I stumbled upon this during my morning tour of the net. The following Video is a guy form the UK who hits the nail on the head with an uncommon frankness. It is worth the time to watch it.

And before you say, “That is Europe, it’s not like that here” - think again. It is not so far off as you may think.

Some of my favorite quotes:

“And any concession made will be seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited further, because there is no dialog with radical Islam. It doesn’t want to be agreed with. It wants to be obeyed.”

“And before somebody accuses me again of insulting Islam, please grow up. I don’t need to insult Islam when there are already so many Muslims willing to do it for me every time they strap on a suicide belt or stone somebody to death for the crime of having a private life.”

I should probably point out that the author, Pat Condell, is not just anti-Islam. He seems to be Anti most things - any religion, the US, Israel, etc. That is his right, and I welcome him to his opinion.

According to the Washington Post, US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (aka ICE) has almost tripled the number of deported illegal alien criminals.

Long accused of failing to do enough to deport illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, federal authorities have recently strengthened partnerships with local corrections systems and taken other steps to monitor immigrants facing charges, officials said.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that in the 12-month period that ended Sept. 30, it placed 164,000 criminals in deportation proceedings, a sharp increase from the 64,000 the agency said it identified and placed in proceedings the year before. The agency estimates that the number will rise to 200,000 this year.

The heightened scrutiny, fueled by post-9/11 national security concerns and the growing debate over illegal immigration, has introduced a major element to the practice of criminal law in the Washington region and other parts of the country with large immigrant populations.

Naturally I would lie to see this expanded even more. First, it only scratches the surface of the illegal immigrant involved in crimes, and doesn’t touch those already incarcerated in the US. Secondly, while focusing on those who commit crimes is the logical starting point - just being here illegally is a crime and should be prosecuted accordingly.

None the less, good progress. Keep up the good work guys.

Also Reporting:
Wake up America

This was too good not to share. A little sarcasm in the morning makes the day go smoother.

Hat Tip to Lone Ranger and Dustin’s Gun Blog

Gun Control - Simple Solutions for Simple Minds
Ten Really Good Reasons To Ban Guns - a satire by Bruce Gold

1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a “non-event,” which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion.

2.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned.

3.) Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun defenses, no shot is fired. If you are not going to fire a shot, you clearly don’t need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary. Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.

4.) Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun-law Washington, D.C., violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia. This migration is caused by the criminal’s cowardly avoidance of armed householders and concealed-carry civilians. This criminal migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no-gun areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.

5.) Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people everywhere.

6.) No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder. The Police will protect women by investigating the crime after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection anyone really needs.

7.) Gun owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to children.

8.) Gun owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept out of the hands of citizens.

9.) Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns. Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipate the fantasies created by violent video games and TV. Ignorance, once lost, can never be restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of all the violent movies, TV shows, video games, etc!

10.) Guns reduce people’s reliance on the Police and Government. This fosters a mistaken belief in “rights”. No person has the right to question authority. No person should be less than 100% dependent on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is good.

Just watching this video sent a shiver down my spine. Is this guy real? Has he learned nothing from our history, nothing from the millions of American’s who have die in unprovoked attacks?

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Lets look at this point by point.

1. I am the only major candidate who opposed this war from the begining, and as President I will end it.

Of course you will - that is just the sort of short sighted response I would expect. Lets pull out while the tide is shifting, while progress is viable, and before the Iraqi government is in a form where it can sustain itself. Lets ignore that there is a group of religious zealots (of which, I might add, you are one) who are focused on killing us. Lets make sure the world knows we lack the courage of our convictions, and cannot be bothered to stand by our allies.

2. I will cut 10s of Billions of Dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missal defence systems, I will not weaponise space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the annual (?) defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

Sounds like the anti-gun rhetoric on a larger scale. Have we not leared that relying on the good intentions of others is a risk a country like the United States cannot take? Only from a position of strength can you protect our country, and any candidate who cannot come to that realization should never become Commander and Chief. It is a recipe for disaster, and shows a stunning naivety in the face of our history. Do you really think leaving us defenseless is the way to secure our way of life and our future or do you just think that way of life is not longer worth fighting for?

3. I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons, I will seek a ban on the production of fissionable material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Again, the time proven fallacy that we provoke not by our existence but by our armament. And if those radicals continue to hate us, continue to develope nuclear weapons, and continue to attack us - what then?

Obama, you disgust me. You would tear down this great country with your own hands if we let you. I used to think you where just you, inexperienced and naive; but now I know you for a foolish, dangerous, and reckless man who should never hold power. It is not that you are inexperienced, it is that you are intentional. Intentional in the destruction of the American way of life, intentional in the ruin of our greatness, and intentional turning us over to the dogs of Islam.

I will even vote for McCain to keep you out of office.

Also Reporting:
Stop the ACLU
Pirates Cove
Ace of Spades
The Real Revo
Right Pundits
Right Truth
Wake Up America

Looking back over the days posts, I have been spending a fair amount of time on Obama. So lets switch to one of my other favorite subjects:

It seems that supporting our troops, our country, and our freedom has become so blah in hollywood. It would be much better to just support the Terrorists.

This from the Washington Post:

On Sunday night, the goody with el primo placement — right near the collars of Best Actress nominee Julie Christie and two-time winner Paul Haggis — was an orange ribbon. A cheap, ugly, dear God we thought the age of lapel-activism (AIDS, peace, veterans, breasts) was over ribbon. Or an orange bracelet, a cheap, ugly, when will this rubber fetish quit livingstrong — bracelet. Inscribed with Torture + Silence = Complicity.

These represent the orange jumpsuits worn by Guantanamo prisoners, and call for the closing of the prison, and the cessation of a range of controversial U.S. behaviors.

Along with the truism of “Power Corrupts” it seems we need to add “Fame Dements”. Hollywood is so far out of touch with reality, it is amazing the even live in the same world we do. They hide beneath the very freedom American servicemen die to protect. In what alternate reality is that sane? It could only be that their lives are so hallow and meaningless that they are looking for something, anything to latch onto. The more bizarre and extreme the better.

Get out Hollywood - take your money and your delusions to Iran or Syria. I am sure you will find them more tolerant of your insanity.

Also Reporting:
Wizbang

A nice little video from You Tube.

And of course we all remember the The Democratic Rpublic of Congo Relief, Security, and Diplomacy Promotion Act of 2006. Certainly.

H/T to HotAir.

No, of course it is not real, but it is funny. H/T to however penned it first, it came to me in e-mail without credit.

My fellow Identity-Americans.

As your future President I want to thank my supporters, for their… well, support.

Your mindless support of me, despite my complete lack of any legislative achievement, my pastor’s relations with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan dictator Moamar Quadafi, or my blatantly leftist voting record while I present myself as some sort of bi-partisan agent of change.

I also like how my supporters claim my youthful drug use and criminal behavior somehow qualifies me for the Presidency after 8 years of claiming Bush’s youthful drinking disqualifies him. Your hypocrisy is a beacon of hope shining over a sea of political posing.

I would also like to thank the Kennedy’s for coming out in support of me. There’s a lot of glamour behind the Kennedy name, even though JFK started the Vietnam War, his brother Robert illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King, Jr. and Teddy killed a teenage girl.
And I’m not going anywhere near the cousins, both literally and figuratively.

And I’d like to thank Oprah Winfrey for her support. Her love of meaningless empty platitudes will be the force that propels me to the White House.

Americans should vote for me, not because of my lack of experience or achievement, but because I make people feel good. Voting for me causes some white folk to feel relieved of their imagined, racist guilt. I say things that sound meaningful, but don’t really mean anything because Americans are tired of things having meaning. If things have meaning, then that means you have to think about them. Americans are tired of thinking. It’s time to shut down the brain, and open up the heart. So when you go to vote in the primaries, remember don’t think, just do.

And do it for me.

Thank You.
Barack Hussein Obama

Chris Hoofnagle of the University of California at Berkly penned a very interesting report which seeks to Measure identify theft by institution. Specifically Chris used the Freedom of Information act to obtain data from the FTC which was then used to identify the institution or institutions where the identity thieves either establish fraudulent account or impacted existing accounts.

Basically, how good is your bank at protecting you?

I highly recomend a review of the report, because some of the data does need to be taken with a gain of sand. First the sorce data covers only 3 months, and not consecutive months, in 2006. Secondly, the bigger banks take the brunt of the conclusions from the data. While Chris has appropriately factored for size, based on incidents per $billion in deposits, he has not (and, to be fair, could not) balance for name or number of users. The biggest bank naturally draws the attention from the bad guys.

The following is the breakdown per bank directly from Chris’ report:

The most interesting point, which Chris makes rather firmly, is that the 25 institutions (and this is not just banks, but also service providers and retail outlets) account for just under 50% of all identity thefts — at least for those three months in 2006. The top 5 account for almost 1 out of ever 4 events.

It would be very hard to stay away from the top 25 institutions, as all the major banks and major service providers are accounted for here. None the less there is a clear message that not all providers are policing incidents of identity theft equally.

HSBC is the worst with 21.3 incidents per billion in deposits. They are also the 9th largest, and all of those above them in size perform better. Still, the largest institution, Bank of America, has 17.6 incidents per billion in deposits. And the best among the big banks? Wachovia Bank - they only had 4.9 incidents per billion in deposits are all also the 4th largest institution on the list.

So take it with a grain of salt - but I am not sure I would keep my business with HSBC, Bank of America, or Washington Mutual.

Also reporting:
Concurring Opinions

I picked up the following from the local Houston Chronicle - seems a bit silly to me.

The government pulls people suspected of being here illegally out of airplane lines and then pays to detain, prosecute and deport them to the country they were headed to in the first place.

[…]

“What’s silly about this is that they are on their way home. They have gotten the message that they shouldn’t be here,” said Houston’s Federal Public Defender Marjorie Meyers. “It’s not cost-effective.”

Why not just close the door on them on them when they are gone? Save my tax Money. But the Houston U.S. Attorney Don Gabrielle seems to have another opinion:

Not true, says Houston’s U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle.

The people they are prosecuting are repeat violators of U.S. immigration laws and it’s not only necessary, but also efficient, to stop them and prosecute them, he said.

“We had already expended some time, effort and money before to institute deportation,” DeGabrielle said.

To allow them to come back into the country without proper permission and then just let them leave would minimize what the government is trying to accomplish, he said.

“We feel it’s definitely worth the resources to hold these people accountable,” DeGabrielle said.

I can, to some extent, understand the point of view. Yet I would still prefer to see my tax money spent keeping them out in the first place. The only potentially positive note is that entering illegally is a felony, and will stop them from every getting permission to immigrate here to the US.

Also Reporting:
Wizbang

From the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — Author and conservative commentator William F. Buckley Jr. has died at age 82.
His assistant Linda Bridges says Buckley died Wednesday morning at his home in Stamford, Conn.
Buckley became famous for his intellectual political writings in his magazine, the National Review.

Rest in Peace Mr. Buckley.

Also Reporting:
OTB
Townhall.com
Wizbang
Hot Air
Michelle Malkin
Stop The ACLU