Sens. Judd Gregg and John Sununu of New Hampshire have discovered the feds' old catch-and-release game...not with fish, but with illegal aliens. The Union Leader reports:

[Gregg and Sununu] want to know why federal immigration officials decided not to step in when New Ipswich police stopped a van carrying nine illegal aliens this week.

New Ipswich Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain said he contacted the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau of the Department of Homeland Security Monday afternoon when a speeding stop led to the discovery of the illegal immigrants from Ecuador.

But ICE officials in New Hampshire and Connecticut both said they were not interested in taking custody. They advised Chamberlain to get identities and other information and release them.

The men told police through an interpreter that they had paid $10,000 each to be smuggled into the U.S. and that they make their living as day laborers in Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. Police cited the van driver for driving after suspension of his license and impounded his car.

Gregg and Sununu, both New Hampshire Republicans, said local police did their job in stopping a speeding vehicle.

But they said they want to hear what happened at ICE, which has taken many responsibilities of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Sununu said the ICE response “was disturbing and clearly unacceptable. It is the responsibility of federal officials to further investigate and prosecute any violation of immigration laws when alerted to possible violations by local and state law enforcement officials.”

Welcome to reality, gentlemen. This game has been going on a long time. You want answers? Have your staff contact Justice Department whistleblower Juan Mann at DeportAliens.com.

You want to know why consistent immigration enforcement is impossible? Well, when was the last time you voted to increase federal immigration detention space and take a stand against granting amnesty to immigration law-breakers? When was the last time you voted to punish cities that defy federal law and give sanctuary to illegal aliens? When was the last time you publicly stood up against the ACLU, CAIR, AILA, etc. etc., who scream "racial profiling" any time law enforcement officers enforce immigration law?

Look in the mirror, gentlemen (voting records here and here).

Update: Let's play catch-and-release across the USA. Send me your examples. I'll start...

July 14 - WENATCHEE, Wash. - The man now charged with the murder of deputy Saul Gallegos in Chelan was "voluntarily removed" from the United States three times in recent years but he always came back. Twice Jose Sanchez-Guillen was removed from the border at Blaine, and once in Wenatchee. Immigration experts say it's part of an old loophole in the system, where unless local law enforcement specifically notified them of an illegal immigrant in custody, they didn't know about it...

July 11 - LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Open borders activists oppose a plan by LA County Sheriff that would allow sheriff's deputies to interview foreign-born jail inmates to determine their immigration status. The Los Angeles Times (registration required) reports:

Earlier this week, dozens of inmates bunched against the exit of the Inmate Reception Center, awaiting their release. The immigration agents began by interviewing as many of those men as possible, working down a list of foreign-born immigrants provided by the Sheriff's Department. But they never finish the list.

"I guarantee you that some of the people right there, walking out the door, are criminal aliens," said Chief Chuck Jackson, head of the jail system, as he walked past the prisoners.

Ok, the kids are asleep.

1) Skeptics (yeah, even the ones who hate my guts) are having an interesting discussion here.

2) Still no word from any other passengers. It's possible that after Jacobsen appears on the networks, folks will come forward.

3) Reader Liz Roewe has sent several questions to the editors of WomensWallStreet.com and has yet to receive any answers. An excerpt from her latest e-mail to the editors follows:

The beautiful and brainy Marie Gryphon, an old Seattle gal pal and Second Amendment sister of mine, has a good piece at FOXNews.com on "The Affirmative Action Myth." Also be sure to check out this great new group blog, Right on Race, for excellent commentary from my old friend Tom Wood of AADAP and many others. And for more strong views that dissent from the civil rights establishment, check out the writers at The Conservative Brotherhood.

I have been speaking with Brendi Rawlin of Porter Novelli (PR rep for Womens Wall Street). According to Brendi, the Washington Post has been sitting on the true story of Annie Jacobsen's "Terror in the Skies" account since last Friday, when WomensWallStreet.com approached him. Dave Adams, the air marshal's spokesman, not only confirmed the story, but has also apparently supplied witness statements and other corroborations of Jacobsen's account. NBC Nightly News, ABC, and Dateline NBC are now on the story as well.

More to come...

3:24pm. Just got off the phone with Annie Jacobsen. She has been writing business reports and articles for WomensWallStreet.com and print magazines for the past two years. Recounting the flight, she told me "My legs were like rubber...It was four and a half hours of terror." She is working on a follow-up story for WomensWallStreet.com on Monday and will appear on NBC Nightly News Monday night. I asked how she felt about suspicions that her story had been a hoax. She hadn't heard of these suspicions and instead has been hearing overwhelming corroboration of her experience in thousands of e-mails, many from pilots and flight attendants reporting similar incidents.

She has been shocked that "for whatever reason, the story didn't develop" in the mainstream media.

I took off my journalist's hat and told her I thought she was a patriot for bringing the story to light.

Now, I want to know why John Mintz and the editors of the Washington Post have deemed Annie Jacobsen's story unfit to print.

Update: Donald Sensing remains skeptical.
I asked Jacobsen if she talked with other passengers. She said no. I also asked if she had heard from other passengers from her flight in response to her story. She said she hasn't. If anyone else out there was on Northwest Airlines flight #327 from Detroit to Los Angeles Flight on June 29, 2004, departing at 12:28 p.m., we'd love to hear from you.

Update II: Last post of the day on this. Wizbang, USS Clueless, and Spoons all have advice for airline passengers who might need to thwart potential terrorists.

Says Sarah W at Wizbang: "Be annoying."

That we can do! :)

Update III: Last, last post of the day. One of my favorite Pacific Northwest conservatives (a rare breed!), John Carlson at KVI-AM in Seattle, interviewed Annie Jacobsen. Charles Simpson live-blogged the broadcast here.

Regarding Annie Jacobsen's intriguing article, I just got word from Dave Adams of the Federal Air Marshals Service (FAM). Adams confirmed that he spoke to Annie Jacobsen, was quoted accurately in her story, and confirmed some of the basic facts outlined in her article (there were 14 Syrians on the flight; they were questioned by the Los Angeles Police Department, FBI, FAM, and so on; they were a musical band).

Update: I agree with many readers that some skepticism is still warranted, especially if this is the same Annie Jacobsen that wrote the piece. (Update to the update: James Taranto notes that the Jungian Annie lives in Toronto, not Los Angeles). Another quick thought: Building a bomb in mid-air using 14 operatives to take down one plane seems like a rather inefficient means of terrorism. If al Qaeda has been driven to such pathetic plots, maybe (no thanks to Norm Mineta) we really are getting somewhere.

Update II: By the way, my friend and Philly talk show host Michael Smerconish was the first to pick up on the idiotic policy that Jacobsen mentions which punished airlines for pulling over more than two Arab/Muslim passengers for secondary questioning. More info here, including Smerconish's testimony about what 9/11 commissioner and former Navy Secretary John Lehman told him.

Update III: Good discussion at Ace of Spades and via Volokh, Jeff the Baptist thinks the Syrians were just praying. Hmmmm. Thomas Galvin had his own experience observing a passenger with "an oblong object wrapped in cloth." Via Daniel Drezner, here's the February 2004 London Observer article on intelligence related to mid-air bomb plots. David Horowitz had an eyebrow-raising flight experience last month.

Update IV: The always incisive Michele Catalano writes:

If this story is real and these men were what Annie thought they were, it's a frightening story, indeed. Enough to make me start doing that nervous twitch everytime a plane flies a bit too low over my house. I thought I got rid of that twitch.

The more I write about it (as I'm reading other bloggers' reactions to the story while I compose this), the more I think, why not? They keep saying they're going to do something, why would I think this story is not true?

Again, I don't want it to be true. The implications are not something I can let my brain chew on right now. Head, meet sand.

But what if? What if they were making a dry run? You can't really protect the country by dealing in what ifs. So what's the solution? Or is there one? And what do you make of this story?

Update V: Just a side note. The air marshals' spokesman, Dave Adams, was a bit defensive in confirming the story, which seems to lend unsettling credence to Jacobsen's account, in my opinion. Also, I've been trying to get a hold of the p.r. reps for WomensWallStreet.com. A receptionist said they've been swamped with calls since this morning. Am hoping this means my colleagues in the mainstream media are digging into the story, too.

Julia Gorin, stand-up comic and Jewish World Review contributing editor, has a funny piece in the Wall Street Journal's Taste page today. She attempts to unravel the mystery of the "Anti-Semitism is Anti-Me" campaign recently launched by the Anti-Defamation League:

I couldn't help noticing, on a telephone kiosk in midtown Manhattan, a poster of an Asian child admonishing: "Anti-Semitism is anti-me." My eyes scanned to the bottom of the poster for an explanation. There I read that "anti-Semitism is anti-everybody" and was directed to the Anti-Defamation League's Web site to help fight anti-Semitism.

Mystified, I tried to think what exactly a poster like this was supposed to mean: Be careful being anti-Semitic; you might accidentally offend an Asian-American if he's adopted by Jews? Don't be anti-Semitic because we all come from Adam and Eve so, like, we're all related?

I walked on and came to another kiosk, this one sporting a white Lutheran minister of androgynous appearance. OK, I thought, perhaps this one makes sense: To a man (or woman) of the cloth, anti-Semitism runs counter to the teachings of the church. Or perhaps this minister used to be a rabbi but converted? Eventually I came upon a third poster: Apparently, anti-Semitism is also anti-Naomi Campbell; for there she was, making the same "anti-me" point.

So now I had a black woman, an Asian child and a gender-vague minister being offended by anti-Semitism...

Read the rest for the ADL's inane We Are the World, We are the Victims response.

Update: Speaking of victim campaigns, Cynthia McKinney seems to be resurrecting herself. JWR has the latest analyses here and here.

Lonewacko notes an encouraging development in the case of legal immigrants who filed a lawsuit against a big orchard owner in Washington's Yakima Valley. The plaintiffs charged that orchard executives "conspired to depress farmworkers' wages by hiring large numbers of illegal workers to set low wage standards for orchard and packing house work." Their class action lawsuit has now been certified:

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in United States District Court in March of 2000 under the Federal Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and is the first of its kind in the U.S. where legal workers have sued agricultural employers about intentional wage depression through the use of illegal labor.

Now certified as a class action, the suit represents an estimated 20,000 packing house and orchard workers of Zirkle Fruit Company, based in Selah, Washington and those legal workers hired by Selective Employment Agency to work in Zirkle's packing house operations.

Seattle attorney Steve Berman filed the lawsuit on behalf of three named plaintiffs. "We know from our investigation that a large percentage of workers hired by Zirkle are illegal. These workers know that they are not in any position to demand a fair wage, and as a result, illegally depress the wages of legal farm workers," Berman said. "It is an insidious cycle that exploits the illegal workers and victimizes the legal ones."

According to the lawsuit, Zirkle Fruit Co. conspired with Selective Employment Agency to hire illegal immigrants who would work at below prevailing wage standards at Zirkle's packing house. The company used Selective Employment as a front, buffering it from liability with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the suit claims.

"We believe Zirkle's actions are horridly unfair to the immigrant workers who have taken the legal channels to work here-making sacrifices at every step of the way to create a better life for their families," Berman added. The suit seeks an end to the practice by Zirkle, and compensation for the class members.

Good. It's way past time to turn up the heat on illegal alien employers and enforce Reagan-era sanctions against companies that subvert border security. If the federal government won't do it, lawsuits are the next best thing. Yeah, trial lawyers are by and large rapacious sharks. But any trial lawyer who understands the importance of immigration enforcement and comes to the aid of law-abiding workers is alright by me.

Unlike the miscreants in Bainbridge Island, Washington, the folks on American Airlines Flight 866 know how to show their gratitude to our men and women in uniform:

Eight soldiers flying home from Iraq for two weeks of R&R; flew in style instead of coach after first-class passengers offered to swap seats with them.

"The soldiers were very, very happy, and the whole aircraft had a different feeling," flight attendant Lorrie Gammon told The Dallas Morning News in Thursday's editions.

The June 29 seat-swap on American Airlines Flight 866 from Atlanta to Chicago started before boarding, when a businessman approached one of the soldiers and traded his seat.

Update: Reader Peter send a link to the original Dallas Morning News story on the flight here, which includes this great photo:

Meanwhile, back on Bainbridge Island, Tamar Gilson and her son, Jason, the 23-year-old military veteran who was booed and mocked by Kerry supporters while marching in his local July 4th parade, send the following notes along (Tamar also includes an e-mail address where the family can be reached):

Don't be drinking anything when you read the Incredible Hulk's diary.

Update: Will the real Hulk please stand up? Meryl Yourish alerts me to these postings (here and here) from REAL Hulk on her excellent site. She adds:

Your Blogspot Hulk, quite frankly, sucks. He uses words that the Hulk would never use, and his style isn't even close to classic Hulk. It's as bad as the Onion's Hulk column.

Peter David, who wrote the Hulk comic for thirteen years, read my Hulk and asked to reprint it in his column in the Comic Buyer's Guide. He's made no such offer to this poseur.

Ok, Hulk huckster, there better be a good explanation for this.

The good folks at the Becket Fund have returned from a fact-finding mission in Sri Lanka. Here's a summary of their investigation of religious persecution:

While Americans worry about religious radicalization in the Middle East, most of them don't know that it's increasingly happening in South Asia. There has been a recent wave of anti-conversion and anti-blasphemy bills in India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. Religious minority groups, particularly Christians, are being attacked, their leaders beaten, their houses of worship burned down. Religious majority groups, which in the various countries include Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists, are becoming ever more militant and radicalized in these areas. Americans understand the dangers that can arise from such situations, no matter where in the world.

Two attorneys from our organization, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, came back this week from a fact-finding mission in Sri Lanka. The Becket Fund is an international, interfaith, public-interest law firm that has protected the free expression of all religious traditions for a decade. Our lawyers are available for interview, and we also have many photographs from the trip. We have testimonials from clergy members there, and many contacts in the country.

On Tuesday, the Sri Lankan parliament will vote on a bill that would effectively outlaw all conversions in the country. Violence against minority religious groups, mostly Catholics and other Christians, but also including Muslims and Hindus, will almost certainly increase. Buddhism is the majority religion there, and a particularly militant strain predominates. Our lawyers spoke to pastors who have been beaten. They saw churches which have been burned to the ground. World Vision and its local partners have been attacked. Female Christian workers have been sexually assaulted.

Many Americans think of Sri Lanka only when putting on apparel with a "Made in Sri Lanka" tag. They have no idea that religious freedom is readily becoming extinct there. And they have no idea that Christianity, a religion to which the majority of Americans subscribe, is particularly under attack.

Much more here.

Several readers have sent me the link to this fascinating article from WomensWallStreet.com, which brings to mind James Woods' experience prior to September 11, 2001.

Update: Over at Redstate, Martinipundit says the story is a hoax (hat tip: Instapundit).

Update II: Reader Liz Roewe cc'd me on an e-mail to the editors of WomensWallStreet.com. An excerpt:

I am concerned about the article you published on your site. I read it through a link from Michelle Malkin’s site.... How is it that Annie Jacobsen knew they had purchased one way tickets? What is the name of the casino and did it check out? What is the relevance of whether the bathrooms used were forward or aft on the plane. Was this “camera” of the one musician’s confiscated? Very sketchy information was given as to how long these Syrian musicians were detained. What's with the "one month" response time pr comment from NWA, that seems like a pr nightmare or again, my fear, a terrible hoax put on by you people for publicity. This alarming piece need more follow up and front page exposure on your site (if you are serious) with updates.

At Tony Pipitone's request, I removed this morning's post about Pipitone's role in the Jesse Maali case. Pipitone stated in an e-mail that the Orlando Sentinel article that I relied on for this morning's post inaccurately reported the testimony of lawyer Mark NeJame. I contacted Pedro Ruz Gutierrez, who wrote the article for the Sentinel and attended the Maali hearing. He stands by his characterization of NeJame's testimony. Pipitone says he simply "called an attorney (who was not then and had never previously represented the target) to see if he had heard rumblings about an investigation in the Muslim-American business community." I apologize for suggesting that Pipitone was part of an open-borders conspiracy and willingly abetted immigration law-breaking.

The Wonkette-ization of the Washington Post continues. I've just learned that the Post is planning a Washington Post Magazine front-page cover story on Jessica Cutler because, you know, she just hasn't gotten the attention she deserves. Here's the e-mail I received from April Witt, a Post staff writer:

----- Original Message -----

From: witta@washpost.com
To: malkin@comcast.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:19 PM
Subject: Townhall Comment: Jessica Cutler

Michelle, I'm a staff writer at The Washington Post. I read your piece on Jessica Cutler. I'd like very much to interview you for a story I'm writing. If you are willing, could you e-mail me at witta@washpost.com or telephone me...with contacts numbers for you? Regards, April Witt

After speaking on the phone with her briefly to find out what the article would focus on and also alerting her to a young conservative women's event on Capitol Hill where I will be speaking on the "Girls Gone Wild" culture, I sent the following:

From: Michelle Malkin
To: witta@washpost.com
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:03 AM
Subject: Regarding your Cutler piece

Hi April - I've thought about whether I want to comment for your story, and I've decided against doing so. I am truly disturbed you are giving Cutler an entire Washington Post Magazine cover story, and I do not want to be a part of your newspaper's continued pimping of Skankette (y'all are doing it just fine on your own). Sure, it is being written under the guise of "exploring the social forces that created her." But you will have the obligatory photo spread, I'm sure. Not materially different than Maxim or Playboy. Would love to be proved wrong.

If you want to attend the conservative women's event I told you about yesterday, here is more info. Even better, if someone from your newspaper wants to do a stand-alone feature on my speech or a Washington Post magazine cover story on the Clare Booth Luce Institute--look, a group of non-promiscuous women working in Washington who don't accept money for anal sex!--I would be happy to talk further.

Best,
Michelle

The Washington Post's proud history of prize-winning journalism is here.

It has become so cliche: The next-door neighbor murders his wife. The handsome jock is nabbed for serial rape/killings. The distant son hijacks a plane and drives it into a tall building. Somebody, somewhere, commits a deed of pure, naked evil, but there's always an available idiot shaking his/her head and blubbering to a reporter, "Yeah, but he was such a good person."

They said it about Ted Bundy and Mohammed Atta and Scott Peterson. And now, Genario Garcia:

A man doused his girlfriend and three small children with gasoline inside a car and set them on fire early Wednesday as he drove, authorities said. All five died after the car crashed in flames.

Residents reported hearing the crash and seeing two adults engulfed in flames, stumbling across a road near Bonny Lake, a small town east of Tacoma. Firefighters found the bodies of a 6-month-old boy, 1 1/2-year-old boy and 2 1/2-year-old girl in the back of the burned car.

Antigone Monique Allen, 18, who had recently filed an assault complaint against the 24-year-old man, survived for nearly eight hours at a Seattle hospital, sheriff's Detective Ed Troyer said. She managed to tell investigators and family what happened before she died.

Laveda Allen said her sister had gone out the previous evening with her estranged boyfriend, identified as Genario Garcia.

Garcia snorted cocaine while they were out Tuesday night and the two began arguing, Laveda Allen said. Antigone - "Mona" to her family and friends - demanded that he take her home.

They stopped at a gas station, and, because she had been dozing, she didn't notice right away that he had filled a container with gasoline and placed it in the back seat, Laveda Allen said.

They drove along back roads before Garcia pulled a gun and pointed it at Antigone Allen's head. He grabbed the container and splashed gasoline on the children, Antigone and himself, Laveda Allen said.

He flicked a lighter and the car erupted, left the road and flipped over.

The two adults stumbled from the wreck, and Garcia, who had two guns with him, began shooting. Neighbors said he fired four or five shots. Troyer said an autopsy would be needed to determine whether any of the bullets hit Antigone Allen.

Lisa Hansen, who lives nearby, said she heard the crash and drove down the road to see if she could help. She and a friend of her sons heard a voice in the pasture screaming: "Help! Help! Help me, please!"

They saw the woman standing, with her shirt burned off, but Hansen could not get to her because an electrified horse fence was between them. According to Hansen, the woman was screaming in pain, saying, "He did it! He did this on purpose!"

Laveda Allen said doctors told her sister had burns over 85 percent of her body.

