Your Tax Dollars At Work: Every Democrat Says Their Health Plan Would Support Illegal Aliens

By William Teach June 28, 2019 – 6:44 am

Remember, they are not the party of open borders (via Twitchy)

Remember the days when the Democrats were promising that illegal aliens would not be covered by Obamacare? Good times, good times

To which Trump responded (rather quickly)

And while mult-tasking

(Fox News) President Trump interrupted his meetings with foreign heads of state at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, to take a dig at Democrats participating in the party’s second debate Thursday.

The president said Democratic White House contenders’ willingness to extend government health care to illegal immigrants in America will get him reelected.

All Democrats on the stage for the second night of the debates Thursday in Miami raised their hands when asked if they would give health care to migrants in the country illegally.

Most likely, one of his staff tweeted it, as he was meeting with Angela Merkel at the time. Fortunately, Bernie Sanders had a response ready “When I say Medicare for All, I mean ALL.” Most likely his staff, since that was at 9:41.

Seriously, how well will this play with middle America? You have Democrats from Nancy Pelosi to many of the Dem candidates to all their peeps calling for decriminalizing being in the country illegally, which would mean doing away with deportation as the penalty. They do not want to deport any illegals, even the ones engaged in criminal behavior. And now free health care for all illegal aliens. This will be in election ads, and Trump is going to pound them.

Read: Your Tax Dollars At Work: Every Democrat Says Their Health Plan Would Support Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Democrats, Donald Trump, Elections, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Hotcold Take: Death Of Cap And Trade Means We Should Do Something Even Stronger

By William Teach June 27, 2019 – 4:40 pm

This is the thought process of Warmists: cap and trade, along with carbon tax, schemes keep failing, mostly because citizens do not want them. In theory, citizens are enthused to Do Something about the man-caused climate change scam. But, in practice, not so much. So, hey, instead of pushing something more reasonable why not push something even crazier?

Is cap and trade’s death a chance for stronger action?

Could the death of the cap-and-trade bill in the Oregon Senate be an opportunity for the state to design stronger action on climate change?

Senate Republicans haven’t returned to Salem, even after Democratic Senate President Peter Courtney announced this week the proposal no longer had the votes to pass.

But the measure has faced attacks not only from the right. Some groups on the left have been critical as well.

Jim Walsh, an energy policy analyst for the advocacy group Food and Water Watch, says a market-based approach that still allows pollution through the use of offsets and other policies isn’t good enough to reduce carbon emissions.

“Under the cap-and-trade program in Oregon, we would have had a number of dirty energy policies including carbon-capture sequestration and the use of bio-fuels that would have extended the use of fossil fuels and other dirty, polluting industries,” he points out.

Since the start of the legislative session, groups such as the Center for Sustainable Economy, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon and Unite Oregon have argued that lawmakers should focus on an Oregon Green New Deal, rather than cap and trade.

They say a Green New Deal would offer a chance at a transition that doesn’t disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.

What communities of color? Oregon is one of the whitest states in the Union. Asians account for the largest non-white at just over 4%, and they generally don’t whine about race.

Walsh says there’s evidence that California’s cap-and-trade program has led to greater emissions near disadvantaged communities because companies can pay to pollute.

So, instead of implementing a system like that, they want something that goes even further and implements massive government controls. It’d be nice if journalists would ask these people if they have given up their own use of fossil fuels in their work and personal lives.

Read: Hotcold Take: Death Of Cap And Trade Means We Should Do Something Even Stronger »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 27, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that will soon die from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on the UN moving to impose Sharia law.

Read: If All You See… »

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

North Carolina House Passes Bill Allowing Sanctuary Jurisdictions To Be Sued

By William Teach June 27, 2019 – 10:30 am

Allowing citizens to go after cities and counties that protect illegal aliens, though, there does seem to be something missing

(WRAL) The House on Wednesday passed legislation that would allow people to sue cities or counties that have so-called “sanctuary” policies for people in the U.S. illegally.

The 65-52 party-line House vote comes two days after the Senate approved House Bill 370, which would require sheriffs to check the immigration status of people booked into county jails and hold people in jail for federal immigration agents. Sheriffs who don’t could be removed from office.

House Bill 135, which now heads to the Senate, would nullify any local policy or ordinance that prohibits law enforcement from gathering immigration information on “any individual,” directing law enforcement not to collect such information or blocking the information from being forwarded to federal immigration officials.

The proposal also would allow people to seek court orders to have such policies halted and to have the affected county or city pay their legal fees.

Of course, the “we’re really not pro-illegal immigration, we just want to protect illegal aliens” folks are rather Upset

“This bill not only harms our immigrant communities, it harms local counties and cities that wish to protect their most vulnerable residents and prevents them from becoming welcoming cities to those in need,” Moises Serrano, political director of advocacy group El Pueblo, said in a statement.

Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, said the bill appears to allow lawsuits against a sheriff’s policies, such as not honoring immigration detainers and keep people who have posted bond in jail. The Senate stripped a provision allowing such civil actions from House Bill 370 before approving the measure.

Several sheriffs, including those in Wake, Durham and Orange counties, have said they can better serve local Latinx communities by refusing to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

But, see, their job is not to better serve people who are unlawfully present in the United States, their job is to protect the citizens and those here lawfully. Let’s put it this way: what if they decided it better served a community where lots of petty crime occurred, such as pooping all over the streets and sidewalks, by turning a blind eye to the pooping? Would someone create a poop map? Who does this actually serve?

Harrison also noted that House Bill 135 would allow anybody, even people living out of state or corporations, to sue over local policies because the bill spells out that they “need not allege or prove special damage different from that suffered by the public at large.” That would invite many suits, she said, forcing counties and cities to spend money unnecessarily to defend themselves.

“I don’t believe we actually want any person to be able to bring an expensive and time-consuming lawsuit against any of our cities or counties,” agreed Rep. John Autry, D-Mecklenburg.

The idea, I suspect, is to make it too expensive for sanctuary jurisdictions to keep it up. They might have been better served if they had crafted the bill to allow anyone harmed by the actions of an illegal alien to directly sue the jurisdictions involved with the illegal in question, as well as the people specifically involved, such as the Sheriff, county and local council members, and mayors.

The way this is crafted, though, means anyone can sue any NC sanctuary jurisdiction at any time, as long as they are not frivilous, which is laid out in the bill. Both can be expected to be vetoed by the Democratic governor, Rory Cooper. Will the GA have the votes to override?

Read: North Carolina House Passes Bill Allowing Sanctuary Jurisdictions To Be Sued »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, NC News | Comments Off on North Carolina House Passes Bill Allowing Sanctuary Jurisdictions To Be Sued | Trackback URL

Will ‘Climate Change’ Blow Up Kids’ Childhoods Like Chernobyl Or Something

By William Teach June 27, 2019 – 7:48 am

When something happens, the Cult of Climastrology will attempt to hijack it. In this case, you had a tremendous show on HBO showing what happened during the Chernobyl disaster (watch it if you can, I’ll give it 5 stars), so, hey, why not horn in with ‘climate change’?

Chernobyl Blew Up My Childhood. Will Climate Change Do The Same For My Kids?
I was a 10-year-old in Kiev when the Chernobyl explosion destroyed my faith in my country and my family. Now I wonder if history is bound to repeat itself.

The spring of 1986 was warm in Kiev, Ukraine. White chestnut blossoms dotted the greenery. Cotton ball–sized fluff from poplar trees rolled over the grass in the courtyard of our apartment building. April 22 was Vladimir Lenin’s birthday. All of us third-graders boarded trolleys to ride to the Lenin Museum, thrilled for the ceremony we’d been anxiously awaiting — the ceremony we’d worked so hard for. We were becoming Young Pioneers. Our parents had bought us the red kerchiefs, and we’d practiced tying them around our necks just so, puffing our chests when we caught our reflections in storefront windows.

After school, I insisted on wearing my Young Pioneer uniform (white shirt, navy skirt, red kerchief) to run to a store to buy food for my birthday party the next day, April 23. My mother and I used the dining table in our communal apartment’s kitchen, which we shared with two other families, to roll out pie dough. The heat from the oven baked my neck under the starched shirt collar.

“Are you proud, little Pioneer?” asked our neighbor Irene, summoned out of her room by the aroma of the baking pie. “You look good in red.”

Who here can remember a specific event with such clarity from back in 1986? Because Sophia Moskalenko keeps going on with this very specific recollection, before

On April 29, our next-door neighbor Olena came to my mother for a cup of coffee. Usually, they sat on the landing between the apartments, sharing an ashtray atop a wooden chest that stored potatoes and onions through the winter. But that day, Olena took my mother by the elbow and escorted her into our room, closing the heavy oak door behind them. Olena’s abrupt manner troubled me. I slid up the bronze shield of the pre-Revolution lock and peeked through the keyhole.

“Don’t open the windows,” Olena said, leaning forward in the armchair, brow furrowed. “Wipe everything with a damp rag. Don’t let Sophia go outside.”

Um, most had zero idea what was going on in Chernobyl. Nothing. Because the government clamped down. Heck, most in the closest city, Pripyat, where the Chernobyl workers lived, had no idea. Anyhow, this keeps going on and on and on, till we finally get to

But decades later, I still find Chernobyl burning in me.

With extreme weather events pummeling my chosen country, the present US administration’s avoidance and outright denial of scientific evidence that an environmental disaster wrought by climate change is upon us reminds me of April 1986 in the Soviet Union, when the Soviet government said we would all be fine. In Kiev, we hadn’t witnessed the glowing fire of the nuclear reactor in Chernobyl. The radiation was invisible, its damage slow to transpire. The government’s reassurance was far more appealing than the scientists’ dire assessments. We embraced government lies then for the same reason many do now — because the threat was subtle, and the truth costly.

The comparison between Chernobyl and climate change may seem in some ways far-fetched: Chernobyl was an unexpected, localized event that resulted from bad decisions of a handful of people, whereas climate change is a slowly unfolding global issue that stems from the choices of billions. The striking parallel I see is not in the top officials’ actions but in an average person’s reactions. Both in the USSR of 1986 and in the USA of 2019, too many people choose complacency and compliance over alarm and action.

Oh, wait, you thought that was pretty bad?

Today, the average age of my three children is about 10, the age I was when Chernobyl exploded. Struggling to limit their exposure to pesticides, pollution, and plastics, I wonder if I am doing enough to shield them from the Chernobyl of their lifetimes. As I teach them to recycle and to conserve, I often feel as though I am spooning water out of a sinking boat. Perhaps my resigned perseverance is a hallmark of parenting: repetitive, seemingly futile actions that one hopes will eventually lead to a desirable outcome — like telling them to pick up their socks. Or maybe my efforts reveal a survivor’s hypervigilance — similar to the way survivors of hunger hoard food in times of plenty. Whatever the reason, I see climate change as a test of my parenting.

Read: Will ‘Climate Change’ Blow Up Kids’ Childhoods Like Chernobyl Or Something »

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

First Democrat Throwdown: They’re All Super-Enthused To Vastly Increase Power Of Federal Government

By William Teach June 27, 2019 – 7:31 am

These Democrats are the exact reason that the 17th Amendment should be repealed: Senators would be elected by state general assemblies, as originally intended, which would pull the power of the federal government back to the states where it belongs. Because they are really, really enthused to give the Central Government more power, which means taking away your choice and liberty. And money. To the point that the Washington Post’s Dan Balz noticed

Democrats signal a turn toward liberal ambitions and government activism

The first debate of the 2020 presidential campaign offered a clear road map of a new Democratic Party, one that favors a series of ambitious and liberal domestic initiatives and that is more willing than some Democrats of the past to use the powers of the federal government to intervene in the economy.

On a range of issues, including immigration, climate change, health care, the economy and more, the Democratic candidates were unabashed in their enthusiasm for more government activism, signaling not only differences with President Trump but also with a more cautious approach by Democratic politicians of the past two decades.

Well, with the rise of the Democratic Socialist bloc in the House, and pretty much every Democrat on the stage suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome, they seem more willing to expose their Progressive/Marxist/Socialist/Fascist/Authoritarian (we’ll just call that Modern Socialism) beliefs more than they normally would. This might play well with their base, but, it won’t play in the general election. And it risks turning off moderate Democrats

The economy described by the candidates bore little resemblance to the economy the president speaks about on an almost daily basis. At a time when unemployment is at a half-century low and the stock market continues to rise, the Democrats spoke of the imbalance between giant corporations and wealthy individuals and working families who candidates said are being taken advantage of.

“When you’ve got an economy that does great for those with money and isn’t doing great for everyone else, that is corruption, pure and simple,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), who is one of the leading voices pushing the party to the left. “We need to call it out. We need to attack it head on.”

Warren was far from the only candidate who offered that diagnosis of the economy. The Democrats might have differed on some of the specifics of how to attack the problem — such as the potential breakup of big tech companies — but there was widespread agreement that Democrats in the White House would seek to redistribute power and the fruits of the economy.

I’m surprised they didn’t discuss nationalizing private corporations

On health care, Democrats differed over whether the path to universal coverage should mean Medicare-for-all and an end to private insurance or be accomplished on a more piecemeal basis. But all signaled a new aggressiveness on the part of their party to move beyond the Affordable Care Act that was one of the prime successes of the administration of former president Barack Obama.

Warren and De Blasio stated that they would get rid of all private insurance.

Booker and Klobuchar are both enthused to use the power of government to violate the Constitution and restrict 2nd Amendment Rights.

They were all also super-enthused to expand abortion on demand, and then there was immigration

Immigration produced some of the sharpest exchanges, as former housing secretary Julián Castro challenged others, most specifically fellow Texan Beto O’Rourke, a former congressman, to join him in changing the offense for crossing the border illegally from a criminal to a civil penalty. But overall, the Democrats’ indictment of the Trump administration was consistent and strong.

It is technically a civil penalty for a first offense: a small fine and deportation. What they really mean, though, is “penalizing” them with no fine, no deportation, and free citizenship.

Next up is the 2nd debate with the Dems polling higher, which should also be a fun fest of increasing the power of the government.

Read: First Democrat Throwdown: They’re All Super-Enthused To Vastly Increase Power Of Federal Government »

Posted in Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

ICE Releases Names Of Good, Upstanding Illegal Aliens Protected By Sanctuary Jurisdictions

By William Teach June 26, 2019 – 3:00 pm

It’s no wonder Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and others are upset and want ICE defunded when they want to deport these nice illegals

ICE releases list of accused murderers, rapists protected under state’s sanctuary law

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in the Pacific Northwest are taking the unusual step of criticizing Washington state’s new sanctuary state law and giving detailed examples of the danger they believe it presents to the public.

The office recently issued a press release which lists seven cases in which ICE requested detainers on criminal illegal aliens being held in local jails and those requests were ignored, many with tragic consequences.

According to ICE, Rosalio Ramos-Ramos was arrested last January for murder and dismembering his victim. It happened just months after Ramos was released from a Washington jail despite ICE’s request for an immigration detainer and notification of his pending release, neither of which were honored.

ICE also cites the case of Mexican national Martin Gallo-Gallardo, who was in a Clackamas County Oregon jail. The statement said jail officials ignored ICE’s request for an immigration detainer and notification of release. Gallardo was released and within months was re-arrested, this time for allegedly murdering his wife.

The most recent case involves Francisco Carranza-Ramirez, who was also in the U.S. illegally. He was convicted of raping a wheelchair-bound Seattle woman twice. He was sentenced to time served and released, under the judge’s order that he self-deport back to Mexico. King County Sheriff’s officials say he eventually did return to Mexico, but not before assaulting his victim a third time.

These are apparently part of the “good illegals” that Democrats want to protect.

Read: ICE Releases Names Of Good, Upstanding Illegal Aliens Protected By Sanctuary Jurisdictions »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a world flooded by carbon pollution, and is that a glacier in the background?, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on documents showing more of Ilhan Omar’s immigration and tax fraud issues.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcold Take: The Democrat Debates Are Really All About ‘Climate Change’ In Disguise

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

Weren’t we told that ‘climate change’ is all about Science? Strange how it always seems to be about politics

THE DEBATES WILL BE ABOUT CLIMATE—DISGUISED AS OTHER ISSUES

SHHHHH. DON’T TELL anyone, but Jay Inslee is going to get a presidential debate focused on climate change.

Inslee, the governor of Washington state and one of two dozen candidates vying for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, has been agitating for such a single-topic debate for months. Other candidates have signed onto the idea, and activists within the party have amplified the message. But Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said nuh-uh. “I concluded the DNC could not allow individual candidates to dictate the terms of debates or limit the topics discussed,” Perez wrote in a post on Medium.

Starting Wednesday night, when 10 candidates kick off debate season … and then Thursday, when a second tranche gets together … and then over the course of 11 more debates … Inslee will get what he wants. Because every single issue that a presidential aspirant could conceivably talk about is, at heart, intertwined with climate change. Jobs, the economy, national security, immigration, energy, housing—they’re all facets of the same crystal. The science is clear; the politics, less so. It’ll be a climate debate, all right; the question is what the candidates will do about it.

Well, really, this is correct, because the whole ‘climate change’ push isn’t about science: it’s about taking random weather events that happen during a low ranking Holocene warm period and proclaiming Doom, which allows Authoritarian styled politicians to grab more power, more taxes and fees, while limiting freedom. The Cult of Climastrology has taken a real thing, immediately blamed Mankind, and used this to hijack every single issue they can think of.

One of the best reasons to talk about climate change and its effects in an all-Democrat debate might well be to reach Republicans—younger ones, at least. The moderate wing of that party is starting to see climate change as an imminent policy issue and a political vulnerability, especially in places like Miami, site of the debates and deeply vulnerable to hurricanes and rising sea levels. “Younger Republicans are much more open to the Democratic message about this,” Leiserowitz says. “They’re like, how come nobody in our party is talking about it, and when they do, they’re saying it’s a hoax?”

On the other hand, Democrats will worry about treading carefully so as to not blow up their electoral map. Republicans have been able to couch their lack of action and obstruction on climate laws as economic caution. They’ll say that limitations on greenhouse gases and changes in energy use threaten jobs and economies in parts of the country already in trouble…

Which is why I want them to talk about ‘climate change’ and their policy proposals. It’s easy to whine about it and say we need to Do Something. The minute people start hearing about what the policies will cost them, they tune out and say “no way in hell.” Seriously, 68% say they wouldn’t be willing to pay $10 more a month on their power bill for ‘climate change’. Heck, 43% say they aren’t will to pay $1 more a month.

Read: Hotcold Take: The Democrat Debates Are Really All About ‘Climate Change’ In Disguise »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Human Rights Might Not Survive ‘Climate Change’, Create Climate Apartheid Or Something

By William Teach June 26, 2019 – 7:57 am

You know it’s summer, because the Cult Of Climastrology ramps up the doomy prognostications and such from Unhinged to Deranged. And this is a new one

‘Climate apartheid’: UN expert says human rights may not survive

The world is increasingly at risk of “climate apartheid”, where the rich pay to escape heat and hunger caused by the escalating climate crisis while the rest of the world suffers, a report from a UN human rights expert has said.

Philip Alston, UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, said the impacts of global heating are likely to undermine not only basic rights to life, water, food, and housing for hundreds of millions of people, but also democracy and the rule of law.

Alston is critical of the “patently inadequate” steps taken by the UN itself, countries, NGOs and businesses, saying they are “entirely disproportionate to the urgency and magnitude of the threat”. His report to the UN human rights council (HRC) concludes: “Human rights might not survive the coming upheaval.”

All that because of a tiny 1.5F increase in global temperatures since 1850.

Alston’s report on climate change and poverty will be formally presented to the HRC in Geneva on Friday. It said the greatest impact of the climate crisis would be on those living in poverty, with many losing access to adequate food and water.

“Climate change threatens to undo the last 50 years of progress in development, global health, and poverty reduction,” Alston said. Developing countries will bear an estimated 75% of the costs of the climate crisis, the report said, despite the poorest half of the world’s population causing just 10% of carbon dioxide emissions.

“Yet democracy and the rule of law, as well as a wide range of civil and political rights are every bit at risk,” Alston’s report said. “The risk of community discontent, of growing inequality, and of even greater levels of deprivation among some groups, will likely stimulate nationalist, xenophobic, racist and other responses. Maintaining a balanced approach to civil and political rights will be extremely complex.”

But, hey, if we give up all our liberty and money to the U.N. they can save us, right?

“When Hurricane Sandy wreaked havoc on New York in 2012, stranding low-income and vulnerable New Yorkers without access to power and healthcare, the Goldman Sachs headquarters was protected by tens of thousands of its own sandbags and power from its generator.”

Weird how government, which the Warmists want to give even more power and money, wasn’t able to protect anyone. Oh, and city hall and government properties were protected. Guess they are the evil rich? BTW, Sandy wasn’t a hurricane when it made landfall, and, there has been no repeat of the storm, despite them telling us this was the new normal.

But, hey, climate apartheid. Doom.

Read: Human Rights Might Not Survive ‘Climate Change’, Create Climate Apartheid Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove