Powered by TypePad

« Gonna Walk Before They Make Me Run | Main | All Too Human »

May 06, 2010



anduril, I think the guy at the blog you referenced was pretty much agreeing with me.

I wanted to clarify--I thought some of your slang could've been taken either way and wasn't sure which way it was intended or how deliberately it was intended.

Is this déjà vu with Judith Miller all over again? A leak of classified information to our nation’s paper of record may end up with a reporter facing a contempt citation and a jail term. James Risen, The New York Times investigative reporter, has been asked by prosecutors, on pain of imprisonment, to disgorge the identity of the anonymous sources who divulged CIA secrets he wrote about in his 2006 book, State of War. The key difference between then and now, one causing alarm and dismay in liberal circles, is that it is Barack Obama’s Justice Department—not George W. Bush’s—that is brandishing the subpoena.

--Interesting that Neocon JOMers deride Eurabia but are bound and determined to create Amerabia.--

I have no problem restricting the number of immigrants from Moslem countries.
For decades we had quotas related to a percentage of nationalities already here and even now we have quotas by hemishpere and limits on numbers per country. In fact we currently have a bias in favor of Eastern Hemisphere numbers, so what's the problem with other biases, especially from countries that keep sending us crazy people?


"unemployment UNEXPECTEDLY rising to 9.9%"

"The New York Times breathlessly reports the new 9.9% unemployment number as wonderful news, proclaiming that the "Economy Gains Impetus as U.S. Employers Add 290,000 Jobs!"

Doug Ross Reports.

"Tyler Durden's headline reads, "Fake +290K Payrolls "Added", Real Number Is 36K After Census And Birth-Death, Unemployment Goes Back To 9.9%, Underemployment At 17.1%"

And the leftists wonder why no one believes any number they put out.


I have no problem restricting the number of immigrants from Moslem countries.

Well, if no one else is gonna say it, I'll have to say it for them:



Whoa Captain Hate...I watched that Pelosi video and felt the need to "bob & weave" to escape her flailing arms! Good Lord!

Al Bing

Military Tribunal should be used when defense discovery will compromise National Security methods and sources. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to not run the suspect through the criminal justice system. As long as these types are isolated from other prisoners to avoid Radicalizing, we probably can avoid the PC (e.g. Koran hysteria) of the Military system.

It would be nice if the Obama Justice Department had clear requirements.


TC writes: `` Free markets and economic freedoms exist within societies with a rule of law protecting the exercise of these rights.''

Sure. A truly free market just doesn't work. I get that. But what I don't understand is why most American conservatives want to rely strictly on big government, very big government, in response to the immigration problem, rather than using market-based solutions...

Melinda Romanoff


It's been going on in all sorts of the Gov't stats.

Here's a good summation of algos.


why most American conservatives want to rely strictly on big government, very big government, in response to the immigration problem, rather than using market-based solutions...

As TC tried to explain, markets presume the rule of law. A market-based solution (charging an admission fee?) would still require control of the borders. Your question is tantamount to asking why conservatives don't support market-based solutions to the problem of crime. Conservatives believe the primary, if not the only, functions of government are law enforcement and security (internal and external). So there's no irony or paradox in the conservative position here.

Having said all that, I do think an important part of any solution would involve allowing more legal immigration. That might put me in a minority here, but so be it.


Thank you Mel.

Know you are busy but when you see something insightful like that, please post.

We will take it from there.

Melinda Romanoff


Others own my words, first.


Jimmyk writes: ``Your question is tantamount to asking why conservatives don't support market-based solutions to the problem of crime.''

That doesn't wash. Immigration is a regulatory issue, not a question of natural law. Working without the proper visa is a crime in the same way that it is a crime for Joe the Plumber to fix Sarah Palin's tanning machine without a license.
Immigration is unmistakably a function of the market. Mexicans aren't coming for the weather, they are simply trying to sell their labor to the highest bidder -- a classic market imbalance.
Some conservatives, like the Wall Street Journal editorial board, recognize this and call for the market-based solution of increasing legal immigration.
Many others, like the people running the GOP/Tea Party, show that they aren't really free-marketeers at all, they are merely spouting free market rhetoric as a way to advocate for the interests of the wealthy and powerful.


Opposing "the interests of the wealthy and powerful" in this dream world you live in are the various centimillionaires and billionaires who run the Democratic party, quite a bit of the Republican party leadership, and almost every newspaper and tv network there is including the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.

"Advocating for the interests of the wealthy and powerful" are most of the rest of the country.

Immigration is a regulatory issue

I'm glad to see you back down from your idiotic claim that a desire to enforce immigration law is tantamount to racism.

Violating immigration law is not the same as an arguably victimless crime like Obama's heroin use. In order to protect the liberties Americans yet enjoy from diminishing even further than they are under the most anti-liberty government in the nation's history, it's reasonable for liberty lovers to prevent the electorate from expanding to include millions of people who, as illiterates from cultures prone to embracing cults of personality, are certain to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and against the very economic freedoms that made this country attractive to them in the first place.

JM Hanes


Conservatives, as a whole, are in favor of legal immigration, not against it. The idea that they are anti-immigrant, instead of anti illegal immigration has been manufactured and promoted almost entirely by the left, with a few of the usual elitist suspects along for the ride.

The idea that comprehensive immigration "reform" was derailed by racist, xenophobic, conservatives, is also a convenient Democratic fabrication. Public opinion against it was running so high, that Democrats, themselves, wimped out. and started blame shifting immediately. Pelosi finally persuaded them to throw themselves on their swords this time around.

You, of course, will swallow any stereotypical kool-aid on offer.



I stand in awe of your Sysiphian diligence in sedulously rolling the solid granite boulder of bunkerbuster's noggin to the top of the mountain of enlightenment time after time only to have it endlessly bounce, unfazed, back to base camp.

Melinda Romanoff



Define a "free market", as you see it.

Take your time in composing your essay.

Be concise, and do try to include Adam Smith accurately.

And, from such, you will consider yourself ready for the summer Scottish game.

And be patient.


Conservatives, as a whole, are in favor of legal immigration

That's begging the question. If the progressives manage their dream of erasing the border, unlimited immigration will in fact be legal - would you support it in that situation?

It still isn't racist to oppose the progressives. I don't want 30 million people streaming across the northern border either, and for the same reason I oppose what's happening down south: the country next to us in either direction has flaws I don't want to import.

JM Hanes

LOL, Ignatz. Sure wish TypePad still let us post hearts.

bgates: If there aren't any borders then the word immigration wouldn't even apply. I'm not sure why you would assume that I support unlimited legal immigration.


I didn't assume, I asked. The assumption would have been warranted if it were true that "conservatives support legal immigration", full stop, but I gave you credit for thinking more clearly than you wrote.


bgates says he opposes immigration because of "flaws I don't want to import.''
He's far from alone. J.D. Hayworth has made the same sort of comments as have Tom Tancredo, the Fox News bloviators, Lou Dobbs and most of the talkradio agony Republican corps.
It's clear that this faction of the GOP has little faith in American values to prevail on immigrants (despite massive historical evidence to the contrary) and even less in the free market to work better than government controls.
Bush was oddly betwixt and between this faction and the "Joe the Plumber" faction, many of whom might have to work a lot harder if they couldn't pay sub-market wages to illegal workers or, at least, pay rock-bottom wages to workers afraid of being replaced by illegals.
For about two weeks there it looked like the GOP's eccentric base, aka the Tea Party, was actually going to run on libertarianism and unbridled support for the Constitution. Then came the AZ immigration law and the admission that, after all, they don't much care for the fourth amendment. Then the Times Square plot and the moronic "ban Muslims" response that triggered with the erstwhile Constitutionalists. Maybe they'll be back to their faux-libertarian rhetoric in another two weeks, but they're a bit like the virgin who can't be unscrewed. I live for the moment that the Teabaggers actually fields a candidate or, gasp, finds the literacy to actually compose a platform and/or manifesto that isn't composed exclusively of links to Glenn Beck performance artworks and heavily edited youtube videos "proving" that Obama is a secret Muslim communist who hates white people, wants to turn Israel over to Ahmadinejad's evil gay uncle and doesn't brush his teeth after hitting the crack pipe.
How glorious it would be to watch a Tea Party candidate explain in a debate to Ron Paul why they think the fourth amendment doesn't really cover people who look like Mexicans who work really hard or why the first amendment doesn't apply to Islam.
Oh wait a minute, didn't Ron Paul WIN a Tea Party straw poll??
I'm going to dearly love the 2012 election, and the 2010 vote is probably going to have some priceless moments as well...


Mel: the meaning of free market is pretty self evident. I don't know why you'd me to explain it to you. If you have a point to make, why not at least attempt to do so?


Ok, it is silly to be pedantic about something written at 1:23am, but "unlimited legal immigration " is an oxymoron -- "legal immigration" is, by definition, immigration subject to the limits of the law, so it can't be unlimited.


It's sillier to be wrong in an attempt to be pedantic, which you are. Your mistake is complete, absolute, and unlimited - but it doesn't violate any laws; thus, the mistake is legal.

If you wanted to drown your sorrow over your error, you could go to Denny's, which last I heard offered a bottomless cup of coffee, and enjoy an unlimited legal beverage.

I could provide more examples. In fact, there's no legal limit on how many I could give....


the country next to us in either direction has flaws I don't want to import.

And some countries have flaws that are arguably much worse. This is a progressive conceit shared by many Neocons, that the world wants to come to America to be just like us. Wrongo. To a dismaying extent, they want to them their prejudices and cultures with them and recreate their cultures here in more comfortable surroundings--subsidized by you know who.


It's no surprise to see Anduril display still more disdain for the durability and appeal of American values.
Either that, or all he means by the weasely "to a dismaying extent" is "sometimes."
I've seen no data on the subject, but I'm inclined to suggest from general observation that there are far more native-born Americans who fail to appreciate or live up to American values than there are immigrants who similarly fall short...
While it is progressive, it is certainly no conceit to suggest that American values have a great appeal to people from everywhere and that they prove attractive to the vast majority who come here to work, legally and otherwise...Moreover, American values are far more at risk of dilution from widespread, mainstream consumerism and excessive individualism than from any "outside" influences...

Sometimes it's just blatant, bb.

Yeah, freedom and property. Big no-nos to the Progressives.

The comments to this entry are closed.