"She said she wanted to be with her babies. She wasn't angry. She knew she was going to die, and she was willing to go, but she wanted to say bye," she said.

Troyer said Allen had recently filed an assault complaint, and a deputy was assigned to the case, but the woman failed to follow through.

"They were in the process of getting back together or breaking up, off and on," the detective said. The woman's relatives indicated there had been "some unreported domestic violence," Troyer said.

Laveda Allen said she wasn't upset with Garcia, who she said was the father of her sister's three children.

"He was a good person," she said. "He was an illegal immigrant here, but he was a hard worker and tried to do what he had to do to make it.

"He just went over the deep end. He probably just loved her too much. He didn't want to see his kids being taken care of by another man."

The family is planning to bury her and the three children on Saturday, which would have been Antigone Allen's 19th birthday.

God help us.

From the mailbag: "Why are you always mad at everything? Do you ever laugh? Doesn't anything ever make you smile!?!"

Three things that made me smile today:

1) Protein Wisdom. Jeff G. imagines a brief conversation between John and Teresa, and his readers respond.

2) American Digest. Gerard has an exclusive photo of Air Force One, Kerry-Edwards-style.

3) The fairy princess who waved her magic wand and turned Mommy into a frog:

Jon Lauck has the latest on Michael Moore, Tom Daschle and Hug-gate. Moore says Daschle is a liar.

There's a pot and a kettle.

Chief Wiggles needs help! More information on Operation Give is here.

It has come to my attention that Nathan, a very cool blogger at at Brain Fertilizer, is irked that I mentioned him in a previous post, but failed to provide a link to his fabulous blog. My bad. Please help me make amends and visit him at Brain Fertilizer.

(And no, I'm not doing this for everyone!)

Paul Sperry reports on the latest Department of Homeland Security woes, including a directive ordering detention facilities to free illegal aliens because of a budget crunch. More of the same old catch and release policies.

Threat advisory level: Screwed.

Over and over again, we are reminded that the intelligence on WMDs in Iraq was flawed. Over and over again, we are informed that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. The strong implication is not just that the case for war was built on "lies" and "hype" but that Saddam Hussein was never really a major threat to U.S. interests. This view has been gaining adherents even among some who initially supported the war. As William F. Buckley Jr. put it in a New York Times interview, "With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago.... If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

Against this backdrop, this National Review Online column by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey is well worth reading. Rivkin and Casey argue that Saddam was indeed a major threat to vital U.S. interests, and that alternatives to war (i.e., international sanctions and U.N inspections), would have proven inadequate. An excerpt:

[T]he Democrat political establishment, including presidential candidate John Kerry, and his recently announced running mate John Edwards, have now broadened their attacks on the president's Iraq policy. Having spent months arguing that the problem was not with the fact that the United States effected a regime change in Iraq, but rather with how the administration went about it — not enough international support and insufficient planning for the postwar period have been Kerry's favorite allegations — now they have begun to claim that the whole enterprise was flawed.

These arguments are fundamentally wrong. They both underestimate the threat posed to the United States by Iraq's WMD programs, erroneously equating the absence of WMD stockpiles at a particular point in time with the absence of a WMD threat, and trivialize other aspects of the unique strategic challenge of Saddam Hussein. They also ignore compelling evidence that the international sanctions regime was collapsing and that the real strategic choice facing the United States was not between a regime change and containment, but between a regime change and Saddam Hussein's continuation in power, free from any meaningful constraints.

Read the whole thing.

Column's up: The mollycoddling milksops of Manila. Excerpt:

Add the flag of the Philippines to the International Hall of Appeasers. Sign this pitiful nation up for a lifetime membership to the Axis of Weasels. And remind me never again to brag about the proud fighting spirit of my ancestors.

See also Philippine Commentary, Wizbang!, The Moderate Voice, The Intergalactic Capitalist, The World Wide Rant , and Galen's Log, all of whom disapprove of Philippine officials' decision.

Update: Introducing the "Islamic Protectorate State Of The Philippines:" One Fine Jay has redesigned the flag of the Philippines accordingly.

Update II: Robert Tagorda contemplates the diplomatic and national security implications of the Philippines' pullout.

Update III: Marc Landers, CPO, USN, Ret., at USS Neverdock shares his thoughts on the Filipino people.

A reader writes: "You'll be happy to know that the public school system has taken a step further in promoting counterculture reading in schools, by encouraging their students to write based on the subject matter they read, using computers furnished with gangsta compliant software. See attached."

Headline in the Washington Times today:

Mfume calls black conservatives puppets

So, what else is new?

Well, apparently Latino liberal actor John Leguizamo is dissing Hispanic Republicans along the same lines. At the DNC fund-raising hate-a-thon in New York last week, he jibed: "“A Latino voting for a Republican is like a roach voting for raid.” (Hat tip: Rightwingduck)

All this tired, old "sellout" rhetoric reminds me: I just received my cool new Ted Rall-inspired t-shirts (courtesy of Rachel Jurado, the Banana Republican). I sent a "Self-loathing race traitor" shirt to my brother. And I may wear my "I'm Not 'White.' I'm RIGHT" shirt to the next UNITY Journalists of Color conference.

Michael King, who will be on Scarborough Country tonight taking on the NAACP mafia, has his own line of t-shirts, too: Black and Unapologetically Conservative

Get 'em while they're hot!

Athenae, posting on the premiere liberal blog run by Atrios, seriously thinks the public displays of affection (or rather, affectation) between Teresa and John Kerry are admirable and healthy. Athenae swoons:

I know I've said this before, but if we truly are electing people based on who you want to have a beer with, the last guy I want to have a beer with is the jerk who treats his wife like dirt, condescends to her in public, or complains about her in front of me. The married people I have beer with on a regular basis have (from what I can tell) healthy, adult marriages based on like and mutual respect, and nothing warms me up to somebody faster than that person praising their spouse. I have no idea what goes on in the Bushes' marriage, nor, for that matter, in the Kerrys'. But I like what I see of the two of them, that's for sure.

Hmm. The happily married, mutually respectful people I know (myself and my husband and included) do not sigh heavily and roll their eyes looking petulantly bored when one or the other partner is speaking. The happily married spouses of veterans I know do not mock their husbands' traumatic war experiences in public. The adoring wives I know do not have huge conniption fits over adopting their husbands' names.

I don't drink, but if I did, I would be afraid to get anywhere near John, Teresa, and their beer mugs.

"You've gotta like a senator who is a pooper picker-upper," said Connie Thompson of Laurel, Md., upon seeing Senator Ted Kennedy cleaning up after his dog, Splash (!).

I'll leave the comments to you all.

Via Drudge, we learn that European scientists are trying to grow an affordable AIDS vaccine in genetically-modified plants. You might think this is good news, but not everyone thinks so. So upset are environmentalists in Europe that the crops will probably have to be grown in South Africa, where the threat of sabotage is lower. Clare Oxborrow, a Friends of the Earth spokesperson, explained her opposition to the project as follows:

Growing medicines in plants has serious implications for human health and the environment. We recognise the need for affordable medicines to be made available to people with life-threatening illnesses but this research could have widespread negative impacts.

Millions of people are contracting AIDS every year, particularly in places like Africa that environmentalists claim to care about. The cost in human suffering is staggering. Meanwhile, not one person had gotten sick from genetically-modified food. Yet Oxborrow would prefer that research on an AIDS vaccine be shut down because "[g]rowing medicines in plants has serious implications for human health."

And it's not just AIDS. According to Mike Fumento's book, BioEvolution: How Biotechnology is Changing Our World, tests are underway to develop:

• bananas, potatoes, and carrots that prevent Hepatitis B;
• potatoes that induce immunity against the Norwalk virus;
• tomatoes and spinach that prevent rabies;
• soybeans that prevent respiratory syncytial virus;
• soybeans and corn that prevent genital herpes; and
• turnips that produce interferon for treating people with hepatitis B and C.

All of this research is under fire by Luddite environmentalist groups like Friends of the Earth. As I wrote last fall, their solution is to wear red-string bracelets, eat organically grown ginger, and pray to Gaia.

Update: On a related note, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan link to this article on the lack of progress in finding an AIDS vaccine. "This is a global disgrace," says Seth Berkley, director of the non-profit International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. "There hasn't been a serious effort, and until there is a serious effort, we'll never get there."

A few days ago, I blogged on the Philippines going wobbly in the face of threats by Islamofascists who kidnapped a Filipino truck driver in Iraq. Now, just as I feared, it looks as though President Gloria Arroyo has fallen over completely. According to Reuters:

"The Philippines will withdraw its forces from Iraq "as soon as possible," Philippine deputy foreign minister Rafael Seguis said on Monday in a statement he read out on al Jazeera television. "In response to your request, the Philippines ... will withdraw its humanitarian forces as soon as possible," Seguis said according to al Jazeera's Arabic translation of his remarks. His statement was addressed to a group calling itself the Islamic Army in Iraq, which is holding a Filipino driver hostage and has threatened to kill him unless Manila agrees to withdraw its troops by July 20.

"I hope the statement that I read will touch the heart of this group," Seguis told the satellite television from Baghdad.

Seguis ends his pathetic bleat with this statement to the terrorists:

"We know that Islam is the religion of peace and mercy."

Looks like it's time to add the Philippines to the Axis of Weasels. This is a grave embarrassment to a country that has long prided itself on its fighting spirit and its people's willingness to die for the cause of freedom. I know my grandfather, who fought alongside U.S. troops and survived the Bataan Death March during World War II, would be cursing mightily had he lived to see this day.

Update: Cranial Cavity welcomes President Arroyo to the Coalition of the Appeasement Monkeys.

Wretchard at Belmont Club calls her a Manila Folder.

Captain Ed concludes that "the Filipinos have guaranteed that the Islamofascists will continue its kidnap-and-behead strategy, undermining the efforts not only of the US but also those of the nascent Iraqi government. While their new security forces train to find and eliminate these lunatics, the Filipino government accedes to their "requests" as if they have diplomatic standing. It's a dispiriting display of political cowardice on behalf of the Arroyo administration, who would have been much better served by standing fast."

Agreed.

Update II: So much for Balikatan. Man, am I eating those words tonight.

The name will be unfamiliar to most, but Constantine Menges was a great American dedicated to the preservation of freedom and security. He served under President Reagan as Special Assistant for National Security Affairs and at the CIA as a National Intelligence Officer. He was a scholar, author, university professor. Menges oversaw the design of several major successful foreign policy strategies, including countering Soviet political warfare/indirect aggression and encouraging transitions to democracy abroad.

Menges died on Sunday of cancer. Thor Ronay of the Strategic Information Group sends his remembrance:

Dr. Constantine Menges was a patriot, strategic thinker, and an accomplished national security official who served his country with honor and distinction. And, as important to him as a teacher, he was not only a trusted counsel for Members of Congress and Administration officials (of both parties) -- but a valued mentor to several younger national security practitioners who went on to serve in all levels of government and policy leadership.

In a classic American story, Constantine was an immigrant whose professor father, after being arrested in 1937 for publicly opposing Hitler, upon release wisely fled Germany. Constantine, born on the run in Turkey on the first day of WWII, (9/1/39) arrived six years later in the US. After graduating from Columbia, Constantine began a career in service to his adopted country, first at Hudson, recruited by Herman Kahn, then at RAND (one of the first cohort developing Soviet nuclear targeting strategies), and then in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan Administrations. From the dock to the White House in one lifetime.

Aside from his training in both physics and security policy, and his broad education in political history (which he taught at Wisconsin), he knew that as important as how things worked was how to work them for postive change, not mere stewardship. From the beginning, Constantine understood the importance of what he called "political action"and "political education" in service of national security at home and freedom abroad. He also believed in the need for advocates, particularly conservatives, to match their ideological determination with the necessary if burdensome requisites both of bureaucratic infighting and strict adherence to the facts -- all while never giving any quarter to opponents.

Constantine's ability to conceptualize and guide political warfare in support of democracy was perhaps his strongest contribution; a skill he would lament is now almost completely absent in the US arsenal. He was an early supporter of the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy, a co-founder of the Demcoracy International (1978), and played a major coordinating role in countering Soviet front activities and coalitions for over 30 years -- having been present helping people to escape when the Berlin Wall was being built. (He was on the line similarly in Mississippi during the height of the voter rights struggles in the "long hot summer" of 1963.)...

...While he served three Presidents, his service in the Reagan years was, both at CIA and the NSC, was the most vital -- especially in Latin America. While many take credit after the fact for what became known as the "Reagan Doctrine" -- it was Constantine who, in 1968, wrote the original RAND paper that became the Reagan Doctrine, "Democratic Revolutionary Insurgency as an Alternative Strategy" -- arguing that "Communist regimes are very vulnerable to a democratic national revolution that is conducted with skill and the determination to succeed." He knew there had to be a military component to match the political work; neither alone would be sufficient.

...It is not to much to say that millions of people around the world, but particularly in Latin America, owe their freedom in some measure to the tireless efforts of Constantine Menges. Bill Buckley wrote, "Constantine Menges is among the wisest and ablest of those who have sought to realize Ronald Reagan's foreign policy goals."

...In recent years Constantine continued his work on Russia and China, and tirelessly pursued a range of political action activities aimed at target such as Castro's Cuba and Chavez' Venezuela, pointing again to the threat posed by destabilizing coalitions of antidemocratic forces.

The week before his untimely passing Constantine was slated to be a panelist at a Hudson Institute conference on the US-Taiwan-PRC relationship. He was concerned about China's military threat and its potential to support anti-American coalitions in the Middle East and elswhere; and, at the same time, he was concerned about the cohering of democracies in the defense of freedom. In this case: how the US could best stand with the 27 million people of Taiwan, and how we might prepare now for supporting proactively democracy in mainland China, and of course, how those two properly are related.

