Where No Congress Has Gone Before

Now you, too, can become a super sleuth from the comfort of your own home. Congress, which controls a budget of $2,784,000,000,000, just can't seem to come up with a solution for the border security crisis. But a handful of citizens figured something out and did it themselves in just a couple of years setting up mobile cameras along the border that anyone can access via the web. Somehow, I don't recall this in Gabby's "comprehensive plan." It looks like we've created a high tech world and elected a low tech congress.

Thanks to Iris for making this available. Here's the link to the KGUN-9 report: http://www.kgun9.com/NewsArticle/tabid/1112/xmid/16735/Default.aspx.

Here's the Skinny. . .

I can cross one of my life's goal's off the list, I got my name in the Skinny.

Yeah, I know it isn't much, but I did dodge some of the editorial bombs delivered to Daniel Patterson and David Gowan. In fact, it appears that I avoided any labeling outside of "Republican" and "blogger," which I can live with. Additionally, Mr. Nintzel knows enough about what we do here to correctly identify me as an individual blogger of a few on the site, which means that he has a passing familiarity with my views. To top it off, we got a link too. Thanks, Jim.

To our faithful readers, know this: I will not quit, I will not tire, I will not relent until I get my characiture printed in a future column as well.

Hillary Is Out, Obama Is In

No longer is Hillary the woman to beat. The latest Zogby poll suggests that Obama is now the favorite. According to the poll, all of the top five Republican contenders defeat Hillary while Obama polls over all Republican leaders. Edwards, likewise, polls over Republicans, but not as strongly as Obama.

Of course, as I've said before, the race isn't a national popularity contest; it's a state-by-state competition. And only state-level polls are really relevant. But it is interesting to see how things can shift substantially as the only polls that matter draw near.

A Tough Tightrope to Walk

It's never easy trying to maintain strong ties to critical political allies and financial supporters when they don't always agree with many in your constituent base. Some in the Arizona GOP congressional delegation found that out in last year's election when Bush administration and RNC officials interfered with last year's CD8 race. Even though they tried to maintain public neutrality, some of our delegation found themselves wiping their prints when leaving the gate open for the NRCC. Admittedly, it was a tough position to manage. What made it even more stressful was the fact that some were up for reelection and counted on campaign work and votes from the very conservative base they were selling to their D.C. allies. 

It didn't end there, however. After the election, the congressional delegation again found themselves pushed onto the tightrope in the battle for control of the state Republican party. Even though when it was over most Republicans felt relieved that everyone could then go back to the business of defeating Democrats, some elected officials couldn't let it end there. While staying out of the fray, publicly, they have found ways to continue the battle. Not that it makes sense for the local party to depend on financial support from elected officials, anyway. But it's difficult for local activists to reconcile their feelings about this behavior with what they know needs to be done to retain critical seats for Republicans.

I don't know, but I think if I were planning to run for re-election, I would be trying to communicate that I'm part of the constituency that elects me. I think I would want to be a force for unity ensuring that regardless of differences, I desire to alienate nobody, particularly those who walk the streets and get out the votes for me. Sometimes it pays to be a Republican first and a D.C. politician second. Some in the party apparently still need to get that message.

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

It seems that over two hundred years ago, some religious guy wasn't too PC to write and sign this proclamation. Some might think he didn't understand the principles on which the nation was founded, but I suspect he had a pretty good idea of what he was doing. Of course, the ACLU wasn't around at that time or he surely would have been sued.

Anyway, Thank-you George Washington for helping us remember the great blessings we have and from where they come.

And thanks to Sonoran Alliance for posting  the holiday declaration penned by our first President.

Who's supporting Ron Paul?

I have read with some amusement much of the analysis concerning Ron Paul supporters. The interesting part is that much of this takes place without actually speaking to Ron Paul followers. It's not that hard to find them, and they are more than happy to speak to you and tell you anything you want to know. My results are somewhat anecdotal, but I have spoke to a number of supporters, and here is what I have found. I'll lay it out by showing the conventional wisdom, and then what I found:

1. Ron Paul supporters are the normal third party ragtag that show up every now and then then go away. No, most of the supporters that I spoke to are Republicans with strong Republican voting records. A majority voted for President Bush in the last Presidential election. Extrapolated outward, an independent run by Paul would be a disaster for Republican chances for winning the White House. Ron Paul Supporters are no more fringe elements than Huckabee supporters as far as their party creds go. Republicans would do well to respect them as they would any other candidate's supporters, especially on the local and state levels.

2. Ron Paul is making his name as an anti war candidate. I didn't get that from the supporters that I spoke to. The overriding sense that I got was that monetary issues trumped everything with them. Indeed, the fact that the US dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar was more likely to raise their hackles. Objection to the war was much in part to the treasure wasted and the needless entanglement of American interest rather than some "BUSH LIED!!!" screed. It's my belief that Liberals who view Paul as a reflection of their own disdain of the war aren't fully informed.

3. Ron Paul supporters will make good targets for Democratic flipping. If you think that Ron Paul people dislike George Bush, ask them what they believe about Hillary Clinton. Outside of ending the War in Iraq, there is very little that would attract Paul followers to current Democratic policy. And the War issue is not as important as you have been led to believe.

4. Ron Paul Supporters are all young students. Some of the more visible supporters are students, but they are balanced out by supporters of all ages. Indeed, you do not raise 4 million in one day on the back of students. Again, many of the supporters are lifelong Republicans with firm Republican voting records.

5. The "Paul Surge" will be viewed as a 2007 phenomenon. This is simply not true. There is little as far as charisma goes to account for Paul's following. It's his message that is making headway, and that is not going away. Granted, we are a ways off from Goldwater-like reframing, but there is a growing section of the Republican party that is entirely dissatisfied with spending and expansion of government. There is also the looming sense that the opportunity to do anything about it is going to close. As the issues of the War and Immigration are dealt with one way or another, this issue will move closer to the forefront, and the groundwork built by Paul and his followers will be expanded. This will probably be evident in local and state elections first where, for the most part, the War and Federal enforcement of immigration aren't on the table.

I invite any feedback or criticism.

Toe-mah-toe, Toe-may-toe

Some people demand perfection in political correctness. Any slip ups are grounds for rebuke by having a nasty label slapped on the perpetrator—labels like racist, bigot, homophobe, male chauvinist pig. You know the drill. So, for all those tired of being afraid to open their mouths for fear of offending, here's something for you in THE PC OF IT ALL.

It'll Be a KOLD Day in Tucson...

KOLD news was the only station to get a report that the military was notified last May of several Iraqis who had entered the U.S. from Mexico through border tunnels and planned to attack Fort Huachuca. No timetable was given for the possible attacks. After reporting the information on KOLD news channel last week, some viewers got their hackles up thinking the report was a bit sensationalistic. I suppose some would have thought a similar report about an attack on the Twin Towers to be, likewise, sensationalistic. After something like that happens, it's much more difficult to NOT feel a need to know and inform. In any case, here's  the KOLD News response to viewers.

WHAT'S HAPPENING

American Border Patrol has announced it will be featuring live cameras along the border at their ranch on the border south of Palominas. People will be able to view live action of illegal aliens crossing into the U.S. At the same time, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas announced they have the money (3 Million) to provide the same 'service' in the state of Texas. They had tried this before for a month and had over 225,000 'lookers'. Not to be outdone, here in Cochise County a new organization, http://www.technopatriots.com/ , will eventually be covering 1600 square miles of the area, giving members the opportunity to be armchair patriots anywhere in the U.S. Makes you wonder how these private patriots garnered the 'millions' for such projects? As any entrepreneur knows, only government needs 3000% more funds than any private-for-profit enterprise.



The American people: still creative, still stubborn and still determined to keep the homeland free from invasion, with or without the help of the Federal government.

U.S. Attorney Sutton Has a Change of Heart?

What a surprise! According to The Washington Times, Aldrete Davila, the drug smuggler who was caught with 800 pounds of marijuana and shot by Border Patrol agents Compean and Ramos while trying to escape, has waltzed into the U.S. allegedly with a Department of Homeland Security-issued VISA. No, that's not the surprise since it has been going on for a couple of years. What IS surprising is that after having for years bebopped into the country at will under a federal escort, he found himself under arrest for... (drum role, please) known drug smuggling that occurred over two years ago.

In 2005, the DEA tried to convict Davila, but U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office refused to allow it. So, why the sudden interest in prosecuting the criminal long pampered by Sutton? Surprise, surprise, it just so happens that agents Compean and Ramos will have their appeal cases heard December 3rd, just a couple of weeks away. Is Sutton trying to gain favor with the judge who will likely come down hard on him for unscrupulous practices? Or is Sutton hoping for leniency when Attorney General Mukasey and the Senate Judiciary Committee go after him as requested by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher? It should prove interesting as Sutton scrambles to salvage something of his crumbling image.

Of interest in the Times article is that presidential candidate (and congressman) Duncan Hunter today hand delivered a letter to President Bush requesting a pardon for Compean and Ramos before Thanksgiving.

Pelosi's Silly Games

Last night, Pelosi managed to push through a troop withdrawal bill in the House that is simply one more off-task attempt to shoot another spitwad at President Bush.

The bill requires combat troops to be withdrawn by the middle of December 2008. According to Voice of America, the bill which passed by a vote of 218 to 203 has no real chance in the Senate. Obviously, even if it did, it would be sunk by a Bush veto with no hope of an override.

What's also silly about this is that troops are already scheduled to begin scaling back within a month or so. One soldier I know is spending his time in Iraq dismantling equipment and turning over security duties to the local police in an area that not too long ago was one of the most dangerous cities in the world. Now, it's fairly peaceful and troops can spend their time preparing to leave.

So, what is it about "progress" that Pelosi doesn't understand? Personally, I don't think the action has anything to do with the war in Iraq. Pelosi can frustrate us with her agenda, but she doesn't do things without a reason. Knowing the bill was a waste of effort since it had no chance of becoming law begs the question regarding an ulterior motive. One simple explanation is that it's part of the Democrat party leadership plan to keep hammering the president and smearing the war in the faces of voters so they won't forget come election day. It's not about the business of the country. It's about the business of politics.

Of course, Pelosi isn't the only politician playing this game, but that doesn't change the fact that it is what it is.

The good and the bad

First, the bad

Representative Lena Saradnik recently suffered a stroke while traveling in Massachusetts. Apparently, it was a light stroke and she should be home by Thanksgiving. By all account given in the article, she appears to be recovering nicely, and should be back to work in January. Our thoughts and prayers go out to her and her family and we hope she makes a full recovery.

Then the good,

Today at 3:30 pm, little Rebekah Humphries was born. Her mother is recovering nicely, and the baby is beautiful. Blogging and Campaigning will be light for the next few days, but hopefully we will see if we can get some pictures up for those interested.

Government Economic Data Doesn't Add Up

If you ever wonder why your experience doesn't seem to match what is reported by the federal government, you're not alone. It probably has to do with the fact that since the late '80s, reporting methods have kept changing to make the sitting president look better. So when people start throwing around numbers relating to past CPI, unemployment, inflation, etc., it gets frustrating very quickly as everyone seems to have different numbers for the same reporting periods.

As a NEWS YOU CAN USE tip, check out John Williams' Shadow Government Statistics site. Although it's set up as a paid subscription service, he provides quite a bit of education free to visitors. It's enlightening as well as frightening.

During the Clinton years, for example, unemployment rates were played with several times so that today's unemployment is grossly underreported. Likewise, inflation reads artificially low under our current reporting methods. Add to this comparisons with other countries who have their own reporting methods and self-serving biases and it's easy to become somewhat cynical with it all.

Preferring to live in a slightly rosy world, however, rather than think of it as deceitful, I choose to consider it all as creative. And knowing how the system works, I can simply take this creativity into consideration when looking at the numbers.

More Forethought, Please

Sometimes, it's important to realize that a decision to help someone in need may have results that far outweigh the benefit to a single person. For example, I learned that in a country I recently visited—one that takes the benevolent position of accepting anyone and everyone into the country no questions asked—a person from a third country brought TB in with them. Now, everyone who was in the office I visited has to undergo testing to see if the disease overtook others.

Considering the economic plight of so many of our neighbors to the south of us, it's easy to simply throw out thoughtless statements about how we should let them all in and give them a chance to better their conditions. But the reality is, every person who comes into the country outside of proper channels presents a threat to the health of millions of others. TB, for example, continues to be a disproportionate problem in border states and counties brought on by the large numbers of people coming into the country without proper screening. And TB is not the worst problem.

When people casually toss around the notion that we should help everyone, they should consider how many may be hurt by a careless attitude about how to do it.

A Veteran's Day Message from Bruce Ash

Listen to Bruce Ash's Veteran's Day Message

The Tidball factor

In early November Sonoran Alliance broke the news that a credible independent candidate is running in the eighth congressional district. They did not seem too worried about his campaign and even wondered if Tidball took votes away from Gabby more than Bee.

SED then contacted Tidball and did a good follow-up story. Matt did not specifically address the issue of whom Tidball helped or hurt by being in the race.

I have learned through sources that Tidball has the higher-ups in the Republican establishment all worked up. Despite the fact that Tidball is registered and running as an independent there is talk within Republican circles of getting him out of the race. How does that work exactly, telling someone outside your party whether to run or not? There is more to come on this story and we will be very interested to see if Tidball is still in the race come 2008.

A Double-edged Sword

What does it mean when conservative Pat Robertson joins forces with Rudy Giuliani? Does it mean pro-life conservatives will suddenly rally to Rudy? Not likely. More than social conservatives, the move gives Rudy access to Jews like never before. Even Jewish Democrats responding to Pat's fiery rhetoric against Muslims are lining up in Rudy's camp.

Of course, such a move isn't without a price, albeit a small one. CAIR, a U.S. Muslim civil rights group, is less than thrilled.

It seems a smart move for Rudy. He softens his image with conservatives, attracts Jews, and only manages to upset a very small segment of voters. As for Pat Robertson, it's a bit more difficult to rationalize his decision.

If nothing else, the move serves to dampen the belief that social conservatives are united in their support for a particular candidate. And the reasons for their support seem to be as varied as the number of candidates.

Bi-partisanship No Longer Just a Buzzword

What bill in Congress could possibly have 44 Democrat and 46 Republican signers before being introduced? What issue could unite representatives from the Congressional Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Immigration Caucus, Republican Study Committee and Blue Dog Coalition?

Strange as it may sound, we're talking about illegal immigration and a bill designed to address it...at least in part.

Unlike prior bills that contained some sort of amnesty provision, this one is centered solely on border security and enforcement. Representative Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) wrote the bill known as the Secure America through Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act or H.R. 4088. The focus of the bill is two-fold: It provides funding, bodies, and equipment for securing the border including more fence, and it requires employers to make sure all current and prospective employees are legal. For this last requirement, all employers must comply within 4 years—large employers (over 250 employees) get 1 year, and progressively smaller companies get more time. All will be required to use the eVerify program and respond to mismatch letters from the Social Security Administration.

This one is worth watching!

Dianne Feinstein Is Clearly NOT a Liberal

Despite help from Mel Martinez and Larry Craig on the GOP side, Dianne Feinstein dropped her plans to ressurrect the AgJobs bill—at least for now—that would have granted amnesty for an estimated million or so illegal farm workers. The argument for farm worker amnesty goes "if we paid a legal wage, produce would be too expensive" and "nobody wants to do these jobs, anyway."

Does that mean that food has, until the past decade, sat rotting in the fields because we didn't have enough illegals to do the work? Let's look at what history tells us. I'm old enough to remember how under Pres. Bush Sr., Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole worked with the INS and with a vengeance went after employers that were hiring illegals rounding up thousands of illegals and fining employers. She struck fear in the hearts of non-complying businesses. Going back a few years was Pres. Eisenhower's non-PC parlanced initiative Operation Wetback which is said to have cleared out nearly a million illegals in a year through forced and voluntary deportation. In a third example, Cesar Chavez led the United Farm Workers in a huge strike that was constantly sabotaged by illegal immigrant scabs who crossed the picket line. In response, Chavez led a march to the border with Walter Mondale and Ralph Abernathy (remember them?) demanding a stop to the illegals' crossings. It got so bad that Chavez' brother led strikers in patrolling the border beating up illegals they caught crossing into the U.S. In none of these cases is there any evidence that produce prices shot up significantly as a result of fewer illegal immigrant laborers.

Nine years ago, Senator Edward Kennedy, openly argued against illegal and temporary legal workers because of the high rate of unemployed U.S. agricultural workers. If you look at farming counties across the country this hasn't changed with unemployment rates in some California agricultural counties reaching over 16%. In other words, their aren't even enough picking jobs for U.S. citizen pickers to fill. With pickers in California averaging over $10 per hour, the 24% of farm laborers who are illegal must be saving some farmers at least a buck or two. Based on the number of workers and the labor cost per apple at 7 cents, however, we would be lucky to add a penny to the price of an apple if we sent illegals home and gave the jobs to U.S. citizens.

According to University of California professors in agricultural economics, it's silly to use higher prices as an argument to support an alleged "need" for illegal labor. The profs also make a strong case for not incenting farmers to grow labor-intensive crops and avoid investing in machinery by making it artificially easy to access cheap labor (as in the days of slavery in the South). Doing so, they argue, keeps the industry supporting low wages and harms the economy.

So on whose side is Feinstein? Consumers? Nope. Laborers? Not hardly. The union? Forget it. It looks like Dianne is only concerned about a handful of farm businesses that exploit labor for a little extra profit. And all this time I thought she was a liberal.

GOP Primary analysis

So, where do I think things with the Republican nomination stand at this point? Well, I am going to give my analysis in terms of percentages, and they are bound to be a little non-conventional. Keep in ming that I am not necessarily expressing my preference, just the way I see things as of now. Here goes:

Mitt Romney- 50% chance to win the nomination. There are plenty of people that think this is insane, but I would argue that they are not paying close attention. Currently, Romney holds a very solid lead in Iowa (+13.5% RCP poll average), and a healthy lead in New Hampshire(+8% RCP average.) On top of that, he is running neck-and neck in Nevada, Michigan, and, surprisingly, South Carolina. That is the clincher that convinces me.

It just like in a close basketball game, you want the ball in your hands for the final play, and right now the ball is in Mitt’s hands. If he pulls his plan off, he has no need for luck, or for anybody else to slip up. He just needs to execute. Although this is by no means a guarantee for victory, it is the best position to be in.

It runs down like this:

On January 3rd it is almost a done deal that Iowa goes to Romney. A good showing, like is expected, will tip New Hampshire, where he already holds a lead, into his column (New Hampshire does not currently have a date set, but it must be the first primary in the nation by state law.) This likely provides a week of wall-to-wall Mittmania, especially if Hillary wins Iowa and New Hampshire, as Mitt will likely be viewed as an upset by those who haven’t been paying attention (which is most of America.) Most everybody paying casual attention would think that Rudy has this thing wrapped up, and two big Romney wins will be a surprise to them. I wouldn’t really expect the news media to try to tone things down with a “this was an expected outcome” storyline either. Surprise and upsets sell.

Fast forward to the 15th in Michigan. If Romney had to handpick a midwestern state, this would be it, as it is probably the only place outside of Utah where his family name holds any weight. Although, admittedly, most will be too young to remember his father, George, some still do, and it is an excellent starting point, along with the fact that he spent time growing up in Michigan. I find it hard to believe that a Mitt Romney, fresh off two important victories does not extend his current 5.2% RCP average poll lead over Rudy Giuliani to a victory.

At this point, there will only be three credible candidates, as all of the Tier two candidates will have been neutralized, and either McCain or Thompson will have been beaten bad enough to be marginalized (I think it will be Fred.) Next up is Nevada and South Carolina. Polls have been all over the place in Nevada, but I have to believe that a surging Romney takes Nevada as well.

South Carolina, however, is the linchpin. Should Romney take South Carolina, the nomination is his. I would argue this is true even should he win South Carolina, but drop any one of the previous states. The build up of momentum is designed for this outcome. Even as far as recently as last week, I thought South Carolina an impossibility. According the the RCP average, South Caorlina is a dead heat between Mitt, Rudy, and Fred with McCain not far behind. I would suspect that much of Fred’s support would melt to McCain, but there will be a chunk that would Move to Mitt, and due to Romney’s momentum he would pick up the plurality of undecideds.

Meanwhile, Giuliani will have been on a month long losing streak, often placing third or worse before Florida finally appears on the schedule. I don’t believe he survives this.

Keep in mind, however, that any state Mitt loses prior to Florida drops him 20% in his chances to receive the nomination. The effect is cumulative


John McCain- 10% chance to win the nomination. This will likely cause anger in some quarters, but it is actually a significant improvement over a couple of months ago, where I would have given him no chance at all. Quite frankly the Surge in Iraq strategy could not have realistically went better, and he rightfully has reaped much of the credit, giving him a second life. He should continue to reclaim much of the support that bled to Fred Thompson as McCain’s campaign floundered.

However, unless McCain ties his newfound energy into some very specific results, it will be for naught. It all comes down to New Hampshire. McCain must win here or he is done. Currently he is 12 to 13 percentage points behind Romney, but is within the margin of error with Rudy for second. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of Thompson support in New Hampshire to grab, so it will be an uphill climb. McCain does have considerable infrastructure in New Hampshire, moreso than Giuliani but less than Romney.

What McCain needs is for Huckabee to overperform in Iowa, either giving Romney a close race, or beating him outright. A weakened Romney would be ripe for a McCain upset in New Hampshire. McCain supporters should be hoping for a good couple months from Huckabee, especially as they would be prime candidates for defection to McCain in later rounds as Huckabee’s campaign begins to fizzle.

Should McCain win New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina become possibilities. If McCain can take these states, he is likely to unite those opposed to Giuliani which puts him in a very good position.


Rudy Giuliani- 40% chance to win the nomination. His pathway is quite simple. All he needs to have happen is for McCain and Romney’s plans to fail and he is the nominee. I would have rated his chances of success higher but for the notion that he has no way to proactively stop either candidate. His campaign infrastructure in the early states is rather weak and he seems to have placed all of his marbles in to Florida, which was a decent strategy assuming a split field with Romney, McCain, and Thompson offsetting each other in previous state wins. Should Romney or McCain dominate leading up to Florida, Rudy is likely to find himself in a spot of trouble, as his 10 percent lead in Florida would be susceptible to a surge, especially as other candidates fall away. He will have taken quite a beating from the media as well if he has not won any states prior to Florida as he is the presumed national front runner. Howard Dean was done with or without the scream, and Rudy would find himself in much the same position.

Any state that Rudy wins before Florida increases his odds of the nomination by 20% except Nevada which increases him 10%.

Fred Thompson- No chance for the nomination. This may seem harsh, but Fred is already losing ground to a much stronger McCain and holds no advantage in any early state. To top it off, his trend line is diving, and I can envision no scenario outside of another candidate withdrawing for health reasons or severe scandal that revives his campaign.

He peaked too early, and wasted too much time while other candidates built early state infrastructure. He has been outworked by every other candidate, up to and including Ron Paul.

Mike Huckabee- No chance for the nomination. Should he close Romney’s lead in Iowa in any poll to less than 5%, I may revisit his chances. I’m still not sure that a even a win in Iowa catapults him enough down the road, although it could certainly doom Romney.


Ron Paul- No chance for the nomination. I think that he started from too far back to be in the running this time. He may be a serious player in 2012, especially if Hillary wins, and more especially if Iraq is neutralized as an issue by that time. Anybody who does not take the Paul phenomenon seriously is not paying attention, however. Today alone he has raised more than one million dollars. I suspect that Ron Paul will be a factor even after this election cycle is over.

Politicians Infiltrating Wikipedia?

Here's a gem I stumbled across in Wikipedia:

In March 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center estimated the undocumented population ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals[1], a number supported by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO)[2]. Pew estimated that 57% of this population comes from Mexico and about half of them are illegal;

So, if ALL are "undocumented," how is it that only "half of them are illegal?" Okay, I may be naive, but I actually believe I know who is buried in Grant's tomb. Maybe I should rethink that.

...This had to come from a politician. :)

See, this is why I link him

I take a lot of grief for my link to Michael Bryan's "Blog for Arizona." Although he may flirt with loony extremism from time to time (he did back away from the "Loose Change" 9-11 Truther videos when presented with Popular Mechanics' rebuttal) and his language gets a little rough, he does have these shining moments of brilliance.

Here is his latest gem:

Even though there is probably half a napkin's worth of issues that we may agree on, this is quite simply the best take down of the "temporary checkpoints are more effective" myth that has been done in the local blogosphere (although I am not sure that this was the reason he authored the post).

I'll repeat what I have always said. There are many reasons to prefer temporary checkpoints to permanent checkpoints, and some of them may be good reasons, especially for the communities where they are erected. However, NONE of those reasons have anything to do with more effectively enforcing or patrolling traffic coming across the border either as contraband or illegal immigration. If this is your main concern, permanent checkpoints are always the better way to go.

Heh.

If I go to www.lenasaradnik.com I see something very interesting. Either:

A) Lena has started a whole new series of business ventures to supplement her meager state legislative representative's income, including Payday loans, online poker, and love spells.

B) She forgot to reregister her domain name and someone "hijacked" it. Or. .

C) She came to the realization the "Saradnik" is misspelled as often as "Humphries" and is going to drop her last name on her new website and go by "Lena" (Kind of like Cher and Madonna)

Obviously I think "C" to be the correct answer, but I am really pulling for "A."