I've often discussed how proud I am of being a native New Hampshirite, and boasted of our many wonderful qualities and citizens.

Unfortunately, I think I have to apologize to the nation. While we ideed have much to take pride in, those many things do not apparently include our judges.

First, there was David Souter the first President Bush's gift to the Supreme Court. He's been a grave disappointment to many of his fellow Cow Hampshirites, but his latest gutting of the private property protection of the Fourth Amendment really, REALLY hurt us.

And today another New Hampshire jurist -- Jaffrey District Court Judge L. Phillips Runyon III -- dismissed the criminal trespass charges against ten illegal aliens arrested in New Ipswich and Hudson, New Hampshire.

OK, that's really not fair. Judge Runyon found he was bound by a precedent set by a California court back in 1976 (De Canas V. Bica), when some idiot in a robe decided that the federal government does not have primary responsibility for enforcing the immigration laws, but exclusive responsibility.

In other words, it's up to the Feds. And if the Feds are more interested in sitting around with their thumbs up their asses than doing their jobs, tough $#!+ -- live with it.

The judge's full ruling, for legal geeks, can be downloaded here.

Earlier today, I heard Chief Chamberlain reacting to the decision on a local talk show. He was, as can be expected, disappointed that his innovative idea hadn't flown. But a state representative from Hudson called in. He has filed a bill that would codify Chief Chamberlain's idea and expand it, including a $1,000/day fine for employers of illegal aliens. They agreed that the bill was largely rendered moot by the judge's decision, but the representative intends to keep pushing it anyway.

One of the illegal aliens in this case held a press conference last weekend, and Chief Chamberlain pointed out something that ought to scare the crap out of anyone: he said that he traveled from Mexico to Phoenix, Arizona in the back of a pickup truck two years ago, then caught a plane to Massachusetts, where he met up with his family. Then he worked until he was arrested in New Hampshire last spring.

To summarize, less than a year after 9/11, he and 19 other illegal aliens (why does the number 19 seem so darn familiar?) invaded the United States, hopped on a plane, and flew about 2500 miles across the country -- completely unnoticed, undocumented, and unchallenged by the government.

If you'll excuse me, I think I need to go throw up.

Comments (42)

To summarize, less than ... (Below threshold)

To summarize, less than a year after 9/11, he and 19 other illegal aliens (why does the number 19 seem so darn familiar?) invaded the United States, hopped on a plane, and flew about 2500 miles across the country -- completely unnoticed, undocumented, and unchallenged by the government.

Invaded is not the right word, Jay, but other than that, right. Are you surprised?

OK, mantis, if "invaded" is... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

OK, mantis, if "invaded" is the wrong word for foreign nationals covertly entering a sovereign nation, in deliberate contravention of their established laws, with the intention of committing further illegal acts, what alternate term would you suggest?

Surprised, no. Disgusted, yes.

Almost as disgusted as I expect to be by your defense of illegal aliens. Almost, but not quite.


Sigh.Jay, it was n... (Below threshold)


Jay, it was not "some idiot in a robe" in California who decided De Canas v. Bica. It was a UNANIMOUS opinion of the United States Supreme Court. And it is sound law.

So, you're faulting your New Hampshire judge for following well-settled law? He was bound to rule as he did. If he came to any other result, most of your readers would fault him for being an activist, and legislating from the bench.

With regard to Souter's "gutting of the private property protection of the Fourth Amendment," I suggest you read the opinion and carefully consider the issues before the Court, and the Court's role. Then read some informed commentary from Powerline or Volokh if you need some help. You'll learn that it was not the Fourth Amendment at issue, and you'll also learn that the decision, while not popular, was not necessarily unsound. You wouldn't want the Court to make up law in an effort to make its decisions more popular, would you? Your beef here is with the legislative branch, not the judiciary.

I'm also surprised you're about to puke over the news that illegal Mexicans are crossing our borders, traveling and working in the US. Thousands are doing this every week here in Southern California alone--that should not come as any surprise.

Your beef is not with the courts. Your beef is with Congress for lousy immigration laws, and the administration for lousy enforcement.

mark, there's an old saying... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mark, there's an old saying that "work doesn't care who does it, as long as it gets done."

I want the laws of this nation regarding our borders and illegal aliens ENFORCED. I don't give a faded fart who does it. Others can piss and moan about "why doesn't the federal government do something about it." My belief is simple: solve the crisis FIRST, fix blame and square away the niceties later.

And yes, I do consider details as whether someone is a local or a federal law-enforcement official a nicety. Cops are cops, and their primary job is to arrest criminals. When someone says that certain cops can't arrest certain criminals while they are actively committing crimes, I want to scream.


Uh, Jay, the U.S. Supreme C... (Below threshold)

Uh, Jay, the U.S. Supreme Court case you cite, De Canas v. Bica, has nothing to do with the enforcement of federal imigration laws. The case does say that "Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power." 424 U.S. at 354. But that means Congress. The only issue in De Canas v. Bica was whether a California Labor Code section that fined employers for employing illegal aliens was a regulation of immigration and thus pre-empted by Congress' comprehensive regulatory scheme or a power reserved exclusively to the Federal government by the Constitution. The Supreme Court found neither argument pre-empted the law.

Now, what you are worried about is average Joe cop in New Hampshire - a municipal or state employee - having the ability to arrest someone for violation of Federal immigration laws. I'm not an immigration lawyer so I don't know off the top of my head. But that is the question that needs to be answered.

Jay:"I want the la... (Below threshold)


"I want the laws of this nation regarding our borders and illegal aliens ENFORCED. I don't give a faded fart who does it."

I'm with you 100 percent here.

However, the reasons for leaving this to the Feds run very deep in our Constitution. This really isn't about "cops are cops," although it appears so at times. The issue runs to the very heart of federalism.

Believe me, I'm tired of parking my old fake INS van in front of the house on summer weekends to keep the beach clean and safe for my kids.

People adverse to words suc... (Below threshold)

People adverse to words such as "invasion" where illegal aliens and their illegal immigration (and other) behaviors are concerned are not interested in reality so much as they are in discouraging others in accepting reality.

Based upon the numbers alone, it is very much an "invasion," what has transpired as to illegal aliens in our country in even the last five years, much less ten.

And, even moreso reason to accurately call the invasion the invasion it is is that most who are today's illegal aliens in our country are not interested in legal immigration, and do intend an imposition of their concept of nationality on the rest of us.

Because they are not (yet) parachuting in in organized militias does not any less an invasion make.

The federal government won'... (Below threshold)

The federal government won't, isn't, refuses, is too busy, doesn't want to, whatever and why is because very large commercial organizations/manufacturers have a source of very cheap labor. What's occured and continues to is that certain businesses profit from cheap, unskilled labor (mostly, without inclusion here of skilled foreign workers who usually have VISAs and abide by the rules far more well than unskilled, illegal aliens do) while those same unskilled laborers cost the general society (ours) far more in expenses and resources than compensates for whatever they may contribute.

Mostly it's an economists' theoretical arguement versus reality of social, financial and legal realities that negate whatever some economists opine about the "value" of cheap, and mostly illegal, workers. Some businesses see a spike in profits, the rest of the country sees troubles (and costs) that defy the value of those spikes.

Over a billion dollars in expenses for the state of Florida alone from illegal aliens in only one year...

-s-:I didn't under... (Below threshold)


I didn't understand a word you said.

You seem to be saying the Feds won't enforce immigration laws so big business will have a source of cheap labor. If that's really what you're saying, you're clearly wrong. In fact, the INS is quite busy raiding places of employment and deporting undocumented workers. If only they were equally as active on the borders themselves.

If that's not what you're saying, then I'm sorry. What was your point?

Doesn't every police office... (Below threshold)

Doesn't every police officer take an oath to uphold the law? Aren't they considered derelict in their duties if they know a law is being broken and don't do something to stop it? I can understand an FBI agent not issuing parking tickets but any law enforcement office that knows a federal law is being broken should arrest the offender on the spot.

Mark...the INS may be busy ... (Below threshold)

Mark...the INS may be busy but from what I read about their work, most they come into contact with are turned loose within society to continue on (not that that's the directive but that's what's occuring).

I support the work the INS does, don't misunderstand me -- and while I have no control over what you understand or do not, I am happy to add these additional coments -- but the process under which they do their work is limited at best. Many of us voters have that impression that the INS is engaged in a practice similar to sweeping dust on a windy day.

And, yes, the pressure for cheap labor is the motivation for many to continue to offer employment/incentives to illegal aliens, and to violate laws to employ them. Tyson Chicken, Ford Motors, most of the agricultural businesses in CA and nationwide, for that matter (and for additional matter, perhaps all)...the list is extensive.

The INS can round up and deport one hundred but 80,000 in one month alone cross into the state of CA alone without documentation across our border with Mexico. The INS maybe stops ten thousand, and then releases them "to appear" "later." Most people know they don't, won't and off they go, to work at WeConstructThings in Atlanta, GA.

We have to stop playing these vast word games about illegal immigration and start (1.) effectively penalizing employers who hire and retain illegal aliens and (2.) build a very large wall all the way across the Southern Border and then (3.) police the wall and (4.) send everyone elsewhere who is here illegally, at whatever cost.

I've read a few articles about the huge costs involved in sending all illegal aliens "home" and it is huge. Compared, however, with the costs for those illegal aliens to remain here, and their numbers to continue to increase, the costs are minor.

What is YOUR point, Mark?

Another thing: people are ... (Below threshold)

Another thing: people are correct or they are not. There's nothing more than that, as in, "clearly wrong" is just you being euphamistic.

And, I never wrote about the INS and their activities earleir such that there's no possibility in what I earlier wrote in being either accurate or inaccurate (since the issue was never a part of what I wrote, repeating to aid comprehension).

Bullwinkle:To answ... (Below threshold)


To answer your general question, yes and no. The cop can only act where he has jurisdiction.

And to clarify a misunderstanding I'm reading between your lines, this case did not involve federal immigration statutes. The busts at issue were for criminal trespass pursuant to state, not federal, law. The trespass law was being used in a novel way to control immigration by the state. Since the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to control immigration, the state's effort was unconstitutional.

Mind you, I have not read the New Hampshire case yet; I merely skimmed the first few sentences, but it seems pretty straight forward. Keep that in mind when you flame.

-s-I tried to divi... (Below threshold)


I tried to divine some meaning from your incoherent ramblings, and I addressed what I thought you were trying to say. After reading your two additional posts (one of which even contained complete sentences!) I am still at a loss. I give up.

As for your bit about correctness, you are "clearly wrong." Any English dictionary will give you "incorrect" as the first meaning for "wrong." There is no euphemism in there, it's direct and clear and proper English.

If you have recently learned English as a second language, then I apologize for my palpable frustration with your writing. Similarly, if you are re-learning language after a brain injury. Keep practicing.

Ah, the old pejoratives, Ma... (Below threshold)

Ah, the old pejoratives, Mark. Why?

What's with the personalization of this issue and used to target me, specifically? Mark, you are not the least bit a gentleman. What you've written there (^^) is moonbattery desperation. I have no idea what your motivations are in demeaning me. And, I'm going to conjecture here that you don't, either.

What's with the "English as a second language" statement? I never learned your language, I can assure you, nor am I even going to try.

I bet you're Hispanic, Mark.

I had been under the impres... (Below threshold)

I had been under the impression that California decided to do away with common law and wrote their own system of codes. If that is true, how can a law ruled on in CA have any bearing on a law in NH? If CA has rejected most, if not all of the English common law precedents, then no legislation from CA should have any pertinence or purview over the states that accepted common law. Why would a jurist look to CA for precedents? If, as Mark says, it was decided by SCOTUS, I can see it. If not, it is a blatant example of legislation from the bench. If my impression is incorrect please let me know, but one of the things I learned as a PI was to never go to California, as the laws there are pretty screwy.

pinky...that's the dilemma ... (Below threshold)

pinky...that's the dilemma facing state jurisdictions that you describe. Required to subject to federal legislation, that is then not enforced and/or often requires states to administer (and fund) those federal requirements in these issues of and related to illegal aliens does, in effect, ensure no enforcement, or, token enforcement only. Which is the same as no enforcement, thereby rendering the legislation moot. As in, if legislation is impossible to enforce, or cannot be fully enforced or effectively to any degree, what is accomplished is the muting of that legislation.

CA's Schwarzenegger is trying to get private firms to enforce border security due to the problems existing due to poor-to-no border security enforcement (or ineffective enforcement) by the federal level. Last I read about it, the federal level was non too happy with the idea, and yet CA, as do other states, have to bear the financial and social burdens involved by the lack of enforcement, and/or ineffective enforcement.

Mark I undertsand jurisdic... (Below threshold)

Mark I undertsand jurisdiction and I understand that a different law was being applied out of frustration at the INS not enforcing it's laws. But if if a policeman is aware a crime is being committed and he's in his jurisdiction he's sworn to uphold the law. Jurisdiction is a physical boundary, not a case of him not being able to enforce a federal law. A local court may not be able to hear the case but that doesn't relieve the cop of the responsibility of making an arrest.

Mark: you can't divine, do... (Below threshold)

Mark: you can't divine, don't even think you might, not even for a minute. I think what you want is some sort of pi**ing contest on someone else's bandwidth. Either that or you're egging for my birthplace location.

If it matters, my immigrating ancestor arrived in what is now the U.S. prior to the Mayflower, and on the Mayflower arrived more of my ancestors. It's a shame more people today don't comprehend actual English, of the American kind. Emotional problems can prevent comprehension, Mark.

Pinky,The case ori... (Below threshold)


The case originally arose in California, and worked its way up to the US Supreme Court. Jay provided the a link to the case, and you can read from the caption that it's a SCOTUS case.

California has NOT done away with common law at all. It has codified some of the basics, as have nearly all states. But common law is alive and well in 49 states.

On novel questions, the state courts will survey how the courts of other states treat certain issues. "Foreign" decisions are not binding, but they are a good source of guidance. But here, it was a unanimous SCOTUS opinion.

-s-Why do you keep... (Below threshold)


Why do you keep posting your nonsense? I don't give a damn where you were born. I simply wish you would observe elementary rules of English usage, grammer and punctuation so we would not have to guess at what you're trying to say.

You might also want to check in with reality and own up to the fact that you did NOT "invent" the name, "Suzy" as you claim on your website.

I think I hear Nurse Ratchet calling, it must be time for your meds. Now leave me alone.

You might also want to c... (Below threshold)

You might also want to check in with reality and own up to the fact that you did NOT "invent" the name, "Suzy" as you claim on your website.

Mark, I just looked on Suzy's website for the claim to which you refer, and I found it.

Dude, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

Bullwinkle:Jurisdi... (Below threshold)


Jurisdiction is not just a physical boundary, it is also a subject matter boundary. When we talk about cops, we usually refer to the former. But that cop's agency must have the latter before he can do anything.

Oh, Bullwinkle:I h... (Below threshold)

Oh, Bullwinkle:

I haven't answered your ultimate question! (because I can't without doing some research)

A cop needs to work for an agency with subject matter jurisdiction, and he must be in his physical jurisdiction. But I don't know whether a standard state or local beat cop can make busts on federal immigration laws. One would think so, but I would not be surprised if the answer is "no."


if "invaded" is the wron... (Below threshold)

if "invaded" is the wrong word for foreign nationals covertly entering a sovereign nation, in deliberate contravention of their established laws, with the intention of committing further illegal acts,

Ooh, sounds so cloak and dagger. What would those "further illegal acts" be? Driving? Working? Sounds like an invasion to me. Run for them thar hills!

And I don't defend illegal immigrants any further than not considering them an evil pestilence. I would like it if the feds enforced the law, and companies would stop hiring illegals. Giving them a trespassing fine, however creative as it may be, will not do much. In fact I agree with Sherrif Chamberlain here:

“It’s unfortunate that the federal government has allowed our immigration situation to get to this point,” he said. He said he hoped Congress would act to improve the situation.

and Rep. Buhlman here:

Buhlman said other bills would propose stiffer penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants and measures to ensure they cannot qualify for any state assistance.

Does that disgust you?

I'm sure you've heard this ... (Below threshold)

I'm sure you've heard this several times before Mark, but you are full of shit. Even a civilian can make an arrest if he knows that a law is being broken. I personally know of game wardens, constables, deputy sheriffs and local police arresting and holding illegal aliens in Texas. The local courts don't hear the cases but any law enfrcement officer can make an arrest as long as he inside his physical jurisdiction.

From the Denver, Co. city s... (Below threshold)

From the Denver, Co. city sanctuary policy:

Denver's police department operations manual states, "Generally, officers will not detain, arrest, or take enforcement action against a person solely because he/she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant."

They can, they are just discouraged from doing it. That's a far cry from being unable to because of any jurisdiction questions. I have an email from a deputy in Pecos county, Texas here that states,"We can arrest them and do when we have space in the jail and feel like doing something that is a complete waste of our time. We pick them up and hold them for the Border Patrol, they take them off our hands and put them right back on the street."

"One of the illegal aliens ... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

"One of the illegal aliens in this case held a press conference ..."

What a sick fucking joke.

If some of the fed-up people in the border states started whacking the illegals as they crossed over, I'll bet we'd suddenly, magically have enough law enforcement on the border.

Bullwinkle,How am ... (Below threshold)


How am I full of shit? I plainly told you I don't know the answer regarding immigration. It seems to me that would be the LEAST full of shit answer I could give.

If local cops can make immigration busts, it's only because they have both subject matter and geographic jurisdiction. Yes, both are always required. If they lack either, they cannot do it legally. The question in my mind was whether they do have both.

Here's a question for you: Why don't courts convict on the arrests you boast of? Could it be that they're illegal? As for the citizens arrests you're talking about, they depend on state law and are highly regulated. Ordinarily, a citizen in this country cannot effect a valid arrest, like it or not.

It's nice that you rely on anecdotal evidence, but it leads to overly simplistic, dogmatic and naive statements. Your brush is a little too broad, and it seems you don't even perceive the subtle complexities that are involved here.

Well, it's nice to know I'm full of shit when I concede I don't have the answer. The irony is you were not even aware of the existence or importance of the question that I can't answer.

Thank you for your prompt a... (Below threshold)

Thank you for your prompt answers Mark and -S-
I do believe that the question is still beged.
California Labor Code Ann. 2805 (a) provides that "[n]o employer shall knowingly employ an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." 1 The question presented in this case is whether 2805 (a) is unconstitutional either because it [424 U.S. 351, 353] is an attempt to regulate immigration and naturalization or because it is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution, by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., the comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization.

Is this a law that any legislator would attatch thier name to.
No wonder that Vincente is sending his people here.
It may be that borders have become a joke, but I am not giving Redford and Steisand comics to tell them how to get into Canada.

McGehee:Yes, I do ... (Below threshold)


Yes, I do have difficulty comprehending -s-'s writing. But her claim that she "devised" the nickname and "more or less invented" it's spelling is pretty clear. Or should I say, clearly delusional.

A cop needs to work for ... (Below threshold)

A cop needs to work for an agency with subject matter jurisdiction, and he must be in his physical jurisdiction.

Subject matter jurisdiction? Sounds like shit to me. Unless a game warden (state), deputy sheriff (county), or city policeman has subject matter jurisdiction. They all have authority to arrest anyone the know is breaking law, unless maybe it's a case of foreign espionage or a military law being broken. Weren't exactly top of the class at law school, were you?

Forgot your other question,... (Below threshold)

Forgot your other question, here's the answer for you. They do convict, if the illegal is silly enough to show for up for the hearing. The INS gives them a citation and they agree to appear in court on a date in the future, damn few show up. Those who do show get deported in most cases. That's not a punishment, that's a free ride home. The biggest problem is people looking at these cases like there actually is some kind of complexity, the laws were very clear at one time, we still have the same laws but they've been twisted to the point of being rendered useless due to the addition of "complexities".

Bullwinkle,Don't b... (Below threshold)


Don't be a moron--I thought you were better than that. Don't argue against what you obviously don't know anything about.

If a local cop can make arrests for immigration violations, then obviously the question I had is answered in the affirmative. It does not, however, render the question bullshit.