That was Constantine Menges, giving his all to support the vision of democracy and freedom. "It's not inevitable," he always said of democracy, "but it's certainly achievable by people of good will and strong conviction. And, it's Always in the best interest of the United States."

Freedom has lost a friend and the country has lost a Patriot.

Please keep his family in your prayers.

Update: For those in the Washington, D.C., area, funeral services for Dr. Menges will be held on Friday, July 16, at noon at the Holy Trinity Church, 3513 N Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Condolences may be sent to Mrs. (Nancy) Menges and her son, Christopher, at 1543 33rd Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007.

The recording artist known as "Jadakiss" is earning big bucks and bling-bling with a new hit single called "Why?" (Hat tip: Resurrection Song)

The song accuses President Bush of involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, with the lyric "Why did Bush knock down the Towers?" According to Reuters/Billboard, Jadakiss said:

"I just felt [he] had something to do with that," Jadakiss says, referring to the events of Sept. 11. "That's why I put it in there like that. A lot of my people felt that he had something to do with it."

"My people" presumably includes fellow rappers "The Coup," who had the good taste to release an album less than three months after the September 11 attacks showing the duo partying in front of the flaming towers. A self-identified "communist" and son of a Black Panther lawyer, The Coup's Boots Riley says he wanted to spread the message that "the blood that happened on [Sept. 11] is on the hands of the U.S. government."

I'm sure these noble works of poetry will be on your children's summer reading list in no time!

I'm adding the fearless Shannen Rossmiller to my list of Moms Who Rock--but with some reservations, which I'll get to in a sec. The Houston Chronicle profiles Rossmiller today, going into great detail about how she works by day as a judge, at by night as a terrorist hunter:

By day, she’s the municipal judge of this tiny town, a wife and mother of three, but by moonlight Shannen Rossmiller is a spy.

Then, Rossmiller — petite, blond and 34 — assumes one of several unlikely false identities, all angry, violent, Muslim men, nurturing hatred of the United States. In that guise, she combs the Internet through the late evening and early morning and sifts through the messages and declarations on extremist Islamic Web sites.

During those hours, Rossmiller is on a quest that consumes hours of each day, days of each week. It’s one that will place her on the stand Thursday as the government’s primary witness against a National Guardsman accused of offering information to help Muslim extremists kill U.S. troops.

It’s a quest that has already placed her in danger.

Rossmiller works with an exclusive group, a coalition of seven civilians, international "cyber spies" who chase terrorists on the Internet.

They call themselves the "7-Seas."

Until recently they were a largely unknown, almost clandestine bunch. Named for its global scope, the group consists of Rossmiller; a nuclear physicist/software designer in Canada; a corporate security consultant in Houston; a former private detective in Singapore; an Australian; and two other Americans.

Rossmiller and her colleagues would have remained anonymous if it hadn't been for her success in nabbing National Guardsman Ryan Anderson, accused of attempting to defect to al-Qaida and offering information on troop strength and vulnerable points on a Bradley Fighting Vehicle:

After exchanging 27 e-mails with Anderson ("Abdul Rashid"), Rossmiller called the FBI. Undercover agents then met with Anderson in a secretly videotaped session, during which he designated vulnerable points on a tank and offered other information.

Rossmiller netted an arrest...

...And was called to testify at Anderson's preliminary hearing in May. Her identity was revealed in court. Days later, phone threats were called in to Rossmiller’s office in Conrad, and she has been under police protection since.

Okay, here are my questions: This woman and her colleagues are amazing patriots. But why wasn't her identity concealed in court? And why did the Chronicle decide to endanger her even further? As much as I was glad to read the story, it seems to me that the publicity may deter other citizens from undertaking similar efforts--the opposite of what the government would want. Or maybe not...

Update: Reader Nathan passes along this interview with Rossmiller from MTPolitics.net.

Update II: I asked the brilliant Andrew McCarthy, former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, for his thoughts on Rossmiller's outing. Here's what he had to say:

This revelation of her identity is something that, unfortunately, often happens in two different kinds of prosecutions -- and this case features both: (a) sting operations and (b) cases featuring Internet chat room evidence.

Taking entrapment first, a defendant caught in a sting almost always claims to have been entrapped. (Usually, the evidence is so damning that he has no choice but to say "The devil made me do it.") There are two ways for the government to defeat an entrapment defense: (i) demonstrate that the defendant took the first step toward (i.e., initiated or proposed) the crime, or (ii) even if the government operative took the first step, prove that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. To increase the chances of conviction, the government will always prove predisposition even if the evidence shows the defendant probably took the first step (so the prosecutor can make the "even if" argument for conviction, which is usually very powerful). Consequently, if Anderson claimed that the FBI guys entrapped him, the government would have wanted to prove his prior chat room conversations with Judge Rossmiller to show that he was predisposed to help al Qaeda long before the FBI sting ever happened. If those conversations thus became an important part of the case, she would almost certainly be a necessary witness to explain them. (Otherwise, he could claim that it was all a joke and that the person he was talking to in the chatroom was someone who knew he was kidding.)

Next, chat rooms. I do not consider myself a techno-wonk, but I know enough to know that, unlike regular email, chatroom evidence is pretty hard for Internet Service Providers to preserve -- i.e., you often cannot get it by subpoena. On the other hand, a witness to a conversation can always testify that the conversation happened, and can authenticate a transcript of the conversation (if she has kept one) in a way the ISP might not be able to. Assuming that (a) the government thought it was important to prove the chats (whether to defeat an entrapment claim or because they actually charged some crimes directly out of the Internet chats), and (b) Anderson was unwilling to stipulate to the authenticity of the transcripts, the government would have needed a witness to prove those chats, and Judge Rossmiller would have been the obvious witness.

This is one reason why I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment that Judge Rossmiller is a patriot. There is ALWAYS risk attendant to cooperating with the government, and the real patriots bear the risk. Sometimes the government can conceal a witness's identity, but most of the time people who are crucial to the government's ability to make the case -- especially if they've had extensive interaction with the defendant -- end up being exposed. That's probably what happened here.

This is part of the reason that I've been writing that the law enforcement approach to terrorism, where terrorists get the advantage of our generous due process standards (including discovery about informants), is nuts -- we have to tell the bad guys too much. As this case shows, the military justice system is not a perfect antidote to that problem.

Fifty years ago, at Oxford University, Roger Bannister became the first human being to run a mile in less than four minutes. Today the record stands at three minutes, forty-three seconds. In the not-so-distant future, with the aid of gene therapy, we may see someone run a three and a half minute mile. Unfortunately, athletes who choose not to use performance-enhancing therapies will be (and are) at a serious disadvantage. In track and field, many men's world records and most of the women's records are viewed with skepticism. Call me a Luddite, but I miss the days when incredible athletic performances could safely be assumed to be the product of hard work and God-given talent.

1) Excellent column this morning by Jeff Jacoby, who takes a "New look at Bush's 16 words." Here's the conclusion:

Intelligence failures are not the same thing as lies. And intelligence failures about Iraqi WMD did not begin with the Bush administration. It is worth recalling that the CIA was way off the mark in its estimates of Saddam's chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs before the first Iraq war, too. It turned out then that Saddam was a much more dangerous WMD menace than the experts had realized. The experts then underestimated the threat. This time around, they may have overestimated the threat. But if intelligence mistakes are inevitable, is it better to worry too much about potential threats or to worry too little? Worrying too much -- if that's what happened -- resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants. Worrying too little resulted in 9/11.

Couldn't have said it better.

2) John O'Sullivan's review of Sam Huntington's book, Who Are We?, is the best written so far. (Hat tip: David Orland.) In response to critics who have pooh-poohed Huntington's dire concerns about the negative effects of massive illegal immigration on American culture and who have labeled Huntington a racist for expressing his well-founded and reality-grounded views, O'Sullivan observes:

The final resort of critics when faced with evidence they don’t like—especially statements by irredentists claiming that the American Southwest is destined to return to Mexico—was either “well, they don’t represent anyone” (even when the speaker was the spokesman for an irredentist organization) or “well, they don’t really mean it.” There is no answer to that. Nor is any answer needed.

But the third point is more worrying. An alarming number of critics, some apparently academics, denounced Huntington’s arguments as “poisonous,” “incendiary,” “unabashed racism,” and so forth in a highly intemperate fashion, while misquoting and misunderstanding his actual arguments. Professor Bruce E. Wright of California State at Fullerton remarked that the article was an affront not only to Hispanics and Catholics (a Catholic myself, I had failed to be affronted) but also to “those of us”—such sang froid!—“whose identity is not so shallow as to be threatened by a massive invasion of others.” The Rev. Edward Lopez of New York thought that Huntington was “threatened by diversity” and “frightened by the world around him.” Patricia Seed of Rice University lamented “the arrogance of an East Coast Brahmin.” There was the usual irrelevant blather about how earlier Huntingtons had measured skulls and dismissed the potential of now successful immigrant groups. And there was a theme running through almost all of these critiques—the America of Huntington’s youth was being replaced by a better, more vibrant, and more just America, one of diversity and multiculturalism. To resist this evolution in defense of a past America was a sign of nostalgia at best, of wicked nativist racism at worst.

It is tempting to dismiss these denunciations as a cry for help. But they must be taken more seriously. After all, several letter-writers went to the lengths of arguing that Huntington’s article should not have been published and that Foreign Policy should apologize for printing it. It seems reasonable to infer that people holding such views would not willingly allow such arguments to be expressed in their churches, schools, and colleges or treat fairly any student who submitted an essay advancing them. The later anonymous Economist reviewer, who was not uncritical of the book, was nonetheless upset by these outbursts that sought, in effect, to censor the rational expression of reasonable fears. They reflect a disturbing willingness to enforce an orthodoxy on dissenters and indicate a moral atmosphere that might best be described as “soft totalitarianism”—even when, or particularly when, the orthodoxy is a minority opinion and the majority has invariably rejected any clear expression of it.

Again, I couldn't have said it better myself (though I will try to say more about this subject at some point). Meanwhile, do take the time to read O'Sullivan's piece in its entirety.

"Sanitation worker."

"Exotic dancer."

"Domestic engineer."

And now this: Watching commercials during the Olympic trials earlier this evening, I learn that the guy who slops together my Subway meatball sub (6-inch on white, salt & pepper, and parmesan cheese) is...a "Subway sandwich artist!"

Next up: Domino's "pizza escorts?"

The mayor and other elected officials in Washington DC want to bring back a major league baseball team to the city. And, as in many other cities, they want to pay for it in large part with government funds. Fortunately, not all of DC's leaders are going along with the program. Two council members, Adrian Fenty and David Catania, declared their opposition in a letter to the Washington Post:

Bringing a major league baseball team back to Washington would be great for the District, but not if the price is a huge public subsidy. It's far more important for D.C. residents and for the future of the District to focus on issues such as schools, health care, public safety, employment, affordable housing, opportunities for youth, neighborhood development, libraries and environmental protection. These are the priorities raised by residents at community meetings and citizens' summits sponsored by the mayor. For this reason, we cannot support a proposal to finance a baseball stadium entirely, or even substantially, with public funds.

On this issue, alas, Ralph Nader makes a lot more sense than many Republicans.

Or whatever the number is now. This time it's the federal immigration ban on people with AIDS.

FLIP...

Kerry 2004 announced Saturday: "I will work with Congress to lift the immigration ban on HIV-positive people that has prohibited the United States from hosting [an annual AIDS conference]."

FLOP...

February 1993, Boston Globe: "The US Senate dealt President Clinton his first legislative defeat yesterday, voting to write into law the Bush administration's policy prohibiting people infected with the AIDS virus from immigrating to the United States. The defeat came despite Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's spirited battle in defense of the president's commitment to lift the prohibition. The Senate voted, 76-23, to prevent people infected with the HIV virus, which causes AIDS, from immigrating, after defeating by a 56-42 vote an amendment by Kennedy that would have kept current federal policy in place for 90 days but left Clinton free to change it after that. Kennedy accused the Republicans of both racism and partisan mean- spiritedness.

Voting for the prohibition were Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut; Sen. William S. Cohen, Republican of Maine; Sen. John F. Kerry; Sens. Judd Gregg and Robert C. Smith, Republicans of New Hampshire; Sen. John H. Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; Sen. Claiborne Pell, Democrat of Rhode Island; and Sen. James M. Jeffords, Republican of Vermont.

Yup. Time for the Bush campaign to update its website list of Kerry flip-flops. Be sure to take a Dramamine before reading it. I do not want to be responsible for any nausea or vomiting that may ensue.

Former L.A. mayor and current California education chief Richard Riordan made some weird comments to a little girl named "Isis" last week. The proud little girl had asked if he knew what "Isis" meant (Egyptian goddess). Apparently having a senior moment, or a brain fart, or just plain sick and tired of pretending to like rugrats, Riordan joked that her name meant "Stupid, dirty girl." The NAACP called on Riordan to quit. Democratic state Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally started organizing a march. Dymally was quoted in the San Jose Mercury News Thursday demanding to know whether Riordan would "have done that to a white girl?"

And then the lynch mob discovered that Isis is...a blond-haired, white girl!

The P.C. hounds have been called off and the spirit of Emily Latella has descended over California.

Meanwhile, the blogosphere has been having a field day. Inquiring minds want to know: Where's the ACLU to sue Dymally and the NAACP on behalf of Isis? Isn't racial profiling illegal in California? Hmmm???

UPDATE: Video link is up at The Smoking Gun.

My old hometown of Seattle--the Berkeley of the Pacific Northwest--just can't stop showing its contempt for America.

Take a look at this disgraceful incident on Bainbridge Island, a few miles west of Seattle proper (and the future home of Hollywood liberals Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anniston). One of the participants in Bainbridge Island's annual Independence Day parade was Jason Gilson, a 23-year-old military veteran who was injured in the line of duty in Iraq. He wore his war medals and carried a sign indicating his support for President Bush--heresy on liberal Bainbridge Island. Upon seeing Gilson and his sign, the crowd booed and called him names including "murderer" and, yes, "baby killer."

Kevin Dwyer, mealy-mouthed executive director of Bainbridge Island's Chamber of Commerce, is quoted in Seattle Post-Intelligencer writer Robert Jamieson's column making excuses for the crowd's outrageous behavior: "I believe (Jason's) mom when she said her son was called 'a murderer.' But I'm sure it wasn't so much directed at the kid as it was the president. A soldier with a sign represents that."

Meanwhile, at the same parade, Jamieson reports that "people bearing pro-Kerry signs were cheered and applauded for, among other things, tooling around in an environmentally responsible car."

The Seattle area's reprehensible treatment of Gilson is par for the course. The region is represented, after all, by Baghdad Jim McDermott--who had taken Saddam's cash and trashed America while on an Iraq junket as our soldiers prepared for war.

And a few months ago KVI talk show host John Carlson wrote an outstanding column about how "Seattle Welcomes Everyone--Except Patriots." Excerpt:

Today the entire city prides itself on its open-mindedness. Seattle not only tolerates nonconformity, it celebrates it. It is Seattle where a proposed group home for homeless alcoholics would allow them to drink in their rooms. It is Seattle where police were ordered to pull back during WTO, which allowed the streets to be taken over and occupied by tens of thousands of demonstrators. It is Seattle where a man running for mayor got up during a candidate forum wearing a housedress and combat boots and started dancing on a table. It is Seattle where not one politician, progressive pastor or academic has complained about a sign hanging in a storefront on Rainier Avenue urging ``Victory to the Iraqi Resistance!'' It is Seattle where a militant black Muslim, James Ujaama, who eventually pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban, was initially defended by some journalists and civil rights leaders because of his previous community activism.

And feelings matter too. It was in Seattle where County Executive Ron Sims sent out a memo during the holidays asking his employees not to wish each other a ``Merry Christmas'' because it might inadvertently offend some people.

It doesn't matter how far out your politics, religion or beliefs are, Seattle is committed to fostering respect for all points of view.

Except one.

If you are a supporter of George W. Bush, or a Republican, or even just an old fashioned, flag-waving patriot, you are not welcome in The Emerald City.

Ken Potts, a veteran of three tours of duty in Vietnam, lives in Seattle's Shoreline area, where his property and truck have been repeatedly vandalized. The reason? He supports George Bush.

His house has been bombarded with eggs, both front and back, his truck scarred with a one-foot scratch. Mail containing left-wing and anti-American literature was sent anonymously to ``The Patriot.'' ``I assume,'' he says, ``it is because I have a large ``Bush-Cheney'' sign on my house. I also have the 101st Airborne Flag flying night and day and also the American flag on a 25-foot pole during the day. My mail box was also blown up three times last year until I mounted a 20-pound one on a solid steel post cemented into the ground...''

Until Baghdad Jim McDermott apologizes to Jason Gilson, until John Kerry condemns his people's treatment of a war veteran, and until Seattle's harassment of U.S. soldiers and patriots ceases, we should stop calling them "anti-war." Despite their vehement protestations, they are anti-troops and anti-American.

The Left insists that "dissent is patriotic." In Seattle, it's seditious.

UPDATE: Lt. Smash has been on the case. Rightwingduck juxtaposes past and present. Spoons says: "There are two Americas--and Seattle is in the other one." Lots of other great comments. Keep 'em coming.

And oh, by the way, the Bainbridge Island Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored the parade and apparently approves of the way the parade announcer disparaged Jason Gilson, can be reached at info@bainbridgechamber.com. Feel free to share your thoughts.

It's not often that The Financial Times devotes coverage to a U.S. talk radio interview, but the staid British business publication did just that in this morning's edition. The topic of the story was John Kobylt's take-no-prisoners interview of Asa Hutchinson, the #2 official at the Department of Homeland Security. Calling the interview "extraordinary," the Times said Hutchinson "floundered" and was "[o]bviously ill-prepared." The Times viewed Hutchinson's decision to appear on the John and Ken show as politically significant, noting that it "suggested a rising awareness in the administration that persistent concern over illegal immigration could have significant implications for the president's re-election campaign in the south-west." Much more here.

Update: A reader informs me that Hutchinson has been assigned a new phone number, thanks to the large volume of calls from KFI listeners. His new number is 202-282-8077. My reader helpfully offers a few other relevant phone numbers:

Oh, by the way, here are the numbers for the people who work right under Asa. (I suspect that Asa might be a little bit media-shy right now.)

Brad Kidwell, Executive Assistant to Director of Operations, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, 202-282-8064

Matt MacKoviac, Assistant to the Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border and Transportation Security Directorate, 571-227-3963, or cell phone 202-841-9154

Yesterday's New York Times contained quite a "scoop" about the destruction of President Bush's military records:

Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon....

The disclosure appeared to catch some experts, both pro-Bush and con, by surprise. Even the retired lieutenant colonel who studied Mr. Bush's records for the White House, Albert C. Lloyd of Austin, said it came as news to him.

The loss was announced by the Defense Department's Office of Freedom of Information and Security Review in letters to The New York Times and other news organizations that for nearly half a year have sought Mr. Bush's complete service file under the open-records law.

There was no mention of the loss, for example, when White House officials released hundreds of pages of the President's military records last February in an effort to stem Democratic accusations that he was "AWOL" for a time during his commitment to fly at home in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

The story was published all over the world and prompted the usual "Bush is such a liar" comments from anti-Bush folks.

Fairly typical was the reaction of MemeMachine, who wrote: "Sometimes I feel like I can’t keep up. The Pentagon accidentally destroyed Bush’s service records. Whoops .... Strangely enough, there was no word of this when the White House released what they said were all of Bush’s military records earlier this year."

Today's Times , however, contains the following correction:

An article yesterday about the destruction of some payroll records of National Guard members, including President Bush, misstated the record of White House acknowledgment of the loss. The White House indeed took note of the missing information last February when it released hundreds of pages of Mr. Bush's military files. In a briefing paper for reporters on Feb. 10, summarizing those files, it noted that payroll records for the third quarter of 1972 had been lost when they were transferred to microfiche.

In other words, this "scoop" was disclosed by the Bush Administration five months ago. I'm glad the Times admitted its error. Here's hoping that those who made hay over the Times' "disclosure" also issue corrections.