(h/t Michelle Malkin)

Thank you Tony Blair. Now when will Bush step up and lash out at the haters. No, not those who "disagree" with his policies. I'm talking about the Dems and people around the world who call him a liar and elected Democrats who seem to exist for no purpose but to bash the president and obstruct anything and everything so that nothing ever gets done, and never suggest a plan or idea of their own. I know, defending himself can make it appear that he has something to be defensive of, and sinking to their level isn't usually the best idea. But we've had years of hate out of the left and the media gets an assist, and it's just been too much (look at the polls). Enough is enough, Bush needs to stop sitting back and taking it and hit back.

Anyway, his is what Blair had to say:

British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a withering attack on Thursday on what he called "mad anti-Americanism" among European politicians.

Blair, U.S. President George W. Bush's closest ally in the so-called war on terror, said the world urgently needs the United States to help tackle the globe's most pressing problems.

"The danger is if they decide to pull up the drawbridge and disengage. We need them involved," Blair said, spelling out his political vision in a pamphlet published by The Foreign Policy Center think-tank.

"The strain of, frankly, anti-American feeling in parts of European politics is madness when set against the long-term interests of the world we believe in," he said...

...Responding to those who have criticized the White House, Blair said in his pamphlet: "The danger with America today is not that they are too much involved."

"We want them engaged. The reality is that none of the problems that press in on us can be resolved or even contemplated without them," he added.

He seems to be speaking to anti-Americanism in Europe in general, not just the UK. Sadly you won't have the leader of France talk like this for a couple more decades, once they've begun being fitted for their prayer mats and their women trying on Burkas, and they realize how screwed they are. Many other European nations aren't far behind either.

 

Everyone's two favorite "allies" are at it again. CBC tells us what America's mohawk thinks about the motivation for the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.

The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view.

And of course, Canada's uncle France weighs in with this, via Reuters:

France issued an implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy on Thursday, rejecting talk of a "war on terror".

"Let us not forget that these crises play into the hands of all extremists," the prime minister said in a debate on the Middle East. "We can see this with terrorism, whether it tries to strike inside or outside our frontiers," he added.

Don't read the next part with any liquids in your mouth, I can't afford to buy you a new keyboard:

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners.

"But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

Yeah, let's model ourselves after France. That way we can rapidly be invaded by Muslims and within decades, have a Muslim majority. Of course we can start by having tens of thousands of rioting Muslims, most of whom are unemployed, causing chaos in our streets torching the cars of thousands of innocent people. Thanks for the tips Dumbinique.

"It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable," he said. "No one retains this wisdom, inherited from our history, as we, French and Europeans, do," he said.

You would think so wouldn't you Dom? You may be claiming to retain that wisdom, but clearly you haven't. Don't worry, no American president could politically let France burn. So in the near future when al-France is totally screwed, Uncle Sam will bail you out once again. Sleep tight.

 

*(Scroll for actually city council resolution blocking this)*

When will the elected officials of my state stop embarassing us? If it's not Howard Dean and his "Civil Unions" it's Howard Dean screaming like a mental patient after the Iowa primaries... YAAAAAARGH. If it's not having U.S. Senate candidate and current congressman from VT Bernie Sanders being the only self-proclaimed socialist in Washington, it's crazy hippy ladies coming home after visiting their online Pakistani boyfriends in their homeland, flying with banned weapons and peeing on the floor of the plane. If it's not Howard Dean saying... well, I'll stop there because that could go on forever and I really haven't kept up with updating my Dean's List anyway.

It would seem that Vermont politicians are in a competition to prove their idiocy. Well, the mayor of Burlington (Vermont's largest city), Bernie Jr. Bob Kiss actually proposed making the city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants!!! I'm not putting on some Republican spin job, this is what he did. Luckily the city attorney and council wasn't having it, but he actually made the attorney look in to it. Locals may be familiar with the story already, but having not moved back until late June, I hadn't heard about it until my brother mentioned it to me at Al's French Fries earlier last night.

I figured he must have heard wrong, so I did a quick search and sadly I quickly discoverd via Burlington's City Council Agenda that he was all too right. What kind of fricken' twilight zone city do I live in? A mayor encouraging mass criminal activity by attempting to set up his city to host illegal immigrants. Not to mention that with the insanely high cost of living here, the last thing one should do is bring in a bunch of cheap labor.

Now for the goods... The City Council's resolution, blocking this crap after the mayor asked the city attorney to look in to implementing the "concept". Incase you don't have Acrobat to read the PDF, I've decided to reproduce the whole document below. Again, why should this even have to have been done?

CITY ATTORNEY EFFORTS ON SANCTUARY CITY CONCEPT

In the year Two Thousand Six………………………………………………………………
Resolved by the City Council of the City of Burlington, as follows:

That WHEREAS, the Mayor of Burlington, the Honorable Bob Kiss, has proposed designating the City as a sanctuary for illegal immigrants and directed the eminent City Attorney, Joseph E. McNeil, Esq., to research how such a concept could be implemented; and

WHEREAS, since the concept of a sanctuary city entails a municipality adopting a policy which would forbid its officials, including police, from inquiring into anyone's immigration status or cooperating with immigration officials, such a policy thus creates a safe haven for illegal immigrants by condoning their violation of Federal law; and

WHEREAS, while the United States is an immigrant nation and has been made great by the contributions of those who have come to our shores; and

WHEREAS, while we are all the children of immigrants and strongly support legal immigration, to become a sanctuary city would not only condone but encourage violation of Federal law on the subject and serve as an insult to the many millions of people who strove for the privilege of building their lives in this nation while adhering to the law; and

WHEREAS, in 1996, the United States Congress passed two bills enacted into law which dealt with the concept, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, both of which were later upheld and under which state and local governments can no longer prohibit employees from inquiring about immigration status or reporting to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, the Deputy Chief of the Burlington Police Department noted in response to the concept of a sanctuary city that law enforcement officers are bound to uphold federal laws on immigration and to make reports to immigration authorities; and

WHEREAS, however, it is not currently the practice of the Burlington Police Department, or any other City entity, to seek out illegal immigrants; and

WHEREAS, any influx of illegal immigrants to Burlington as a result of implementing the sanctuary city concept could place added burdens upon City social services and infrastructure at a time when both the municipal budget is overburdened with costs, to the extent that the Kiss Administration is proposing a 9% increase in property taxes that does not even include an educational tax component, and there is a serious affordable housing crisis; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney has stated that his research indicates that while the criminal laws regarding immigration issues must be enforced, the civil laws are more complicated and has further stated that there will be "no recommendation from the City Attorney's Office that would involve anything less than full enforcement of our criminal laws. And with regard to the civil statutes there's a great deal of policy discussion that will have to take place between the research that we found and any implementation."; and

WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office already has extensive tasks to complete on behalf of the City such as, most prominently and most importantly to the City Council, the Zoning Re-Write; and

WHEREAS, while the City Attorney's Office has always most ably and professionally served Burlington, there is a limit to how many demands can be placed upon its Staff and resources, particularly at this busy time; and

WHEREAS, since the Burlington City Council must ultimately approve any implementation of the sanctuary city concept;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does not now wish to consider the sanctuary city concept; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council therefore directs the City Attorney's Office to terminate both any of its further research efforts into and any of its further development of a proposal for implementing the sanctuary city concept.

lj/KAS/c: Resolutions/City Attorney Efforts on Sanctuary City Concept
6/8/06

 

Another post specifically for Vermont voters, although everyone else might be interested in what we're dealing with up here. Before you check out the new Rich Tarrant ads from BerniesRecord.com, be sure to watch the ones I posted the other day on Bernie's anti-intelligence record. For those not familiar, "Bernie" is US Congressman Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Bernie claims "Independent" because clearly even the far left modern Democratic party isn't far left enough for this self identified socialist.

Did ya watch those first vids? Okay, let's check out the new ones where Tarrant deals some more severe blows to Bernie simply by exposing his own radical record. Note the vote numbers mentioned in these ads, in all of which Bernie was in the extreme minority, with about 400 voting the other way on each. This isn't your run of the mill "Republicans mixed it in with other stuff, so the Dems voted against it" crap, this guy is the fringe of the fringe.

First Video - Sanders voted against the Amber Alert and stricter sentences for repeat child molester.

Second Video - Bernie voted against cracking down on child porn

Third Video - Bernie voted against blocking visas for drug dealers.

Read more about these votes and many other shameful votes on many other issues made by Bernie over the years at BerniesRecord.com and stay up to date on the Tarrant campaign at Tarrant06.com.

 

Conservative bloggers promoted the rally Christopher Hitchens held in support of Denmark over the Muhammad cartoons this past winter. This was obviously a good cause, and worth noting. But when this happened, and I saw video of the rally at some blogs, I couldn't help but think I recognized Hitchens. Both his face and name seemed familiar, but I was placing him as someone I remembered taking a whacked out liberal position on something on H&C or O'Reilly a year or so earlier. I didn't put a whole lot of thought in to it though, assuming I was just remembering incorrectly.

Well now I know it was the same Hitchens, because Mr. Hitchens just played a major role in bringing down the NSA warrantless wiretapping program. As a plaintiff in the case he's as guilty as the a-hole judge for putting us at greater risk. Yes I know, the program remains active at the moment and the ruling is being appealed, but that's not the point. The point is Hitchens actively fought against this program. One could argue that he's an independant thinker, which may be true, but that's not the point either. The point is that this man fought against what is quite possibly one of the most important tools we have in the war on terror.

All I really want to say is that any of those Republican voters who plan to protest weak immigration policy by not voting to "send a message" in November, need to look at this Hitchens. If you weren't familiar with him, as I was not, you might have some idea that he's a conservative like the rest of us if you simply heard about the Sammenhold rally. This isn't like a Lieberman situation where I am wanting to push him out because of one decision, because he was never "in". He's not at all a consrvative and as I think back I know I've seen him in numerous debates take extreme left positions and angrily defend them.

Last quick point about Hitchens. He's an arrogant prick. He was on Fox & Friends debating the NSA situation a couple mornings ago and when Brian Kilmeade asked him a question and addressed him as "Chris", he got all pissy and sternly corrected him "my name is Christopher!" Grow up guy. And please stop fighting against our country by taking away the most necessary tools we have to defend it.

 

Michael Moore is obviously one of the biggest pieces of trash the planet has ever seen, so this post isn't a debate about his idiotic politics. It's more of a "look what he said" mocking type of post, much like many of my Howard Dean posts. It's just to put the idiocy on display, because you probably missed it in the MSM.

Reuters reports that Michael Moore is claiming that he's getting more and more Republicans followers. He insists that GOPers are buying his crap, and essentially joining his team.

"If you were to hang out with me here it won't be five or 10 minutes before you see a Republican hug me. That is almost as entertaining as some of the films," Moore said in an interview.

"That's the shift that I'm seeing in the past year or so in the country, and as it relates to me," he said.

Hug you?! I think you're misunderstanding Mr. Moore. Those men are security. They're seaching you for weapons/bombs you idiot. You're probably on every terror watch list on the planet.

Now for the best part of the article:

"Look up the definition of liberal. We hug trees. We hug each other. We hug people of the same sex and want to marry each other," Moore said. "It's the other side that we need to get to hold their arms out a little bit and coochey-coo."

There you have it folks. MIchael Moore has come out of the closet. He said we, about himself and other liberals, want to marry people of the same sex. Perhaps you'll be one of Saddam's 72 virgins when you two reach the promised land. He certainly owes you a serious debt of gratitude for all the lying you've done on his behalf, and I think a little "coochey-coo" is probably a good start.

Quick throw-back... Did that remind anyone else of the time that Howard Dean accused President Bush of playing "hide the salami" with Harriet Miers?

 

You can't make this stuff up.

(Kyodo) _ North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has send a get-well message to communist ally Cuba's ailing leader Fidel Castro, state-run media reported Thursday.

Kim, in a message sent to Castro on Wednesday, said he was "shocked to learn that you underwent an operation for unexpected sudden illness," according to the Korean Central News Agency.

"I express profound sympathy and consolation to you. I wholeheartedly hope that you will recover your health as early as possible so that you may continue successfully fulfilling the heavy responsibility entrusted to you by the Cuban revolution and people."

No confirmation on rumors that the North Korean dictator sent a gift to the Cuban dictator, but rumor has it that Jong Il is considering hookin' Castro up with a gift certificate to the Sunglass Hut.

Allahpundit has more crazy Castro related news.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

(Note 1)***(This turned out to be a longer post than expected, but it's important that you read the entire thing to understand how deep the deception went on this one)***

(***NOTE 2***, in researching and writing this I've also discovered that these headlines are in fact LIES. Not just because some headlines say "6,000" instead of "nearly 6,000" (5818), but because the Reuters piece clearly points out (if the reader does the math), that AT LEAST 594 (almost 10%) of these civilians "killed" didn't die as a result of violence!!! They died of natural and of other "normal" causes! That's right! So, no Yahoo! News they weren't all "slain" and Reuters and others they weren't all "killed")
(Edit:*I’ve capitalized “AT LEAST” above, so that liberals understand that even under the best set of circumstances for the UN & the media, their lie was only about 10% of the deaths, but it seems much worse. Please read beyond the opening paragraphs!*)

The AP and Yahoo! are up to their old tricks again. They just love misleading headline skimmers with headlines that leave a false impression, but don't quite rise to the level of "lying" (though they've done that before too). Today's example is particularly disgusting. Below is a cropped screen shot of what my eyes were treated to when I pulled up my browser and watched my home page (Yahoo!) load a few moments ago:

That's right: Nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians slain in May, June

It's clear that the intention of this headline is to leave the reader with the impression that these deaths were collateral damage of U.S. military operations. It's intended to make liberals get excited to have a new number (remember the milking of 2,000 military deaths) to blame evil America for and shout that we're targeting civilians. It's also intended to make folks who are on the fence and even conservatives think "wow, maybe the liberals are right, we are targeting thousands of civilians." Bull!

Before we get to the truth of what this number really is, and how it seems like it might be completely bogus anyway, I have to wonder who chose the headline. Generally when you click one of these headlines on the Yahoo! home page, you're taken to an article with the same headline, usually from the AP or Reuters. Every once and a while, including this case, the AP article actually has a completely different headline. In these cases I always make sure to do a search to see if anyone else is using the headline used on Yahoo!'s home page, to determine if it appears that Yahoo! specifically chose their own headline. In this case they did.

See, usually these AP wire stories that Yahoo! links to already have a headline and it will be the same on Yahoo!'s home page if the story is listed there (honest headlines or not). But this is one of those cases where it seems quite clear that someone at Yahoo! decided to spruce it up a bit, because the actual AP headline reads: Iraq civilian toll spikes to nearly 6,000 (also at The Boston Globe). While I personally find the one Yahoo! used a bit more over the top, they are both VERY misleading, if not down right false.

On to the problem with this "6,000" figure... First of all, I think we can all agree it's intended to appear as if these are the result of "our" war or military. What we're actually talking about, as you'll see if you read the article, is deaths resulting from terrorist attacks and sectarian violence (if that). Wouldn't a more appropriate headline be: Iraq: Insurgents Kill Nearly 6,000 In May/June or even Violence In Iraq Leaves 6,000 Civilians Dead May/June. But those headlines wouldn't lead a casual headline reader to believe that these were killed by the U.S. military, so they just won't do. What was I thinking!?

If the misleading headlines don't piss you off enough (because they occur with such regularity), don't worry it gets much worse! For starters, it appears that this is a figure pulled out of a United Nations report, which makes it questionable enough, but that ain't even the half of it. But before I move on, I do have to give slight credit to Yahoo! Asia News for making clear that this is a UN number in their headline on a Reuters story: U.N. says 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in May-June, as well as The Sydney Morning Herald who ran the same article, with only a slightly different headline: 6,000 civilians killed in May-June: UN. It's still disturbing that they don't indicate WHO killed these civilians (because as we'll learn, man weren't "killed"), but at least they mention that this is a United Nations claim.

Now, 6,000 civilian deaths is still a pretty explosive and disturbing figure regardless of who killed them, right? Well, maybe most of them weren't killed, but just died the way "normal" people die. Think I'm stepping out on a pretty big ledge there? Follow me for a minute.

Let's first look at how the AP opens this story:

UNITED NATIONS - Nearly 6,000 civilians were slain across Iraq in May and June, a spike in deaths that coincided with rising sectarian attacks across the country, the United Nations said Tuesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq describes a wave of lawlessness and crime, including assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, torture and intimidation.

Hundreds of teachers, judges, religious leaders and doctors have been targeted for death, and thousands of people have fled, the report said. Evidence suggests militants also have begun to target homosexuals, it said.

"While welcoming recent positive steps by the government to promote national reconciliation, the report raises alarm at the growing number of casualties among the civilian population killed or wounded during indiscriminate or targeted attacks by terrorists or insurgents," the U.N. said in a note accompanying the report.

Then we're hit with this:

According to the report, 2,669 civilians were killed in May and 3,149 were killed in June. Those numbers combined two counts: from the Ministry of Health, which records deaths reported by hospitals; and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad, which tallies the unidentified bodies it receives.

At this point in reading the article, one is most likely already surprised that this "spike" in deaths, wasn't at the hands of American military. But still disturbed by the level of voilence. But the AP's own "death count" may cause you to think twice:

The report's figures were higher than some other counts, but even the U.N. said many killings go unreported.

According to an Associated Press tally based on its daily reporting, at least 1,511 civilians were killed, in May and June, with at least an additional 289 police and security forces killed.

The AP tally showed that from January through June 2006, at least 4,191 civilians were killed. The minimum number of police and security forces casualties in that period was at least 805 killed. The AP figures do not include insurgents.

Interesting. The AP's figure is only about 26% of the UN's figure (5818). Not only that, but the AP's TOTAL FOR THE YEAR is only 72% of the UN's May and June number. If you read the article and go back to a section I didn't quote, the UN report says that this year's number stands at 14,338. Again, the AP is saying only 4,191 for the year which is only about 29% of how many the UN is claiming for the 2006 total. Hmmm, notice a trend? The AP's count is between 26 and 29% of the UN's count for both the May/June number and the year's total! Just a slight difference right?

Okay, so we see an almost unbelievable difference in the civilian deaths put out by the UN versus what the AP has counted, but what could be the cause?

It was unclear whether the tally from the Medico-Legal Institute included only those who were killed as a result of violence.

Interesting, so the group that gathered these numbers for the report may have included other deaths, unrelated to the violence!? I (sarcastically) wonder if counting deaths from disease, age, car accidents, etc. might account for such a huge difference in the tallies.

As much as I'd like to say it did, it doesn't end there! The Reuters story I mentioned earlier that can be found at The Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo! News Asia, contains some interesting bits about how the total tally was gathered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some numbers seem like they overlap, and may be being counted twice. Either way, the conclusion of the article leaves one seriously questioning this UN "report".

First, what the Reuters piece says about the numbers gathered to make that 5818 (I know, doesn't sound as "cool" when it's not 6,000, right?):

Baghdad morgue officials have said they took in 1,595 bodies in June, 1,375 in May and 1,155 in April. Of those, about 80 per cent were victims of violent deaths, they said.

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths along with 1,294 deaths recorded in May by the Health Ministry and 1,554 in June.

Add those 4 figures up and you get that 5818 number. (Note: the one figure not in bold and not included refers to April). First of all, in that first paragraph (the morgue stats) we learn that of the 2,970 they counted, only 80% or 2,376 were the result of violence, according to Baghdad morgue officials. Leaving 594 that either died naturally or by some other cause. Wait a minute, 594 is larger than 10% of the original 5818 number (again, not 6,000 anyway). So more than 10% of what the AP reported were not "killed", but died in a "normal" way. Set aside poor reporting, why would the UN even include these numbers in the report?

On two that second quoted Reuters paragraph... It states that the May/June number from the Health Ministry is 2848. I could be wrong, but I would say that those figures probably include some of those at the morgue, no? Doesn't it seem like we're talking about overlapping numbers, being counted twice? I encourage you to reread this, as it may be hard to follow, as well as read the two full articles, and see what you make of it. Pay particular attention to the first line of that second paragraph I just referred to:

(again)

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths...

Why would all morgue death's be included in the UN's count of violent deaths? I hope someone bigger takes and runs with this so we can get some answers.

Beyond just my suspicions of overlapping numbers and obvious tinkering proved above, the Interior Ministry in Iraq issued a report based on figures provided by the Health Ministry that gives WAY LOWER numbers:

Health Ministry figures incorporated in a monthly report issued by the Interior Ministry, however, show a lower level of civilian deaths. According to that report, 935 civilians were killed in violence in May and 889 in June.

WHOA! So Iraq's Interior Ministry/Health Ministry number is only 1824!? That's a far cry from 5818, dontcha think? In fact, the Iraq ministries' numbers are only 31% of the UN's. This is especially interesting, considering that the AP's count was 26% of the UN's. The AP's number was just only 313 less than the Iraq count, a much more reasonable and understandable difference.

So the obvious question is - Who do you trust here? Do you trust the UN's conclusions (we've proven were skewed by at least AT LEAST 595 and probably much more), or do you trust two other counts that are relatively close to each other, and greatly contradict the count of the United Nations.

***UPDATE***
Not surprisingly, the New York Times has joined the party to perpetuate the lies and not do the research and at least discover what little old RightWinged.com did. I'm too annoyed to pick apart the Time's piece, because it's just like the others, only worse. But I will briefly pick on a couple. They found a new way to make the lying numbers sound... cooler? You know, to give the liberals just another line to spout off all over the internet. The opening paragraph reads:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.

Ignoring their own headline, and the fact that they don't mention that these weren't at the hands of the United States military, they should have been able to do the simple math to determine that their opening paragraph IS A LIE! We know that 1,595 was the June number provided to the UN by the Baghdad morgue officials, who said that 80% (1,276) died as a result of violence. Even with the strange choice to add that to the Health Ministry's June figure (1,554) you only get a total of 2,830. If you were to somehow still convince me that this highball number was close to accurate, you still only get 94.33 deaths per day.

Again, I don't think that 94 per day figure is accurate either, but it's approximately 6 (or 6%) less than the NY Times lied and said it was, when they claimed the number was over 100 per day.

The Slimes goes on to report other wildly high death count claims from other sources, and waits until almost the very end of the article, on the second page to throw out this bone before burying it in their backyard:

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that uses news reports to do its tallies, reported that at least 840 Iraqi civilians died in June, compared with an all-time high of 1,100 the previous month.

Big surprise, right? The NY Times lying again and burying numbers that don't suit their agenda. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, it's not like that DNC manual cares what anyone right of Castro thinks anyway.

***UPDATE***
I just checked on the CIA World Fact Book, and I was surprised to see that Iraq's death rate (5.37 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) is actually substantially lower than our own in the United States (8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) I am curious why they have a lower death rate than us, but that's for another day.

What these numbers tell us is that, given Iraq's population of 26,783,383, an average of 394 die a day. Why didn't the media just go all out and run headlines that read: "394 Iraqis Killed Daily"? Hell, by the standards of the UN, Yahoo, Reuters, The NY Times, and the rest of the media I guess we should prepare to splash tomorrow's papers with the headline: "6,754 Civilians Killed In the United States Daily". It would be just as accurate as all of what we've just seen regarding the Iraq civilians.

Anyway, I better get out of the way before I get trampled, as the rest of the media races to get this "story" out there.

 

(h/t Stop the ACLU)

Of course everyone is talking about the latest non"scandal" by the media, over the NSA obtaining data collection on phone calls (numbers seeking patterns, not content). I have an extensive post up about this from earlier, but I thought the latest development deserved it's own post. Before I get to the latest development, I have to point out again that there is really nothing that can be done with this information unless your records show you're constantly calling a cell phone that's located in a cave in Afghanistan.. then maybe you should be a little concerned. But even still, what makes you liberals think that the NSA has the time, money, or resources to pay attention to you?

Now you're not going to believe the latest. You know the "civil liberties" group the ACLU? You know, the creeps who come out to oppose anything traditional or right in the world, but instead support pedophile groups like NAMBLA, vicious people who protest at soldiers' funerals, the KKK, etc. etc. etc. This group is arguably more evil than the United Nations, but that's another story.

Anyway, as you probably are aware, the ACLU is one of these groups that cries foul any time President Bush takes action to protect us. Today was no exception, and they're "demanding" a Congressional Investigation. Read up at the ACLU's own page.

What's interesting this time is that the ACLU is using shady data collection methods themselves, and they're doing it for fund-raising, not national security. (h/t Stop the ACLU)

From the San Francisco Gate

The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to collect a wide variety of information about its members and donors in a fund-raising effort that has ignited a bitter debate over its leaders' commitment to privacy rights.

Some board members say the extensive data collection makes a mockery of the organization's frequent criticism of banks, corporations and government agencies for their practice of accumulating data on people for marketing and other purposes.

Again this isn't even national security, it's fund-raising!... Should we expect outrage from the usual suspects? Don't count on it.

The group’s new data collection practices were implemented without the board’s approval or knowledge and were in violation of the ACLU’s privacy policy at the time, according to Michael Meyers, vice president of the organization and a frequent internal critic. He said he had learned about the new research by accident Nov. 7 during a meeting of the committee that is organizing the group’s Biennial Conference in July.

He objected to the practices, and the next day, the privacy policy on the group’s Web site was changed. “They took out all the language that would show that they were violating their own policy,” Meyers said. “In doing so, they sanctified their procedure while still keeping it secret.”

What's new about that? Everytime a far left group gets caught doing something stupid, they quickly run to change their web site. This is just how the dishonest left operates.

Read on...

Anyway, the main point is the selective outrage from the left and the media. Don't expect a huge front page USA Today story on this tomorrow, and of course it won't be a lead story on all the news programs. And don't expect the liberal blogs to hammer the ACLU either. They'll just turn their back and pretend they never heard about this, until the next time some child molester needs his "free speech" defending, and they'll once again call on the heroic ACLU.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

"A Day Without Immigrants" has arrived. Sadly it's not as good as it sounds. Instead of being a good day, like it sounds, in which we ship a bunch of illegal immigrants back to their home countries, it's a day in which they intend to flood the streets in yet another series of massive protests, instead of going to work and school and they are boycotting American goods. Sadly, but not surprisingly, many Democrats are backing this behavior and the California Senate went so far as to pass a resolution supporting it!

My hope, though I doubt it will happen, is that some of the companies hiring these people will straighten up their acts and fire everyone who doesn't show up to work and perhaps May 2 will be the beginning of a real time without (or at least with less) illegal immigrants. Obviously that's wishfull thinking.

I'll probably be sleeping for most of the day's events, so for me it truly will be a day without them. I suggest following Michelle Malkin's blog, and probably the new Hot Air vlog/internet broadcast as well for blogging throughout the day. Michelle tends to be on top of these type of events, so I suspect that will be the place to go to see what's really going on (as opposed to what the MSM will be showing us. She noted the other day how the Dallas Morning News is doing less reporting, and more promoting of the illegal alien celebration.

Incase your favorite MSM outlet hasn't filled you in, let's get you caught up on the goals of those taking part in today's protests (via Reuters):

Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood America's streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.

Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.

"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it weighs the issue.

"We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," Rodriguez said. "That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1."

I've got a better idea amigo... How about instead we block off the streets with National Guard, direct your little march towards the border and "guide you" back home?! Seriously though, it's really sad that cops are helpless, when they should be just sitting there with a bunch of school buses and thousands of handcuffs arresting any illegal in attendance, and give us "A Day With A Few Thousand Less Illegals".

At least some people are doing something productive:

Opponents of illegal immigration spent the weekend building a fence to symbolize their support of a secure border. About 200 volunteers organized by the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps of California worked on a 6-foot barbed-wire fence along a quarter-mile stretch of rugged terrain near the U.S.-Mexico border about 50 miles east of San Diego.

Let's keep it going. What's sad is the silent majority remains.... silent. I fear we will remain silent and passive about this until one of these events (that I suspect will only continue and grow) gets out of hands and there is some kind of violence or riot.

These people aren't here "for America", they're here, understandably because their country sucks and they need money for their families. But they are marching with Mexican flags, many with a bunch of rhetoric about "taking back" land for Mexico, etc. They're even trying to change the national anthem.

One of these days all of this anti-Americanism, in your face protests, and demands for "rights" from people who don't belong here, make exponentially greater amounts of money than they could in Mexico and have an exponentially higher quality of living than in Mexico; are going to get out of hand and tick off the wrong people. Hopefully something can be done before violence erupts, but I doubt it. As I said, I believe these will grow while we sit quietly until something terrible happens and we're going to have mayhem.

As I was about to rap this up I see Hot Air has already begun their coverage. Head over now to check out today's Vent with Michelle Malkin, and stay tuned throughout the day.

One more thing.... If you hadn't heard, to counter the anti-American boycott, some are doing extra shopping today and calling it Conservative Shopping Day.

Mac Johnson closes that piece this way:

Lastly, be sure to make note of which businesses can still function on a day without illegal aliens, so that you can patronize them everyday for a long time. Let’s turn the day without illegal aliens into an everyday thing.

TO THE WAL-MART, COMRADES!

This will be an interesting experiment for me. I do need to grab a few things at Kroger and Walgreens later, and I'm on a side of town that is right in the middle of really nice and mini-Mexico. Those two stores are closer to the nice area. But the post office I need to go to, and Walmart are just a few miles north and I instantly become a minority. I need a bulb for one of my fog lights and to pick up a few other things, and hope to get everthing at Walmart. I'll be interested to see what the worker situation is over there.

Also a quick note about that Kroger I mentioned. I tend to shop at like 3 am because it's so much easier to get a ton of groceries in a short amount of time when you're the only one there. I always noticed a dozen or so Mexicans stocking shelves every time. Not knowing their status, I didn't have a problem except when I ever had to ask a question like, "where's the powder Gatorade", and all I gut was shrugged shoulders... Not because they didn't know, but because they didn't have a clue what I had said. I would repeat the question and they would awkwardly chuckly and point at their ears and mouth and mumble something like "I no English".

Interestingly enough, I went in one time, and within a minute I was like "whoa, where did all the mexicans go"? It was like when I used to stock shelves in a grocery store back in Vermont... Just a bunch of late teens and early twenties white guys. I never thought about the reason, but as I was checking out and shooting the breeze with the regular cashier (previously, seemed to be the only white/English speaking person there) he mentioned how crazy it was in there that week because, fearing an INS sweep all of the area Krogers dumped their illegals.

***UPDATE***
Reverse Vampyr has posted a great blog roundup, which includes the following list he found at 760 KFMB, via Rick Roberts, and provides us with an in depth look in to what the illegals are really doing here (psssst, it's not just picking our produce and passing the savings on to us). Note that most of these statistics are for the Los Angeles area, and they certainly very from city to city:

Not everyone breaking into America is coming here to pick lettuce and fulfill the American dream.

Here are some facts you should know:

40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal immigrants, working without a green card.

95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.

75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.

Over 2/3’s of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal whose births were paid for by taxpayers.

Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.

Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.

The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.

Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.

21 radio stations in L.A. are Spanish speaking.

In L.A.County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish (10.2 million people in L.A.County).

(All 10 from the Los Angeles Times)

Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops but 29% are on welfare.
http://www.cis.org/

Over 70% of the United States annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) results from immigration.

The cost of illegal immigration to the American taxpayer in 1997 was a NET (after subtracting taxes immigrants pay) $70 BILLION a year, [Professor Donald Huddle, Rice University].

The lifetime fiscal impact (taxes paid minus services used) for the average adult Mexican immigrant is a NEGATIVE.

29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens.

Just thought you should know.

Don't expect this to be the top of the news tonight...

As I said, Reverse Vampyr has compiled a great blog round-up, so check out what everyone else is saying on this "Day With Too Many Immigrants":
Ace of Spades HQ, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Basil's Blog, Beth's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Blue Star Chronicles, California Conservative, Chez Diva, Conservatve Outpost, Donkey Stomp, Euphoricreality.net, Expose The Left, Florida Cracker, Hot Air, Lone Wacko, National Review, The Nose On Your Face, Political Pit Bull, Publius Rendezvous, The Real Ugly American, Saintknowitall, Sandbox Blog, Say Anything, Slapstick Politics, Super Fun Power Hour, Texas Rainmaker, Thunder Run, Wizbang

I particularly recommend the Hot Air day long live blogging post here. Flopping Aces has a similar post, with a lot of live blogged information and video.

More blogging:
Small Town Veteran, Iowa Voice, Webloggin, Kokonut Pundits, Traction Control, Conservative Outpost, A Blog For All, Mike's Noise, Severe Writer's Block, Ramblings of an Ordinary Guy, Latino Issues, Beyond Borders, Where I Stand, Flap's Blog, Don't Go Into The Light, Small Dead Animals

Quick Update
Bias? What Bias? Look at the pictures selected for this AP piece. A giant American flag, little hispanic children surrounded by American flags... Where are the pictures of the thousands of Mexican flags? Where are the pictures of those holding signs claiming that the southwest belongs to Mexico and that they will take it back?

Previous:
California Senate Votes To Support May 1 Illegal Immigrant / Anti-American Boycott Day
Illegals Show Love For America By Trying To "Dent" Economy
"National Illegal Alien Day" Roundup
UPDATE: More From Sunday's Illegal Immigrant Protest In Dallas
National Illegal Alien Day Is Here!!! Work Walk Outs And American Boycotts?
Hillary Clinton's Crazy Comparison Of The Day! Howard Dean's Got Some Competition!
Why Are McCain And Hillary Clinton Holding Hands With ILLEGAL Immigrants?!
Illegal Aliens Hold Massive Protest In Chicago.
Mexico: "Let my people...in" - Demanding More Immigration!?

 

Heading to bed, but I couldn't let this slip through the cracks, and hopefully other bloggers won't allow it to....

Star Telegram

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Some Democratic state lawmakers are planning to walk off the job in California on Monday -- just as millions of others around the country are expected to -- in support of immigrants' rights.

The California Senate, controlled by Democrats, approved a resolution on a party-line vote supporting the May 1 "Great American Boycott 2006," which supporters say will serve as a warning to Congress to avoid punitive immigration changes.

Organizers say the workplace boycott will show just how vital immigrants are to America's major cities and the nation's economy. Large numbers of students are also expected to participate.

"These immigrants are fighting to embrace this nation," said Sen. Richard Alarcon, D-Van Nuys. "What a good time this is when people can express their anger, their frustration, desires, hopes and dreams, all for the purpose of becoming American. That's a good thing."

more...

WHAT!? Please tell me these idiots are going to be voted out of office, next time they're up for reelection, if not tossed out immediately!!! They essentially passed a resolution in support of law breakers, are supporting people skipping work and school, and are supporting a boycott designed to hurt the country!!! I'm sure there are some decent people in California, but I'm giving a big screw you to the entire state for this. Hey, you elected these people and if you don't do something about this, you're just as guilty as they are. I know this is California, but come on!!! I'm rarely shocked by liberal idiocy in this country, but this just... I don't even know what to say.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

Michelle Malkin is reporting, thanks to a tip from Free Republic, that CIA leaker, Joe Wilson associate, and John Kerry supporter Mary McCarthy is scheduled to be interviewed tonight at 10pm ET on WABC.

As this is the John Batchelor Show's timeslot, but it seems that McCarthy will be interviewd by Jed Babbin and Larry Kudlow. Be sure to tune in to the internet stream on WABC Radio's web site, which couldn't be easier to use. I'll be interested to hear if she is, as has been reported, "categorically denying" being the leaker.

The newborn HotAir.com has been all over the McCarthy situation, and her ties to leading Democrats and Bush haters. Today's "Vent with Michelle Malkin" gave a great round-up of what we know, and what is speculation at this point and wondered when we'll see a flow chart from the NY Times with all of McCarthy's Democrat connections, similar to the one they created (that was really reaching), in an effort to tie the Swift Boat Veterans to President Bush.

We briefly see a McCarthy flowchart float by behind Malkin during the segment, but if you're like me, you wanted to see the image and check it out for yourself. Thanks to Mind in the Qatar, we have one (h/t Expose the Left for the link).

This flowchart might be a little confusing if you don't already have the background on McCarthy's connections, which AllahPundit details in this HotAir post. If there's one roundup you read, make it this one.

AllahPundit has an even newer post up at HotAir that describes a bit of confusion on the McCarthy situation on whether she was "the leaker" or a "tipper" that lead to an investigation, that lead to leaks from others. I'm thoroughly confused now, but perhaps we'll learn more from her radio appearance. And as I look at the clock, I see it's about to start....

Before I post this and go listen to the show, just thought I'd let readers know that if they miss it, I just noticed that Expose the Left is planning to post the segment.

***UPDATE I***
The Commissar at The Politburo Diktat has put together another great flow chart for our viewing pleasure (or displeasure if you're thinking about CIA leakers).

***UPDATE II***
Have we been had? No mention of a McCarthy interview yet. I found it odd when I first read the Free Republic post that said:

According to John Batchelor's website, Mary McCarthy will be a guest tonight and be interviewed by Jed Babbin along with the host. Larry Kudlow will also serve as co-host. The show is on at 10 pm EDT on WABC radio and WMAL.

But I saw nothing on John Batchelor's site about it. Still, I assumed that with Malkin reporting it, and no reason to pull a hoax, that it was probably still true... I guess we'll have to wait and see. By the way, I just got a phone call, and missed the last 15 minutes, so if there was a mention of such an interview, I missed it anyway.

***UPDATE III***
Expose the Left confirms that there is no interview. I suppose that was all a bit of wishful thinking on our part, considering she probably won't be doing interviews when there is a likelyhood that she'll be facing charges soon.

 

h/t Michelle Malkin

The threats being screamed from a "religion of peace" Muslim jihad rally in New York City should be a wake up call to everyone. Of course it won't be, but hopefully watching this video will cause some to stop ignoring this and pretending it's not on their doorstep! Also, consider if these had been Christian protestors. Imagine the media coverage... All the networks would have had cameras there and "Hate Speech" would be the title of segments all over television news, as well as headlines in the following day's papers.