Tell me, can the local county sherif investigate FAA violations? IRS matters? You brought up military matters. Immigration is fairly specialized, too. Does the average cop know anything about different classes of visas? Do they even understand "green" cards? No, not usually. Subject matter jurisdiction is a huge portion of the law that separates not only federal and state court jurisdictions, but also law enforcement. There is more overlap in law enforcement, but that does not render the doctrine "bullshit."

As for my class standing, and the quality of my school, I would be more than happy to boast in private. In the meantime, you might want to refrain from exposing your ignorance by calling "bullshit" on well-established areas of law.

Bullwinkle, I thought you p... (Below threshold)

Bullwinkle, I thought you put it well here:

"I can understand an FBI agent not issuing parking tickets but any law enforcement office that knows a federal law is being broken should arrest the offender on the spot."

The reason the FBI agent does not issue parking tickets is... because they CAN"T! They could bust someone for mail fraud or kidnapping and transporting minors across state lines in that very geographical parking spot, but they lack subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a municipal parking regulation.

That's a very simple principle.

The second part of your sentence is not so straight forward. If a city cop knows that someone has lied on their tax return, they are not permitted to arrest them as they walk their return to the mail box. Physical jurisdiction exists, but subject matter jurisdiction does not.

I admitted my limitations, why won't you?

mantis, you wanted some "il... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mantis, you wanted some "illegal acts" cited. Fine.

Identity Theft/Fraud: working under forged ID.
Labor Laws Violations: working without proper ID.
Driving an unregistered vehicle.
Driving without a license.
Driving an uninsured vehicle (if the state requires insurance)
Bank fraud (if they do business with a bank using false ID)

And that's just off the top of my head.


But her claim that she "... (Below threshold)

But her claim that she "devised" the nickname and "more or less invented" it's spelling is pretty clear. Or should I say, clearly delusional.

Mark, she said she "devised" the nickname when she was FOUR YEARS OLD. The way you're trumping it up, it sounds like she gave herself the nickname in college or something.

You sound like the kind of people who were trumping up the Jeff Gannon thing into some kind of secret gay brothel in the West Wing.

Like I said, Jay, driving a... (Below threshold)

Like I said, Jay, driving and working. Scary invasion. I caught some of Red Dawn the other day, it's almost exactly the same!

Ok McGehee,I did n... (Below threshold)

Ok McGehee,

I did not intend to "trumpet" anything up; it was a one line comment directed solely at her. I think you read more into my comment than it deserves.

I you would like to further debate the meaning of my comment or her pages about the name, lets do it in private email.

mantis, the way things are ... (Below threshold)
Jay Tea:

mantis, the way things are right now, if I'm pulled over by the cops, I'd be better off denying my citizenship and claiming to be an illegal alien than showing them license and registration. As an illegal alien, I'd be given a citation (under an assumed and unverified name) and let go. As a citizen, I HAVE to show up, or they'll revoke my license and registration. The next step is arrest and impounding of my car.

Meanwhile, the government of Mexico publishes and gives away books to its citizens on how to best safely sneak into the US and provides its illegal aliens here with official Mexican ID cards. At what point do you actually pry your head out of your ass and call it what it is -- an invasion by hostile forces in an undeclared, economic and social war?

Perhaps it's when they start carrying guns. No, they do that -- look at the cop killed in Colorado. Maybe when they start flying their flag openly. No, they do that, too. Or when they start agitating for their language to become an "official" language and insist that government business be done in it. No, that's happening, too.

Maybe, mantis, you just have a thing for men in uniform, and because they don't wear uniforms, you don't see it. But it's right there in front of your eyes. I can point to it, but short of stapling your eyelids open, I dunno what more I can do.


I was wondering why my spam... (Below threshold)

I was wondering why my spam filter informed me it had eaten a message from "Mark" with the subject line "-S-"

Frankly Mark, I'm not interested in any defenses you might offer in private for bringing up something that was so obviously off-topic and ad hominem that you aren't willing to continue trying to defend it in public.

It wasn't about "defenses,"... (Below threshold)

It wasn't about "defenses," McGehee. And you're showing a lot of class by perpetuating this here (NOT!). It certainly is off topic now.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy