Hot Take: AOC Accuses Democrats Of Voter Suppression When Her Candidate Loses

By William Teach August 8, 2019 – 4:25 pm

Poor loser

From the link

New York is as bad as the Deep South when it comes to voter disenfranchisement — and Democrats share the blame, according to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In the wake of Tiffany Cabán’s concession in the Queens district attorney Democratic primary race, the freshman congresswoman is laying blame for her fellow progressive’s loss at the feet of state lawmakers and Gov. Cuomo.

“Voter disenfranchisement in the state of New York is a given,” she told the Daily News in an interview at her Queens district office on Wednesday. “Our voting laws are horrifying in how they suppress the vote and how they disenfranchise voters on a regular basis.”

Cabán conceded on Tuesday, officially cementing Melinda Katz’s 60-vote win after six weeks of contentious recounts and court battles. Ocasio-Cortez said there is plenty blame to go around, but called out Cuomo for not signing an election reform bill that Cabán supporters believe could have put the Manhattan public defender over the top.

“New York State historically has been just as bad as any deep southern state when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, whether it’s poll locations changes, whether it’s having your ballot tossed out over technicalities even though you’re a registered Democrat, which also happened in this race,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “But it was legal disenfranchisement so that disenfranchisement was within the bounds of the law.”

Modern Socialists love the notion of Direct Democracy. But, they cannot abide losing fair and square. She even admits the counts were lawful, but, since her preferred candidate lost, obviously, things are Very Bad.

Read: Hot Take: AOC Accuses Democrats Of Voter Suppression When Her Candidate Loses »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 8, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooding from too much carbon pollution, causing trees to die, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on where most mass shootings occur.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Massive ICE Raid Captures 680 Illegal Aliens

By William Teach August 8, 2019 – 10:30 am

This is made the Open Borders advocates Very Upset

ICE raids on Mississippi food processing plants result in 680 arrests

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said Wednesday that its officers had raided seven food processing plants in Mississippi and detained approximately 680 “removable aliens” in what a federal prosecutor described as “the largest single-state immigration enforcement operation in our nation’s history.”

Nearly 600 ICE agents swarmed the plants in Bay Springs, Carthage, Canton, Morton, Pelahatchie and Sebastapol, surrounding the perimeters to keep workers from fleeing.

“The execution of federal search warrants today was simply about enforcing the rule of law in our state and throughout our great country,” U.S. Attorney Mike Hurst said in a statement. ” I commend these federal agents, our state and local law enforcement partners, and our federal prosecutors for their professionalism and dedication to ensure that those who violate our laws are held accountable.”

Hopefully, everyone involved in running the plants will see civil and even criminal penalties if it can be shown that they did not do their due diligence to make sure the workers were authorized to work. And it should be noted that anyone not illegal was let go.

Shep Smith had a meltdown over the arrests. The Washington Post tries the “won’t someone think of the children” tactic, forgetting that the parents put their kids in this position by being law breakers.

Mayor is calling for citizens to break the law. Good job, Mayor! And you’re getting this

And this

As hot-takes.

Read: Bummer: Massive ICE Raid Captures 680 Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 65 Comments | Trackback URL

The Green New Deal Must Be Global Or Something

By William Teach August 8, 2019 – 7:46 am

Poverty and eco-fascism for all!

The Green New Deal Must Be Global
For a planet-wide climate crisis, solutions must also span the planet.

June 2019 was the hottest June in recorded history. July was even hotter — in fact, it was the hottest month ever recorded worldwide, as a wide swath of the continental United States sweltered with heat indexes of over 100 degrees.

Unless new action is taken to curb emissions driving the climate crisis, warns the Union of Concerned Scientists in a new report, the worst is yet to come. By mid-century, nearly one-third of Americans could be experiencing a month or more every year with a heat index above 105 degrees.

Add in more frequent storms, flooding, and wildfires, and the scale of the crisis is harder and harder to ignore. Public opinion polls show that a majority of registered U.S. voters now favor the ambitious Green New Deal, details of which remain to be spelled out. But it’s clear that the crisis is global, and that solutions cannot be limited by national borders.

This means action on multiple fronts in all countries to prevent catastrophic worldwide damage. But both the drivers and the effects of climate change are distributed unevenly. The most vulnerable countries have contributed the least to causing the crisis. Rich countries, through their greenhouse gas emissions, have contributed the most.

Actual data shows that July was not the hottest ever recorded, but, that’s immaterial. When cold records are pointed out climate cultists will say that’s just weather. Or blame it on ‘climate change’. But, it doesn’t prove anthropogenic causation. Just warmth. Which happens during periods. And people might say they support the GND in theory, but, in practice, most aren’t willing to pay $10 a month to Do Something about Hotcoldwetdry.

The Green New Deal: Poverty for Everyone!

Johnson, the Texas Democrat who extended Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal with his own Great Society, was an old-school liberal, certainly on domestic policy. The political activist-agitators LBJ impugned then as “liberals” are today’s progressives—one might even call them reactionaries of the left.

Epitomizing them is Saikat Chakrabarti, the outgoing chief of staff for freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y). Chakrabarti recently starred in a Washington Post article. The spotlight left a key to the influential staffer’s undemocratic mentality in shadows.

Chakrabarti, 33, acknowledged “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” Ocasio-Cortez’s multi-trillion dollar zero-carbon emissions mirage, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

If people had the actual reasons for the GND and were told what it would actually do, would support among Independents collapse, and, heck, even drop below 50% for Democrats? Yes.

Chakrabarti seems to have deduced two things. First, he saw a glass largely full and still filling but for some still empty, and concluded he must first shatter the glass. After that, he apparently failed to consider that the dystopian streets of San Francisco — homeless people living in tents and defecating on sidewalks near high-rent high-rises, and the middle class and affordable housing squeezed by heavy taxes and constrictive zoning — might be a result of local “progressive” politics. The problem is that if his “change-the-entire-economy-thing” would ever be imposed, America as a whole might resemble those dystopian streets. If Soviet Russia, Cuba or Venezuela come to mind, consider India before 2014, when its prime minister, Narendra Modi, was elected.

San Francisco is a good approximation. The cost of living is through the roof. Rents are sky high, housing is sky high, and energy is sky high. Food is expensive. Everything is expensive. The GND is not about the climate or environment, it is about eco-fascism and instituting an Authoritarian governmental system based around the Socialistic belief in controlling the economy. But, it’s not real Socialism, since that would require that the government mostly leave us alone in our private lives. The GND would put heavy controls on citizens and private entities. Explain this to people, and let’s see how those polls go.

Read: The Green New Deal Must Be Global Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Comrade Bernie Wants Concessions From Gun Owners, 99.9% Of Whom Aren’t Mass Killers

By William Teach August 8, 2019 – 7:24 am

Why should any of us concede anything? If someone goes on a stabbing spree, we don’t blame the knife. We don’t ask for concessions from chefs (oh, wait, bad example considering what has been going on in London). We also do not concede anything because we know that the gun grabbers will demand something else, then something else. It never ends, until we get to a total ban on private ownership of firearms

Sanders seeks ‘concessions’ from gun owners, though ‘99.9%’ would never commit mass shootings

Sen. Bernie Sanders says “99.9 percent of gun owners” would never commit gun violence, but wants them to make “concessions” following the mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio.

The Democratic presidential candidate has somewhat distinguished himself from his Democratic opponents, who have proposed sweeping gun control measures — but the U.S. senator from Vermont took a more conciliatory tone to gun rights during an appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast on Tuesday.

When the conversation turned to gun rights, Sanders expressed condolences to those who were killed or wounded in El Paso and Dayton but noted that nearly all gun owners would never commit such violence.

“All that I ask of the gun owners — and you’re absolutely right, 99.9 percent of gun owners would never in a million, billion years think of doing these horrible things — but at the moment that we are living in, I think we are all going to have to make some concessions to the reality of what’s going on, and that is that there is a small number of — call them whatever you want, depraved people — who are prepared to do that,” Sanders said.

“I wish I could say in the best of all possible worlds, yeah, you can own any weapon you want and so forth and such. We’re not in the best of all possible worlds. We’re living in a world where we’re shocked every day by horror,” he added.

Bernie hasn’t been exactly as staunch anti-gun as most liberals, and was even backed by the NRA back in 1990. Anyhow, what concessions does he want? He doesn’t say. Most Democrats are yammering about universal background checks, which wouldn’t have stopped most of the mass shooters over the past 10 years. The Dayton nut passed his check. Pretty much since the local police did not take warnings from other citizens seriously and report them. All the gun laws in California haven’t really stopped anything.

And then there’s this nut

In fairness, Abby was a Planned Parenthood director turned pro-life. But, let me trot this out again, a reasonable compromise on gun control

Read More »

Read: Comrade Bernie Wants Concessions From Gun Owners, 99.9% Of Whom Aren’t Mass Killers »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 39 Comments | Trackback URL

Your Fault: UK Guardian Finally Gets In The Business Of Blaming California Cliffside Collapse

By William Teach August 7, 2019 – 3:19 pm

If you’ll think back just back to the 3rd, a cliff collapsed in California near the sea, killing three and hurting several others. The climate cultists came out in droves to blame this on ‘climate change.’ Now, of course, some will say this was just the fevered rantings of some outlying kooks. But, what of when a major news outlets jumps in the water?

Deadly cliffside collapse underscores California’s climate-fueled crisis

Three women were killed last week while sunning on a beach in Encinitas, California, when the bluff above them gave way.

The sudden tragedy that befell Anne Clave; her mother, Julie Davis; and her aunt Elizabeth Cox, who had gathered at the resplendent coastline in the seaside community north of San Diego to celebrate Cox surviving cancer, made headlines around the world. But cliff erosion continues to imperil people and property around the state. California is falling into the sea piece by piece, and coastal conditions will only grow more dire with worsening climate crisis.

Nearly three-quarters of California’s coastlines are actively eroding, putting lives, homes, roadways, railways, utilities and other infrastructure in danger. The cliffs have been crumbling since before the Arctic began melting, but natural geological collapse stands to worsen in the coming years. (snip)

Although researchers can’t point to a single cause of any particular cliff failure now, they expect to see more as the climate continues to collapse. “What we can say unequivocally is as sea level rises, these kinds of events will become more common,” said USGS research geologist Patrick Barnard.

Got that? This is all natural, has been going on for 20,000 years (surely longer, because tectonic activity in California has been going on much longer), and they cannot say with science that ‘climate change’ is a cause, but they will still blame you for driving a fossil fueled vehicle.

Scientists say sea level rise will accelerate cliff retreat, doubling average erosion rates in southern California by 2100, including some of the state’s most heavily populated, tony coastal communities. That’s because sea level rise and more extreme storms mean bigger, higher waves washing away beaches and lapping at the bottoms of the cliffs. California stands to lose two-thirds of its beaches by the turn of the next century, in a wave of coastal economic destruction worse than the state’s most devastating fires to date.

I’m not going to post the graphics of actual data yet again of sea rise in California, but, I will note that San Diego shows a whopping relative sea level trend of 2.19 millimeters/year, equivalent to a change of 0.72 feet in 100 years. The next gauge up the coast is La Jolla, which is 2.17 millimeters/year. Encinitas is between the two. That level of sea rise is exactly average, and well below what would be expected during a Holocene warm period.

California will not be losing 2/3rds of its beaches in the next 81 years. Pure fear-mongering by cultists.

Read: Your Fault: UK Guardian Finally Gets In The Business Of Blaming California Cliffside Collapse »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 7, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a lake that will soon dry up unless we pass a Green New Deal to deal with indigenous populations, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on never letting a good crisis go to waste.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Zero “Remain In Mexico” Migrants Granted Asylum

By William Teach August 7, 2019 – 10:30 am

The majority of those showing up at the border/crossing illegally and demanding asylum are actually eligible. But, the problem is, when they are already here, it is extremely difficult to send them packing. Open Borders advocates freaking out and continuing to attempt to keep them here along with the illegals/migrants just disappearing are two big problems. So…

Zero of 1.2K Migrants Eligible for U.S. Asylum Since ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy

None of the roughly 1,200 migrants who had their asylum cases adjudicated by federal immigration officials while they waited in Mexico as part of President Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy were found to be eligible for asylum, federal data finds.

Since the Trump administration has enacted the Remain in Mexico policy to ensure that migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. remain in Mexico while their claims are adjudicated, none of the migrants so far have been found eligible for asylum, according to federal data.

As of June, about 1,155 migrants waiting in Mexico had their asylum claims processed and finalized by U.S. federal immigration courts. In the end, none of the 1,155 migrants were eligible for asylum and thus must return to their native countries.

Today, there are nearly 13,000 cases still pending where migrants — mostly from Central America — are waiting in Mexico until their asylum claims are adjudicated. Of those migrants still waiting, only about one percent have legal representation.

Before the U.S. began mandating that most migrants seeking asylum remain in Mexico while their claims were processed, about 88 percent of border crossers and illegal aliens were able to avoid immediate deportation by claiming “credible fear” at the southern border.

And, again, therein lies the problem: those who are here are almost impossible to send packing when they have no case.

Trump’s Remain in Mexico policy has also contributed to a significant drop in the number of border crossers and illegal aliens being released into the interior of the country. As of mid-July, the Trump administration has cut the catch and release program about 85 percent compared to release levels from months prior.

The thing is, it seems as if so many, if not most, of these “asylum” seekers aren’t coming here because they love the U.S.: they’re coming to take advantage of the U.S., to get that sweet free money, healthcare, housing, education, etc. Regardless, most aren’t eligible for asylum. And the remain policy limits the invasion.

Read: Bummer: Zero “Remain In Mexico” Migrants Granted Asylum »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

The El Paso Shooter’s Eco-Fascism Is “Terrifyingly Rational” Or Something

By William Teach August 7, 2019 – 8:25 am

I didn’t think I would be writing about the Eco-Fascist beliefs of the El Paso nutjob so quickly, but this is a pretty hot take from left leaning magazine “The Week”. I wouldn’t be surprised if more attempt to get ahead of the obvious Cult of Climastrology beliefs of the nutjob Patrick Crusius

The El Paso shooter’s manifesto contains a dangerous message about climate change

The El Paso shooter’s alleged manifesto cites two inspirational texts. The first, unsurprisingly, is the manifesto by the Australian terrorist who murdered 51 Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand. The second, however, is less obvious: Dr. Seuss’s environmentalist fable The Lorax.

This was not mere trolling, or an inchoate rant. Part of the author’s justification for what he was about to do — shoot 22 people to death in a Walmart, most of them Mexican or Mexican-American — was that it would ultimately help restore our ecosystem. And far from an irrational or individual fixation, this argument is terrifyingly rational, and perfectly integrated into a broader project of white nationalism and racial terrorism.

It has a name: eco-fascism. And this will not be the last we hear of it.

Interestingly, the hardcore belief in anthropogenic climate change is primarily a Progressive/Socialist/Communist/Etc belief, so, if it integrates perfectly, that must mean that white nationalism is also a belief set of these same Modern Socialist, right?

While some may say it’s dangerous to discuss the manifesto and thereby amplify its contents, it is frankly even more dangerous to dismiss it as the ramblings of a lone wolf. The author — allegedly 21-year-old Patrick Crusius — is the logical endpoint of an ideology that has won over millions of Americans. In fact, the most disturbing thing about his manifesto is how mainstream it is. A great deal of it could be said out loud on Tucker Carlson’s show, or even on a CNN roundtable.

Tucker discusses his belief in ‘climate change’? But, yes, surely CNN. And the uber-Leftists at MSNBC.

Pull these threads together — ecological destruction, a new welfare state, white nationalism — and you begin to see the larger eco-fascist logic. Our current relationship to the ecosphere is unsustainable. One option is what might be called an ecosocialist state: a centrally planned economy that regulates the use of natural resources and ensures that all citizens have their basic necessities. The eco-fascist is open to such a state in theory, but not if the state is racially heterogeneous — otherwise, refugees from the global South will flood the global North, taking advantage of the welfare state and making the whole enterprise once again untenable. Therefore, as a condition for “sustainability,” the eco-fascist demands ethnic cleansing.

Um, that’s what many extremists in the Cult of Climastrology push for. A fascist, authoritarian state, along with population reduction. They usually call for this in 3rd world areas, though, rather than wacking immigrants. But, even as writer Bill Black attempts to shift this to some sort of right wing thing (why would we call for an Eco-Fascist state?)

As the reality of climate change becomes harder to deny, climate change denial will fade and eco-fascism will take its place. For younger fascists (Crusius was seven years old when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans and the same age when An Inconvenient Truth opened in theaters), the question is not whether our environment is in danger. The question is whether the global North will address the ecological crisis in a way that preserves the racial hierarchy. If the earth is saved but brown people end up on top, it will not have been, according to the eco-fascists, worth saving.

He wants an Eco-Fascist state. This is the point of the Green New Deal. Doing a Google news search for Green New Deal articles is how I arrived at this screed. But, then Bill tries to walk it back, saying Eco-Fascism is bad. That there’s another way. Which, really, would be Eco-Fascism. And Patrick Crusius was a died in the wool member of the Cult of Climastrology.

Read: The El Paso Shooter’s Eco-Fascism Is “Terrifyingly Rational” Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

NY Times: Europe Limits Free Speech, You Know

By William Teach August 7, 2019 – 8:04 am

You probably thought that the hot takes from the Times regarding the El Paso shooting (because they’re in the process of memory holeing the Dayton shooter, because his obvious leftism and Democratic Party support is inconvenient) would be on gun control/banning. A discussion of limiting free speech surely wasn’t on your radar, right?

The El Paso Shooting Revived the Free Speech Debate. Europe Has Limits.

The massacre of 22 people in El Paso, an attack announced in a hate-filled manifesto about an immigrant “invasion,” has revived debate about the limits of free speech, protected by the First Amendment in the United States.

But in Europe, where history has proved that domestic threats can be as devastating to democracy as those from abroad, freedom of speech, while a constitutional right, comes with certain caveats. Restricted in scope and linked to specific threats, these limitations are based on the premise that protecting certain ideals, such as the public good or human dignity, can justify curbing what individuals are allowed to say.

Free speech is constitutionally enshrined in both Germany and France, as it is in the United States. But there is an important difference.

“The big nuance between the First Amendment and the European texts is that the European texts allow for possible limitations” on speech, said Emmanuel Pierrat, a French lawyer who specializes in publishing and free speech issues.

Freedom to express an opinion in “speech, writing and pictures” is guaranteed under Article 5 of the German Constitution, alongside freedom of the press. But the same article warns that this freedom can be limited by “general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honor.”

The only people who are bringing up limits on Speech are Democrats, but, then, they’ve been doing this for a long time, wanting to limit anything the do not like. Hence the whole “hate” push. As the saying goes “be careful what you wish for; you might get it.” They could quickly find themselves on the wrong side of government censorship because someone didn’t like their speech, of even being prosecuted and/or sued.

In France, Article 10 of the Declaration of Human and Civic Rights guarantees that no one can be “disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones,” as long as they do not trouble public order. Article 11 calls the freedom to communicate thoughts and opinions “one of the most precious rights of man,” but adds that the law can determine cases in which that freedom is abused.

It’s not really a Right if government can arbitrarily decide to limit it. We aren’t talking about threats, slander, defamation, and similar stuff. What if criticizing government officials is limited is deemed abusive? The ability to criticize government without retaliation IS the primary point towards most of the 1st Amendment (freedom of practicing religion is the other). Restrict/limit speech, next up is the same for petitioning for redress of grievance and protesting peaceably.

Then freedom of the press. Did Aurelien Breeden and Melissa Eddy, along with the editor(s), at the NY Times consider that as they ponder how cool it is to limit speech in Europe? Because freedom of the press is limited in European nations, as well.

Social media is “reigned in”, as they go on to write, in Europe. And a big bullet point of theirs is “Boundaries are not always clear.” Which means that government can apply their whims arbitrarily. The leftists calling for speech limits should remember that this can rear up and bite them in their Rights.

In France, Mr. Pierrat said, “Freedom of expression stops where it starts to encroach upon the freedom of others.”

If this were France, people could complain about the NY Times’ speech encroaching on freedom, and have them limited or even shut down.

Read: NY Times: Europe Limits Free Speech, You Know »

Posted in 1st Amendment, Liberal World, Unhinged Tools, Wonky Media | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove