April 27, 2006
Apparently the "immigrant rights" advocates are planning a nation wide work stoppage and boycott of businesses and schools for this coming Monday May 1st, 2006. Perhaps you have not yet heard of this planned “day without and Immigrant” event. As is pointed out on SayNoToP.C.B.S. this planned work stoppage is being kept a secret from those of us evil English speaking Americans: “We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California.” Said Professor Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos… ". Most likely, you will not hear about this boycott in liberal media outlets because they largely share the same contemptuous and secretive agenda with the illegal immigrant rights advocates. Here's a novel idea for liberal "journalists": just objectively report the news to everyone regardless of their agenda. For the liberal MSM that is apparently too much to ask.
I love how the event is being referred to as the “day without an immigrant”. Of course, not all immigrants share the same agenda as the illegal immigrant rights advocates, but the illegal immigrants right advocates have to conflate the concept of “illegal immigration” with all “immigration” in order to advance their agenda by suggesting that being in favor of immigration reform is the same thing as being against all immgration. Then come the tired charges of racism and xenophobia. Of course, the new laws being proposed that are the cause of this illegal immigrant uproar do not effect those people who have legally immigrated to this country, but why let logical distinctions get in the way of this mob rule bum-rushing of the rest of the legal tax paying citizenry?
Here in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, local small businesses are essentially being intimidated into not opening their doors on Monday. Groups have been going around and “recommending” a la Tony Soprano not to do business on Monday in order to “demonstrate their solidarity” with the illegal immigrant population. How a local American citizen owned deli closing demonstrates “a day without an illegal immigrant “ is beyond me and if I owned a local business I would not be intimidated by thugs to not participate in commerce. However, local businesses are citing "repercussions" as the reason that they will comply with the wishes of the illegal immigrant population. It is a sad state of affairs when American businesses are subject to the whims of foreign nationals that find themselves within our borders.
If illegals don't want to attend work or school, not use the internet or cell phones and not make any purchases on Monday May 1st that is absolutely fine with me. My only question is: why stop there? If illegals want to boycott every aspect of American society on Monday why don’t they do us all a favor and boycott America itself by leaving it? Of course, that will not happen because it would require an actual sacrifice as opposed to simply sitting on their duffs for 24 hours and collecting the benefits of the various social programs that they have managed to scam their way into. This situation has gone way past ridiculous a while ago and I hope that there is considerable backlash to the planned "day without an immigrant" work stoppage planned for this coming Monday May 1st.
April 26, 2006
April 21, 2006
The erstwhile, United Nations, has appointed Iran to vice-chair the “disarmament commission”. I wish I was surprised or shocked, but I've come to expect this sort of thing from the well intentioned, but deeply misguided outfit known as the United Nations.
While Iranian diplomats are busy citing international accords in an effort to defend the “peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology” The Iranian President Aminijijad is busy posturing, excitedly announcing the development new advanced weaponry, and generally sabre rattling. At this point, despite Iran’s diplomatic protestations/delaying tactics, does any serious person imagine that Iran is not actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weaponry?
By appointing Iran to the disarmament commission, The UN has officially abandoned all hope of being taken seriously by any intellectually honest observer.
April 20, 2006
April 13, 2006
According to the most recent Zogby poll, "...protests across the nation against immigration proposals in Congress – particularly to make it a federal felony to be an undocumented worker in America – have not persuaded a majority of U.S. likely voters across the country. [In Fact], More said they are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction."
More Americans are having a negative reaction to the protests than are having a positive reaction.
If you buy into this Zogby poll, which I do, it appears as though the waving of Mexican flags (along with other adversarial posturing) has been counterproductive for the "Immigration rights" advocates.
The poll went on to say, "A wide majority of those participating in the survey (65%) said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers."
Count me in that 65%, and I imagine that we will see less Mexican flags at upcoming various demonstrations.
Go to the Insomnious Politico Vlog to Listen to Newt Gingrich on this flags issue and then watch Neil Cavuto battle an apologist reporter who does his best to white wash what is transpiring.
April 08, 2006
I've officially launched the Insomnious Politico Vlog. This will still be my primary blog and all relevant and available video clips can be found at the new vlog.
It was recently brought to my attention by a left leaning friend that, Like Fox News, I am ignoring the so-called leak investigation regarding Scooter Libbey et al. Fox News is hardly ignoring the story and neither am I. Please go to the new vlog for a "damning" clip of the President and my commentary on the matter.
April 06, 2006
"She played the race card and failed", Charles Krauthammer said yesterday of Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. He’s right, and this story would have been over a while ago if not for Ms. McKinney’s obvious attempt at race baiting and deflection. Also, it appears as though she has attended the Dick Durban School of non-apology apologies. I despise the non-apology. To me, it grates on all precepts of logic. Either apologize or don't apologize. If a person feels that they were in the wrong, then an apology is appropriate. On the flipside, if a person feels that they were the aggrieved party, as McKinney was initially suggesting, then they should not apologize. If only people like McKinney could speak as plainly as I have just indicated. Instead we get this Clintonion doublespeak non-apology/semi apology. On the house floor yesterday McKinney said, “I regret that this incident happened.” Right off the bat, when someone starts off with such a defensive and non-committal statement like that, you can tell that a true apology is not forthcoming. Saying, “I regret that the incident happened“ suggests absolutely no accountability or responsibility of wrongdoing. It is a generic comment, which is equal to saying, “I wish that the incident did not occur”. She went on to say, “There should not have been any physical contact in this incident.” Great…another non-committal remark. Does that mean: I should not have struck the officer? Or does that mean: The officer should not have placed his hand on my shoulder while I was in the process of ignoring security procedures? How can this be even considered anything approaching an apology? Clearly, when she says, "...physical contact should not have occurred” she is referring to the officer's conduct and not her own. Or is she being purposefully vague? What an annoying woman. She concluded with, “I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize." First of all, to whom is she apologizing to at the end of her statement? Certainly, in this final apology she is not apologizing to the officer involved, otherwise she could have apologized to the officer in person, which she has not yet not bothered to do. It is not an apology to essentially suggest the equivalent of, “I’m sorry that you got offended” or "I’m sorry that you took my remarks the wrong way". It would be like using a racial slur against someone, and then pretending to apologize by saying, “I’m sorry that you got offended.” Expressing regret is not the same as apologizing. I've already heard from those on the left protesting any rejection of this so-called apology. They say, "She apologized, what more do you want?" To them I would point out that simply because the word apology is mentioned within a body of speech does not mean that an actual apology was offered. Rather than looking for certain keywords one should look at the sum total of her remarks, which amount to an apology couched within a defense. True contrition should not contain any defensive statements.
Dick Durban would be proud, Cynthia McKinney followed his model of finding contrition only after the public outcry and repercussions drove her to do so, and then offering a cover-all-the-bases apology non-apology. Couple this with her pathetic attempt to inject race into the matter unnecessarily and anyone can agree that she is either a racist or very stupid. Either way, she has demonstrated rank incompetence. This woman is a disgrace to the office that she holds and probably should just resign.