5/30/2006
S2611 — The Senate’s Answer To Illegal Immigration
Ok, so this isn’t going to be as in depth as I’d hoped. I’ve looked at the bill, and you need a lawyer standing by to translate it. What I’ve been able to figure out so far is that their adding roughly 2400 agents per year as well as other measures.
Subtitle A–Assets for Controlling United States Borders
Sec. 101. Enforcement personnel.
Sec. 102. Technological assets.
Sec. 103. Infrastructure.
Sec. 104. Border patrol checkpoints.
Sec. 105. Ports of entry.
Sec. 106. Construction of strategic border fencing and vehicle barriers.
Subtitle B–Border Security Plans, Strategies, and Reports
Sec. 111. Surveillance plan.
Sec. 112. National Strategy for Border Security.
Sec. 113. Reports on improving the exchange of information on North American security.
Sec. 114. Improving the security of Mexico’s southern border.
Sec. 115. Combating human smuggling.
Sec. 116. Deaths at United States-Mexico border.
Subtitle C–Other Border Security Initiatives
Sec. 121. Biometric data enhancements.
Sec. 122. Secure communication.
Sec. 123. Border patrol training capacity review.
Sec. 124. US-VISIT System.
Sec. 125. Document fraud detection.
Sec. 126. Improved document integrity.
Sec. 127. Cancellation of visas.
Sec. 128. Biometric entry-exit system.
Sec. 129. Border study.
Sec. 130. Secure border initiative financial accountability.
Sec. 131. Mandatory detention for aliens apprehended at or between ports of entry.
Sec. 132. Evasion of inspection or violation of arrival, reporting, entry, or clearance requirements.
The problem with this plan is that it does too little to enforce our immigration laws on the books. 2400 new agents per year is a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. A portion of the 2400 agents will not make the cut. There will be loss of personnel that we already have through retirement, or just moving on to other opportunities.
The other issue I haven’t heard discussed is how many of these 2400 agents are going to be purely support — communications, desk jobs, etc. As we all know, every corporate entity (whether government or private) has to have a support contingent.
The other big thing I noticed about this bill is that it calls for a lot of reports. My position is stop analyzing and do something about it!
In my opinion, this bill falls far short of the mark. I really hope the House can toughen it up a little.
5/28/2006
I know, I know. I promised a look at the Senate’s Immigration Reform Bill. I’m still working on that. In the mean time, take a look at this dissection of Gore’s “the sky is falling” global warming movie. Dr. Robert Balling Jr. has absolutely taken apart Al Gore’s movie on global warming, and Balling knows his stuff. He’s a professor in the climatology program at Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the greenhouse effect. Apparently, Gore’s movie has ignored some inconvenient truths.
Gore has ignored dissenting opinions. He has implied that certain changes are the fault of human made greenhouse gasses — something that is according to Balling — completely false. He’s cherry picked data to make his case, and has overstated the extent of the threat.
(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global scale. There is no mention of Revelle’s article published in the early 1990s concluding that the science is “too uncertain to justify drastic action.” (S.F. Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, “What to do about Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)
(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt. Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame. But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology and the Journal of Geophysical Research showing that modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.
(3) Many of Gore’s conclusions are based on the “Hockey Stick” that shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore’s Hockey Stick, they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).
(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one took the time to read the downloadable “Summary for Policymakers” in the latest report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), one would learn that “No systematic changes in the frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in the limited areas analyzed” and that “Changes globally in tropical and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant trends evident over the 20th century.”
(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands, Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of 1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal, would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no. China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States. Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few hundredths of a degree of warming.
Inconvenient truths indeed. Rather than bringing the rest of the world up to our standards, through junk science and scare tactics Gore seems intent on bringing the US down to everyone else’s standards. What a world…
Hat Tip: Chad @ Fraters Libertas
5/25/2006
I hope to have a comprehensive review of the Senate Immigration Reform Bill passed today. Obviously there’s a lot of paper to wade through so it may be awhile before I have it posted. My initial reaction is that it’s way to soft on illegals and way to hard on ordinary Americans — specifically employers. If my initial reaction proves to be correct, I hope that the house can toughen it up a little.
5/23/2006
Is there any doubt that the NYT is firmly entrenched on the left side of the aisle?
First, I give you the liberal (to the point of nuttyness) op-ed page who employs such left wing notables as Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, and Bob Herbert. Second, I give you an entire site devoted to covering the leftward slant of the news pages. Here’s one example from this past Sunday’s paper:
Chief political reporter Adam Nagourney, who was quite reluctant to see good signs for eventual presidential winner George Bush during the 2004 campaign, suddenly sees good news all over the place for Congressional Democrats in 2006.
The Times puts Nagourney’s pro-Democratic optimism on the front page Sunday (”In Races for House, More Seats Appear Vulnerable for G.O.P”).
“For months, even in the face of an avalanche of bad news for Republicans, Democratic ambitions for capturing Congress have collided with an electoral map created to protect Republicans from ouster. Despite polls showing rising support for Democrats and scorn for Republicans, analysts have said Democratic hopes for big gains remain remote, because so few seats are in contention.
Certainly that kind of writing is okay for the opinion page, but is it really acceptable on the news pages?
Finally, my last bit of evidence: publisher Aurther Saulzberger Jr’s leftwing rant at the state university of New York’s commencement address this past Sunday. Below are some of his remarks with emphasis added.
…So let’s all tip our hat to the honesty of our favorite non-newscaster, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show. Two years ago he told a graduating class at William and Mary:
“So how do you know what is the right path to choose to get the results you desire? The honest answer is this. You don’t. And accepting that greatly eases the anxiety of your life experience.”
As a journalist; as a media executive; as a human being — I come to
you fully aware of the need we all have to heed Mr. Stewart’s words and
ease our anxieties. The vagaries of life are enormous, and it is those very vagaries about which I want to talk with you.I’ll start with an apology.
When I graduated from college in 1974, my fellow students and I had
just ended the war in Vietnam and ousted President Nixon. Okay, that’s not quite true. Yes, the war did end and yes, Nixon did resign in disgrace
but maybe there were larger forces at play.Either way, we entered the real world committed to making it a better, safer, cleaner, more equal place. We were determined not to repeat
the mistakes of our predecessors. We had seen the horrors and futility of
war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.Our children, we vowed, would never know that.
So, well, sorry. It wasn’t supposed to be this way.
You weren’t supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a
misbegotten war in a foreign land.You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still
fighting for fundamental human rights, be it the rights of immigrants to
start a new life; the rights of gays to marry; or the rights of women to
choose…
I rest my case.
5/22/2006
Rep. William Jefferson (D) New Orleans has suddenly found himself in the middle of a bribery scandal. The FBI searched his D.C. home and offices over the weekend and found about 90,000 dollars stashed away in his freezer in tinfoil and food packages. The money had the same serial numbers as money given to him by an FBI informant. So, it looks like he’s been caught red handed.
In a new amazing turn to the story Jefferson seems to have found himself some unlikely friends in Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist. Their comments on the matter are about the FBI — part of the executive branch — searching congressional offices. Apparently — according to them — this is a big no - no.
First with Patrick Kennedy finding his way out of a DUI and now this (not to mention allegations of corruption in the Republican party), this points out a disturbing trend. Our elected leaders seem to think that they are above the law. Just a word of advice to our elected officials: you are citizens of the United States and you are subject to the same laws as the rest of us. If Jefferson committed a crime, he should have to pay the price just like the rest of us.
By the way, when asked about his political future during one of the recorded conversations with the FBI informant his response was:
“I’m gonna get your deal out of the way … and I probably won’t last long after that,”
Kinda says it all doesn’t it?
5/14/2006
Gail Schoettler, one of the Denver Post’s most liberal columnists is still (after 3 years) singing the “he lied us into war” song. Apparently she doesn’t understand that Bush had to know that there were no WMD’s for it to have been a lie. All the evidence that we have shows that everyone thought there were WMD’s including her hero Bill Clinton.
No question that lying to the nation to take us into war is a far greater crime than lying about sex. No question that impeaching President Clinton was an act of self-righteous demagoguery for purely political gain. But that impeachment paralyzed our government, which is something we cannot afford to do, particularly when the crises we face require a president to focus on them rather than on his own woes.
Lying the nation into war… hmmm, lets take a look at what Bill Clinton said in Feb. of 1998:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
Or how about another one from Feb. of 1998:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
And just for good measure, how about an Al Gore quote. This one is from September of 2002:
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
In fact according to one figure 77% of the Senate assumed he had WMD’s including John Kerry.
Of course, the impeachment of Bill Clinton isn’t Schoettler’s main point. Her point in the column is that the Democrats shouldn’t impeach Bush, he’s destroyed himself. In one respect I agree, the administration has — in recent days — turned a deaf ear to its base, and that has resulted in horrible poll numbers.
In another paragraph in her column Schoettler seems to claim Democrat moral superiority.
Meanwhile, the Republican leadership in Congress has failed to constrain its own arrogance of power, allowing corruption to destroy its credibility. It’s pretty hard to claim the moral leadership of the nation when you can’t control the moral behavior of your own members. Lost in defending itself against scandals, the Republican House leadership cannot provide sensible solutions to the nation’s ills.
That of course is laughable. The Dems are embroiled in just as many scandals as the Republicans. For example, you have Harry Reid’s involvement with Abramoff.
But Abramoff didn’t work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill’s most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time, Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), then-leader of the House Democrats, and the two lawmakers in charge of raising funds for their Democratic colleagues in both chambers, according to a Washington Post study. Reid succeeded Daschle as Democratic leader after Daschle lost his Senate seat last November.
If that’s not enough we can also talk about Patrick Kennedy’s “kid glove” treatment by the DC police.
Ahh, but that’s not the end of Schoettler’s column. She also cries about Republican use of divisive legislation for it’s own benefit.
Lost in defending itself against scandals, the Republican House leadership cannot provide sensible solutions to the nation’s ills. Instead, it has resorted to politically divisive legislation, hoping to split the nation’s electorate to its own advantage. That has worked in the past, but it’s not working this time around. [emphasis mine — TR]
That’s the way things work in Washington. The Democrats have done and would do the same thing if they were still in power. What does Ms. Schoettler think this whole impeach Bush thing is about. Both sides of the aisle use there influence and power for the benefit of their party and their respective states.
By the looks of this column Schoettler is either a politically naive buffoon, or she is pandering to the politically naive readers of the Post’s editorial page.
5/8/2006
Moussaoui — now well into his 16th minute of shame — has asked to withdraw his guilty plea.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Convicted Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial.
In a motion filed Friday but released Monday, Moussaoui said he testified March 27 he was supposed to hijack a fifth plane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House “even though I knew that was a complete fabrication.”
Guess what, that’s not the way our legal system works. Moussaoui is going away for a long time, and unfortunately our tax dollars will go to keep him alive and well fed.
I wonder… could Moussaoui have finally realized that were not joking around? Or does he just want to spend a little more time in the spotlight?
5/7/2006
CQ is covering the surprising reaction amoungst Republicans to the Michael Hayden nomination to DCIA. Apparently Peter Hoekstra — (R) MI and Saxby Chambliss — (R) GA among others are vehemently against military encroachment into the civilian CIA.
A leading Republican came out against the front-runner for CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden, saying Sunday the spy agency should not have military leadership during a turbulent time among intelligence agencies. …
Despite a distinguished career at the Defense Department, Hayden would be “the wrong person, the wrong place at the wrong time,” said the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich.“There is ongoing tensions between this premier civilian intelligence agency and DOD as we speak,” Hoekstra said. “And I think putting a general in charge — regardless of how good Mike is — … is going to send the wrong signal through the agency here in Washington but also to our agents in the field around the world,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”
If Hayden were to get the nomination, military officers would run the major spy agencies in the United States, from the ultra-secret National Security Agency to the Defense Intelligence Agency.
What I don’t understand — and there are certainly those better qualified to debate this than me — is what’s wrong with Michael Hayden. I personally don’t see the problem with military involvement in (or control of) the CIA. It seems to me that Intel collected by the CIA is — in time of war — most often used by the military anyway.
Look, the real issue here is that we are at war with Islamofacists. Maybe it’s time we consider thinking outside the box when it comes to gathering intelligence and running the various agencies tasked with this. We need to start thinking about how to win the war instead of whether or not toes are getting stepped on. As I’ve said before this is a fight for no less than the survival of our way of life. Ideas anyone?
UPDATE: Apparently the President didn’t see anything wrong with Hayden either.
5/4/2006
That was part of a statement made by James Aiken — a former prison official. Personally, I’m not satisfied that Zacarias Moussaoui will “rot” in prison. As a matter of fact, I’m disgusted that my tax money will go to feed and clothe this rotten piece of trash. Moussaoui — the so called 12th hijacker — stayed defiant and unrepentant to the end. As part of his final public statement he is quoted as saying “We will come back one day. You will never get him. God curse America. God save Usama bin Laden. You will never get him”.
He also addressed the three families of 9-11 victims that were on hand for the sentencing.
Lisa Dolan, who lost her husband Bob in the attack on the Pentagon, was one of three family members of victims allowed to speak at Thursday’s sentencing hearing.
She turned to Moussaoui said, “There is still one final judgment day.”
Moussaoui sat in his chair staring at Dolan and the other family witnesses, Rosemary Dillard and Abraham Scott, betraying no emotion as they spoke.
“You have branded me as a terrorist or a criminal or whatever,” he said. “Look at yourselves. I fight for my belief.” He spoke for less than five minutes; the judge told him he could not use his sentencing to make a political speech.
Moussaoui said he kept his speech short because America doesn’t want to listen. “You wasted an opportunity to learn why people like me, like (9/11 hijacker) Mohamed Atta, have so much hatred of you. … If you don’t want to hear, you will feel” pain.
To Dillard, who lost her husband Eddie in the Pentagon, Moussaoui responded: “Maybe one day she can think about how many people the CIA has destroyed. … You have a hypocrisy beyond belief. Your humanity is a selective humanity. Only you suffer.”
“It was just a dagger stuck in my heart, personally — him not showing any remorse for what those terrorists did on 9/11,” Abraham said.
As one final slap in the face:
Moussaoui’s mother Aicha El Wafi, pressed for her country to intervene. “Now he is going to die in little doses,” she said. “He is going to live like a rat in a hole. What for? They are so cruel.”
5/2/2006
Mr. Bob at The Daily Blogster and Joshua at View From a Height have some of the best local coverage of “The Day Without Immigrants” protests yesterday. Go check it out. By the way, what were white people and African Americans doing down there protesting? I thought this was an illegal immigrant issue. Could they have been part of a rent a mob?
5/1/2006
One of the things that — as an American — makes me angry about the protests today is that those who are protesting are misrepresenting the argument. This has never been about immigration, it’s about our sovereignty as a nation and our safety. I don’t have a problem with people immigrating to this country legally. I do however have a problem with those who cross our borders illegally and then expect our services free of charge.
The protesters are right about one thing… this country was built by immigrants — legal immigrants.