About Me

Name: Always To The...
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

No Amnesty In Arizona

The problem of illegal immigration seems to take care of itself if laws are obeyed and enforced. For the latest evidence, we turn to Sen. John McCain's home state.

Arizona is seeing signs of a flight by Mexican immigrants out of the state and back across the border. Local reformers credit the state's recent crackdown on illegal immigration. Indeed, sanctions against employers are playing a key role.

In response to the crackdown, illegals are flooding the Mexican consulate in Phoenix to obtain papers to move back across the border and enroll their children in school.

The consulate is reporting an "unusual" 400% increase in parents applying for Mexican birth certificates for their anchor babies and other documents they need to return to Mexico.

Amnesty advocates argue it's not feasible to deport millions of illegals. They say it's impossible to round up 12 million people and kick them out of the country.

But the out-migration in Arizona proves you don't have to. Just making a strong show of law enforcement at the work site and on the street corners is enough to discourage illegals from staying.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Myths of Oil Independence

A friend recently passed on a chain letter urging independence from Middle Eastern oil. It's a seductive idea. Here's the gist: "Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia.

Alas, there is no easy solution to our problems of energy dependence. This proposal is predicated on a fundamental error, not understanding that oil is a fungible commodity; it moves around when entering the world market. I'm not referring to its viscosity but rather its tradability. Many types of crude oils are interchangeable and refiners substitute among them.

We import about 60 percent of our consumption, a quarter comes from the Middle East. There are only two ways to eliminate Middle Eastern revenue from this demand; either prohibit imports or eliminate consumption. Neither option is possible for a long, long time. Buying from Sunoco, Conoco, or any firm that claims not to buy Middle Eastern crude, might make us feel good, but it would have no serious effect on Middle Eastern producers.

The blunt fact is that regardless of what we want, or what politicians recurrently promise, for the foreseeable future we are locked in a petroleum based economy and society. This is a real problem on multiple dimensions.

There are no easy answers; buying petroleum products from companies that don't import from the Middle East isn't one.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America, 1 ACLU, 0

From Michelle Malkin;

You may recall in December 2005 when the blabbermouths at the NYTimes revealed a classified program set up by the Bush administration monitor terrorist communications in the US (which inspired an entire gallery of media blabbermouth posters like the one above). The ACLU quickly and literally followed suit to kill the program.

Well, the outcome of their obstructionist efforts is just across the wires . . .

You can’t connect the dots if you don’t collect them.

Flashback: The left’s selective outrage over privacy invasion.

Look for the ACLU to go after Amtrack’s newly announced random bag search policy.

Background:

Federal Judge Rules Bush Surveillance Program Unconstitutional
Newsflash: NSA Doing Its Job
Finally: Justice Dept. Opens NSA Leak Probe
In Defense of the NSA
The New York Times Strikes Again
NSA and the Law: What the Times Didn’t Print
Red Alert: Chicken Littles on the Loose
Sorry NYT, America is OK With NSA



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

They Want Us To Give Up What We Believe

A piece in the American Spectator bashes movement conservatives and instructs us to get in line with establishment Republicans on issues like biofuels. We're supposed to shut up, broom the truth, and pander for liberal votes.

American Spectator: Why are Movement Conservatives Increasingly Tone Deaf?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is It Hillary, No Matter What?

The Clintons are now trying to steal pledged delegates from Obama. Your political lesson today: Democrat pledged delegates aren't pledged at all. Democrats simply will not allow real voters to determine the nomination, because they do not trust the people. The MSM are increasingly declaring this race over for Hillary, but don't bet on Mrs. Clinton allowing her lifelong dream to die. She will get this nomination, no matter who wins the voting.

"He may win the nomination, but Hillary will be the nominee."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Give Me A Break

Michelle Obama told a crowd that "for the first time in [her] adult life she is "proud of her country," because "hope is making a comeback." She also has said that her husband is the only man who can save our nation's soul.
Tags: obama  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Is She Losing?

Feminists would be upset if Hillary doesn't win. Today, the Boston Globe published that very story. She's so smart and qualified, yet she's losing to Obama!

Boston Globe: Clinton's Struggle Vexes Feminists

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Silence Of The Saps

About the Clinton's.  Does anyone really believe they wouldn't try this?  From the Captain.

The voters in the Democratic primaries, as opposed to the caucuses, have labored under the delusion that their delegates have a commitment to follow the popular vote in their state. A little-known rule in the DNC removed the first-ballot requirement of pledged delegates to remain faithful to their state's vote. The Hillary Clinton campaign has begun strategizing to get enough of Barack Obamas' pledged delegates to flip -- and Obama himself appears ready to flip if she tries it . . .

As this primary continues, we find out more and more unsavory aspects of the Democratic Party's processes. The superdelegates were bad enough -- an attempt by the DNC to thwart the will of the voters in case the primaries selected someone not in tune with the party Establishment. Now we find out that all of the primaries and caucuses, and all of the get-out-the-vote efforts that went along with them, mean almost nothing. The party and not the people will select the nominee, or, at least under the DNC's rules, that remains a very distinct possibility.

The rules aren't going out the window; they're getting held up to the light, and their stench has become overwhelming. The Clintons don't suggest breaking the rules but simply using them to their advantage.

The press has reported endlessly on the enthusiasm gap between the Republican and Democratic primaries. That will prove a double-edged sword if Hillary or Obama somehow manages to get significant defections among pledged delegates. The whole convention will turn into a massive vote-buying bazaar in Denver, and the saps who turned out in record numbers in these primaries and caucuses will find out that their efforts meant absolutely nothing at all.

You think an enthusiasm gap existed in the primaries? Wait to see what happens if Hillary wins the nomination in this manner. The silence of the saps in November will be deafening. (via The Moderate Voice)

UPDATE: TPM Election Central has a denial from the Clinton campaign. As Joe Gandelman says, this most likely was a trial balloon that fell absolutely flat. I doubt that Roger Simon got up this morning and decided to invent the story out of whole cloth.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Shame On The LA Times

From the Captain.  My point with this is to show that the Democrats, with their press allies, are starting to attack McCain, their favorite "maverick" until now.  I do not agree with McCain on this.

The Los Angeles Times puts itself in the unusual position of scolding John McCain over his opposition to torture, claiming that he betrayed his principles in voting against the legislation sponsored by Dianne Feinstein in the Senate last week. The editorial says McCain should be ashamed for his vote and accuses him of abetting torture, when McCain has good reason to believe that the Feinstein bill does more damage than benefit . . .

This is part of the Democratic attack on McCain in its infancy. They want to paint him as a crazed warmonger and have already begun taking his remarks out of context to do so. Now they want to sour his relationship with independents and moderate Democrats by hailing the Feinstein bill and casting him as a villain for opposing it. Unfortunately, it could work, but the truth is somewhat different.

McCain has opposed waterboarding and other forms of torture for years, even while both Democrats and Republicans in Congress tacitly approved it in the aftermath of 9/11. He authored a bill in 2006 that he believes outlawed both without making the mistake of giving our enemies our playbook. Since no acts of waterboarding have occurred after 2003 and the CIA had already banned the practice, there won't be any test cases, but clearly McCain sees the Feinstein bill as superfluous -- and worse.

The idea that the Army Field Manual defines torture is a fallacy on which this entire argument rests. The AFM details what Army interrogators may do, but it doesn't provide the ur-text of non-torture. The AFM, by the nature of our democracy, has to be a public document, but CIA practices should not and do not need to be publicized. By holding the CIA to the confines of the AFM, we take a lot more than waterboarding off the table, including barking dogs, which hardly constitutes torture in any practical or reasonable sense.

If you could save one life by having a dog bark at a detainee, would you do it? For Pete's sake, who wouldn't?

McCain opposed this legislation because it's simply a badly-written bill that hands a training manual to our enemies. It's not just unnecessary, it damages our ability to glean information by limiting our options and allowing our enemies to prepare for American interrogation.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

It Depends On How One Views Death

From the Captain;

E.J. Dionne wonders whether John McCain may have his priorities askew in the upcoming election. By focusing on terrorism as the "transcendent challenge", McCain may misunderstand the concerns of ordinary Americans in 2008 and make himself irrelevant, Dionne argues . . .

Dionne may prove accurate in his analysis. He may see the American public as increasingly tired of fighting terrorists, and more interested in pocketbook issues. Other areas of foreign policy might have more appeal, especially the re-run of the Japanophobia of the 1980s as the Sinophobia of today.

But does that make Dionne right? Let me ask it this way. How many people think that the rise of China as an economic power might kill 3,000 Americans in New York on a bright late-summer morning? Do people believe that the purported alienation of Latin America will bring a car-bomb attack on Americans in Buenos Aires? Will the supposed "growing resistance" to American influence in Europe wind up killing 200 people in embassies in Africa?

Of course not. In truth, the issues that Dionne mentions remain with us regardless of whether terrorists exist or not, and they're addressable at the same time. McCain will undoubtedly address these foreign-policy issues during his campaign. That doesn't make them more important than terrorism, or especially less urgent.

