Cambridge safe haven for illegal immigrants?

The Washington Times (via Michelle Malkin) reports that in Cambridge, Mass, they’re providing safe sanctuary for illegal aliens:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — This famously liberal city is serving notice that illegal aliens are welcome, even while Congress is considering tough new penalties. Police won’t harass you. Education and health care are available.
Here’s the hitch: You probably can’t afford to live here.
In 1985, when Cambridge first declared itself a “sanctuary city,” rent control kept apartments affordable.
Today, however, Cambridge no longer has rent control; cheap apartments were turned into luxury condominiums, and the city — home of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology — is among the most expensive places to live in the United States. The average rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $1,400 a month.
So, while the city renews its open-arms declaration — as other U.S. cities are doing — it’s not exactly a magnet for new immigrants, particularly illegal ones.
“Like anybody else, we look for places we can afford,” said Elena Letona, a naturalized citizen from El Salvador and executive director of Centro Presente, a Cambridge nonprofit that spearheaded the 1980s sanctuary effort and is backing the new push.
The Cambridge City Council is set to vote today to reaffirm its sanctuary status, which instructs police and other agencies not to inquire about a person’s immigration status when providing government services. The proposal would establish an immigrant rights and citizenship commission to “ensure the equal status of immigrants in education, employment, health care, housing, political, social and legal spheres.”

Uh oh. It sounds as though the local police are being harnessed and prevented from maintaining law and order. Not good. When things like this happen, it sets a bad example, and it makes a mockery out of the authorities.

Luckily, there seems to be some movement to protest these kind of corrupt activities:

But the movement has sparked a backlash. In Phoenix, a group called Protect Our City is collecting signatures for a ballot initiative to require police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
An “anti-sanctuary” bill signed into law last week in Colorado would deny state funds to cities that discourage or prevent police from working with federal immigration authorities.

That’s good to know, and it’s encouraging.

Michigan ACLU opposes law addressing coerced abortion

From Jivin J:

Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan, has an editorial in the Detroit Free Press today in which she attacks bills in Michigan which are designed to make it illegal to coerce a woman into getting an abortion. The Coercive Abortion Prevention Act is a set of five bills (H.B. 5879-5883 and S.B. 1177-1181) which you can read by visiting the web site of the Michigan Legislature. The main bill, H.B. 5882, outlines methods of coercion and punishments for certain actions taken to coerce a pregnant woman into abortion. Read the bill and the others and try to explain to me how someone who is supposedly “pro-choice” could be so against these bills.

Of course an abortion fanatic would hate the bill, which I think is a good start but doesn’t go nearly far enough:

(i) If the act results in the death of the pregnant female, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 15 years or a fine of not more than $7,500.00, or both.
(ii) If the act results in great bodily harm to the pregnant female, the person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $2,500.00, or both.
(iii) If the act results in serious or aggravated physical injury to the pregnant female, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(iv) If the act results in physical injury to the pregnant female, the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.

In other words, the guilty party is only punished if the woman suffers physical harm. And frankly, I’d like to see anybody who coerced a woman into a fatal abortion charged with, at the very least, manslaughter. Fifteen years prison isn’t nearly long enough for sending a woman to her death.

Still, it’s a start, and of course the abortion fanatics are up in arms because to them, the only bad abortion is one that doesn’t happen.

Cross-posted at RealChoice

Un dia sin calcetines! (A Day Without Socks)

In the spirit of our regular “random observance” reporting, permit me to introduce you to May 8: the official “Day Without Socks”

This is my kind of observance.

In my opinion, socks are helpful only in a very limited range of circumstances. Some examples:

1. When the outside temperature drops below freezing and you have a reason to go outside. (Note use of the conjunctive. If you can stay inside, barefoot by a crackling fire will do nicely.)

2. When meeting with clients, attending a job interview or otherwise engaged in social activities where the absence of socks would significantly impact your career path (By show of hands: how many of you would hire a barefoot attorney? My point exactly).

3. When you want to enjoy a really good running-tile-slide. (Anyone who’s done this knows what I’m talking about. Anyone who hasn’t probably shouldn’t try this at home. Professional slider on closed course, and all that…)

Now, I don’t advocate the elimination of socks altogether.

The sock population provides countless opportunities for study and education. I have spent several years engaged in a careful study of the behaviors and migratory patterns of the North American Tube Sock (tubulus coverinus Americanus) and many of its sub-species.

Although today is allegedly “A Day Without Socks” I’m guessing our local Americanus colony didn’t get the memo and that I will return home this evening to find at least three pairs (probably the dwarf variety) basking happily on the living room rug. Look for an updated field report later this evening.

But as far as the wearing of socks is concerned, I’m pleased to report my own full compliance and observance. As I left the house this morning The Random Spouse pointed out the minor incongruity in my clothing choice (you mean everyone doesn’t wear sandals with slacks in the springtime??). Without pausing, I responded, “I have to dress this way – Today is the Day Without Socks!”

From the reaction, I’m thinking everyone didn’t get the memo, so I’m spreading the word as best I can. Shed the socks, enjoy the spring.

Happy “No Socks Day.”

Linked to the “Little Help Here” OTP at third world county and the “good or evil” OTP at Blue Star Chronicles (for the record: no socks = good).

Cross-posted from The Random Yak (where we engage in this kind of strangeness all the time, and Adam asked me to guest blog anyway…)

Growth in Government Under “Conservatives”

A recent front page article in USA Today (I can’t link to it because it is in the paid archive) revealed that the economy was growing fastest in areas of the country where oil and government are the primary industries (nevermind that the phrase “government industry” is an oxymoron). Indeed, the United States is currently experiencing the most rapid growth in the size and scope of the federal government since the New Deal, and many pundits have been quick to point out that this level of growth in federal power and authority is far greater than the Roosevelt expansion of the 1930’s.

Since all of this rapid growth in government is happening under a so-called conservative administration and a Congress filled with Republicans, it poses the relevant question: Just how conservative is the administration? As I have pointed out, a lot of people are asking that question.

It is a fair question, since it is an established conservative principle that the government that governs best governs least, and that smaller government is always better government. Those Jeffersonian axioms are true on multiple levels, and since the days of Barry Goldwater they have been the bulwark of the conservative movement. It is reasonable to expect that real conservatives will live up to these ideas.

Under the Reagan administration, it was easy for conservatives to dismiss the growth of government because Reagan’s agenda was at the mercy of a Democrat Congress. However, when Bush was elected in 2000, I recall one friend of mine saying to me (on election night) “we control the Presidency and both Houses of Congress, there is no excuse for fundamental change NOT to occur.”

Many will say “but 9/11 changed everything, we are at war.” We as a nation have not been called upon to sacrifice in a time of war-the President’s version of national sacrifice was to tell us to go shopping. Just because we are at war and need more military spending (which isn’t happening) doesn’t mean spending everywhere else can’t be curtailed (which also isn’t happening). These aren’t conservative messages.

And we wonder just why it is that 69% of conservatives think Congress is doing a bad job, or why the conservative base isn’t energized for this year’s Election. Perhaps it is because many are afraid to send a so-called conservative group to Washington that isn’t really conservative.

Safe-n-Legal Anniversaries

Twenty-four-year-old Maura Morales was eight weeks pregnant when she went to Woman’s Care Center for an abortion on May 8, 1981.

When she was in the recovery room, her heart went into spontaneous ventricular fibrillation — irregular heartbeats not capable of effectively pumping blood. Maura was taken to a hospital, but died that day.

Maura was the fourth woman to die at the same facility. The others were Shirley Payne, Myrta Baptiste, and Ruth Montero.

****

Claudia Caventou, underwent a first-trimester abortion at Mercy Medical Clinic in Los Angeles on May 8, 1986, performed by H. N. Fahmy.

Claudia’s boyfriend was in the waiting room during the procedure. Staff told him that everything was okay, and suggested that he leave and get something to eat. Since he’d heard Claudia screaming earlier, he decided to stay.

Several hours later, he heard the doctor come out and tell his staff to call 911. Claudia was taken to a hospital where she underwent emergency surgery for what doctors thought was a perforated uterus. It turned out that Claudia’s pregnancy had been in her fallopian tube, which had ruptured during the abortion. Efforts to save Claudia were futile, and she died later that day.

Even though, in theory, women who choose abortion should be less likely to die of ectopic pregnancy complications, experiences shows that they’re actually more likely to die, due to sloppy practices by abortion practitioners.

****

Cross-posted to RealChoice