Even though our own federal Immigration enforcement authorities seem to be having a problem with doing the job we pay them to do, it’s great to know that the U.S. Coast Guard is on the ball.

On December 18, 2005 Rivero was seen operating a 33-foot Donzi (go-fast) heading north traveling at 38 knots when he was intercepted by a Coast Guard response boat. The Coast Guard crew energized their blue lights and attempted to communicate with the operator of the speeding go-fast. Rivero failed to stop his boat and on two occasions attempted to ram the Coast Guard boat.

The Coast Guard crew used warning shots to persuade Rivero to stop, but he continued operating the boat in a reckless manner. After failing to comply, the Coast Guard boarding team fire disabling fire into the go-fast’s engines.

Once on board the stopped go-fast, the boarding team found 10 Cuban migrants in a sealed compartment. Rivero and a second smuggler had placed the migrants in a forward compartment shutting the hatch with a bungee cord from the outside.

In February, After picking up migrants in Cuba, he was chased by a Cuban gun boat when a female from his boat fell over board and drowned. Rivero was again intercepted by the Coast Guard with 21 illegal Cuban migrants on board a 30-foot go-fast 50 miles southeast of Key West, Fla.

Having been convicted, Rivero has been sentenced to 10, count ‘em, ten years.

Way to go, Coasties!

This arrived in an email forward and I thought I’d share it.

The phrase “cheap labor” is a myth, a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as “cheap labor.” Take, for example, an illegal Mexican who sneaks in here with his wife and five children. He takes a job for five or six dollars an hour. At that wage with six dependents he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year gets an “earned income credit” of up to $3,200 free. He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent, food stamps, and free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care. His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school, and require bi-lingual teachers and books that taxpayers provide. He doesn’t have to worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins, and printed material. He cannot be fired, harassed, or sued. He and his family receive the equivalent of $20 to $30 an hour in benefits, while working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6 an hour left after paying their bills and his, to say nothing of paying for increased crime, graffiti, and trash cleanup.
Cheap labor? My ass!

H/T Brenda

This was bound to happen after Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians, especially with Hamas at the helm of the Palestinian Authority. The message they sent was, “Hey, look, Mohammed, terrorism really does work, see? You’re getting Gaza! Now, keep up the good work, and remember — the harder you terrorize, the more concessions we’ll make!”

So it’s come to another war, this one against terrorists {like the war the Bush Administration is prosecuting} rather than a specific government, though the latter, as the possibility is advanced in the second article I will be linking to in this post, is strong as well in the not-too-distant future.

Here is what happens when a country is forced, by way of self defense, to go to war:

The two-storey house was reduced to rubble and rescue teams frantically searched through the wreckage for survivors while a neighbouring house was close to collapse. The force of the blast had shattered nearby windows and flying masonry had blown holes in the walls of other buildings.

Witnesses reported that the body of a child had been pulled from the wreckage of the house.

Israel defended the attack, saying that members of the Hamas military wing had been meeting in the house.
“Israel is compelled to take action against those planning to unleash lethal terror attacks against Israeli citizens,” said David Baker, an official in the office of the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert. “Palestinian terrorist leaders continue to take refuge amongst and hide behind their own civilians.”

But the strike is likely to heighten international condemnation of Israel’s reoccupation of Gaza Strip. Last week the EU and UN criticised Israel for “disproportionate use of force” against Palestinians in the territory, while the Swiss government alluded to the Geneva conventions on the laws of war in stating that the Israeli campaign amounted to “collective punishment”.

The EU and the UN can go to hell — where are their condemnations when Palestinians butcher innocent Israeli men, women and children with their rocket attacks and their suicide bombs? Oh, wait, I forgot — according to the EU, terrorism is acceptable when it doesn’t happen on their turf, but against Israel, and according to the UN, any attrocity committed against Israelis is hunky-dory. It’s fine, no problem. And what did the Swiss think when we bombed Germany during the Second World War? Did they howl then that it was “collective punishment”? I don’t think so.

The Palestinians have no right to complain about anything Israel does to defend herself against their terrorist attacks. If someone comes up to you on the street and attacks you without provocation, it’s your right to decimate them brutally and without mercy, simply because they forced you to fight against your will. Similarly, the Israelis, who have bent over backwards to achieve peace, including fulfilling their various treaty obligations on a totally one-sided basis, reserve the inalienable right to respond as forcefully as they deem necessary to protect themselves against these animals. If the Palestinians who claim to favor peaceful coexistence take umbrage with that, they shouldn’t vote terrorists into power. What they should do, however, is clean their own house, thereby eliminating the need for the IDF to do it for them.

Back in my younger days of reading western shitkicker novels, one of writer Wayne D. Overholster’s characters used an expression that has since stuck in my mind and sums things up rather well:

If you mess around with the bandwagon, you have to expect to get hit with the horn.

If the Palestinians can stand by and allow terrorism to be practiced on their behalf, then they can share in the penalties when payback time comes around.

Now, I was opposed to any surrender of land by Israel to the Palestinians, as were right thinkers and others with common sense everywhere, especially in Israel, as I’ve made more than plain on a number of occasions, but, with a hat tip to Stephanie Pearson for bringing this column to my attention, I tend to agree with Yossi Klein Halevi here regarding several factors pertinent to this post. A free suscription to The New Republic Online may be required to access the entire article.

The next Middle East war–Israel against genocidal Islamism–has begun. The first stage of the war started two weeks ago, with the Israeli incursion into Gaza in response to the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier and the ongoing shelling of Israeli towns and kibbutzim; now, with Hezbollah’s latest attack, the war has spread to southern Lebanon. Ultimately, though, Israel’s antagonists won’t be Hamas and Hezbollah but their patrons, Iran and Syria. The war will go on for months, perhaps several years. There may be lulls in the fighting, perhaps even temporary agreements and prisoner exchanges. But those periods of calm will be mere respites.

To truncate a bit,

For the Israeli right, this is the moment of “We told you so.” The fact that the kidnappings and missile attacks have come from southern Lebanon and Gaza–precisely the areas from which Israel has unilaterally withdrawn–is proof, for right-wingers, of the bankruptcy of unilateralism. Yet the right has always misunderstood the meaning of unilateral withdrawal. Those of us who have supported unilateralism didn’t expect a quiet border in return for our withdrawal but simply the creation of a border from which we could more vigorously defend ourselves, with greater domestic consensus and international understanding. The anticipated outcome, then, wasn’t an illusory peace but a more effective way to fight the war. The question wasn’t whether Hamas or Hezbollah would forswear aggression but whether Israel would act with appropriate vigor to their continued aggression.

And of course, the unilateralists had no idea that the Arabs, with whose charactar they certainly must be quite familiar given their daily proximity, and the benefit of past experience, would view the withdrawal as a sign of defeat and press harder. No, of course not. Liberal reasoning is not restricted to the U.S., Canada and western Europe. No matter how many times a snake bites them, liberals will continue to try to reason with it.

So it wasn’t the rocket attacks that were a blow to the unilateralist camp, but rather Israel’s tepid responses to those attacks. If unilateralists made a mistake, it was in believing our political leaders–including Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert–when they promised a policy of zero tolerance against any attacks emanating from Gaza after Israel’s withdrawal. That policy was not implemented–until two weeks ago. Now, belatedly, the Olmert government is trying to regain something of its lost credibility, and that is the real meaning of this initial phase of the war, both in Gaza and in Lebanon.

Still, many in Israel believe that, even now, the government is acting with excessive restraint. One centrist friend of mine, an Olmert voter, said to me, “If we had assassinated [Hamas leader] Haniyeh after the first kidnapping, [Hezbollah leader] Nasrallah would have thought twice about ordering another kidnapping.” Israel, then, isn’t paying for the failure of unilateral withdrawal, but for the failure to fulfill its promise to seriously respond to provocations after withdrawal.

Bullshit. They are paying for both.

More weighing in by the “international community”:

Absurdly, despite Israel’s withdrawal to the international borders with Lebanon and Gaza, much of the international community still sees the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers as a legitimate act of war: Just as Israel holds Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners, so Hamas and Hezbollah now hold Israeli prisoners. One difference, though, is that inmates in Israeli jails receive visits from family and Red Cross representatives, while Israeli prisoners in Gaza and Lebanon disappear into oblivion. Like Israeli pilot Ron Arad, who was captured by Hezbollah 20 years ago, then sold to Iran, and whose fate has never been determined. That is one reason why Israelis are so maddened by the kidnapping of their soldiers.

Note that it doesn’t matter to the “international community” that Israel treats its captured terrorists humanely, just as those who condemn America for the war in Iraq, including our very own liberals, do their best to ignore the beheadings and other mutilations of prisoners by the terrorists we are at war against, and equally ignore the humane treatment of the prisoners at GITMO, who fare much better than inmates of our own prisons. As I’ve written before, Israel’s very existence is an inconvenience to the so-called “international community”, so they could care less what is done to Israel, while they defend the terrorists’ right to terrorize Israel as vigorously as they please.

In exchange for the return of captured Israeli soldiers, the terrorists demand the release of their brethren from Israeli jails, such nice believers in The Religion Of Peace and paragons of justice and virtue as one Samir Kuntar:

Another reason is the nature of the crimes committed by the prisoners whose release is being demanded by Hezbollah and Hamas. One of them is Samir Kuntar, a PLO terrorist who in 1979 broke into an apartment in the northern Israeli town of Nahariya, took a father and child hostage, and smashed the child’s head against a rock. In the Palestinian Authority, Kuntar is considered a hero, a role model for Palestinian children.

Why not free that frigging animal? Not only would he be a role model for Palestinian children, he’d also be a hero to every liberal on the planet. Perhaps he and Mr. Mumia could go on a lecture tour together.

Indian officials would seem to attribute this to Pakistani Muslims.

Officials said eight explosions hit the evening rush-hour trains packed with thousands of people. No group claimed responsibility for the attack, the largest the city has experienced in years. Officials and security analysts said the coordinated explosions shared similarities to recent bomb attacks by Kashmiri militants, who in October set off three bomb blasts in markets in the capital city of New Delhi, killing more than 60 people.

Sorry, I just can’t find it anywhere within myself to be surprised. This is how Islam operates.

This one is self explanatory, and shows how there is little to choose between liberals and Muslim activists. It came to yours truly in the form of a forwarded e-mail.

Looks like a small case of some people being able to dish it out, but not take it. Let’s start at the top. The story begins at Michigan State University with a mechanical engineering professor named Indrek Wichman.

Wichman sent an e-mail to the Muslim Student’s Association The e-mail was in response to the students’ protest of the Danish cartoons that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. The group had complained the cartoons were “hate speech.” Enter Professor Wichman. In his e-mail, he said the following:

Dear Moslem Association: As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey!), burning of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called “whores” in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland, and the rioting and looting in Paris France..

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many, many of my colleagues. I counsel you dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile “protests.”

If you do not like the values of the West — see the 1st Amendment — you are free to leave. I hope for God’s sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans.

Cordially, I. S. Wichman, Professor of Mechanical Engineering”

Well! As you can imagine, the Muslim group at the university didn’t like this too well. They’re demanding Wichman be reprimanded and mandatory diversity training for faculty and a seminar on hate and discrimination for freshman. How nice. But now the Michigan chapter of CAIR has jumped into the fray. CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, apparently doesn’t believe that the good professor had the right to express his opinion.

For its part, the university is standing its ground. They say the e-mail was private, and they don’t intend to publicly condemn his remarks. That will probably change. Wichman says he never intended the e-mail to be made public, and wouldn’t have used the same strong language if he’d known it was going to get out.

How’s the left going to handle this one? If you’re in favor of the freedom of speech, as in the case of Ward Churchill, will the same protections be demanded for Indrek Wichman? I doubt it. Hey guys send this to everybody and ask them to do the same and tell them to keep passing it around till the whole country gets it. We are in a war to the bitter end.

Hat Tip: BJS

This would have been a real catastrophe, one that relegated even the descent on the Gulf Coast by Katrina the Bitch, the aftermath of that terrible visit and probably even 9/11 to Page 41.

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.
The terrorists sought to drown the Financial District as New Orleans was by Hurricane Katrina, sources said. They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

Imagine something like this happening at, say, late afternoon rush hour, when New Yorkers, plus commuters from the liberal wasteland of New Jersey and more dignified Connecticut packed the streets and subways of Manhattan by the millions. Unlike during the Katrina disaster, these people would have absolutely no notice that anything out of the ordinary was afoot, they would simply be going about their respective business when massive tonnages of water bore down on them.

Experts also said that even if the tunnel cracked, the Financial District would not be flooded because it is above the level of the river.

As the venerable James Taranto would say, “What would we do without experts?”

I know, you’re reading this post and wondering, “Seth, WTF’s yer point?”

Well, how about this? Sorry, but it means repetition.

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

The Bureau unearthed a terrorist plot that would, on achieving fruition, have more than qualified for the term “holocaust”., only this time it wouldn’t have victimized only my fellow Jews, it would have victimized seven digits’ worth of every kind of human being, from religion to economic level (or lack thereof), every ethnicity to political belief.

This kind of discovery does not originate among the trappings of liberal dogma, it is the product of complex investigative strategies and pure investigative excellence and related technologies, our Homeland Security venue and all its related agencies hard at work in conjunction with the security services of other countries.

Thank G-d these pros discovered the planned Op when they did.

Also, thank G-d the New York Times didn’t get wind of the Bureau’s investigation in its early stages. If they had, they would have trumpeted every detail they could lay hands on, amid an orgasm by Bill Keller, on their front page, thereby providing the terrorists the opportunity to cover their tracks and get away with whatever they had done or intended to do.

Okay, y’all, here’s my point: When the FBI is permitted to do what they’re good at without attracting the dubious and treasonous attention of The NYT, they can protect us “hands down”.

The NYT, on the other hand, has done and will do anything they can to sabotage anything the Bush Administration does to defend our country and its security for the simple reason that they can afterwards “blame Bush”. It doesn’t matter to liberals whether or not Islamofascists smash our country in to little bits, all they give a damn about is exposing or otherwise sabotaging our current administration’s efforts to protect our country and we, the people, in order to replace the President with a Democrat in 2008.

As is the case where the bulk of their illogical Utopian ambitions for our government and we, the people are concerned, any considerations of our wellbeing play second fiddle to liberals’ political agendas — as with the rest of their fantasies, liberals think they can always repair the damage they do to our country via “reasoned” approaches to the problems they create.

Right-O, let’s vote the likes of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton or Jack Murtha into the Oval Office in 2008 and allow them to “negotiate with terrorists” on our behalf. Let’s let them pull all our troops out of everyplace else and “redeploy” them to less hostile climes, release all the terrorists we have in custody at GITMO and organize a Maypole dance to celebrate the end of everything non-Muslim. While Keller, the ACLU, the entire populations of Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, neighboring Hollywood, New York, Chicago and other liberal enclaves line up for either decapitation or conversion to subjection to Islamism, the folks responsible for America’s demise can make their explanations, but, alas and alack, there will be no turning back, no reprieve, only the choice between Caliphate and death.

As long as we even allow liberalism in this country, we are assuming the same level of existence as your common, everyday lemming.

It’s great to know that our government is protecting us from terrorists as they are. As far as I’m concerned, my idol in the homeland security millieu is Jack Bauer. Too bad he doesn’t really exist.
If he did, I’d be his greatest fan….

Greg Crosby’s written another of his usual winners, this one on political correctness in the obese children’s arena.

…The way things are done now is tantamount to living in denial. Officials are so afraid of hurting the feelings of kids that they refuse to call their problem by its correct name — obesity. The overly delicate approach adopted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (and used by many doctors) avoids the word “obese” because of the stigma. So a kid who really is obese is simply called “overweight” by the CDC. A kid who is really overweight is called “at risk of overweight.” Don’t want to hurt the sensibilities of the little butterballs.

In my case, I was generally pretty thin until I was into my late twenties, when the indulgences of a “wine, women and song” lifestyle began to catch up with me. Even today, at fifty, I’m somewhat heavier than I’d like to be or than is healthy for me to be, and to that end I’ve enlisted the help of Matt Furey’s Combat Conditioning, the best exercise regimen I’ve yet encountered, which is based on using your own body weight as your exercise machine and which is helping me take off pounds and feel better overall, but that’s another story entirely.

Back on topic, when I was a lad, as Crosby points out as his own experience as well, there was none of this feel-good PC stuff a certain segment of our society has forced on the rest of us — if you were fat, you were told so in no uncertain terms, and that was good. Sure, it might well have hurt the feelings, for some reason, of kids who already had to know they were fat, coming into daily contact as they did with other children who weren’t fat, but it was also the best encouragement on earth to do something to remedy the situation, like eat less sweets and get more exercise. As an adult, I have met numerous acquaintances from my childhood days I hardly recognized because being called “fatty” et al finally got to them enough that they did something about it and were now in great shape.

Stroking them with neutral PC terminology doesn’t cut it, and rarely if ever will. I call attention to a quote in Greg Crosby’s OpEd,

According to Dr. Reginald Washington, a Denver pediatrician and co-chair of an American Academy of Pediatrics obesity task force, calling a child obese might “run the risk of making them angry, making the family angry,”

Instead of becoming angry, the family {In addition to the child subject of the diagnosis, I take this to mean the parents of same} should disconnect the kid from the tube, the X-Box or the computer and send him out for some exercise, refrain from over-feeding the child and counsel him/her regarding moderation during those supersized stops at the local fast food franchise after school. They should work at cultivating an interest on the part of the obese child in participating in competitive sports. Additional biproducts of a child’s being physically fit are that it generally helps bring up his or her school grades while augmenting the development of baggage-free social skills.

This is a really relevant OpEd, what I’d call recommended reading, and can be read in its entirety here.

Greetings from the U.S.A., dart board of a largely ungrateful world!

When I look at all the sacrifices this country has made and continues to make on behalf of so many others, then listen to all the negative feedback we get for it, it almost makes me want to continue building that wall along the Mexican border…. until it completely surrounds this nation, and just tell all those other countries, “Good luck on the outside”.

Peter Brookes sums things up as completely as I’ve ever seen them done in this regard, in an absolute must-read OpEd.

For all the worldwide whining and bellyaching about the United States, July 4th — America’s 230th birthday — provides an opportune time for them to consider for just a moment what the world might be like without good ol’ Uncle Sam.

The picture isn’t pretty. Absent U.S. leadership, diplomatic influence, military might, economic power and unprecedented generosity, life aboard planet earth would likely be pretty grim, indeed. Set aside the differences America made last century — just imagine a world where this country had vanished on Jan. 1, 2001.

On security, the United States is the global balance of power. While it’s not our preference, we are the world’s “cop on the beat,” providing critical stability in some of the planet’s toughest neighborhoods.

Further,

Also missing would be other gifts from “Uncle Sugar” — starting with 22 percent of the U.N. budget. That includes half the operations of the World Food Program, which feeds over 100 million in 81 countries.

Gone would be 17 percent of UNICEF’s costs to feed, vaccinate, educate and protect children in 157 countries — and 31 percent of the budget of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, which assists more than 19 million refugees across the globe.

In 2005, Washington dispensed $28 billion in foreign aid, more than double the amount of the next highest donor (Japan), contributing nearly 26 percent of all official development assistance from the large industrialized countries.

Moreover, President Bush’s five-year $15 billion commitment under the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is the largest commitment by a single nation toward an international health initiative — ever — working in over 100 (mostly African) countries.

The United States is the world’s economic engine. We not only have the largest economy, we spend 40 percent of the world’s budget on R&D, driving mind-boggling innovation in areas like information technology, defense and medicine.

We’re the world’s ATM, too, providing 17 percent of the International Monetary Fund’s resources for nations in fiscal crisis, and funding 13 percent of World Bank programs that dole out billions in development assistance to needy countries.

And what does Uncle Sam get in return? Mostly grief, especially from all the ungrateful freeloaders who benefit tremendously from the global “public goods” we so selflessly provide with our time, effort, blood and treasure. How easily — and conveniently — they forget . . . unless they need help, of course.

Brooks’ OpEd is fantastic and seems to cover all the bases. Read the entire piece here.

I used to agree with the old saying that “you can never have too much education”. Now, however, I’m not quite sure.

Oh, no, I’m not knocking education, it is important, hell, vital. What I’m thinking is that it seems like the majority of the media’s {of course, it is the media} most-quoted “hallowed” intellectuals today are extreme liberals, and I thought of one possible reason for this: Too much education.

Look at it this way — you get a teenager who has not fully developed a mature political viewpoint, purely due to a lack of “real-world” experience (you know, putting bread on the table, paying taxes, sweating overstrained household and personal budgets, worrying about corporate downsizing in their fields or from their own employers, looking for a job in a glutted market, etcetera). He/ she goes to college for four years and earns a BA or BS, then says “hasta la bye bye” and heads for the marketplace. For four years, he/ she has most likely been exposed to more than a little of the liberal political bias that seems to pervade on our campuses these days, but the new graduate’s got a strong mind and still thinks for himself.

On the other hand, whether to quench a thirst for higher learning, earn more saleable credentials, both, or simply to get mom & dad to continue supporting him/her (sad to say, but from my own observations, the latter would appear to include significantly more “hims” than “hers”), the graduate might continue on to earn a Master’s, then a PhD and end up branching off into other areas and earning other degrees, eventually going into teaching college.

We’re talking career academics, people who do little else but teach others what others taught them. It would be like spending an entire military career in boot camp, first as a recruit trainee for 500 months or so, then becoming a drill instructor. Meanwhile, the country’s been to war five times but our career boot camper has never been to any of them, and he’s training other people to go to war.

Our academics, likewise, spend their entire lives buried in what amounts to society’s training compound without ever being tested by the outside, and real, world. They are the theory side of Theory vs Practice. Consequently, they apply that theory to their opinions of what practice should be, which is more often than not like comparing an orangutang to an aardvark.

A concept (like socialism, or that diplomacy works well on people whose only demand is that you let them butcher you), even one that has repeatedly and historically proven not to work but looks good in theory is meat and drink to them. They become so immersed in their reality-sheltered world that the lives of large groups of people they don’t know don’t even matter to them, unless their circumstances help “prove” the theory at hand.

When confronted with practice-based evidence that their theories are ‘way off base, they simply ignore the new facts because they don’t fit the “accepted” scenario. This is a phenomenon known as “pontificating”, a pomposity that often afflicts those who spend too many years walking among Plato’s groves.

Somewhere along the line, one of their common theories has mankind living in harmony, good health, prosperity and peace as one global political entity, in which multiculturalism is playing an early role — deprivation of national identity. In their Utopian myopia, they don’t see the same rights they use to preach freely thus being taken away as one consequence of their theory. And remember what I said about previous failures of the concepts they espouse not mattering? We need only look to the European Union to see what happens when countries give up even an iota of their sovereignty to join in such a pact.

For some reason, too much education seems to lead to the taking of an adversarial position to the United States and our form of government as it was intended by our founding fathers, and as such has been the most successful political experiment in history. According to the output of these lifelong academics, too much education seems to cause support for failure and opposition to success.

If these people are the spokesmen for the “most educated” in this country, we’re in baaaaaad shape.

There are 3 Frenchman in the world whom I respect, one I know personally and two I have never met, one of those latter of whom I would like to meet.

This one is a blogger I’ve mentioned before, one of my all-time favorites who, for reasons of which I have no idea as it is a loss, rarely posts anymore, and more’s the pity because he is infinitely more a friend to America and the principles that make it great than the entire spectrum of American liberals.

Due to 4th of July activities, I only just saw his new post, and it is a wonderful Independence Day flash video tribute to America.

Thank You, Frogman!