Yesterday’s morning newspaper here, the Greensboro News & Record, had a tiny story buried on an inside page in the front section – about how a list of 1,300 alleged illegal aliens in Utah had been just received by numerous police departments, politicians, and “mainstream” media outlets in that state. Although it wasn’t “news” outside Utah and Idaho until Wednesday afternoon, a little digging found a big story Tuesday about it in Boise, Idaho’s “mainstream” daily, the Idaho Statesman.
The list was remarkable for all the details: not only names and addresses – but also the Social Security numbers the illegals used, the names of their kids and their birth dates, even (if the illegal or a household member was pregnant) the planned delivery date. You hardly had to be a senior FBI agent to guess that all that information could have come from only two places – the welfare office or the health department. After all, even the IRS doesn’t know – or even want to know – when a pregnant woman is scheduled to deliver an unborn baby!
Once that obvious fact – that the bureaucracy’s own files were the source of the list – the only serious remaining question what the route by which it had reached the illegal-alien-control activist(s) who sent it to all the police, politicians, and media people. Realistically, there were only two plausible possibilities – as a bunch of illegal aliens with invalid Social Security numbers hardly were good targets for identity theft! One possibility was some bored teenage hacker in his room on the Internet – but, again, how “interesting” to the typical nerd in high school or college would a list of illegal aliens on welfare or going to the health department be?
That left the only realistic possibility – and, by nightfall yesterday, the Los Angeles Times flatly was saying it: that a “mole” or “moles” within Utah’s welfare bureaucracy had provided the information. If a “mole” or “moles” had provided it, the only questions were “for who” and “why” – and neither really mattered if the bureaucracy now had a “mole” or “moles” within leaking to outsiders; it didn’t matter whether it was for bribe money or for ideological reasons – no more than it did when the Russians famously used “moles” inside American and Brit government agencies. Regardless of motive, the effect of a “mole” is disastrous for the government giving him his “regular” paycheck – whether the “mole” does it for political reasons or just a bunch of cash.
Wasn’t it Lenin who said that a revolution is won when the troops begin to side with the people – and refuse the government’s orders to act against the people? Is that any less true in Utah now than in frozen Russia in 1917?