New Mexico Sheriffs Take Page From Others Across Country, Declare Sanctuaries From 2nd Amendment Assaults

A movement that started in Illinois against Big Government controls on law abiding citizens exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights has spread to other states, including Washington, and now, New Mexico

New Mexico sheriffs fight gun bills with ‘sanctuary county’ resolutions

A handful of rural counties in New Mexico are passing resolutions saying they will not require their sheriffs to enforce a sweeping slate of gun-control proposals that have gone before state lawmakers.

The “Second Amendment Sanctuary County” resolutions are being presented by sheriffs to commissioners in dozens of counties, according to the head of the New Mexico Sheriffs’ Association.

So far, commissioners in at least four counties situated in some of the most remote pockets of New Mexico have passed the resolutions in the past week, Cibola County Sheriff Tony Mace said. He expects more county commissions to be presented with similar resolutions at their upcoming meetings, he said.

The resolutions represent the sheriffs’ latest attempt at pushing back against legislation supported by Gov. Lujan Grisham, a Democrat who took office in January, after the lawmen expressed opposition to the bills for weeks in legislative committee hearings, arguing they are unconstitutional.

“The key thing to remember is this is all a burden on responsible gun owners,” Mace said. “We’re here to protect people’s individual rights.”

And therein lies the problem: virtually everything Democrats are passing and looking to pass has little to no effect on the criminals. They just harm the law abiding. They do not really make it harder for people looking to use a firearm for a crime to get one. All the burdens go on law abiding gun owners and future law abiding gun owners. At the same time, Democrats are coddling criminals and attempting to reduce their sentences and such. Soft on crime.

Read: New Mexico Sheriffs Take Page From Others Across Country, Declare Sanctuaries From 2nd Amendment Assaults »

The Green New Fascism Deal Makes Warmists Hopeful Or Something

Disciples of the Green New Deal are still trying to attempt to rationalize it

Why the Green New Deal makes me hopeful about climate change

As a climate scientist, I have studied the impacts of human emissions of carbon dioxide on the climate system for nearly 20 years. Over this time, my research, as well as research by my colleagues, has made me increasingly worried about the impacts of climate change on human society.

But last week’s release of a Green New Deal resolution is the first time I’ve felt a sliver of that worry fall away, because it feels like solutions are finally on the horizon.

At this point, just about everyone recognizes that the climate is changing. Even Donald Trump says, “I think something’s happening.”

Heck, I believe something is happening, as I’ve written tons of times. I just don’t think it is mostly/solely man-caused, nor even about 25%.

Though it’s not as well recognized, the scientific community is certain that human activities are the cause, primarily the emission of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels.

If they’re so certain why are they not giving up their own use of fossil fuels? And what of all those scientists who do not believe this? Meh, different debate

If we don’t take action, unchecked greenhouse-gas emissions would lead to global-average warming over this century of 5 degrees Fahrenheit to 9 degrees Fahrenheit. This may not sound like much until you realize that the warming since the last ice age — a warming that completely reconfigured the planet and caused 300 feet of sea level rise — was about 9 degrees Fahrenheit. With continued fossil fuel use, we might see warming over the current century sufficient to literally remake the Earth’s environment and our place within it.

This is what caught my eye, the utter stupidity, and fake science from computer models, of proclaiming we’ll see 5 to 9 degrees F of warming in just over 80 years, when we’ve only see 1.5 since 1850, which is almost double the time. This is where the Pause comes in: if it was all caused by CO2, then why was there not only a long pause recently, but multiple ones during the Modern Warm Period? Warmists will have all sorts of excuses, including nature masking the warming. If nature can do that, then why can’t nature be the primary driver?

And what caused the warming at the end of the ice age, when CO2 was at a “safe” level below 350ppm?

That’s why I think the Green New Deal is so important. It moves the debate past “is the climate warming?” (it is) and “is that bad?” (it is) and focuses on what we should do. Surveys show that the public wants action on climate, as well as supports the principles of the Green New Deal. (snip)

The debate over the Green New Deal will lead to a debate we need to have — how to address the dangers of climate change. And for the first time in a long time, it’s a debate I’m hopeful about.

I’d be happy to debate all the Big Centralized Government controls this would put on all our lives, along with the taxes, fees, cost of living increases, and so forth, that writer Andrew Dessler avoids (just like most of the GND supporters avoid writing about) discussing in his piece. I wonder why they avoid that stuff?

Perhaps we can also have a debate as to why scientists like Andrew have to fear monger, as well?

Read: The Green New Fascism Deal Makes Warmists Hopeful Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil burger from an evil cow, which should be totally banned for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on some people hating capitalism so much that job losses are considered awesome.

Read: If All You See… »

Say, What Would A National Emergency On Hotcoldwetdry Look Like Or Something

Grist uber-Warmist Zoya Teirstein is super interested in this. Consider, Congress authorized construction of border barrier from the Gulf to the Pacific well over a decade ago. They just haven’t fully funded it. All Trump is doing is building a section. Regardless, this piece exposes what Warmists would actually do, something they would all cheer, right up till the policy reaches up and smacks them in the face of the Cold Mackerel Of Truth

What would a national emergency over climate change look like?

Well, it finally happened: President Trump declared a national emergency in order to secure funding for his barrier between Mexico and the United States. We are under virtually no threat from illegal immigration through the southern border. Phew! But don’t put up your feet just yet, the U.S. actually is facing a pretty terrifying threat, not from immigrants, but from climate change.

Now that Trump has set a precedent, some are raising the point that a different president could use the same maneuver to declare a national emergency over rising temperatures. After all, rising sea levels, worsening hurricanes, wildfires, invasive species, and droughts threaten millions of Americans. Talk about a national security crisis.

Shortly after Trump made his declaration, Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar took to Twitter to call on the next president to declare climate change a national emergency upon taking office. If the idea catches on, 2020 Democrats might have to decide not only whether they support the Green New Deal, but also whether they would be willing to take that commitment to the next level.

Many other Warmists ran with the meme of declaring a national emergency over weather events.

Dan Farber, professor of law at the University of California, Los Angeles, examined the idea of a climate change national emergency in a blog post. It turns out there area few things a future president might be able to do to mitigate climate change through such a move. Here are the areas Farber thinks are worth exploring (these options are as of yet untested, could look different in practice, AND, as Farber told us in an earlier story, just ’cause it’s possible in theory doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea):

  • Oil drilling could be put on pause. “Oil leases are required to have clauses allowing them to be suspended during national emergencies,” Farber writes. If climate change is causing the emergency, doesn’t it make sense to pump the brakes on the stuff causing it? Hmmm?
  • The Secretary of Transportation, who is in charge of transportation coordination during national emergencies, could restrict use of gas-powered vehicles.
  • The renewable energy industry could get an influx of financial support, because a provision allows “the President to extend loan guarantees to critical industries during national emergencies,” Farber writes.
  • There’s even an act that could be invoked to give the president power to “impose sanctions on individuals and countries.” In a national climate change emergency scenario, the act could be used to sanction oil-producing countries.

In a national emergency, the president gets nearly 150 special powers. The options listed above are just a few of the ways those powers could be used in the name of climate change mitigation.

So, how will Warmists, who never want to give up their own use of fossil fuels, since they have to get to work, take the kids to soccer, run errands, and so forth, respond when gas prices skyrocket, but, it almost doesn’t matter since The Government declares they cannot take the vehicle they pay monthly on anywhere?

It doesn’t seem like much, but, when citizens are restricted in their movements, and their cost of living skyrockets from gas prices spiking, it’s a big deal.

Already, Oregon Representative Earl Blumenauer has announced he will be introducing a “congressional emergency declaration on the climate crisis” in Congress. Get ready, GOP! Even if the Supreme Court ends up striking down the border wall, Trump just opened Pandora’s Box.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, weather.

Read: Say, What Would A National Emergency On Hotcoldwetdry Look Like Or Something »

Trump Declares National Emergency, Everyone Freaks Out

This could have all be avoided by providing the necessary funding to build the section of border barrier requested, especially when there is tons of money allocated to all sorts of Democrat things, including overseas abortions. The best thing would have been to refuse to sign the bill, but that wasn’t politically feasible. Having GOP negotiators who aren’t utters squishes would have helped, as well

Trump declares national emergency at border

President Trump on Friday declared a national emergency to bypass Congress and spend roughly $8 billion on barriers along the southern border, a big step toward building his long-promised wall that also comes with significant political and legal risk.

Trump’s move, announced in a rambling, improvised address from the Rose Garden shortly after signing the declaration, will launch a fierce constitutional battle in the courts with lawmakers and outside groups who say the president overstepped his authority.

“I am going to be signing a national emergency,” Trump said after a long introduction that touched on trade, China, Syria and the caravans of immigrants that Trump made a political issue of ahead of last fall’s midterm elections.

“It’s a great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people,” the president said in seeking to justify the need for an emergency declaration.

Trump predicted the move will be challenged in federal court, but said he would eventually prevail.

“I could do the wall over a long period of time. I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster,” Trump said, a concession his critics seized upon to argue an emergency does not exist on the southern border.

It’s that last part that Democrats are focusing on, thinking that it means he did it for the hell of it, but, as it goes to the courts, it’ll mean that had Democrats authorized the funding this would have been unncessary, especially since Democrats knew Trump would do this for months.

First lawsuit filed against Trump emergency declaration

Liberal advocacy group Public Citizen on Friday filed the first lawsuit seeking to block President Trump’s national emergency declaration to allocate government funds for his proposed border wall.

The consumer rights think tank is suing on behalf of the Frontera Audubon Society and three landowners in South Texas who were told their land would be used to construct the barrier.

The lawsuit is expected to be the first of many challenging the declaration, which appropriated $8.1 billion for the wall.

“The complaint urges the court to find that Trump exceeded his constitutional authority and authority under the National Emergencies Act, and to hold that the declaration violates the doctrine of separation of powers that is so central to our Constitution,” Public Citizen said in a press release.

This is going to get interesting.

One thing this does do is get people talking about what’s actually going on down at the border, along with all the problems associated with illegal immigration. And the news media cannot hide those issues from the citizens anymore.

Read: Trump Declares National Emergency, Everyone Freaks Out »

Latest Climascare: Rise In Kidney Disease Your Fault For Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle

This still provides zero proof of anthropogenic causation

The disturbing hypothesis for the sudden uptick in chronic kidney disease
Our kidneys might be vulnerable to the more frequent extreme heat brought on by global warming.

In its early stages, chronic kidney disease can lurk silently in the body, causing no symptoms at all. Eventually, as these vital organs fail, the hands and feet start to puff up, and sufferers feel nauseated, achy, and itchy. When the disease reaches its last stage, the kidneys fail and you can die.

Around 2000, health officials noticed that chronic kidney disease was on the rise in Central America. An epidemic seemed to be raging among farmworkers who toiled in sugarcane fields on the Pacific Coast in El Salvador and Costa Rica — one of the hottest areas in the region. To date, more than 20,000 people have died in the epidemic, and thousands of others have had to go on kidney dialysis to survive.

Researchers are now coming together around a hypothesis about what’s driving a little-appreciated epidemic, known as “Mesoamerican nephropathy.”

The main suspect: global warming. It has become a leading hypothesis to explain not justMesoamerican nephropathy but a similar uptick in chronic kidney disease in India and Southeast Asia. The victims could be called “climate canaries.”

Roberto Lucchini, an environmental and public health professor at Mount Sinai, who’s been studying the phenomenon, calls this the first epidemic that’s directly attributable to climate change. “It was not recognized before the rise in temperatures,” he said, “and the epidemic of these cases is currently observed in the countries that are more affected by [global warming] in the last decades,” from Central America to India and Southeast Asia.

So, it’s doom going up in temperature over almost 170 years by 1.5 Fahrenheit.

The basic idea: When people are exposed to long stretches of extreme heat, they sweat more. If they don’t rehydrate, or don’t have access to clean drinking water, the kidneys, which are supposed to filter waste and regulate fluid in the body, get stressed. Over time, that stress can lead to kidney stones and chronic damage.

OK, so if you’re stupid enough not to hydrate when it’s 90F outside, it’s your fault. If you don’t hydrate when it’s 91.5F, it’s because of ‘climate change’.

Read: Latest Climascare: Rise In Kidney Disease Your Fault For Driving A Fossil Fueled Vehicle »

If All You See…

…is a horrible rising sea from evil cow meat, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Cold Fury, with a post on friendly fire in regards to Amazon.

Read: If All You See… »

Anti-Gun Democrats Look To Protect Illegal Aliens In Background Checks Bill

Democrats are good with assaulting the rights of law abiding American citizens. Illegal aliens must be protected at all times, though

(Daily Caller) The House Judiciary Committee passed legislation known as the Bipartisan Background Check Act Thursday that would mandate background checks on all gun sale transactions and most transfers in the United States.

“This is a bill that will expand criminal background checks to close the gun show loophole and close the Internet sale loophole,” Democrat Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said of the bill.

With the support of five committee Republicans and after nine hours of debate, the bill passed 21 to 14. Republicans on the Committee attempted to amend the bill.

Democrats, however, voted down one such amendment that would notify ICE authorities when an illegal alien fails a background check to purchase a firearm.

Every illegal aliens should fail a background check, because they are forbidden from purchasing/possessing a firearm.


North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson, however, responded, “Any attorney general and any local officials could set the price for running a background check for a person so high that individuals couldn’t afford to do it.”

He added, “So, what if they said it cost $5,000 to run a background check at a gun store? Well, most Americans can’t afford that,” Hudson noted. “So, those are two of the different levers that they intend to use to limit law-abiding gun owners from purchasing guns.”

Really, who thinks that the gun grabbers wouldn’t do something like that these days?

Read: Anti-Gun Democrats Look To Protect Illegal Aliens In Background Checks Bill »

The Useful Idiotism Of The Green New Deal

Most Democrats knew just how bad the Green New Deal was, mostly because it exposed what the Democrats really want. But some are still trying to mainstream what is a massive government takeover of the economy and our lives, like Michelle Goldberg at the NY Times

The Useful Idealism of the Green New Deal

Amid the unceasing awfulness of the Trump administration, I’ve lately found comfort in the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s concept of “political time,” which has in turn informed my thinking about the almost utopian ambitions of the Green New Deal.

Surveying the American presidency, Skowronek sees politics unfolding in cycles. Every so often, insurgent coalitions bring an agenda-setting president to power who sweeps away the verities of the old regime, fundamentally restructuring our politics. These “reconstructive presidents,” as Skowronek refers to them, create the political framework that their successors of both parties must operate within. (snip)

Viewed through this schema, Donald Trump’s presidency looks more like the end of a cycle than the end of the Republic. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign and the early months of the Trump administration, the constitutional law professors Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson exchanged letters arguing about the durability of our system; the letters will be published this spring as a book, “Democracy and Dysfunction.” Balkin is the more sanguine of the two, in part because he sees Trump fitting into Skowronek’s model.

Huh what? This seems more about Trump Derangement Syndrome than about the Green New Deal. It reminds me of the article in the Washington Post entitled “The Left: Online and Outraged” from back during the Bush years, were Liberals would wake up unhinged and angry and look to link everything to Bush.

Eventually, we get to the GND

The young progressives pushing the Green New Deal have a similar sense of historic opportunity. Waleed Shahid, communications director for the Justice Democrats — the group that recruited Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress — frames the Green New Deal as an overarching vision for political renewal.

“This is not just an environmental sustainability policy,” Shahid told me. “It’s also about rewriting and expanding the social contract that began under the New Deal, was expanded under the civil rights movement and then was completely torn apart over the past 50 years.”

Maybe McConnell is right. I’ve lived through enough right-wing backlashes to worry about left-wing overreach. But it seems at least possible that, at this moment of social breakdown and planetary emergency, the calculus of what’s politically feasible could be changing. The electorate certainly is; within the next decade, millennials, the most diverse and perhaps most progressive generation in history, will be the single largest voting bloc.

If we are in fact on the cusp of a new political epoch, then a sweeping, idealistic plan for social transformation is not a wild fantasy but a practical necessity.

It’s “idealistic” to use the fiction of ‘climate change’ and environmentalism to implement sweeping controls on everything? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were idealistic, too. I don’t write that lightly, not in terms of what the GND wants to do.

Read: The Useful Idiotism Of The Green New Deal »

Trump Reportedly To Sign Spending Bill, Declare Border Emergency

There is virtually no way that any member of the Senate read the $333 billion budget bill prior to voting for it. At best they skimmed it. It’s a typical trainwreck, and provides little for border security. So, what’s Trump to do?

Trump plans to allocate $8 billion to fund border wall, source says

President Trump‘s plans to declare a national emergency in order to fund his long-promised border wall will enable his administration to move $8 billion from various federal agencies to fund the project, a senior administration official told Fox News late Thursday.

The news comes as Trump is expected to sign a House border security package that provides $1.4 billion for the project, which is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles he wanted to be defended against illegal immigrants.

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said earlier Thursday that Trump will sign the spending bill and declare a national emergency at the same time Friday morning.

The White House said Trump would sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more funding, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority.

All Democrats had to do was give him the money. It would have been easy. Instead, they passed this bill, and idiot Republicans in the Senate voted for it, despite including things like a reduction of money for housing detained illegal aliens. But, hey, Dems have Open Borders idiots like Beto O’Rourke, a good representative of the current beliefs-set in the DNC, calling to tear down the existing walls. Don’t call them Open Borders, though, right?

Then there’s this

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday theorized that if President Trump can declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress to fund a border wall, there’s no reason that a Democratic president in the future can’t employ the same measure to deal with gun violence in the country.

Pelosi made the remarks during a press conference in the Capitol Thursday – the anniversary of the Parkland massacre in Florida that left 17 people dead.

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. “But a Democratic president can do that.”

What would that Dem president do, Nance? Declare that it is illegal to murder someone with a gun? Or is she threatening to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens? Good luck with that in the courts. Remember, these same Dems are against stop and frisk.

A few squishy Republicans are also concerned with declaring it an emergency, but, since most of the Democrat 2020 candidates are against doing it, it must be a good idea.

Read: Trump Reportedly To Sign Spending Bill, Declare Border Emergency »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4293 access attempts in the last 7 days.