Yep. The question is this: what is it going to take for our politicians to take off their red noses, frizzy wigs, and clown suits? Let's hope it doesn't take someone sneaking into the country illegally to blow up The Big Top.
Oh please, please, please.
But the times they are a' changin'. The I-word has moved from the marginal to the mainstream--although columnists like Charles "torture-is-fine-by-me" Krauthammer would like us to believe that "only the most brazen and reckless and partisan" could support the idea. In fact, as Michelle Goldberg reports in Salon, "in the past few days, impeachment "has become a topic of considered discussion among constitutional scholars and experts (including a few Republicans), former intelligence officers, and even a few politicians." Even a moderately liberal columnist like Newsweek's Alter sounds like The Nation, observing: "We're seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator."
Public opinion is also growing more comfortable with the idea of impeaching this president. A Zogby International poll conducted this summer found that 42 percent of Americans felt that impeaching Bush would be justified if it was shown that he had manipulated intelligence in going to war in Iraq. (John Zogby admitted that "it was much higher than I expected.") By November, the number of those who favored impeaching Bush stood at 53 percent--if it was in fact proven that Bush had lied about the basis for invading Iraq. (And these polls were taken before the revelations of Bush's domestic spying.)
There are many reasons why it is crucial that the Democrats regain control of Congress in '06, but consider this one: If they do, there may be articles of impeachment introduced and the estimable John Conyers, who has led the fight to defend our constitution, would become Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Wouldn't that be a truly just response to the real high crimes and misdemeanors that this lawbreaking president has so clearly committed?This is what I really want for Christmas.
This just in from Canada, long a bastion of rock ribbed morality and idiot liberalism.
MONTREAL (Reuters) - On a recent night out on the town, Michel and Chantal Delbecchi left their suburban Montreal home and drove to the L'Orage Club in the city's east end, where they had sex with a couple they had never met before.
The Delbecchis, husband and wife since 1978, are "echangistes," French for "swingers," who for the past 21 years have been visiting clubs like L'Orage (Thunderstorm) to have consensual sex in a group with one or more other people.
For future outings, they will no longer have to fear police will raid the club and arrest them for being in a "bawdy house," a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency take place.
In a landmark decision on Dec, 21, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted a ban on swingers' clubs, ruling that group sex among consenting adults is neither
prostitution nor a threat to society.
The ruling sparked outrage, largely in English-speaking parts of Canada, where critics said it would erode limits on indecency or obscenity, encourage prostitution and even contribute to the corruption of minors.
As for Michel and Chantal, a 25-year-old woman has become their mutual lover and all three plan to move in together early next year. Despite that new relationship, the Delbecchis expect to continue exchanging sex partners in Quebec clubs.Yeah, that's gonna end well.
Said Michel: "At the club, we have sex with people. At home, we make love."
I for one am outraged...
SANTA FE, N.M. - A state judge has lifted a restraining order granted to a Santa Fe woman who accused talk-show host David Letterman of using coded words to show that he wanted to marry her and train her as his co-host.When will America wake up to threat Mr. Letterman poses?
Judge Daniel Sanchez on Tuesday granted a request by lawyers for Letterman, host of CBS' "Late Show," to quash the temporary restraining order that he earlier granted to Colleen Nestler.
She alleged in a request filed Dec. 15 that Letterman has forced her to go bankrupt and caused her "mental cruelty" and "sleep deprivation" since May 1994.
Nestler requested that Letterman, who tapes his show in New York, stay at least 3 yards away and not "think of me, and release me from his mental harassment and
Nestler appeared in court without a lawyer and representedI mean, who hasn't issued a non-threat to break someone's legs, I ask you?
Responding to a question from the judge, Nestler said she had no proof of the allegations she had made against Letterman.
She also said that if Letterman or any of his representatives came near her, "I will
break their legs" and establish proof of her allegations.
Nestler said after the court hearing that "I have achieved my purpose. The public knows that this man cannot come near me."
She also said that her comment about breaking legs "is not a threat."
"I appealed to the court for a restraining order to keep this man away from me, but now that's been denied me," she said. "He has access to me. He can actually come for me or send people. He has many accomplices. I know this sounds crazy. I was crazy to have listened to him in the beginning."
Nestler's application for a restraining order was accompanied by a six-page typed letter in which she said Letterman used code words, gestures and "eye expressions" to convey his desires for her.
She wrote that she began sending Letterman "thoughts of love" after his show began in 1993, and that he responded in code words and gestures, asking her to come
Nestler said Letterman asked her to be his wife during a televised "teaser" for his show by saying, "Marry me, Oprah." Her letter said Oprah was the first of many code names for her and that the coded vocabulary increased and changed with time.
Dunkin' Donuts Ad Actor Michael Vale DiesYou had to love the guy. Rest in peace.
NEW YORK - Michael Vale, the actor best known for his portrayal of a sleepy-eyed Dunkin' Donuts baker who said "Time to make the doughnuts," has died. He was 83.
Vale died Saturday in New York City of complications from diabetes, according to son-in law Rick Reil.
Vale's long-running character, "Fred the Baker," for the doughnut maker's ad campaign lasted 15 years until he
retired in 1997.
Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin' Donuts said in a statement that Vale's character "became a beloved American icon that permeated our culture and touched millions with his sense of humor and humble nature."
After a hard day blending puppies and ruling over the lesser people a conservative just wants to kick back and relax with a refreshing adult beverage.
But where are the beverages that celebrate the unique culture that is conservtism?
Search no more my friends, Brian Gillette in a rare moment of sobriety has penned 'The Dittohead's Guide To Adult Beverages'.
Here's a little peek inside this gem...
Dead White Guy Ginger AleAnd voila! there you have it. What more could you ask for?
Glass: A Clay Bowl Stolen from Native Americans (by dead white conquistadors)
1 Part Vodka (a colorless ingredient symbolizing white European oppression)
3 Parts Ginger Ale (containing blood-thirsty, intolerant, white supremacist sugar)
A Splash of White Wine (reminiscent of Napoleonic French imperialism)
A Splash of Lemon-Lime Juice (made from fruit hand-picked by indentured servants)
A Dash of Sugar (due to safety concerns, no brown sugar allowed)
Instructions: While attending a college seminar on multiculturalism, with an emphasis on Native American, Afro-centric lesbian poetry, combine ingredients in a clay bowl stolen from Native Americans. Consume on Columbus Day while attacking white males who have the audacity to continue to breathe.
Origin: This adult beverage is named in honor of Christopher Columbus - a capitalist, European bigot responsible for the death and murder of eighty trillion pacifist, nature-loving Native Americans (and a man whose lone accomplishment was the "discovery" of someone else's backyard).
Special Warning: Under no circumstances should you add brown sugar to this adult
beverage, as it is sure to be ravaged and destroyed by the racist, imperialist,
homophobic white sugar already present in the ginger ale.