Comment Last Three
May 16, 2010
Who is responsible for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill? It is a combination of industry and government. However, the oil leak must be stopped before it destroys the Gulf and the entire Gulf coast between the U.S. and Mexico. This amount of oil will harm and destroy marine animals and the jobs of thousands.
When oil companies drill in marine locations, they must have the ability to control any unexpected technical issues. If the water is too deep to control technical issues, then they should not drill in those depths. We must be able to control drilling so it does not destroy our natural environments.
BP was not ready to control this type oil spill and has not performed well in finding a solution. All oil companies must evaluate their processes and ensure they have technical controls for marine oil rigs. The latest "experiment" using a mile-(1.6-kilometer) long pipe has not worked to capture much of the oil flowing into the Gulf of Mexico.
Engineers hit a snag when they tried to connect two pieces of equipment a mile (1.6 kilometer) below the water's surface. BP PLC chief operating officer Doug Suttles said one piece of equipment, called the framework, had to be brought to the water's surface so that adjustments could be made to where it fits with the long tube that connects to a tanker above.
The framework holds a pipe and stopper, and engineers piloting submarine robots will try to use it to plug the massive leak and send the crude through the lengthy pipe to the surface. "The frame shifted, so they were unable to make that connection," said Suttles, who believes the adjustments will make the device work.
At least 210,000 gallons (795,000 liters) of oil has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico since the oil rig exploded April 20 and sank two days later. Eleven people were killed in the blast.
A week ago, the company tried to put a massive box over the leak, but icelike crystals formed and BP scrapped that plan. BP is also drilling a relief well that is considered the permanent solution to stopping the leak. It's about halfway done and still months away from being completed. The company also is still considering using a smaller containment dome known as a "top hat," as well as a "junk shot," in which golf balls and rubber would be inserted to try to clog the leak.
Meanwhile, BP began spraying undersea dispersants at that leak site and said the chemicals appear to have reduced the amount of surface oil.
The federal government must be very proactive in solving this oil spill. Find a solution to the oil spill.
March 28, 2010
Below is an article by George Will concerning the birth rights of babies born to illegals. The US Congress must stop this crazy idea that babies of illegals are US citizens. This illegal right brings millions of illegals to the US and this must stop. Our elected politicians are not doing their job of protecting American citizens and protecting our Constitution.
An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship
By George F. Will
Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15 Washington Post
A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.
To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.
If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:
"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."
Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.
Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."
Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."
March 27, 2010
Due to the lack of security on our southern border, we are experiencing increased drug and gang violence across our country. This is totally due to the administration not securing our borders. When will the elected leaders of our nation start securing our borders with our military? It will take military force on both sides of the border to stop the drugs and violence.
Mexican drug cartels formed new alliances in 2009 with violent American street and prison gangs that helped tighten their stranglehold on the lucrative U.S. narcotics market, but competition among Mexican smugglers remains fierce and threatens more bloodshed in the United States, according to a Justice Department report.
The 2010 Drug Threat Assessment, released Thursday, also says Mexican drug cartels control most of the illicit cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine trade into the U.S., along with much of the marijuana distribution. The cartels' tentacles reach every state, including some unexpected rural areas of the U.S.
"The growing strength and organization of criminal gangs, including their growing alliances with large Mexican [drug trafficking organiza[JUMP]tions], has changed the nature of midlevel and retail drug distribution in many local drug markets, even in suburban and rural areas," says the National Drug Intelligence Center report.
"As a result, disrupting illicit drug availability and distribution will become increasingly difficult for state and local law enforcement agencies." According to the report, the Mexican connection benefits U.S. street gangs, as they are able to buy drugs directly from the cartels, which enables the gangs to flood the streets with less expensive drugs by cutting out midlevel wholesale dealers.
As an example, according to the report, members of the Chicago-based Latin Kings gang in Midland, Texas, now purchase cocaine directly from Mexican traffickers for $16,000 to $18,000 a kilogram. Those drugs then can be shipped directly to Chicago, where it would have cost the gang nearly $30,000 more to purchase a kilogram of cocaine from a midlevel wholesaler.
"With this savings," the report says, "the gang undersells other local dealers who do not have the capacity to buy large wholesale quantities directly from Mexican [drug trafficking organizations] in Mexico or along the Southwest border." The street gangs also prove useful to the cartels. The report says drug traffickers use gang members in Mexico and, to a lesser extent, in the U.S., especially in Texas and California, to protect smuggling routes, collect debts and kill rival traffickers.
"Gang members who are U.S. citizens are a particularly valuable asset to Mexican [drug trafficking organizations] because they can normally cross the U.S.-Mexico border with less law enforcement scrutiny and therefore are less likely to have illicit drug loads interdicted," the report says.
Despite the worries of U.S. law enforcement, a vast majority of the violence still occurs on the Mexican side of the border. In 2009, according to unofficial estimates, as many as 8,000 people in Mexico, including 800 police and military officers, were killed as the cartels fought over smuggling corridors and responded to increased attention from authorities.
Mr. President---Stop supporting the illegals and the criminals---start enforcing the law and securing our nation. Your number one job is to protect American citizens.
September 11, 2009
I used a ROTC scholarship in college to assist me with college expenses and then I served 20 years in the US Army. I had a great career and traveled around the world. With the security issues of our nation, it is beyond belief that certain elite (and liberal) colleges will not allow ROTC on their campuses. It is now time to stop all federal funding of these universities.
Seven elite universities persist in banning the Reserve Officers Training Corps from their campuses. This is not only unfair to students, but dangerous to civil-military relations.
“The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”
—Thucydides, Greek historian
These schools do not support the nation's obligations of citizenship. Serving in the military is a great way to show love of your country and to serve your nation. These students are taught that serving in the military is not just and is a bad career selection. Students at these universities do not have any real understanding of the sacrifices such idealism can require. They are self-centered and have a negative impression of those who serve our military.
Fifty years ago, a significant number of Ivy League graduates joined the military. Today, hardly any do. Even more troubling is the fact that few students at these schools have any exposure whatsoever to the military that exists to defend them.
During the late 1960s, schools such as Brown, Columbia, Harvard and Yale banned on-campus ROTC programs. This practice continued under evolving rationales, the most recent being Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving openly in uniform. Until recently, recruiters could not even visit campuses without having their access to students severely restricted.
It is time that we demand that the US Congress stop funding these universities.