Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at El Rancho High. (Leo Jarzomb/Staff photo)
[hat tip: Michelle Malkin]

My fellow Americans, the supporters of illegal immigration in our country are trying to tell us something. I've gotten the message. How about you?

Some people are thrilled with what Kennedy/McCain/Bush have done re: illegal immigration:

AP (MEXICO CITY) -- Mexicans cheered the proposal approved Monday by the Senate Judiciary Committee to legalize undocumented migrants and provide temporary work visas, and credited huge marches of migrants across the United States as the decisive factor behind the vote.

President Vicente Fox of Mexico said the vote was the result of five years of work dating to the start of his presidential term in 2000, and puts Mexico one step closer toward the government's goal of ''legalization for everyone" who works in the United States.

Some Mexican media outlets were even more euphoric, predicting final approval for the committee bill as drafted, and suggesting the weekend demonstrations showed Mexico still holds some sway over former territories that it lost in the 1846-48 Mexican-American War.

''With all due respect to Uncle Sam, this shows that Los Angeles has never stopped being ours," reporter Alberto Tinoco said on the Televisa television network's nightly news broadcast, referring to a Saturday march in Los Angeles that drew an estimated 500,000, mainly Mexicans.

The headline reads: "Gang Rampage Mars Rally On France's Job Laws." Gangs, you say? Rampaging, are they?

So who is it doing the rampaging? Angry French college grads waving Marxist slogans? Blue-collar French laborers from the farmlands? Who is this "gang?"

"Police have speculated that the gangs may be from the poor suburban areas that erupted in riots last fall," reports the Washington Times. You mean the Muslims?

Oh, non, non, non. They are "immigrants."

You mean Muslims, right?

Sacre bleu! No, they are "French-born children of immigrants," who also happen to be "largely from North Africa."

You mean they are Muslims whose families immigrated to France from Muslim countries, is that correct?

In the case of the French riots, as in many stories involving the "religion of peace," all I'm looking for is the story, the facts, the news. Sadly, I'm forced to look for it in a newspaper, and they are quickly becoming a very unreliable source.

You gotta love those open-minded liberals at Harvard Yard. Today, their liberal values caused them to divest monies in Sinopec Corp., "citing grave concerns about the Chinese company's involvement in oil production ventures with the Sudanese government," the Boston Globe reports.

Well, that's nice. Harvard takes actions to defend its values. Good.

So what should we conclude from the fact that Harvard still has the $20 million it recently received from Sheik bin Talal, proud sponsor of murder-bombers and their families in the West Bank and Gaza? Why would the Muslim-on-Christian violence in Sudan concern Harvard so much more than the Muslim-on-Israeli violence sponsored by their big-money donor?

Could it be yet another reflection of the values of Harvard itself? After all, just this week the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of government released a paper he co-wrote about the dangers of the nefarious "Israel lobby," a paper that David Duke publicly endorsed and Alan Dershowitz denounced as bigotry. Dershowitz has shown that some of the points made in this "academic report" echo nearly verbatim content from anti-semitic and neo-Nazi website.

So how many Jews do you have to kill before Harvard will turn down your money? How many anti-semitic sources does it take before Harvard will decline to publish your ideas?

I hate to say "I told you so...."

Actually, I LOVE saying "I told you so, " particularly to the anti-Bush boneheads who spent the past three years intentionally blinding themselves to the fact that Saddam and Osama bin Laden had mutual interests and a working relationship. It's old news to anyone with common sense and who was willing to read the available public record.

But now the Osama/Saddam connection is so obvious that even ABC NEWS (!) has figured it out:

A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign [American] forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995 and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open (in the future) based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation."

There's much, much more to this story--Osama sent representatives to the wedding of one of Saddam's sons, for example--but I'm sure that the "Bush Sucks!" crowd will continue to ignore the facts and insist that Saddam should be in power today.

Osama bin Laden, by the way, feels the same way, too.

...Particularly by the American Looney Left fringe.

While rational Americans were celebrating the rescue of three Western hostages in Iraq from a murderous Islamist group calling itself the Swords of Righteousness Brigades, the organization the hostages represented remains utterly ungrateful.

The Christian Peacekeeper Teams, who have repeatedly expressed sympathy for the insurgents' cause, despite the fact that one of their members, Tom Fox, was murdered by them not long ago. But was do CPT have to say about the members of the British and American military who risked their lives to save the three hostages?

"We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq....We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq."

In fact, the CPT rejects the idea that our soldiers are in any way responsible for the fact that their three members are alive:

"They [the hostages] knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. "

Thanks, guys. Thanks a lot.

Not one word of thanks. Not ONE. Not one word of praise, or gratitude or even appreciation.

Wait--there was one group the CPT singled out for praise after Western soldiers freed their members from Islamist murderers:

"We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day."

Would those be the same Muslim brothers who shot Tom Fox to death? The two Muslim brothers captured by the US military a few days ago who knew were the hostages were being held but told no one until our soldiers questioned them?

No thanks for the Brits or the Army or the Marines. Just for the "Muslim brothers and sisters," some of whom aided and abetted kidnapping and murder.

That's everything you need to know about the mental state of the American Left.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin and her readers have noted that the press release from the CPT doesn't even refer to the "rescue" of their hostages, merely their "release." How pathetic can you get?

From the "You Gotta Be Kiddin' Me comes this story from St. Paul, MN:

The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.

A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians.

A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money.

St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians.

If this sounds too stupid to be true, remember that this is the same community that banned RED poinsettia (not white ones) at Christmastime because they were deemed too religious and offensive. My question to the people of St. Paul:

What religion is it that worships flowers and bunnies? I'd love to join, but I have no idea what it is.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it for myself at Michelle Malkin's blog:

Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants

It's almost too good to be true.

Not to be outdone by New Hampshire, the "pro-choice" liberals of Massachusetts have not taken away the "choice" to smoke 'em if you got 'em from PRIVATE clubs! You can't even choose to allow smoking at a club where people have to join to attend.

There go all the arguments about "places of public accommodation." There is no space so private that a liberal will not kick down your door and slap the liberty out of your hand.

Now that "Live Free Or Die" has been replaced by "Do What We Say...Or Else!" in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, I thought I would provide this (partial!) list of smoke-free restaurants already in business in the Granite State.

Gee, you mean the private sector is already solving the "problem" that some people don't like cigarettes? You mean leaving people free to run their businesses as they choose creates choices in the marketplace for smokers and non-smokers alike?

Why isn't that good enough for the Nanny Staters and Anti-Tobacco Taliban in New Hampshire? I have no idea.