Not Open Borders: Activists Protest ICE Picking Up Illegal Alien In Orange County, NC

By William Teach July 27, 2019 – 7:02 am

What’s not to protest? This guy is just a poor illegal trying to make a better life, you know

Advocates protest Orange County sheriff after man taken into ICE custody

A Hillsborough man is being held in ICE custody and supporters are accusing Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood of giving tips to federal authorities, something the sheriff’s advocates said he would not do.

Jocsan Cornejo was arrested on June 23 for charges including driving while impaired, assault on a female and assault on a child under 12 years old. He was taken into ICE custody July 18, before he had the chance to bond out of county jail, according to his wife.

“This experience has been a nightmare,” Maria Huerta said. “He is our only support. I’ve had to go back to work, even though doctors have recommended against it. My kids are suffering a lot, too.”

Who is she? Wife, girlfriend, friend? Are the kids his? What about the part of DUI, assault on a female, and assault on a child under 12? And not mentioned in the above article is that he was also driving on a suspended license. Do those things matter? These are not minor issues. Or, do the Open Borders advocates prioritize making sure no illegal is deported over assault on a woman and a child? Yes, they apparently do.

The Open Borders advocates were apparently protesting the Orange County sheriff releasing Cornejo to ICE, per this and most of the articles out there. Not particularly the best illegal alien to do the protest over, eh? Here’s what the Orange County sheriff’s office had to say

(WTVD) OCDC received a detainer request for Mr. Cornejo on June 23 from a California office. On June 25, we received a second detainer request from the Cary, NC office. Both detainer requests asked us to hold Mr. Cornejo for up to 48 hours after our authority to detain him would otherwise end. As per our usual practice, detention center staff filed a copy in Cornejo’s inmate shuck. He remained detained in our facility because no one posted his bond and because his state charges were not yet resolved.

As routinely happens, on the morning of July 18, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) called to inquire about inmates for whom they had submitted detainer requests, including a request for information about Cornejo. Later, the OCDC Administrator placed a call to DHS to clarify that Cornejo did indeed have a bond reduction hearing scheduled that afternoon. During that communication, DHS verbally renewed the detainer request, asking OCDC to retain custody over him for 24 – 48 hours. DHS was told the detention center would not hold him if he became eligible for release. DHS arrived prior to Cornejo’s bond hearing and took him into custody. When the hearing concluded, the district court judge ordered Cornejo’s bond unsecured, and the clerk file stamped the order at 4:06 pm. At that time, Cornejo had already been in ICE’s custody for approximately half an hour.

The Orange County Sheriff’s Office has always complied with local, state and federal law. In addition, we cooperate with local, state, and federal enforcement agencies when working together furthers the safety of those we are entrusted to protect. Our cooperation with ICE is limited to the sharing of publicly available information.

He was being held anyhow, because no one (looking at you, Miss Huerta and the OB advocates) bonded him out.

Read: Not Open Borders: Activists Protest ICE Picking Up Illegal Alien In Orange County, NC »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Wins At Supreme Court On Border Wall Funding

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 7:43 pm

Just a quicky bit of information

Now waiting for Democrats to rail against the Supreme Court being illegitimate because Orange Man Bad.

PS: I still maintain that there are better ways to stop most illegal immigration, but, no one in Congress has the cajones to make it happen.

Read: Trump Wins At Supreme Court On Border Wall Funding »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 3:33 pm

It’s probably a good thing that Forbes includes a question mark in the headline

Climate Change: A Real Force In The 2020 Campaign?

….

Yet, all of this said, it remains unclear whether climate change will emerge as a truly pivotal issue in the 2020 general election. Since the 1970’s, when bipartisan anxiety over declining environmental quality drove a Republican president to establish the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans have on whole professed deep concern for the environment and, more recently, climate. We same Americans have tended to vote, however, on issues that have felt more immediate and pressing, such as jobs, healthcare and education, and around lighting rods like abortion and gun rights.

A critical question, given the growing number of warnings from the likes of the U.S. government and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that global warming imperils us all, is whether the country has finally reached the point where climate will in fact be a decisive issue for voters at the polls. Environmental sociology (yes, there is such a field) refers to this as a question of salience. When it comes to decision time, does the voter prioritize environment?

This question is in fact least important among voters who would be most likely to vote for a climate candidate….

‘Climate change’ is not the environment. And even Dems put ‘climate change’ way down the list of their concerns. And then then article attempts to shift focus from Democrats to Republicans and Independents. At the end, for all the yammering, anthropogenic climate change may get people talking, but it’s still low hanging fruit that is a minor concern.

Then there’s this

Read More »

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on ‘Climate Change’ Is Totally A Force In The 2020 Campaign Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a fish that is being wiped out from too much carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on a monument in South Carolina to fallen police officers being removed due to a Christian inscription because a few people complained.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 10:30 am

Perhaps someone should let them know this fact before they spend all that time and money making the long trek, something to rebut the Liberal Open Borders advocates who incent them to make the trek

Migrants risk it all seeking asylum. The answer in court is almost always ‘no.’

The road to “no” meanders through deserts, skids into rivers and cleaves mountain passes. It tumbles out of Honduras and Guatemala, snakes up through Mexico and slips into far western Texas.

The road to “no” stinks of sweat from days without showers in cramped Texas holding cells and of rancid breath from the mouths of migrant detainees who say they were denied toothbrushes and toothpaste.

Well, if they did it through the normal, lawful method of applying for citizenship and following the steps, or even just applying for asylum at a U.S. facility in their home or another country, they wouldn’t have to worry about, right?

But, for migrants seeking asylum to enter the United States through West Texas and eastern New Mexico, it frequently ends in the same place — inside a warren of spare federal courtrooms in downtown El Paso, where some of America’s most immovable immigration judges say “no” to migrant asylum seekers in droves. Winning asylum from an El Paso judge is close to impossible, local immigration advocates and lawyers say. One judge in the court rejected 98.8 percent of asylum requests over a recent five-year period, according to an analysis by Syracuse University.

Because most aren’t eligible for asylum.

They stream northward with seemingly little understanding of the U.S. laws governing asylum. Only a legitimate fear of persecution related to political opinions, race, religion, nationality or membership in particular social group opens the door to potential refuge, not economic deprivation or dangerous living conditions in their home countries.

Asylum claims along the border have nearly quadrupled from 43,000 in 2013 to 162,000 in 2018. Only a fraction of the migrants apprehended at the border make asylum claims, but they can still clog the courts with lengthy and complex legal showdowns. Trump administration officials have said less than 20 percent of asylum requests by migrants from the Northern Triangle nations of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador are granted by the courts, and have suggested that the low rate is evidence that most of the claims are meritless.

Well, again, perhaps the Open Borders advocates should stop inviting them and cajoling them to just show up at the border, sometimes stopping and demanding at a port of entry, sometimes crossing illegally. Really, if you think about it, this is counter-productive to their push to get those currently residing illegally in the United States, and especially for the so-called Dreamers, legal status up to citizenship. For one thing, if the focus is on those showing up, it’s not on those currently here. For another, that same focus will cause people to say “why should we give any sort of legal status to those here illegally when it will entice others to come?” Notice, Democrats almost never talk about a legal pathway for those here now. Rarely do they talk about DACA and the Dreamers. They’re just hurting their own cause.

BTW

The media pushing a narrative doesn’t help convince people, either, especially when they actually find out the real news.

Read: Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 7:02 am

Well, plenty of people have said that the Green New Deal is not realistic, that it doesn’t live in the world of reality. Heck, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won’t put it up for a vote, won’t demand a vote, and freaked out when the Senate voted on it. She’s said that it’s more of a blue print. A blue print for disaster

Outside group finds ‘Green New Deal’ emissions target crashes government model

Reaching the “Green New Deal’s” (GND) goal of drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 is practically impossible, according to an analysis using the government’s own economic modeling.

The Heritage Foundation attempted to use the Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Model to forecast the impact of steep carbon taxes aimed at reaching the net-zero greenhouse gas emissions goal that’s supported by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. House Democrats, and a host of 2020 presidential candidates.

Not only did the model crash, it failed to approach anywhere near the goal outlined in the “GND.” The closest Heritage was able to get was a 58 percent reduction in emissions, achieved through a $300 carbon tax  — taxes above $300 crashed the EIA’s model.

“Carbon taxes above $300 (resulting in slightly above 50 percent CO2 reductions by 2050) cause the model to crash, and thus a 58 percent CO2 reduction from 2010 levels is the largest level we are able to model,” the study’s authors, Nicolas D. Loris and Kevin D. Dayaratna, wrote in the study published on Wednesday.

Remember, studies show that most people do not want to pay even $10 a month extra to stop Hotcoldwetdry, much less $300. Of course, those $300 a year in taxes will also cause the cost of living to go up up up. And, it gets better!

Just a 58 percent reduction would, by 2040, cost the economy $15 trillion in lost gross domestic product and an average of 1.1 million jobs per year. The average family of four would also see a total income loss of $165,000, or nearly $8,000 each year.

Household energy expenses would also see an average increase of 30 percent. Worse, the rate of emissions reductions slowed substantially as Heritage progressively raised carbon taxes in its modeling — indicating that Democrats will face increasing difficulty in reducing emissions as taxes reach higher levels.

The study came at a time when Democratic presidential candidates sounded the alarm on climate change and endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s ambitious — yet controversial — vision for preventing supposed catastrophes.

So, you keep pushing the climate crisis scam, Democrats, keep pushing. This really is the reason you rarely hear Warmists talk about actual numbers and costs, because it doesn’t work well and citizens, including the casual Warmist, will go “Whoa! No way!”

Read: Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Collapsing Science, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on Surprise: New Study Shows Green New Deal Target Crashes Government Model | Trackback URL

Dems Struggling To Figure Out Next Move After Mueller Fiasco

By William Teach July 26, 2019 – 6:46 am

One would think they would just go with the “Mueller? Russia? Conspiracy? Obstruction? What’s that?” defense, basically pretending this never happened. Just move on. Get over it. Focus on winning the 2020 elections and getting some things done in the House. Of course, this would cause their unhinged base, and a couple dozen unhinged elected Democrats, to freak out. They’ve rather built this house of cards and backed themselves into a corner

Democrats struggle to figure out next move against Trump after Mueller hearing falls flat

House Democrats are struggling to figure out their next move against President Trump after their highly anticipated hearing with Robert S. Mueller III fell flat, forcing some Democrats to second-guess their strategy while aggravating divisions in the party over impeachment.

Several centrist Democrats seized on the absence of a major revelation to argue it was time to end House investigations into whether Trump tried to obstruct the former special counsel’s probe and pivot to legislation.

“Anyone who was looking for the smoking gun yesterday didn’t get it,” said Rep. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), who ousted a Republican incumbent by fewer than 500 votes in last year’s midterm elections. “It’s time to move on and focus on getting some bills passed here that can get signed into law.”

But that plea had no effect on the pro-impeachment Democrats, who dug in, insisting that House oversight of Trump and his administration has been ineffective and pressed for launching proceedings.

In a closed-door caucus meeting Wednesday night, after Mueller’s testimony, proponents tried to convince House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to move ahead on impeachment, a step she has resisted. (snip)

The divisions over next steps come as House Democrats face criticism over their seven months of multiple investigations that have yielded little new information that would build public support for ousting Trump. Outside liberal groups are furious with Pelosi. Other Democrats, including several who worked for President Barack Obama, have expressed frustration with the House’s inability to hold accountable what they consider a lawless president and administration.

Moving on would be the smart thing. But, remember, 98 Democrats voted for impeachment the other week, which accounts for 42% of their House membership. And many of them, such as Nadler, Eric Swalwell, The Squad, a few others, are overly vocal on this, and keep it heavily in the public sphere. And the Democrat base, including the big wigs, such as Hollywood stars who give a lot of money, want this. Even though all this talk will help re-elect Trump. They should keep it up.

The article does spend a bunch of time saying that the hearing was a fiasco, essentially a full boat loss for Democrats, then we get to

Despite disappointment in Mueller’s testimony, Democrats feel pressure from the party’s left to move quickly, before the 2020 presidential campaign ramps up further.

And they’ve backed themselves into a corner with how much they’ve pushed it. They do not know how to get out of it. And many don’t. Congratulations on your 2020 win, Mr. Trump!

Read: Dems Struggling To Figure Out Next Move After Mueller Fiasco »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Gay Parents Sue State Dept For Following The Law On Children Born Overseas

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 3:42 pm

Obviously, everything is awful, and people should just be allowed to manufacture law from their feelings whenever they want

Gay Dads Sue State Department Over Refusal To Recognize Daughter As US Citizen

A same-sex couple in Georgia said in a lawsuit filed Tuesday that the U.S. State Department is unconstitutionally refusing to recognize their daughter’s rightful American citizenship.

The State Department’s policy treats married same-sex couples as if their marriages do not exist and treats them differently from married straight couples in violation of the law and the Constitution, according to the suit filed in federal court in Atlanta. It was filed on behalf of Derek Mize and Jonathan Gregg, whose daughter Simone was born in England in July 2018 via surrogate.

Both men are U.S. citizens and are listed as her parents on the birth certificate. But because only one has a biological connection to her, the lawsuit says, the State Department is treating her as if she was born outside of marriage, triggering additional conditions for the recognition of her citizenship.

A child born abroad to married U.S. citizens is automatically a U.S. citizen as long as one parent has lived in the U.S., the lawsuit says. But there are additional requirements if the parents are not married or if only one is a U.S. citizen.

Mize was born and raised in Mississippi, while Gregg was born in London to a U.S. citizen mother and British father and was raised in London with dual citizenship.

One would think they would take a look at the relevant laws and statutes before

A close friend in England agreed to be their surrogate. Mize stayed in England with her for most of the pregnancy, and Gregg joined them for the final five weeks. Both men were present for Simone’s birth in July 2018 — Gregg cut the umbilical cord while Mize held her. They returned to their home in Decatur, just outside Atlanta, in September. (snip)

Since she’s the child of two men and not biologically related to both, the State Department treated her as if she was born “out of wedlock,” the lawsuit says. And because Gregg, the biological parent, hadn’t lived in the U.S. for five years prior to Simone’s birth, the State Department determined she’s not a U.S. citizen.

Why England? Why not have the child born in the U.S.? Would have been a slam-dunk. Further, this has nothing to do with being gay, since this would happen to a straight couple, as well, if you throw in the surrogate mother issue. But, see

When the embassy staff didn’t recognize his marriage or his parental relationship to his daughter, he said, it all came rushing back.

“In that moment, every anxiety I’ve ever had in my life about being gay and different came into my body and I just wanted to cry,” he said.

It’s always about feelings and scapegoating other people, become the Victim.

Follow the law next time. Have the baby in the U.S.

Read: Gay Parents Sue State Dept For Following The Law On Children Born Overseas »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Good Move Slick | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible carbon pollution infused beer, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Mueller hearing debacle.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Good News: Democracy Is The Biggest Enemy Of Dealing With ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 10:53 am

Once again proving that the Cult of Climastrology wants to destroy everything and replace the system with an authoritarian one, because they can’t get their way

DEMOCRACY IS THE PLANET’S BIGGEST ENEMY

…

Thunberg’s remarks showcased the profound gulf between younger and older generations when it comes to climate politics: the clash between those with the power to act and those who must live with the consequences if they don’t. The climate crisis is an issue that requires long-term thinking across the generations, yet electoral politics is geared toward responding to immediate grievances. Politicians can talk about taking the long view, but without institutional changes to the way we practice democracy, they are unlikely to look beyond short-term political gains. (snip)

Nevertheless, climate change has become a contest of worldviews split along generational lines—and it’s a contest that older voters are winning. That should be no surprise. After all, they are both more numerous and more likely to vote than their younger counterparts. When Thunberg speaks for the generations yet to come, she has the numbers on her side—the unborn limitlessly outnumber the currently living. But when it comes to actual voters, the math favors the climate skeptics or at least the people who have other priorities. Our world hasn’t just warmed rapidly in recent decades—it has also aged even faster.

Funny, because these same youths supporting Hotcoldwetdry actions refuse to reduce their own carbon footprints.

If democratic politicians are to make good on their promises to Thunberg and her peers, one of the largest barriers in their way are their own electorates. And citizens may become more antagonistic as governments push forward on new policies. Tackling climate change is going to require significant behavioral change: in what we eat, where we live, and how we travel. Current patterns of food and energy consumption are unsustainable. If we and the planet are to survive, that will mean less meat, smaller homes, and fewer cars.

That sounds like the writer, David Runciman, is pushing for government to become dictatorial, Authoritarian, rather than following the will of the people. And here we go

Bridging the generational divide is likely to require other kinds of institutional change. The evidence of the last 30-plus years of climate politics suggests that electoral democracy is not well suited to reaching a consensus on what is to be done. The inevitable partisanship of this form of politics reinforces wider social divisions. Different perspectives on the long-term future get turned into polarized positions on climate change, making it harder to reach a shared perspective on carbon emissions and renewable energy. Party politics drowns out the pursuit of common ground.

If electoral democracy is inadequate to the task of addressing climate change, and the task is the most urgent one humanity faces, then other kinds of politics are urgently needed. The most radical alternative of all would be to consider moving beyond democracy altogether. The authoritarian Chinese system has some advantages when it comes to addressing climate change: One-party rule means freedom from electoral cycles and less need for public consultation. Technocratic solutions that put power in the hands of unelected experts could take key decisions out of the hands of voters.

This really is what David means. He goes on to attempt to downsize this notion, because he doesn’t want to scare people off too much

What’s needed instead are democratic reforms capable of moving past the generational impasse in electoral politics. One alternative is more deliberative democracy, which would allow individuals with different points of view to engage with each other directly, free from partisan representation…..

So partisans discussing issues would be free from partisan representation?

Another alternative would be more radical direct democracy. Politicians who are unmoved by electoral threats, and citizens otherwise committed to status quo policy, can sometimes be jolted into action by street protests, especially if they are sustained over long periods of time.

The Modern Socialists love pushing Direct Democracy (which includes lowering the voting age), but, are very unhappy when they lose the vote, and sue to overturn.

As Steven Hayward notes

As I’ve been pointing our for more than a decade, the most ominous contradiction of the environmental left these days is the way in which they champion the rights of nature while going along with the rest of the left in denying human nature, let alone the natural rights of humans—which is the central premise of democratic self-government. The result, as I have been warning, is the increasingly open anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian stance of the climatistas.

All their solutions require Big Big Government which is domineering and controlling. It’s just an extension of their normal belief set, they’re just using the Coming Doom Of The Earth as their platform. Yet, all the little idiots agreeing with them never seem to realize that this will impact their own lives.

Read: Good News: Democracy Is The Biggest Enemy Of Dealing With ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove