About
Captain Ed is a father and grandfather living in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota, a native Californian who moved to the North Star State because of the weather. He lives with his wife Marcia, also known as the First Mate, their two dogs, and frequently watch their granddaughter Kayla, whom Captain Ed calls The Little Admiral.
Read More
The Crows Nest
Rule 1: Drag The Corpse On Over First
If I've learned anything in four years of blogging, don't try to be out in front of the death rumors, especially with the villains of the world. Saddam died a hundred deaths before we caught him alive in his spider hole, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi almost as many before his demise last year. Osama may or may not be alive, but everyone's avoided speculating on his fate for a while now. Maybe Val at Babalu Blog will get luckier with his "Castro Is Dead" story. We all hope so. I'll wait for the announcement ....
Hobbs Choice
Volunteer Voters is holding its annual "Best of Nashville" on-line polls, and one of the categories is for the best political writer. Our friend Bill Hobbs, now posting at Newsbusters, and he'd like his on-line fans to cast their votes. Drop by and put one in for Bill if you get a chance!
Murtha Getting Backlogged On Apologies
Gary Gross of Let Freedom Ring sees another case collapsing on the Haditha charges. He's called for Murtha to apologize earlier, and adds another reason to the tally.
No Such Thing As 'Moderate' Islam?
Turkish PM Tayyip Erdogan told a television interviewer that he finds the label "moderate Islam" offensive. Shrink Wrapped has a lot more on this, but at least in the same interview Erdogan acknowledged that "radical Islam" exists, and that it's been a catastrophe. Be sure to read the whole post.
MS-NBC Gets Punk'd
Power Line has a great post on a lack of journalistic effort on the part of MS-NBC. In covering the Michael Vick story, they reported on what they thought was Al Sharpton's website proclaiming Vick's innocence. I guess Alex Johnson and two other MS-NBC reporters couldn't bother to read the title bar of the site, which proudly proclaims it as a "parody site".
New Instapundit Podcast On Pharmaceuticals
I just caught this e-mail from Glenn Reynolds about his new podcast with Richard Epstein, the author of Overdose: How Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation. Haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but the topic is important enough to make sure I carve out time for it tomorrow. Get their first and tell me what I'm missing ....
Fed Trying A 'Stealth Easing'?
The Federal Reserve seems to have conducted a quiet campaign to steady markets that started spinning out of control, according to King Banaian at SCSU Scholars. He thinks that the Fed has conducted a "stealth easing". Be sure to read his explanation and follow his lnks.
A Shameless Bit Of Sel-Promotion
Gateway Pundit and Val at Babalu Blog note a crass PR move by Hugo Chavez. Venezuela has responded to Peru's eathquake disaster with food shipments -- and with Hugo's smiling picture on the cans. He also uses the tuna-can label to undermine President Garcia of Peru, who narrowly defeated Chavez' pal Ollanto Humalla, whom the labels extol for his "solidarity" with Chavez.
Tacky beyond belief.
Bush Going After Palestinian Terror Financing?
George Bush's new orders to USAID forces them to review the executive management of all NGOs to ensure that they have no terrorist connections. Carl in Jerusalem says at Israel Matzav that the order specifically intends to target Palestinian front groups for terrorists. Let's hope he's right.
Slow Start!
Yes, I'm off to a slow start today, thanks to some scripting issues, a bad back, and an alarm clock that needs replacing. Bear with me -- I'm ramping up, I promise...
And Now, In Little League Action Last Night ...
I once played in a Little League game where we lost, 30-1, obviously before mercy rules came into being. The only comfort during that shellacking was that 13-year-olds don't have to justify their salaries for being on the field. You have to wonder what the Baltimore Orioles have to feel without that caveat today, after losing 30-3 to the Texas Rangers. Sixteen of the runs came in the last two innings .... (via TMV)
Bush Speech On Iraq
I got a couple of e-mails wondering why I haven't linked to George Bush's speech today. I liked it; I just didn't have much to add. Rush Limbaugh covered it well on his site, and Power Line also links approvingly but has nothing much more to say. Michael Goldfarb notes that the Weekly Standard had made a similar argument regarding Vietnam a year ago.
Rove Fears Me -- No, Really!
Hot Air notes the latest fundraising letter from John Edwards. No longer content to indulge his paranoia when Ann Coulter mentions him, now he wants to indulge it when Karl Rove doesn't. Has any candidate seemed this desperate before now?
Racism Or Hard Truth?
Angela Winters looks at an editorial cartoon and the controvery it has caused in Jacksonville, Florida, especially in the black community. Truth or racism? When rap artists tell young listeners not to cooperate with the police, how much responsibility do they have for the victimization that follows? Read all of the essay at The Moderate Voice.
Support Citizen Journalism
Bill Ardolino at INDC Journal reminds us that there is a reporter shortage on the front lines. The best way to solve that problem? Donate to Public Multimedia, the citizen-journalist organization that supports Bill Roggio, Bill Ardolino, and others. (And a direct donation to Michael Yon would be much appreciated as well.)
Comments (27)
Posted by james23 | May 16, 2007 11:41 AM
Keep your powder dry, folks. The devil is in the details. For now, my default is : No Bill is the best outcome.
Posted by MaaddMaaxx | May 16, 2007 11:54 AM
I hope this compromise will include a provision requiring fingerprinting and DNA of all these supposed "family members" and NO immunity for past crimes. Given the number of identity theft, drug related and violent crimes swept under the rug because the illegals have developed lifestyles of changing names and addresses at the drop of a hat, they cannot make this a free ride.
MM
Posted by RBMN | May 16, 2007 12:15 PM
It's good for national security to separate the millions of illegals that don't mind being identified--in exchange for not having to look over their shoulder at work--from those who refuse to be identified under any circumstances, because they maybe have non-traditional occupations like selling drugs, or daytime burglary, or even terrorism.
Posted by Francis Lynn | May 16, 2007 12:30 PM
Conservatives may not do badly with this bill, but the country will. It is rewarding illegal entry into the country, pure & simple. The thousands waiting to enter legally are now suckers. And what do we do with the batch of illegals that come after these, & the ones after those?
Posted by the tapper | May 16, 2007 12:36 PM
What do we do with the present laws on immigration that are currenly on the books? Ignore them??? We seem to be doing a good job at that already. Why don't we enforce the laws that are currently on the books instead of initiating new laws??? I say fire the whole bunch and start over. They are certainly not listening to their constituents, only possible future voters.
Posted by MG | May 16, 2007 12:37 PM
Mr. Morrisey,
How can you be so naive? The larger picture is that none of these enforcement mechanisms will EVER really happen. They'll be abandoned the moment the bill becomes law, and the Democrats have captured their new povery constituency. How many times (how many years!) is it going to take you and the Republicans on the Hill to realize this and stopped getting rolled?
Posted by NoDonkey | May 16, 2007 12:55 PM
"They'll be abandoned the moment the bill becomes law"
That's how Democrats always respond to laws they don't like - they ignore them. So you can pass the perfect immigration bill and it will be ignored as well.
The problem though isn't the Republicans, it is the Democrats.
The same people many of the checklist "conservatives" put into office last fall, because they were so disappointed with the Republicans.
Well, you have what you want. You "sent a message" to the Republicans by putting a bunch of Democrats into office. Now you get to complain that the Republicans aren't forcing the Democrats to enforce the law.
Take that Republicans! The checklist "conservatives" will punish you by electing more Democrats in '08! That will show you.
Too bad Democrat voters (including the illegal aliens who illegally vote in our elections) never think this way.
Posted by Papa Ray | May 16, 2007 1:58 PM
Am I the only one that has noticed that the feds have only built 7 miles of fence instead of the 700 that was voted and approved?
I'm beginning to know for sure (instead of thinking it might be) that our congress are nothing but a bunch of high paid whores.
Nappy headed or not.
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
Posted by RBMN | May 16, 2007 1:59 PM
People say "enforce the existing laws" against employers, but laws that require mind-reading are not good laws. As it stands now, accepting a plausible forgery is obeying the law. To say they broke the law requires mind-reading. So, if you can't take the employers to court and win, they're not sufficient laws. Anybody that says, "just enforce existing laws," is playing checkers when everyone else is playing chess. At least most in Congress seem to be aware of that fact. Others are aware too, but are playing politics with the issue.
Posted by calypso catteraus | May 16, 2007 2:03 PM
the problem is both parties. both sides have sold out the american people, albeit for different reasons: the democrats for the obvious, and the republicans for big business. how this "compromise" does anything beneficial for the country is beyond me. it certainly benefits mexico, but not our own citizens.
the fact is that our only two "choices" --the donkey or the elephant -- are still both animals, i.e. they are more similar than they are disparate. their treachery with respect to this immigration fiasco has shown them to be the true bedfellows they actually are....
Posted by calypso catteraugus | May 16, 2007 2:06 PM
the problem is both parties. both sides have sold out the american people, albeit for different reasons: the democrats for the obvious, and the republicans for big business. how this "compromise" does anything beneficial for the country is beyond me. it certainly benefits mexico, but not our own citizens.
the fact is that our only two "choices" --the donkey or the elephant -- are still both animals, i.e. they are more similar than they are disparate. their treachery with respect to this immigration fiasco has shown them to be the true bedfellows they actually are....
Posted by Ammobob | May 16, 2007 2:45 PM
I'll have to hear an see more on this before making up my mind. I would like to see movement on this issue as regards to enforcement, but I have my reservations as to the sincerity of politicians to make it happen. We need a crackdown on employers along with much tighter border security. Presently, we're being overrun with illegals in NC.
Posted by Matt | May 16, 2007 5:10 PM
Where to start:
1) I believe no bill is better then a bad bill. Unless we pass some constitutional amendment we can not take back this Amnesty.
2) The cost involved in legalizing these Illegals is emormous and I will challenge the credibility of any one who calls themselves a fical conservative who supports this.
3) I seem to remeber Simpson-Mazolli (1986 Amnesty) was suppose to provide border security and end this problem once and for all. I don't think that the border security happened as is evidence of the 12 million illegals we are now going to legalize 21 years later. I predict the same thing will happen here only it will be 24-36 million 20 years from now.
4) I totally I agree that we are being sold out by our politicans again. I will hold out my condemnation for specific politicans when I see the roll call votes. I can tell you this I will personally not vote for any politican of any party that votes for this bill (atleast based on details now being put out there).
Finally one question to Republican/Conservative supporters of this measure. What will be your excuse say in 2, 3, 5, 10 years when we still don't have border security and all we got for this deal is these 12 million lousy illegal aliens?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on you!
Posted by Matt | May 16, 2007 5:15 PM
Where to start:
1) I believe no bill is better then a bad bill. Unless we pass some constitutional amendment we can not take back this Amnesty.
2) The cost involved in legalizing these Illegals is emormous and I will challenge the credibility of any one who calls themselves a fical conservative who supports this.
3) I seem to remeber Simpson-Mazolli (1986 Amnesty) was suppose to provide border security and end this problem once and for all. I don't think that the border security happened as is evidence of the 12 million illegals we are now going to legalize 21 years later. I predict the same thing will happen here only it will be 24-36 million 20 years from now.
4) I totally I agree that we are being sold out by our politicans again. I will hold out my condemnation for specific politicans when I see the roll call votes. I can tell you this I will personally not vote for any politican of any party that votes for this bill (atleast based on details now being put out there).
Finally one question to Republican/Conservative supporters of this measure. What will be your excuse say in 2, 3, 5, 10 years when we still don't have border security and all we got for this deal is these 12 million lousy illegal aliens?
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on you!
Posted by Spec Bowers | May 16, 2007 5:26 PM
Will this proposal do anything to lessen the burden that illegal immigration imposes on the taxpayers? e.g. free medical care, free education, subsidized housing, driving without licenses, registration, or insurance, violating zoning laws, etc.
If illegals worked and paid their own way, they wouldn’t be a large problem. It’s the ones who don’t work, who expect taxpayers to support them, and expect us to adapt to their culture - those are the ones who create a problem.
I read nothing in this proposal that will lessen the burden on the taxpayer.
(cross-posted from HR because most comments seem to be here, not there.)
Posted by patrick neid | May 16, 2007 6:29 PM
rumor has it that children and spouses will be allowed to join the illegals already here. the definitive barbara jordan immigration commission 1990-95 stated very clearly that was one of the things that must not be allowed--and that was when the illegal population was only a few million. another strong recommendation was that children born to illegals must not be granted citizenship because they had been born here. i don't think it's unfair to ask "what the hell is going on here?"
as to the border fence-electronic or otherwise-they admit it is not to prevent entry but just to help get an accurate count! have you seen the demo model of the metal/chain link fence they have in mind? when tested folks penetrated it within five minutes. read the fine print on the electronic fence. it is not being designed to stop illegals from crossing the border but rather to let immigration authorities know where folks like to cross. you can't make this stuff up!
Posted by onlineanalyst | May 16, 2007 7:07 PM
Any deal brokered by Kennedy with the White House promises to raise taxes for Americans. (Keep No Child Left Behind as an example.) This latest shamnesty bill for illegals is no exception.
A spokesman from the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, is presenting to the Judiciary Committee the dollars and cents implications of providing a path to citizenship to illegals, the majority of whom are under-educated and under-trained for the workforce and will strain our already compromised Social Security and Medicare programs if they choose to stay.
Check out this information provided by Kate O'Beirne: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGEwMTY5NmVmODQ2ZTNlMjdmNTZjNTIzYTQ4NDNiMTU=
Mark Krikorian weighs in with further observations:
"If Kate is right, and the Senate is going to repeat the 1986 "grand bargain" (amnesty up front for promises of enforcement in the future), every senator needs to understand that he is voting to give legal status to terrorists — also just like in the 1986 amnesty."
He provides several examples (not just the Duka brothers of Fr. Dix infamy) of how this legal protection is so and concludes:
"Having illegal-alien terrorists in your country is bad; having legal-alien terrorists, with all the rights and protections that come with legal status, is worse. And we'll know whom to thank."
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjkwMjM0MTdiYWZiYWI5MTQ5MzQwM2QyZDZjMTkyZDU=
It appears that too many of our Senators and Representatives value the political pressure of La Raza and their ilk, groups that have no intention of compromising their demands.
Have we to look forward to more taxation without representation with this "grand bargain"?
Posted by george | May 16, 2007 8:04 PM
Think about it. The political class picks and chooses which laws it will enforce. We must cut a "deal" to have even the pretense of our borders being enforced. 20 million criminals can illegally enter the country, commit identity theft, steal social security numbers etc. Then march in our streets waving the flags of foreign nations, demand amnesty and get it. They are going to pay a bribe"fine" to have officials look the other way. Just like Mexico. Breathtaking. There is no honest political process left to participate in.
Posted by Publius Hamilton | May 16, 2007 10:22 PM
Maybe the vote hustling immigration pimps in the US Congress can take a lesson from Oklahoma on the immigration debate. The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 [HB 1804] denies illegal immigrants state identification, and requires all state and local agencies to verify citizenship status of applicants before authorizing benefits. The law also require public employers to enter job applicants into an electronic immigration database to verify legal status. Henry said, however, that the new law would do little to curb illegal immigration and that the real responsibility to deal withe issue lay with the federal government. where we just signed into law a bill that denies state id's, state paid benefits, and makes it a crime to transport an illegal alien, among other things.
Our Democrat Governor reluctantly signed it only because he knew it was veto proof but says it is a federal issue. I guess we know where our trial attorney loving Governor stands on states rights and voting your conscience.
Read more at the Jurist: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/05/oklahoma-governor-signs-immigration.php
Posted by trapeze | May 16, 2007 11:39 PM
I strongly encourage the cutting off of campaign donations (and certain male reproductive organs) from the RNC in general and from anyone in congress who votes for this turkey. Send them a Bush Peso instead:
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/110960.html
Print it. Mail it. Tell them where to stick it.
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | May 17, 2007 1:26 AM
If a terrorist kills any American citizen, and we discover that that person entered America post-9/11 either over an unprotected border or via some "overlooked" paperwork, that American blood will be on President Bush's hands even after he leaves office in '08. Yes, Congress is partly responsible, but it is this President's sworn obligation to enforce the laws of the land and to protect its citizens. Bush can preach all the live long day about security for Iraq and Afghanistan yet he will not defend his own nation's borders. Not even in a post-9/11 world where he is uniquely and historically positioned to act on behalf of our nation's defense. Neither will he pardon agents (also American citizens) who are assaulted by illegals and who must defend themselves against criminals and his own Justice Department.
I consider his dereliction an impeachable offense. Bush has managed to one-up Congressional failings regarding illegal immigration and national security. For that he will always have a black mark next to his name in spite of the trivial advances he likes to promote. They are but a misdirection to his concerted effort to allow amnesty, to encourage chain-migration, and to disregard law about which he has no interest.
Our Federal government is failing American citizens yet again. Meanwhile, Bush is leading the band as he marches off the field leaving yet another amnesty legacy for the nation.
Posted by Erik | May 17, 2007 1:55 AM
Read this and then decide if you think the Republican party or conservatism has any hope for long-term survival if this massive amnesty is passed:
http://amren.com/Reports/Hispanics/HispanicsReport.pdf
Posted by Rose | May 17, 2007 2:13 AM
Capt. I seld om disagree with you, but on this, I most vehemently do.
I live only about an hour and a half from the Mexico border, in Texas, and I am telling you - America cannot afford a compromise with Dim Liberal attempts to give amnesty to illegal alien FELONS, and to swamp America in the process!
You know full well, the GOP are never inclined to UNDO the damage the DIMS accomplish, no matter how they squawk about those things while berating DIMS at Elections time, and begging for your votes because they won't do such things as Dims do - BUT THEY DO NOT UNDO THAT DAMAGE! No matter how much damage they see the stupid policies accomplish!
THAT is the problem with "SETTING" for a COMPROMISE that w ill make BAD LAW that is indeed worse than the situation we already have - where the only REAL problem right now is BUREAUCRACY REFUSAL TO ENFORCE THE LAW WE ALREADY HAVE!
We cannot afford to enforce BAD DIM POLICY by making laws that give them the upper hand for their destructive ways.
Believe me - we cannot afford it!
Besides, if you CANNOT retake Congress in '08, then the DIMS will do much worse added onto this law, then, EMBOLDENED BY THE SUCCESS WE COWARDLY ACCEDE TO, NOW!
Just like Al Qaeda when THEY are emboldened by DIM caving.
Remember Ester - those who make way for our destruction will NOT be rescued, when God raises up another to save us!
Posted by Rose | May 17, 2007 2:19 AM
Posted by: george at May 16, 2007 8:04 PM
AMEN!
And remember - CARRYING 37 DIM VOTING CARDS in EACH POCKET!
Posted by Roy E | May 17, 2007 6:17 AM
Political rationalizations for what is clearly wrong will prove hugely damaging in the end. The politicians created a huge problem by their willful unwillingness to uphold their oath of office (to uphold the laws of he land). Now they can't seem to punt accountability away fast enough. It's clear the politicians will do just about anything to get this issue off the table. there is no principle here - only political expediency is the driving force here. The government has no will to enforce any of the laws they pass. They have proven it over and over and over again.
I sometimes wish we had 'no-confidence' votes for out government they way some other countries do. We need a better way to hold elected officials accountable.
I am one very disgusted citizen.
Posted by james23 | May 17, 2007 10:47 AM
Erik above asks if the GOP can survive massive amnesty? I think not. The Illegals will vote Dem, and former supporters of the GOP will abandon the party in droves. The better question is, who will want the GOP to survive? I want nothing to do with the party that is selling Bush-Kennedy Amnesty.
Mark it down. The GOP has several strong candidates running in 08, all better than the Dem. But, ALL WILL lose, big time, to the Dem unless the GOP nominee comes out now and runs hard AGAINST Bush and the party elders on the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty.
This second Bush term just cannot end quickly enough to suit me. It looks like we are going to be fighting this guy all the way to the bitter end.
Posted by Angel | May 17, 2007 7:06 PM
'I consider his dereliction an impeachable offense.'
Now, now. You act like there have been no fines against hirers of illegal aliens. Not true! The record shows that our enforcer of laws in chief presided over *3* small fines in 2004. Isn't that enough to deter employer law breaking and illegal immigration? If the IRS fined 3 people in a year what do you think would happen the next year? Here are graphs of immigraton law enforcement since IRCA. Guess what direction they go? And guess what direction they will go after CIR? Triggers are shams and once the fraudulent trigger is pulled we're back to 'trust us' on enforcement. Since '86, we've had all combos of Dem presidents, Rep presidents, Dem congress, Rep congress and the story is always the same. Get it, people? Opinion polls consistently show low single digit support for increased immigration levels but guess what ALL proposals do? Vast INCREASES in immigration levels. Total breakdown in popular sovereignty. Write your reps and tell them you're a one issue voter but they won't care much because they know when both parties are in on the fix, there is no place for you to go. Do it anyway though.