What a difference we see between September 12, 2001 and today! On that day and for the next few years, we couldn't wait to accuse people in and out of government of treating terrorism exactly the way Dionne suggests the Democrats should treat it now. The departure of 3,000 Americans into the dust of New York City put terrorism at the center of our consciousness for the first time, despite a string of attacks on American assets over the previous eight years. We spoke about connecting dots, institutional apathy, and a lack of focus.

Now, six years later, we have forgotten that terrorism kills. It doesn't just put us in a bad trading position, as if tthat's anything new. It doesn't just annoy people in Latin America. Terrorism kills Americans, hundreds and thousands at a time, and terrorists plan on killing many more of us if we get complacent about it. If John McCain reminds us of that and people don't listen, eventually we may discover in a very grisly manner just how right he is -- and just how bad our attention span got after 9/11.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Biofuels, Worth It Or Not?

The promise of biofuels: Hype or a real solution? - With gas prices approaching $4 a gallon and industries searching for new ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, biofuels – fuels such as ethanol derived from corn and other plant sources rather than petroleum – are becoming an increasingly attractive option to help mitigate the impacts of climat e change and reduce our oil imports.

The promise of powering our cars exclusively with green energy from plants prompted President Bush to ask Congress recently for $225 million for biofuels research – a 19 percent increase over this year’s federal spending level. And it brought more than 300 scientists and business leaders from around the nation to a meeting here recently hosted by the University of California San Diego to discuss new ways of producing ethanol from plants and other promising avenues of biofuels research.

Everyone seems to be touting the benefits of biofuels these days: Midwestern farmers, environmentalists, state and federal legislators, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, business leaders, venture capitalists and university scientists. But can corn-based ethanol – the primary focus of current biofuels efforts – deliver what we need to accomplish? And are the promises of biofuels more hype than real?

Tags: hype   biofuels  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Clean Air

NYT still wrong: Judicial Rebukes on Clean Air  The Supreme Court emphatically did not find that the Clean Air Act mandated regulation of greenhouse gases — merely that it may allow such regulation. From what we can determine about climate sensitivity to enhanced greenhouse then no amount of greenhouse emission control will make any measurable difference in global mean temperature or climate (not the same thing).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

That Newfangled Light Bulb - Across the world, consumers are being urged to stop buying outdated incandescent light bulbs and switch to new spiral fluorescent bulbs, which use about 25 percent of the energy and last 10 times longer. In Britain, there is a Ban the Bulb movement. China is encouraging the change. And the United States Congress has set new energy efficiency standards that will make Edison’s magical invention obsolete by the year 2014.

Now, the question is how to dispose of these compact fluorescent bulbs once they break or quit working.

Unlike traditional light bulbs, each of these spiral bulbs has a tiny bit of a dangerous toxin — around five milligrams of mercury. And although one dot of mercury might not seem so bad, almost 300 million compact fluorescents were sold in the United States last year. That is already a lot of mercury to throw in the trash, and the amounts will grow ever larger in coming years.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Polar Bears And Too Much Ice

Too Much Ice: Polar Bears Starving - You are not going to like the picture accompanying the story below in the Greenland newspaper, Sermitsiaq(k) - a shot and bleeding, 2.4 m tall, female polar bear hung on a trawler’s jib. Polar bears are iconic, and they have been ruthlessly employed by the media to promote the threat of ‘global warming’. Unfortunately, around the Greenland town of Sisimiut [above: south-western Greenland, at 5965 folk (2007), the second largest town], it is the polar bears that are becoming the threat [‘Op til seks bjørne er set i nærheden af Sisimiut, nogle helt tæt på byen’ (‘Six polar bears seen in the vicinity of Sisimiut, some very close to town’), Sermitsiaq(k), February 14/15]:
 
“[Free translation] Nobody knows how many polar bears stay around Sisimiut town at the present time, but Mrs. Maria Aarup doesn’t doubt their presence. She saw several bears on Amerloq fjord on Tuesday… On Thursday morning, more polar bears were again seen around the airport area, and there were reported tracks at the garbage dump.”
 
The story goes on to warn (wisely one would guess)
Tags: Polar Bears  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Polar Bears Seem To Be OK

There’s no need to ’save’ the polar bear - Exxon used to encourage motorists to ”put a tiger in your tank.” Well, a different animal may begin influencing traffic soon. Polar bears could force drivers to shell out even more money for gasoline.

Why? Because environmental groups are pushing to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, and the Bush administration is considering their demands.

It might make sense — if the polar bear were endangered. But the worldwide population of these bears has more than doubled since 1965, to an estimated 20,000-25,000 today. Far from being threatened, by all accounts the bears are thriving.

So what’s behind the push to ‘’save” the bears? A desire to ban energy exploration in much of Alaska, and a threatened species tag is just the ticket to make it happen.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive