Trump Announces Deal With Mexico To Avoid Tariffs

By William Teach June 8, 2019 – 6:59 am

Who’s hit worse, the #Resistance or the #NeverTrumpers? I’ve seen more #NeverTrumpers losing their minds on Twitter, in comments, and on their blogs than #Resistance over the threat of tariffs. Maybe you’ve seen the other way. They just don’t get that Trump does things differently, but, they are all infused with TDS

US makes deal with Mexico on tariffs, immigration, Trump announces

The U.S. has reached an agreement with Mexico that heads off the start of tariffs on Monday.

The deal, announced by President Trump via tweet on Friday night, is said to include plans to return migrants seeking asylum to Mexico, where they will remain until their claims can be processed.

“I am pleased to inform you that The United States of America has reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the U.S. on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended,” he said. “Mexico, in turn, has agreed to take strong measures to….stem the tide of Migration through Mexico, and to our Southern Border. This is being done to greatly reduce, or eliminate, Illegal Immigration coming from Mexico and into the United States. Details of the agreement will be released shortly by the State Department. Thank you!”

Mexico promises to deploy its National Guard throughout Mexico, particularly at the border, increase actions to dismantle human trafficking operations to smuggle individuals across the border, and take extra steps to coordinate with the American government to share information and “better protect and secure our common border,” according to a statement from the State Department.

Trump thinks of things along a business related line, not a typical diplomacy related line, which can take forever to get done. He is rather the bull in the china shop. It doesn’t always work, but, neither does diplomacy.

Some Democrats responded with ire even in the wake of the new deal. One was 2020 presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, who tweeted: “The damage of Trump’s reckless trade policies and tariffs has already been done. What we see is yet another example of him trying to be both the arsonist who created this problem in the first place and the firefighter who wants credit for addressing it.”

Poor Beto, still trying to get noticed. Regardless, if Mexico sticks to the agreement, you can bet Trump will try and hook them up on some deal, offering the carrot.

PS: The minute I flipped over to Twitter after posting this, I ran across multiple #NeverTrumpers finding a way to make this negative. Sigh.

Read: Trump Announces Deal With Mexico To Avoid Tariffs »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Warmist Upset That Democratic Party Is Trying To Downplay ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach June 7, 2019 – 3:00 pm

Warmist Justin Gillis rears his head, and, strangely, I somewhat agree with him

The Democratic Party Is Trying to Downplay Climate Change. Don’t Let It.

Now we know. The Democratic Party establishment in Washington really believes it is going to get away with running another round of presidential primaries in which the climate crisis is basically hidden in the attic.

The proof came this week, when the Democratic National Committee informed one of the candidates, Jay Inslee, that it had turned down his call to hold a candidate debate specifically about climate change.

People are roasting alive in California towns hit by the deadliest wildfires in the state’s history. Midwestern cities are reeling from deluge upon deluge. Coastal communities are starting to drown from a relentlessly rising sea.

None of that is enough, apparently, for the Democratic Party to choose to put this issue front-and-center in the primary campaign. Not only did the D.N.C. turn Mr. Inslee down; according to him, the party informed him that he would be banned from party-sponsored debates if he took part in any unofficial candidate debate on climate change.

In a statement, the party declared it would not schedule any single-issue debates, so that voters would “have the ability to hear from candidates on dozens of issues of importance.” That might make sense if the D.N.C. were only planning two or three debates. It is planning 12; surely the party can afford to devote a twelfth of its debate time to the issue that threatens to throw human civilization into crisis.

I wonder why they’re trying to stay away from this in televised debates?

In fairness to the Democrats, turning the climate issue to their advantage in a general election is certainly going to be tricky. Only a decade ago, Republicans like John McCain took the problem seriously, but now the Republican Party can be counted on for relentless demagogy about any solutions proposed by the Democrats. The Bolsheviks are coming! (big snip)

So I have a proposal for the Democratic candidates: All of you care about the climate crisis, and many of you have already put a lot of work into showing the voters that you do. I suggest that you simply refuse to accept the D.N.C. edict. If the party will not host a climate debate, agree among yourselves that you are going to have one. Ask one of the cable channels to put it on the air.

Which is why I agree with Justin: they should hold at least one debate on ‘climate change’, and make it a bigger part of all the others. That way, the People will know exactly how the Dems policies will harm their lives and money and freedom.

Read: NY Times Warmist Upset That Democratic Party Is Trying To Downplay ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is an area flooded from extreme weather from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on prayers now being a political weapon.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Strange: Mexico Seems To Be Doing Things To Avoid Trump’s Tariffs

By William Teach June 7, 2019 – 10:40 am

Democrats, a few squishy Republicans, and a whole bunch of #NeverTrumpers were freaking out over Trump’s threatened tariffs on Mexico (thought, let’s face it, they freak out over everything Trump says and does). They said they would never work. Huh

Mexico deploys military to curb migration, reportedly offers major concessions as Trump tariffs loom

With just days to go until the Trump administration is set to impose punishing tariffs on Mexico unless the country halts the unprecedented flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border, numerous signs that Mexico would capitulate emerged Thursday — but it remained unclear Friday morning whether their efforts would satisfy the White House.

Reports in the evening indicated that Mexico’s negotiators with Washington have offered to immediately deploy 6,000 National Guard troops to the border with Guatemala. Additionally, Mexico has reportedly agreed to a major overhaul of reasonable asylum protocols, which would require asylum applicants to seek permanent refuge in the first country they arrive in after fleeing their home countries.

For virtually all Central American migrants, that country would not be the United States. The Trump administration has already begun requiring asylum applicants to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed, saying too many applicants were using the system fraudulently to escape into the country. Last month, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request to stop that practice temporarily.

However, two administration officials tell Fox News that while talks have been going well with Mexico, and that Mexico is making some fresh proposals, there is not yet a deal that U.S. officials are sure to imminently accept.

Democrats may hate the United States, and many other nations might denigrate us, but, at the end of the day, the U.S. has a lot of power, and nations need the U.S. What if Trump puts in a measure that would keep Americans from going to Mexico for vacations? Think that would do some damage to Mexico financially?

People keep forgetting that Trump is not a politician, but a businessman, and he’s not going to do the long, boring diplomacy thing. He’s going to use a different set of tools. Expect him to throw out some carrots to Mexico shortly.

Read: Strange: Mexico Seems To Be Doing Things To Avoid Trump’s Tariffs »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Has A Sad That None Of The Democrats Are Pushing A Carbon Tax

By William Teach June 7, 2019 – 6:59 am

Writing in the opinion section, Catherine Rampell is rather bummed that the 2020 Democratic candidates, all 453 of them, are forgetting to put forth a carbon tax. She should be careful what she wishes for, because what do you think will happen to a company that relies on the use of lots and lots of fossil fuels to gather then news and lots and lots of trees turned into paper?

Why do none of the Democrats’ climate plans include the most important tool?

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a big, bold, multitrillion-dollar plan for addressing climate change. So does her rival Joe Biden. Likewiseformer Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke. And, of course, Gov. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), whose entire campaign is structured around the climate crisis.

These candidates, to their credit, have offered thoughtful solutions for addressing the most pressing policy challenge of our time. Their proposals are highly detailed and thorough, often running to dozens of pages in length.

And it’s precisely because they’re so detailed and thorough that it’s so bizarre none of them explicitly mentions the obvious, no-brainer tool for curbing carbon emissions: putting a price on carbon.

A carbon tax (or its cousin, a cap-and-trade system) is almost universally embraced by economists on both the left and the right. With good reason, too. Taxing carbon means pricing in, upfront, the implicit costs that come from using fossil fuels — especially, though not exclusively, the cost of warming our planet.

She is right that none of them are offering up a carbon tax, even uber-Warmist Jay Inslee. Instead, later in the piece, Rampell notes

The plans devote a lot of verbiage to talking about the magical properties of government procurement — that is, using the deep pockets of the government to purchase more energy-efficient products. Warren, for instance, analogizes her own plan, which includes a $1.5 trillion federal procurement commitment, to the industrial policy America previously undertook for the space race and our mobilization against Nazi aggression.

The plans really are all about making government massive and controlling, involving pretty much all aspects of life, much like the nutty Green New Deal. They’re basically left-wing pipe dreams wrapped under the banner of ‘climate change’.

The first is that it immediately nudges consumers and businesses away from purchasing carbon-intensive products, because (duh) those products get more expensive.

Actually, it causes just about everything to get more expensive, and causes “unanticipated consequences”, such as people using lots more wood for things like heating and cooking, just as we see in places like Germany and France, which are importing tongs of woods pellets from America.

The second is that, over the longer run, it motivates entrepreneurs and investors to develop new green technologies, because they know they can make money as customers seek out cheaper, lower-carbon-footprint alternatives. Capital organically moves to wherever scientists and investors actually believe the most promising technologies lie, which might be ones that haven’t even been invented yet.

If this is the case, why aren’t we seeing this from places that currently have carbon taxes? California mostly seems to be just exporting Crazy. European nations do not seem to be developing much in the way of “green technologies” despite long established carbon taxes.

Just because the public sector buys more energy-efficient lightbulbs, electric cars or solar panels doesn’t mean the (much larger) private sector will, absent price incentives. Especially if we add conditions to the production of those green goods that actually increase their costs to consumers, as some of these plans do.

Of course, changing our behavior by force is not what our government was established for (excepting criminal behavior, of course). It’s not there to force us to buy certain products and such. Those who want to do this are, what’s that political system again?

Read: Washington Post Has A Sad That None Of The Democrats Are Pushing A Carbon Tax »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Democrats, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Dyke March Returns To D.C., Bans Jewish And Israeli Symbols

By William Teach June 7, 2019 – 6:41 am

They’re claiming that that they aren’t anti-Jew and anti-Israel, though

DC gay pride parade faces backlash after banning Jewish pride flag

Participants at an upcoming gay pride parade in D.C. will be able to wave the Palestinian flag, but not the Israeli flag or the Jewish pride flag.

The D.C. Dyke March will not allow participants to display Israeli or “nationalist” symbols, according to Forward.

“This includes Israeli flags, as well as flags that resemble Israeli flags, such as a pride flag with a Star of David in the middle,” march organizer Rae Gaines said. Gaines also said American flags would not be welcome at the event, but a Palestinian flag would.

“The issue [with the Jewish Pride flag] is where the Star of David is positioned in a way that looks like an Israeli flag, it creates an unsafe space,” Gaines said.

A joint statement from Jewish, feminist, and LGBT groups condemned the move. They pointed out “rising anti-Semitism on the far right and far left.”

That rising Jew hatred is really from the far, far, far right and from the mainstream Left (which, on the political spectrum, is actually far right, being linked to Fascism and Authoritarian models). It’s nice that they throw in the blocking of the American flag. They should try go be gay in places like Palestine, see how that works out. The laws and rules and such are not as bad in Palestinian territory as it is in other Muslim nations, but, certainly not even close to as good as in the U.S. Or as in Israel, which is rather progressive.

The Anti-Defamation League also called out the move in a Thursday statement.

“Banning the Star of David in their parade is anti-Semitic, plain and simple,” CEO Jonathan Greenblat said. “We call on the organizers to immediately reverse this policy.”

The Dyke march put out a statement attempting to show that they totally aren’t anti-Jew, they’re just anti-Zionist, and pretty much affirmed that they’re anti-Jew.

Read: Dyke March Returns To D.C., Bans Jewish And Israeli Symbols »

Posted in Democrats, Israel, Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Cost Of AOC’s Green New Deal? At Least $10 Trillion

By William Teach June 6, 2019 – 3:43 pm

But, we all know, if she’s saying it will cost $10 trillion, it will probably be around $50 trillion. But, hey, she thinks dumping taxpayer money into the economy while implementing rules and regs that cause massive problems in the economy will stimulate the economy

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says her Green New Deal climate plan would cost at least $10 trillion

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Wednesday that her ambitious plan to fight climate change, expand the social safety net, and stimulate the economy would cost at least $10 trillion.

Ocasio-Cortez introduced her Green New Deal resolution with Sen. Ed Markey in February, but did not release a price tag estimate at the time.

“I think we really need to get to $10 trillion to have a shot,” the freshman lawmaker told The Hill on Wednesday, adding, “I know it’s a ton. I don’t think anyone wants to spend that amount of money, it’s not a fun number to say, I’m not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but … it’s just the fact of the scenario.”

The Bronx native acknowledged that proposing $10 trillion in government spending will be unpopular among many Americans.

“It’s not politically popular, people are going to call it unrealistic, and I just don’t think people understand how bad the problem is,” she said.

So, her idea is to force people to comply, right? But, remember, for all her yammering about the GND and the liberal media squeeing over it, the Democrat controlled House won’t vote on it, AOC won’t demand a vote on it, Democrats in the Senate voted “present” on it, and AOC had a hissy fit over the Senate vote.

I dare them to vote on it. Debate it in the House. Let the People know what it will do.

Read: Cost Of AOC’s Green New Deal? At Least $10 Trillion »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 6, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is champagne which will soon disappear due to Other People’s carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Brass Pills, with a post on Youtube demonitizing Steven Crowder.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Workers In NJ Deserve A Raise After Getting A Government Mandated Raise Or Something

By William Teach June 6, 2019 – 10:30 am

The law of unintended consequences (which most who understand reality were saying would occur)

Workers deserved a raise. But Murphy’s not doing the full job, endangering the most vulnerable | Editorial

It was a big victory for workers when Gov. Phil Murphy and Democratic lawmakers boosted the abysmally low minimum wage in New Jersey.

Among the people it helped were the most crucial, yet worst paid in the state: Those with the tough jobs of caring for infants, people with serious disabilities or the elderly.

Many were earning as little as $17,888 annually, if they didn’t miss a single hour on the job – not a survivable wage in Alabama, let alone New Jersey. Now, starting in July, their pay will be scaled up from $8.60 an hour to $15, by 2024. It couldn’t be more deserved.

Can you feel the shoe getting ready to drop?

But it’s not all good news. There are also alarming unintended consequences that Murphy’s just not dealing with, that could hurt the very workers he’s trying to help.

The state didn’t make the needed adjustments so that child care centers, nursing homes and other programs for the most vulnerable could cope with higher costs. Now some of them are in real danger of shutting down. (snip)

Providers were also taken aback. Nearly all the kids in some child care programs are relying on state subsidies because their families are low-income, says Ceil Zalkind, the head of Advocates for Children of New Jersey. Those subsidies aren’t keeping up with rising wages, so the centers are struggling. And cutting staff isn’t an option; they need to retain a certain ratio to be licensed.

The hell you say! Government artificially increases the cost of doing business, so companies have to raise prices, which hurts the people who need those services. Color me shocked!

It would cost about $19 million just for current services to be maintained in the immediate future – a lowball estimate that considers only staff not making minimum wage now, she says. And there would be a ripple effect: If caregivers paid the lowest wage get an increase, salaries of longtime staff will need to be bumped as well.

That would be $19 million in Other People paying for the services that they aren’t using themselves because of Government interference.

The same problem is pinching homes for people with developmental disabilities, funded entirely by the state, which say they’ll need an even greater investment of about $54 million. Their wages have to be at 25 percent above the minimum to recruit staff, they’ve found, because it’s a lot easier to stack boxes for Amazon than to change the diaper of an autistic adult.

Good job, Government, good job.

Read: Workers In NJ Deserve A Raise After Getting A Government Mandated Raise Or Something »

Posted in Liberal World | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

The Border Is In Crisis Says ….. Vox?

By William Teach June 6, 2019 – 8:21 am

Of course, Vox’s David Lind attempts at times to blame this on Other Things (and throw in some TDS), but, at the end of the day we have

The border is in crisis. Here’s how it got this bad.

Donald Trump’s constant temper tantrums about the US/Mexico border have become the background noise of his administration. Even as he reaches for more and more drastic threats to try to “stop” the flow of unauthorized migrants into the US — like the threat of a 5 percent tariff on all goods coming into the US from Mexico — it seems that the public (including fellow Republican politicians) have an ever harder time taking him seriously.

But as Trump has raged, something genuinely unprecedented has started happening at the border.

The past several months have seen a huge spike in unauthorized migration, especially of families, into the US.

The government’s capacity to handle an influx of large groups of children and families was already under serious strain at the end of 2018. By March, politicians of both parties were recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis. And the numbers of people coming just keep rising — with 132,887 migrants apprehended by Border Patrol after crossing the US/Mexico border (committing the misdemeanor of illegal entry) in May 2019.

This isn’t a manufactured crisis, or a politically engineered one, as some Democrats and progressives have argued. If it were, it would be easier to solve.

What’s happening at the border is the result of a regional crisis in which — if current rates continue — close to 1 percent of the entire population of Guatemala and Honduras will attempt to immigrate to the US this year. The Mexican government, meanwhile, is vacillating between humanitarian rhetoric and militarized crackdowns, US border officials are openly begging for help, and Trump himself is throwing the mother of all temper tantrums.

So, pretty much a crisis. Now, the article does point out that the number of illegals is actually lower than the average for the 20th Century, it is higher than anytime since 2007. But, here’s a big kicker: the number of people coming with their “families”

The US border enforcement system is built to apprehend people who are trying to sneak into the US, and return them to their home country as quickly as possible.

For most of US history, apprehended migrants were just informally returned to Mexico. In the mid-2000s, the US started formally deporting apprehended migrants instead — using “expedited removal,” which allowed people who got caught entering the US to get deported without going before an immigration judge. Typically, a migrant would be apprehended by Border Patrol officials, transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody within 72 hours, and deported once a deportation order could be signed.

But there are extra legal protections built into US law and policy for asylum seekers — who can’t simply be deported — and for vulnerable groups, including children and families, who can’t simply be detained.

We used to catch them and deport them back immediately. No fuss, no muss, just “goodbye”. Now, they all claim asylum, so the claims have to be processes, which often means letting them go on their own recognizance and hoping they’ll show up to the hearing.

One big difference between then an now: the border jumpers back then were mostly looking for work and/or to be part of the American experience. While some are certainly looking for work now, it seems that those coming illegally this century, and certainly over the past few years, are not looking to be a part of America, they’re looking for America to simply take care of them. You aren’t hearing or reading quotes about how much these people love America, what America stands for. They mostly aren’t learning English to be able to communicate. They expect the Government to take care of them. Feed, house, educate, give money, give healthcare, clothe, you name it. Dependents of the state. They want to take advantage of America’s generosity. They demand this.

If you don’t love America, and aren’t trying to be a part of America, if you’re demanding America change for you, don’t come, especially either illegally or showing up at the border demanding asylum. Go away.

Read: The Border Is In Crisis Says ….. Vox? »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 24 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove