Hot Take: Illegal Alien Detention Facilities Are Really Concentration Camps

By William Teach June 12, 2019 – 7:29 am

Liberals have a fixation on concentration camps. They claimed that the Bush 43 administration would build them. And that Trump would build them for the gender confused. Now, Jonathan M. Katz gives it a whirl in the LA Times

Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.

Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

The United States didn’t invited these people to come illegally/show up at our border demanding entry. If the illegals do not like the conditions, there’s an easy solution: don’t come. Fix your own country. Oh, and throw some blame at the illegal alien supporting groups who do invite them to come. If you don’t like the conditions in jail, don’t break the law. Simple, right?

And when you come sick, when you’re trekking your kids thousands of miles in poor condition, bringing them very sick, it’s a tragedy, but, it is not the fault of the Border Patrol or ICE that deaths happen. The loons might as well blame the doctors, nurses, and medical facilities which tried to help the illegals.

But, wait, let’s turn the volume to 11

When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.

See, Trump is going to put everyone in a concentration camp! Nor does the screed get much better. Read it in full.

Oh, and then there’s this from the woman under investigation for filing illegal tax returns

See, it’s un-American! Even though we have this thing call “The Law.” I won’t agree on that part, but I will agree on jailing. We should simply deport them, as the original law states.

Read: Hot Take: Illegal Alien Detention Facilities Are Really Concentration Camps »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Unhinged Tools | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Yet Another GOP Warmist Failing To Understand How The Free Market Works

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 4:03 pm

Rep Elise Stefanik (R-NY) is another Big Government type Republican who fails to see that Government running the market is not free market, no matter how she puts it

Market-Oriented Solutions to Climate Change – InsideSources

The environment is the economic lifeblood of my district in New York’s North Country. Our community understands that clean air and clean water are not just political issues — they are a core aspect of our lives. It’s imperative that we step up in Congress and make smart environmental choices for future generations. Sustainable options depend not just on climate outcomes, but also on reinforcing personal liberty and responsibility.

We must tackle this generational challenge with bipartisan, serious policies. Proposals like the Green New Deal are non-starters because they would not only restructure our energy systems, but also the relationship between the people and a vastly expanded federal government. Free markets, strong property rights, and consumer choice aren’t protected under this kind of sweeping legislation.

We can combat our climate and environmental issues through market-based solutions. That’s why I am focused on ideas to diminish market barriers, reduce pollution, and increase economic growth and justice through free enterprise.

Market-based policy approaches encourage behavioral changes through signals to the market — often focused on changes in prices — rather than through explicit governmental directives. Market-based approaches encourage businesses and individuals to undertake pollution control efforts that are in their interests, and that collectively meet policy goals when they are well-designed and properly implemented.

Except, if the government is making the policies to encourage behavioral changes, that means it is not the free market. When Apple came out with the first iPhone, that was a sea change. Smartphones were around, but, not that big of a deal, excepting Blackberry’s for business use, mostly email.

Tax credits for wind and solar have helped jumpstart an industry that is now one of the economy’s most dynamic. Solar photovoltaic installers and wind turbine service technicians have been the first and second top-growing jobs over the past decade. These tax credits are scheduled to phase-out over the next few years because the subsidies were originally intended to help a nascent market get off the ground, and that goal will be largely achieved by the end of the phase-out.

Combined with the transition from coal to natural gas, this market-based approach had made it so the U.S. leads the world in emissions reductions. As of 2018, our carbon emissions were 10 percent below 2005 levels, which is roughly two-fifths of the way to the Paris Agreement target of 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Those policies are government, not free market.

We also should give incentives for good private sector action. Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions proposes a voluntary federal framework for public and private entities to highlight their efforts to reduce carbon emissions and increase renewable energy procurements. This system would increase transparency and accountability in the emerging carbon economy, highlight successful local and federal programs, and create incentives to participate in the voluntary framework.

People who worked in government creating a group that gets government involved.

We recently celebrated a big victory with passage of the Natural Resources Management Act. The legislation designated 1,340,000 acres of new wilderness, 367 miles of new scenic rivers, and 2,600 miles of new national trails. The bipartisan law also authorizes and allocates dozens of land exchanges to state and local governments to enable further economic development. This is a leading example of legislation that uses federal support to achieve environmental goals with a focus on local priorities and national economic growth.

Government.

Republicans need to be an active part of climate change legislation, which is why I’m working with GOP colleagues in the new bicameral Roosevelt Conservation Caucus. We’re supported by groups in our states and districts including the American Conservation Coalition, a nonprofit founded by young Republicans.

Legislation is free market? Huh.

Read: Yet Another GOP Warmist Failing To Understand How The Free Market Works »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, GOP | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle causing hot and cold, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on the Warmist failure at Glacier National Park.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Canada Set To Ban Single Use Plastics Starting In 2021

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 10:37 am

Can’t wait till the unintentional and unplanned consequences kick in

Ottawa announces plans to ban single-use plastics starting in 2021 at the earliest

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says his government will ban single-use plastics — which could include bags, straws and cutlery — in Canada in 2021 at the earliest.

“We need to cover all of Canada with this decision and that’s why the federal government is moving forward on a science-based approach to establishing which harmful single-use plastics we will be eliminating as of 2021,” said Trudeau during a stop Monday at the Gault Nature Reserve in Mont St-Hilaire, just outside Montreal.

A full list of banned items isn’t set in stone, but a government source told CBC News that the list also could include items like cotton swabs, drink stirrers, plates and balloon sticks. Fast-food containers and cups made of expanded polystyrene, which is similar to white Styrofoam, will also be banned, said the source.

Trudeau said the government will research the question of which items it should ban and follow the model chosen by the European Union, which voted in March to ban plastic items for which market alternatives exist — such as single-use plastic cutlery and plates — and items made of oxo-degradable plastics, such as bags. (Oxo-degradable plastics aren’t really biodegradable; they contain additives that cause the plastic to fragment without breaking down chemically.)

The devil is in the details, so, we’ll have to wait to see how this all shakes out. I wonder, though, will Canada ban the importation of these items via international shippers, such as Amazon? How about Canadians who cross the border into the U.S. to purchase the items? Will it be against the law to bring them back? How will people get their coffee and fast food? What will it be served in? And how much will this increase costs?

He also revealed plans to make companies that manufacture or sell plastic products to take responsibility for recycling their plastic waste.

“Whether we’re talking about plastic bottles or cellphones, it will be up to businesses to take responsibility for the plastics they’re manufacturing and putting out into the world,” said Trudeau.

Or, they could just stop selling their products in Canada, leaving them with no smartphones, causing a mental breakdown in people who are hooked.

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the plan lacks any details about how it would affect the economy.

“In the dying days of this government — with a scandal-plagued government, with a prime minister desperate to change the channel — we see another gesture without a plan without any kind of specifics about how this would be implemented or any kind of study on the impact on prices for consumers, on jobs, on how this would affect small businesses,” he told reporters in Ottawa

“This is clearly just a government clutching at straws.”

I’m sure the pun was intended.

Read: Canada Set To Ban Single Use Plastics Starting In 2021 »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 8:04 am

I’m very much in the corner. There would be nothing better than the Democrat presidential candidates trying to explain to the American people how their plans would artificially skyrocket the cost of living for citizens while also limiting freedom and choice. So, keep pushing, Democrats!

The DNC said no to a climate debate. Some of its members are still trying to make it happen.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has repeatedly said that although climate change is a top issue for Democrats, the national party will not host a debate solely dedicated to the topic during the 2020 primary race.

However, some DNC members are trying to change that.

Last week, Washington state Democratic Party Chairwoman Tina Podlodowski announced she will introduce a resolution advocating for the committee to host a climate debate. The resolution comes as a number of progressive organizations and top 2020 Democratic presidential candidates call on their party’s national committee to host a debate focused on climate change.

The resolution also states that if the DNC does not host one, then Democratic candidates “are free to participate in any and all forums or debates focused on Climate Change sponsored by other groups.”

Podlodowski said Monday that a climate change debate wouldn’t be a “single issue debate,” and instead would also touch on other policy areas such as the economy and health inequities.

See, the issue of so-called man-caused climate change is just a means to push all their other Modern Socialism garbage policies. They’ve rolled everything into one big over-arching idea. What better way to institute all sorts of taxes, fees, and control of your life than saying that it would all save off doom?

Progressive organizations, including MoveOn, the Sunrise Movement, Greenpeace, and others, have repeatedly called for a climate-only debate. At least 10 Democratic candidates have also endorsed a discussion focused on climate change, including Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, former Obama Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, along with Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet,

Currently, Podlodowski’s resolution has more than 50 signatories, who are state party chairs and other DNC members, including Christine Pelosi, one of the nearly three dozen DNC members that represent the California Democratic Party and daughter of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Christine Pelosi is co-sponsoring the resolution.

Again, I hope they succeed. The end result won’t be what they expect.

Read: DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | Comments Off on DNC Members Still Trying To Make ‘Climate Change’ Debate Happen Or Something | Trackback URL

Bummer: Democrats Pull Bill To Raise Their Pay

By William Teach June 11, 2019 – 7:49 am

No one tell AOC, who has been pushing for the extra money while not pushing for a vote on her own Green New Deal

They make $174,000 a year for 138 days of work. They have a goodly chunk of their expenses paid for. They have all sorts of money thrown at them. If they don’t like the pay, they can go get a real job

Dems to yank bill to raise congressional pay after backlash

House Democratic leaders are postponing consideration of a bill that would include a pay raise for members of Congress, after facing a major backlash from the party’s most vulnerable members.

Top Democrats agreed in a closed-door meeting Monday night to pull a key section of this week’s massive funding bill to avoid escalating a clash within their caucus over whether to hike salaries for lawmakers and staff for the first time in a decade, multiple lawmakers confirmed.

At least 15 Democrats — mostly freshmen in competitive districts — had pushed to freeze pay after some Democratic and Republican leaders quietly agreed to the slight pay increase earlier this month.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) confirmed to POLITICO after the meeting that he “thinks” they would pull the bill so that Democrats can resolve the issue of congressional pay raises.

The issue flared up in the Democratic leadership meeting on Monday, where there was an intense discussions of whether to force members to go on the record about a pay raise, which some battleground Democrats believed would create a target on their back in 2020.

“Nobody wants to vote to give themselves a raise. There’s nothing good about that,” said Rep. Katie Hill (D-Calif.), who attended Monday’s meeting.

The bill would have given them a pay raise of $4,500 a year. Which is like almost giving themselves an extra year of pay for the average American. All for losing their minds and holding constant hearings on Russia Russia Russia, especially after the Mueller report failure.

Read: Bummer: Democrats Pull Bill To Raise Their Pay »

Posted in Democrats, Dems in Charge: Now What? | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Trade Union Which Builds Buildings Sues To Stop Buildings Over Threat Of Bird Deaths Or Something

By William Teach June 10, 2019 – 3:18 pm

One would think this would go against what they’re all about

Trade union holds up Silicon Valley residential project over potential threat to birds

A California trade union is seeking to block a major residential construction project in the heart of housing-starved Silicon Valley, claiming there will be a bloodbath of birds due to the proposed building’s reflective windows.

The Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA), which represents construction workers in Sunnyvale — a city of about 140,000 residents between Stanford University and downtown San Jose — has sued the city and its council over the project.

The union claims that the approved 1,051-unit residential project, sponsored by the Irvine Company, may cause permanent damage to the environment and thus must be scrapped, Reason magazine reported.

The project would tear down office buildings in an industrial area and instead build apartments and townhouses, providing desperately needed affordable housing in the area. More than half the units would also be rented at below-market prices to people on lower incomes.

But the union’s lawsuit says that unless additional environmental review is conducted, the project will cause damage to residents and wildlife. The lawsuit notes that birds will be killed as the proposed project features reflective windows.

OK, so, use different windows. Are they seriously trying to kill off projects which would see them all do work that would put money in their pockets? Or, could this be about something else?

According to the outlet, the trade union is using the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a law mandating government agencies to study potential environmental impacts, to disrupt the project. Rather than protecting the environment, the decades-old law has been used by interested groups in the past to ensure unwanted projects don’t get off the ground.

The trade union’s chapter in Los Angeles is even accused of precisely that – filing frivolous CEQA complaints to a building project to ensure the company in charge of it hires all-union labor. The developer, Icon, says the union’s actions violate federal racketeering laws, according to the outlet.

Is this a shakedown to make sure the Irvine Company only uses union labor, particularly the LIUNA workers? What if they just scrap the project altogether, meaning the housing never gets built? That means those union laborers won’t be getting paid.

Read: Trade Union Which Builds Buildings Sues To Stop Buildings Over Threat Of Bird Deaths Or Something »

Posted in Enviroweenies | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 10, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a rising sea that will soon swamp all the coastal cities, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Ice Age Now, with a post showing 25 points on why CO2 is not the control knob.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Special Snowflake Activists Want George Washington Mural Removed

By William Teach June 10, 2019 – 11:20 am

Remember when they said they just wanted everything Confederacy removed, and it was beyond silly to think they’d want to get rid of things featuring Founding Fathers like George Washington?

Activists want a high school mural removed. Can its modern meaning overshadow the artist’s intentions?

For nearly a century, a massive mural by painter Victor Arnautoff titled “The Life of Washington” has lined the hallways of San Francisco’s George Washington High School.

It may not be there much longer.

Washington High School’s Reflection and Action Working Group — an ad-hoc committee made up students, school employees and local artists, historians and Native Americans — believes the mural “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy (and) oppression,” according to a statement published in local media.

The group reportedly identified two panels as especially offensive. One shows Washington pointing westward next to the body of a dead Native American (pictured above). The other depicts slaves working in the fields of Mount Vernon.

Because the work “traumatizes students and community members,” the group’s statement concluded that “the impact of this mural is greater than its intent ever was.” They are campaigning for its removal.

Of course they are. Everything “traumatizes” them. Rather than understanding history, learning from it, they want to not just hide from it, but remove it from their view, and everyone else’s view.

The rest of the article is interesting, in that the authors argue against removing art, books, etc, that trigger the little snowflakes.

Read: Special Snowflake Activists Want George Washington Mural Removed »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

DNC Chair Says A Debate About ‘Climate Change’ Is Not Practical

By William Teach June 10, 2019 – 7:04 am

In an Iowa poll of caucus-goers, we find that

(CNN) Majorities of likely Iowa Democratic caucus participants say any candidate who hopes to win their support must favor a woman’s right to abortion, recognize climate change as humanity’s greatest threat, and support restoration of a ban on assault-style weapons, according to a new CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll. (snip)

Support for abortion rights is tops, with about 8 in 10 calling it a must have regardless of how they plan to participate. Recognition of climate change as the greatest threat to humanity stands narrowly behind, a must-have for about three-quarters. Fewer (about 6 in 10) say it’s a must have to support restoring the ban on assault-style weapons.

So, 75% want ‘climate change’ stuff, and you can bet this is similar in other states among those who are the most ferverant moonbat primary voters. But

DNC chair says 2020 climate change debate is ‘not practical’ after being confronted by activists

Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Tom Perez on Saturday said a presidential debate focused solely on climate change was not “practical” after a group of activists confronted him about the issue.

“It’s just not practical,” Perez told the activists after delivering remarks at the Florida Democratic Party’s Leadership Blue gala, according to The Tampa Bay Times. “And as someone who worked for Barack Obama, the most remarkable thing about him was his tenacity to multitask, and a president must be able to multitask.”

The DNC last week informed Democratic presidential hopeful and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) that it would not host a debate focused entirely on climate change, which has emerged as a hot-button issue among candidates and voters. (snip)

When asked about the rejection after speaking at the Florida Democratic party’s largest fundraiser, Perez stressed that each debate will cover a wide range of issues, The Times noted. He added that “once you have one single issue debate, then every debate leads to become a single issue debate in order to address the concerns.”

“A lot of young people say we should have a single debate focused on climate change,” Perez said. “I’ve heard from folks very concerned about the trigger finger guy known as (National Security adviser John) Bolton, who is going to bring us to war in Iran, who say while foreign policy might be number 12 on people’s list, Donald Trump might try to get us into a war in order to win re-election. So what we have said to everybody is that all of these issues are important. Frankly, if we don’t fix our broken politics through democracy reform we’re not going to be able to pass any laws.”

It’s a nice explanation, but, it would still be easy to do, right? Same thing with abortion and firearms. Let the 476 candidates lay out their policies, let them debate. But, the DNC wants nothing to do with single issue debates, especially on these three issues, because they would show the non-moonbat voters, the ones beyond the base, that these people are nuts, that they want your money, and they want to restrict your rights and freedom.

Certainly, on abortion, they want to limit the exposure on just how extreme Democrats are. They want to limit how extreme they are on firearms, and how extreme they are on ‘climate change’.

Read: DNC Chair Says A Debate About ‘Climate Change’ Is Not Practical »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove