My latest column for the examiner is up an excerpt:

…with the April meeting pending; organizer Justin Brooks started contacting democrats either in office or running for office. He left messages or talked to a half dozen different candidates eager to get another perspective, without success. Most office holders and candidates never got back to him, others had conflicts but when the April 26th meeting came around only a single candidate republican Mary Connaughton spoke to the 46 people assembled at the Border Grille & Bar in Leominster.

More details on the meeting are available here.

Remember hits on my examiner articles are the next best thing to hits on the DaTipJar.

Update: Instalanche on the Examiner article. Thanks muchly Glenn! Hits there are a lot more valuable to me than hits here.

Just 12 hours ago I wrote this:

The new Fiscal commission has one single purpose: To give congressional democrats political cover for the creation of a national VAT/sales tax. Even rank and file democrats aren’t going to support this, but once there is a commission then the media will make it the “responsible” decision and the lemmings who walk with the democrats and the media will do so.

Right on cue here is the Washington post describing the VAT as responsible:

The sensible real-world answer, many economists argue, is a value-added tax that would encourage saving at the same time it pays down the deficit to manageable levels. But politicians are terrified of being right too soon on this one.

As opposed to actually freezing and/or cutting government which for some reason isn’t a sensible answer.

Unfortunately for David Ignatius et/al the public see through this stuff as Rasumssan reports:

President Obama this week formally kicked off meetings of his bipartisan deficit reduction commission, but most Americans view the commission as cover for Congress to raise taxes.

I think people might have finally decided they’ve had enough and all the MSM advocacy in the world is not going to change it.

Yesterday they brought in someone to “counterbalance” the mayor of Jerusalem when he was on. Today they bring in Zbigniew Brzezinski AND Pat to critique.

You think they might have found a single person who might be on the side of Israel to appear? Apparently not.

Joe & Mika where are you?

Update:
Mika’s dad on National TV just mentioned the Soviets shooting hundreds of thousands of people in their own country in 1937. The panel was silent. It was as if it was the first time that somebody on a non-fox network pointed out the soviets were mass murderers. The silence of the rest of the panel was VERY LOUD. He then compares the Soviet denial of Katyn to Holocaust denial in front of Pat. Priceless. It’s Morning Joe’s David Souter moment an unexpected result that MSNBC would not have predicted.

Morning Joe is taking the other side of the story today.

Pat Buchanan is mentions the Mexican government’s laws against illegal immigration in passing

Joe and Mika mention the Rasmussen Poll.

They hit Mexico’s response of a travel warning.

They still hit the bill but they are giving the other side, but God bless em they are committing journalism!

One thing that has really struck me about the Arizona Law has been the almost united media reaction of how dare they.

They are beating their breasts, calling them Nazis, vowing not to do business in Arizona and posturing themselves to prove how pure they are on civil rights by bravely standing in opposition to the people of Arizona and their police.

Yet they won’t show a clip of Southpark without censoring Mohammed’s image.

That is why I call them the media human shields. Like the one’s in Iraq they “bravely” stood up to American troops fully knowing that they were in no danger from them. The media likewise will bravely stand up to Arizona police and voters because they know their “bravery” puts them in absolutely no danger.

They will however not stand up to radical Islam for the same reason why those same human shields would not go to Israel during rocket attacks nor during China during protest. They know the difference between real danger and posturing and won’t risk their necks.

My arch enemy friend Chris asked a reasonable question in comments on my Bryon York post. To Wit:

Pete, what circumstances would give an officer reasonable suspicion that a person was not a legal resident?

It’s the type of question that the media is all over today, it deserves an answer so here it comes.

You are asking the wrong person, let me explain why:

One of the things you learn in a job is how to recognize signs, for example, when debuging a system certain performance signs or browser actions will indicate a spyware issue. Others will indicate that temp files haven’t been cleaned out since sometime the Red Sox won the Series. I’ve found after a decade of doing this that I can watch a system for several minutes and have a pretty good idea what is going wrong.

This is true in any good profession or hobby. Mike the butcher can recognize the differences between different grades of meat in the shop. Bob the hardware guy knows a good door from a cheap one. Marge at ZuZu’s Petals knows a good flower from a bad one. Bill at the Border Grille & Bar knows the difference between a tomato that can be used in a salad, a sandwich or a salsa and one that is only usable during a bad performance onstage.

Likewise a police officer who has been trained in law enforcement and spending years or decades in an area where they’ve had to deal with illegal immigration on a daily basis would recognize things that you or I, not having having had said experience would not even think of looking for.

But Pete you say, we can’t trust the police to enforce the laws fairly. We can’t? Look at the record. Do you feel intimidated by the police in town? Do you feel scared or worried. They have all kinds of legal authority over you yet you don’t quake in fear? Why are you so ready to trust your local police but are unwilling to allow people from Arizona that same courtesy? Because they are different from you? Because they are republicans and/or conservatives? Because they are as Larry Baer called the tea party people “Stupid White People”? Talk about profiling!

Lets look at the record in one high visibility area. The police forces in the United States in cooperation with Federal and Homeland security have managed to successfully defend this nation from terrorist threats without the curtailing of individual rights particularly of American Muslims.

Can the American Muslim community honestly say their ability to work, or worship or live have been curtailed over the years? I think not. Can anyone rightly say that their ability to protest the war and call out President Bush was unreasonably restricted? It is to laugh.

I also think it is facetious to think that with national attention upon them said police are going to act capriciously when their jobs and futures are at stake, particularly in this economy. The ACLU, La Raza, Al Sharpton, The Free Muma, ANSWER, ACORN et/al and other who make their living ambulance chasing are drooling at the chance to catch them overstepping their authority. These cops know the score if you don’t realize that the you have not paid attention to our litigious society nor to the politics of the left.

So no I don’t know what would constitute a reasonable suspicion but the officers enforcing the law will, and if anyone is victimized by an officer going overboard there will be a plethora of lawyers and media to go after them that Ken Gladney never has and never will see after being beaten on film.

That’s why I and others don’t take people who are willing to call Arizona a police state seriously. They wouldn’t know a police state if it hit them upside the head and are only interested in feeling better about their self righteousness. Perhaps they should take a closer look at what is happening just across the border these days.

Claire McCaskill is about to go on, I’ll live blog it and see how much they feed her Arizona.

As you know I’m not a drinker but I’ll break out the 21 year old scotch and take a shot every time they mention Ken Gladney or the violence by opponents of the anti-immigration law.

I will likely be cold sober…

Update: The quote the Washington Post poll on the Bank bill, no word on the Arizona polls yet, still sober.

7:46 a.m. All pro Obama Bank bill all the time so far…

7:47 a.m. Will anyone ask her if the bill has been read by anyone?

…create a permanent minority for the republicans.

Lets go to the polls:

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans support the law along with 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party. Democratic voters are evenly divided on the measure.

Now I don’t claim to be more than a fat man in a Fedora who isn’t working but I do know a little math. If 50% of DEMOCRATS support this law then the problem politically isn’t Republicans.

Will they mention the Rasmussen reports poll? That would be journalism.

Joe Scarborough to Al Sharpton as he is leaving this Morning:

We are agreeing too much these days.

Joe I like you and I like Mika and I like Willie but if that statement doesn’t give you a clue that there is a problem then nothing will.

Will the talk about the vandalism by opponents of this bill with the same strength that the tea parties got hit for things that didn’t happen? I don’t know but it’s amazing that all I’m hearing is worries about what might potentially happen because of a law, vs what opponents of that law have ACTUALLY done.

C’mon Guys! Be reporters REPORT!