If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Diogenes’ Middle Finger, with a post on what to replace the Confederate statues with.

Read: If All You See… »

Bummer: Illegal Aliens Are Getting A Harder Punishment For First Time Offenders

Cue the tiny violins

A Harder Punishment For First-Time Offenders Who Cross U.S. Border Illegally

Every weekday now, a quietly chaotic but systemic routine plays out in a courtroom in a downtown federal court in Tucson.

Defense attorneys, U.S. prosecutors and marshals in dark blue suits stand in groups talking quietly. And then, seven men and women are led into the courtroom through a side door by a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

It’s a pretty quick process, part of what is called Operation Streamline, meant to put illegals in front of a judge then deport them.

Eréndira Castillo is an immigration attorney who works with Operation Streamline defendants.

“Many people say, ‘It’s not a crime to enter the country illegally.’ It is,” Castillo said. “It’s been on the books since 1952. It’s not a new crime.” (snip)

Most defendants are sentenced to time served, then deported.

That deportation carries some weight in this federal courtroom though and if they are caught again, they will face real prison time. Those who have already been caught at least once go to prison. Anywhere from 30 days to six months.

OK, it’s a crime, so, what’s the problem? They’re being deported back to where they came from. How is that “harder”?

“The United States government pays $2,500, at least, to house an individual incarcerated,” Castillo said. “And do we really want to house and spend $2,500 for one person because they crossed the border illegally? I think that’s a conversation we should have in our communities.”

He’s correct. When an illegal is caught, they should be immediately deported, rather than spend money to house them. What the pro-illegal alien folks want is for the illegals to be released on their own recognizance, with a promise to return for their court date. Which they rarely do. They just disappear into America. And then those same pro-illegal alien folks want the lawbreakers to be given citizenship. So they can vote Democrat and be given welfare and healthcare and housing and be beholden to government.

Read: Bummer: Illegal Aliens Are Getting A Harder Punishment For First Time Offenders »

The Eclipse Can Be A Call To Action On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Is anybody surprised in the least that the Cult of Climastrology is using the coming eclipse to pimp its cultish ways?

Let Monday’s eclipse be a call to action on climate change

Talmud teaches: “When the sun is eclipsed, it is a bad omen for the entire world.”

This is not surprising. Nearly every ancient tradition shared this view. Shakespeare describes an eclipse as a “stain on the sun that portended no good.” The English word “eclipse” comes from the Greek, “ekleipsi,” which implies, at its root, abandonment. In a prescientific world, the sun’s unexpected diminishment and even disappearance must have been utterly terrifying. Without its light and heat, the Earth would be a lifeless, frozen hunk of rock. What could be more traumatic than the sun’s abandonment? (snip)

Yet I am convinced that with a bit of post-modern interpretation, Talmud still has something significant to teach us on these matters. My conviction that eclipses are not sent as inherently purposeful messages from an omnipotent deity need not leave them absent of moral significance. As fundamentally meaning-making creatures, we human beings are strongly inclined to find our own purposes in events after the fact. This eclipse might still serve as a powerful sign for humanity if that’s how we consciously choose to understand it.

How, then, might we interpret both the fear and wonder of this week’s solar eclipse in a contemporary context?

I suggest we take it as a call to action on climate change. On Monday, Aug. 21 — or, by the Jewish calendar, the eve of Rosh Chodesh Elul, a month devoted to reflection and repentance — the source of life on Earth will, for a moment or two, go dark, from coast to coast across the world’s most powerful nation. And then, just as scientifically predictably — and, at the same time, still miraculously — the light and warmth that sustain us will return. Let this awesome event serve as a reminder that unless we change our behavior as a species, in the future, we may not be so lucky. The damage that we are doing to our planet — and our own civilization — with our profligate devastation of Earth’s natural systems is not so easily undone. May the temporary eclipse of the sun awaken us to the wisdom of philosopher and naturalist Kathleen Dean Moore: “To let the world slip away — the starfish and sea anemones, the green and fecund marshland, the glacial streams — to let it slip away because we’re too busy, or too comfortable to change, is a sin against creation.”

This is all hilarious, considering that there are warnings all over about roads being jammed from people taking fossil fueled trips to see the eclipse on Monday. Even here in the Raleigh area, the electronic signs have been telling us this for over a week, and the area to see the full eclipse is way south of us in South Carolina. There are tons of people taking these trips in cars, buses, and planes to head to areas to see the full eclipse.

Regardless, Warmists just cannot help themselves in making/linking everything to Hotcoldwetdry. They’re like addicts jonesing for their next fix.

Read: The Eclipse Can Be A Call To Action On ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

NY Times Finally Manages To Work Firearms Into The Charlottesville Narrative

It’s taken the editorial board of the NY Times almost a week to finally realize “hey, people were carrying guns at the rally!!!!!”, and they’ve decided to be Offended, just as you think

The Gunmen at ‘Free Speech’ Rallies

Even before violence erupted in Charlottesville, Va., last weekend, city residents and the police anxiously watched the arrival of self-styled militias — swaggering gangs of armed civilians in combat fatigues — standing guard over the protest by white supremacists and other racist agitators against the removal of a Confederate statue.

Who were these men, counterprotesters asked as the riflemen took up watchful positions around the protest site. Police? National Guard? The Virginia National Guard had to send out an alert that its members wore a distinctive “MP” patch. This was so people could tell government-sanctioned protectors from unauthorized militias that have been posingas law-and-order squads at right-wing rallies.

Would those be the government-sanctioned protectors who, for whatever reason, backed off when conflict arose?

In brandishing weapons in Charlottesville, the militiamen added an edge of intimidation to a protest that was ostensibly called as an exercise in free speech. By flaunting their right to bear arms, they made a stark statement in a looming public confrontation. “You would have thought they were an army,” noted Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, one of 45 states that allow the open carrying of rifles in public to some degree, most without a permit required.

The limits of that freedom are being increasingly tested by jury-rigged militias at demonstrations, public meetings and other political flash points around the nation. These strutting vigilantes have become such a threatening presence that government should rein them in to allow for a truly free exchange of ideas.

The Times is attempting to apply the Heckler’s Veto, in which their Rights, which the NYTEB acknowledges, should be taken away because violence may ensue. And, interestingly, they note the looming public confrontation. If Antifa and all the leftist comrades weren’t so damned violent, there wouldn’t be a problem.

No shots were fired in the Charlottesville violence, but with more alt-right rallies planned the danger that these militia members’ loaded weapons might be used increases. The armed groups mostly back up right-wing protests, although there was one militia in Charlottesville claiming to protect peaceful counterdemonstrators at a church. (The protest also drew “antifa” — anti-fascist — counterprotesters on the political left, ready to brawl with fists and sticks against those on the other side.)

“No shots were fired”, despite all the violence from Antifa, which the times even notes shows up ready commit felony assault. BTW, why no mention of making sure that Antifa doesn’t bring baseball bats, chains, tire irons, batteries in socks, etc? BTW, there were no shots fired.

The critical question is how to protect peoples’ free speech in the presence of armed opponents. The gun lobby has worked to pass laws in Virginia and other states to prevent local governments from passing restrictions on open carry. But legal researchers point to elements in state laws and Supreme Court decisions saying that the right to bear arms in public is not absolute and must stop short of inducing fear in others.

So, because someone else gets all squeamish because they saw a gun, people should have their Constitutional Rights taken away? What if a bunch of us decided that the editorials from the NY Times were causing fear? Would that mean that the Times could be forced to stop printing them?

Let me note two things: first, the Nazis, KKK, and white supremacists are disgusting. So is Antifa and their crowd. Second, interestingly, the former group is often told to have empty magazines in their weapons. Why? Good question. Back when Ron Paul was running for president in 2008, he was linked to Don Black of Stromfront. I spent a lot of time looking to see what these people stood for, reading their stuff, just like I do with other groups of all stripes. They are quite often told by the higher-ups to have no bullets in the magazines, and even to have no magazines in the weapons.

Why? Because they know that people may very well start violence with the groups. That they will be spit on, have stuff thrown at them, and taunted. They are told to not be the first one to throw a punch, and, if it escalates, they don’t want to be the ones firing guns. At least first. Despite all the violence from Antifa, despite the threats from the bats and weapons carried by Antifa, no shots were fired. They’re still despicable people, but, no shots fired.

Regardless, the Times is simply using this incident to push a reduction in people’s Constitutional Rights. As usual.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Finally Manages To Work Firearms Into The Charlottesville Narrative »

You Just Knew Someone Had To Link Charlottesville And Climate Change, Right?

Seriously

From the article

What happened in Charlottesville, US, showed that temperatures and tempers are flaring in this long, hot summer. Is the Arab spring spreading worldwide due to global warming?

(lots of yammering with all their talking points about the Arab spring being about ‘climate change’)

The Charlottesville protests over the dismantling of a civil war statue resulting in violence between white supremacists and other protesters suggest that long and hot summers are associated with violence.

All because you drove to work in a fossil fueled vehicle instead of riding a carbon neutral, sustainable sourced bicycle.

Read: You Just Knew Someone Had To Link Charlottesville And Climate Change, Right? »

If All You See…

…is a lake boiling away from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on a postcard from the party of peace.

Read: If All You See… »

There’s A ‘Climate Change’ Related Theory To Game Of Thrones That Could Change How You Watch Or Something

Is there anything that the Cult of Climastrology does not try and ruin? These nutjobs keep trying to make Game Of Thrones all about Hotcoldwetdry

THE ‘GAME OF THRONES’ THEORY THAT WILL COMPLETELY CHANGE THE WAY YOU WATCH THE SHOW

Seven years in, Game of Thrones has overtaken pop culture like a horde of White Walkers hell-bent on destruction, with scores of analysts, sleuths, and obsessives tune in to weigh in on the comings-and-goings of the Stark family, the villainous Lannisters, and Daenerys Targaryen’s fiery path toward conquest. Tinfoil-capped fans have pushed every theory you can think of — several of which make sense — but so many of them focus on secret notesincest, and claims of parentage, that we often neglect the core subtext underneath the production values that go into creating life-like dragons.

Let’s shear away the fantasy and the acting chops and the machinations to “win” the “game of thrones.” This epic story has always been about something pretty obvious: humans have an uncanny, self-destructive tendency to fight among themselves while the world around them is getting obliterated by a larger existential threat.

Think we’re talking White Walkers? Sure, but also: climate change.

It’s not hard to see how the extremes of hot and cold offer representations of the climate crisis. “Ice” ties into the cold-emitting, snowy White Walkers and their reanimated corpses (known as wights), and also the troops of the North, including our heroes of the Stark clan. The “Fire” in turn refers to the fire-breathing dragons of Daenerys Targaryen, and in many ways, all acts of destruction, like the man-made wildfire that Cersei Lannister unleashed in Season 6.

And like the current climate crisis, Martin’s fantastical war between Fire and Ice dates back a very long time. The struggle began when the First Men arrived in Westeros 12,000 years ago, invading the territory of a fairy-like race called the Children of the Forest. The Children used their magic to destroy the First Men’s migratory land bridge and created the White Walkers, a decision that backfired stupendously. Led by an ice-crowned Night King, the White Walkers’ penchant for freezing everything in their path forced the Children of the Forest and the First Men to band together, fight them off, and build the Wall in the North to stopper their threat.

This stuff keeps going on and on and on and on. Can’t we just watch a good show? Can’t people who are more cultish than Scientologists just leave things alone?

Read: There’s A ‘Climate Change’ Related Theory To Game Of Thrones That Could Change How You Watch Or Something »

Deportations Way Down As Trump Effect Hits Illegal Aliens

Say what you want, the “fear” that Trump and his people are stoking in the illegal alien crowd is working

(The Monitor) The number of undocumented immigrants deported during the first half of 2017 fell 14 percent from a year earlier as fewer people tried to illegally enter the United States on the southern border, according to the Trump administration.

There were 104,618 people deported through June, down from 121,170 during the same months in 2016, according to data provided Thursday by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in response to a query.

In previous years, the number of deportations was boosted by law enforcement officials apprehending more people just after they illegally crossed the U.S. border, said Matthew Bourke, an ICE spokesman. As fewer people enter the United States illegally on the border, “removals are going to be impacted,” he said.

It’s a simple equation: if you stop pandering to those who are in the U.S. illegally, and stop being squishy on those who cross the border illegally, fewer will come. If you’re rounding up illegals, regardless of whether they’ve committed felonies or not, and deporting them, if you’re doing more raids, if you’re making it harder for businesses to employ them, they will not come in as great a number.

Even as deportations have declined, arrests of undocumented immigrants by ICE agents increased 37 percent in the first six months of the year, compared with the same period last year. This year, there were 75,026 arrests, compared with 54,683 a year earlier.

Among those arrested, more of the suspects than in previous years have never committed a crime, said Ryan Eller, executive director of Define American, an advocacy group that tells immigrants’ stories to frame debate on the topic.

Except for the crime of being in the United States illegally.

Read: Deportations Way Down As Trump Effect Hits Illegal Aliens »

Surprise: Majority Supports Leaving Confederate Statues Up

What to do about the Confederate statues, what to do. Many of them were put in right after the Confederacy lost, to honor the dead. A second time of big emplacements came on the 50th anniversary, followed by the 100th, which coincided with the time of the Civil Rights era. The question is, does anyone really care that much? Are they just statues that sit around for which most do not know who they are and what they stand for?

It’s a poll the Washington Post doesn’t like, so they go all Vox in explaining it

President Trump came out strongly in opposition to removing Confederate statues from public places, saying it was “sad to see the history and culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues and monuments.”

That appeal to “history and culture” echoes arguments made by neo-Confederate groups, who, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, couch claims about the meaning of statues and other Confederate symbols in terms of “heritage and other supposedly fundamental values that modern Americans are seen to have abandoned.”

They’re also made by Native Americans regarding their land, when minorities complain about gentrification, about clothing trends, and so much more. There’s even a Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture. Are they neo-Confederate groups? Of course, the point here is to paint all as raaaaacists.

Most mainstream historians note, on the other hand, that the whole point of Confederate monuments is to celebrate white supremacy. Most of them were erected between 1895 and World War I, “part of a campaign to paint the Southern cause in the Civil War as just and slavery as a benevolent institution,” according to University of North Carolina historian Karen Cox.

OK, then.

But the president is not a historian, and neither are most members of the American public. A survey by the Economist and YouGov earlier this week found that, by more than 2 to 1, Americans believe that Confederate monuments are symbols of Southern pride rather than of white supremacy.

Wow, that’s a big middle finger to the American public, is it not? Regardless, that’s hop most Southerners think of the statues (when they think of them at all) and the various forms of the Confederate flag. Not as white supremacy, not as White separatism (different from supremacy), not as Jim Crow laws (implemented by Democrats), but, simply as pride in being a Southerner. As people who are into freedom, self governance, limited government, the rule of law, and being helpful and polite to people.

Whites (66 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and Americans over age 65 (71 percent) are especially likely to say that Confederate monuments represent pride rather than supremacy. Liberals (54 percent), Hillary Clinton voters (52 percent) and black Americans (47 percent) are the groups most likely to say that the monuments stand for white supremacy.

So, wait: only 47 percent of Black Americans say they stand for white supremacy? Not even half?

The rest is about bashing Trump, because the media is totally non-partisan, you guys.

Personally, I couldn’t care less about the statues. They mean nothing to me. Nor the names of different things. But, where does it stop? If you give a lefty an inch, they’ll want to take the whole interstate highway. Where does it end?

Why will none of these same people call for removing/renaming all things Robert Byrd? A painting of this former KKK recruiter and white supremacist hangs in the Capitol Building. How about all the statues and busts of Senator Sam Ervin (NC), who was a segragationist? No one at UNC-Chapel Hill is calling for a bust removal. Why not raise Richmond to the ground? It was the capital of the Confederacy, after all.

Let’s give Manhattan back to the Indians. Liberals like to say we stole it. And rename all the the towns in California that have Spanish names, because that’s cultural appropriation. Shall we replace all headstones everywhere that mention the Confederacy? Shall we demolish the Confederate memorial at Arlington National Cemetery? Destroy all mentions of the Confederacy at Civil War battlegrounds? Getting absurd, eh?

How about this: even General Robert E. Lee thought that monuments were a bad thing. Let’s take down all the ones erected from the late 1890’s on, and place them in storage. Any that honor the dead can remain. If we do that, can we move on?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: Majority Supports Leaving Confederate Statues Up »

What Say To A Year In Jail For Failing To Use The Wrong Gender Confused Pronoun Or Name?

If you’re guessing this is in California, congratulations. Though, New York and a few other bastions of Progressivism (lunatic, nutjob, wackadoodle nice fascism)

(Breitbart) A new bill being considered by the California State Senate would punish people who “willfully and repeatedly” refuse “to use a transgender resident’s preferred name or pronouns” in a public health, retirement or housing institution.

The bill, SB 219, was proposed by State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco). It includes several other provisions that require a health facility, for example, to honor the gender identity of a patient, meaning that the patient must be admitted to a room that comports with his or her chosen gender; allowed to use whatever bathroom he or she wants to use; and wear whatever clothing or cosmetics he or she decides to wear. It has gone through several amendments.

CBN News notes: “Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.”

Punishing thought and Free Speech.

CBN also reports the testimony of the California Family Council’s Greg Burt:

How can you believe in free speech, but think the government can compel people to use certain pronouns when talking to others? … This is not tolerance. This is not love. This is not mutual respect. True tolerance tolerates people with different views. We need to treat each other with respect, but respect is a two-way street. It is not respectful to threaten people with punishment for having sincerely held beliefs that differ from your own.

Perhaps Mr. Wiener should read the actual Constitution of California

Article I Section 2: Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

Pretty freaking clear, is it not?

Read: What Say To A Year In Jail For Failing To Use The Wrong Gender Confused Pronoun Or Name? »

Bad Behavior has blocked 5344 access attempts in the last 7 days.