Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because most aren’t eligible for asylum.

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

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

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

BTW

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

Read: Bummer: Most Illegals Seeking Asylum Are Denied »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dems Struggling To Figure Out Next Move After Mueller Fiasco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If All You See…

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

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

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

Read: If All You See… »

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

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

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

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

DEMOCRACY IS THE PLANET’S BIGGEST ENEMY

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So partisans discussing issues would be free from partisan representation?

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

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

As Steven Hayward notes

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

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

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

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

‘Climate Change’ Is Now A Black Issue Or Something

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 7:28 am

I wonder if this means that the uber-white people leading the Cult of Climastrology should bow out, otherwise they will be guilty of cultural appropriation?

Black Women Are Leaders in the Climate Movement
Environmentalism, in other words, is a black issue.

Before the first Democratic debate, I watched one of my favorite shows, MSNBC’s AM Joy, excited to see not one, but three people of color tapped to talk about climate change and how candidates were discussing it along the campaign trail. My heart dropped when Tiffany Cross, a guest commentator on the show, stated that while climate change disproportionately impacts communities of color, it’s an issue only in very “niche groups” of those communities. She wasn’t claiming that the issue wasn’t important, but that your average black person didn’t see it as an everyday thing.

Despite stereotypes of a lack of interest in environmental issues among African-Americans, black women, particularly Southern black women, are no strangers to environmental activism. Many of us live in communities with polluted air and water, work in industries from housekeeping to hairdressing where we are surrounded by toxic chemicals and have limited food options that are often impacted by pesticides.

Environmentalism, in other words, is a black issue.

This comes from Heather McTeer Toney, the national field director of Moms Clean Air Force, a group that has hijacked the notion of continued reduction in air pollutants and made it all about a trace gas necessary for life on Earth. Her group, really, is a niche group, and, it’s not just black people who do not see Hotcoldwetdry as an everyday thing. Particularly when the Democratic Party is keeping blacks in cities down on the plantation, patronizing them to keep their votes. It is interesting, though, that Toney talks about polluted air and water, work in industries surrounded by toxic chemicals, then limited food options, and wants to make real environmental issues with the climate change scam.

Rarely do we see or hear black voices as part of national conversations about policy solutions, the green economy or clean energy. We’re relegated to providing a comment on environmental justice issues like the water crisis in Flint; or we’re the faces in the photos when candidates need to show that they’re inclusive when talking about climate solutions.

It sounds like the Cult of Climastrology is rather racist.

Our elders and ancestors lived through emergencies. The 1928 Hurricane of Lake Okeechobee is rumored to be the greatest loss of black life in one day before Hurricane Katrina. At least 2,500 souls perished in that flood, mostly black migrant workers from the Caribbean. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 and the Eastern Seaboard Heatwave of 1911 both saw significant loss of life, but also the survival of those who made it through.

Wait, so hurricanes and heatwaves and floods today are nothing new, and have nothing to do with “carbon pollution”? Huh.

Despite hearing the Republican rhetoric of “climate change ain’t real,” people knew that something more than a rising river was changing and amiss. Deer and duck seasons weren’t the same as in years past. Cotton and soybean crop yields were different; increased heat, droughts and floods meant more pests and decreased yields. The river waters were coming faster and stronger from the increased snow from the Northeast. It felt like no one was listening to the voices of the poor, of rural folks, of Southerners. We knew then just as we do now: Climate change is a threat to black life.

It’s great how she’s making this a racism issue. This will go one of two ways: the non-black big wigs in the Cult will shut this line of thought down, or, they’ll just co-opt it and create talking points that patronize black people, attempting to get their support, while not really helping them. Heck, we’ve already seen this over the past few years (also using women and poor people, along with other groups in boxes), yet, interestingly, the Cult also talks of population reduction, particularly in 3rd world nations, which tend to be full of Black and brown people. Planned Parenthood is something Warmists love, because it reduces black babies from being born.

It’s now our responsibility together as black women — but even more so as black people — to continue sharing the messages of not only climate but also our expertise on what can be done. We must make our voices heard by contacting our congressperson and senator, and by voting for climate candidates. These actions will get us to the larger goal of passing the kind of big, ambitious federal laws like those requiring 100 percent clean energy that we need to rein in our carbon and methane emissions.

Interesting how the answer from Toney and her comrades is to attempt to get more laws, rules, and regulations passed. More government. Weird that that is always their answer, right?

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is Now A Black Issue Or Something »

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

Washington Post: Mueller Failed, Democrats Should Try The Elections Route

By William Teach July 25, 2019 – 7:07 am

Even before Donald Trump won the 2016 general election, Democrats were floating the notion of Russia Russia Russia, showing they would not be willing to except the outcome of the election if he won, which, of course, everyone thought he wouldn’t. Be, he did, so they ramped up the Russia collusion stuff, because they aren’t able to accept election results when they lose. They always have to have some excuse. They’ve kept this going, throwing in obstruction, because that’s all they have. No matter what some Lefties are saying in the media and within the ranks of the Democratic Party, the Mueller hearing was a disaster for them. So…

Democrats now have one option to end Trump’s presidency: The 2020 election

Many Democrats long have considered Robert S. Mueller III a potential savior, as the agent of President Trump’s eventual undoing. Wednesday’s hearings on Capitol Hill probably shattered those illusions once and for all. If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.

In reality, that has been the case for months. Still, scheduled testimony by the former special counsel before two House committees offered the possibility that he would say something that would suddenly change public perceptions and dramatically jump-start long-stalled prospects for an impeachment inquiry. That was certainly the Democrats’ goal. If anything, things could move in the opposite direction.

Regardless of the evidence of obstruction contained in Mueller’s report, impeachment is a fraught strategy for the Democrats, given public opinion and the dynamics in the Senate. After Wednesday, the prospects for impeachment appear more remote, which means it will be left to the eventual Democratic presidential nominee, with the help of the party, to develop a comprehensive case against the president, one that can win 270 electoral votes. To date, that hasn’t happened.

Democrats won’t give up on Russia Russia Russia, of course. Too many have invested too much. Even after seeing the vote go way against them in the House, they won’t stop. Nancy Pelosi may continue to attempt to tamp down the impeachment talk, but, the nutters will continue their push. Eric Swalwell and Jerry Nadler will continue their idiocy, along with AOC, Ilhan Omar, and the rest of The Squad. Don’t be surprised if Democrats now attempt to call other people involved in the Mueller inquiry to testify in an attempt to find something, anything, to hurt Trump. Many Democrats, such as Excitable Ted Lieu, certainly came away with the wrong impression, and won’t quit.

Most would be smart to move on. It would have been wise to move on once the big nothingburger of the Mueller report was released. They can’t, and they won’t. And, the fact that they won’t will make it that much easier for Trump to win in 2020, especially with what the Democrat candidates for president are pushing.

Read: Washington Post: Mueller Failed, Democrats Should Try The Elections Route »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 43 Comments | Trackback URL

Post Mueller Wrapup

By William Teach July 24, 2019 – 5:24 pm

But, they won’t. The Lefty #Resistance and the right side #NeverTrumpers just can’t move on. Won’t move on. The saddest are the Never Trumpers, who abandon all their Republican/Conservative beliefs over their Trump Derangement Syndrome, proclaiming themselves “Libertarians”, but, taking Democrat points of view in their derangement. They’d rather see Democrats win and implement their Modern Socialist agenda than see Trump and those supporting him win.

But, really, I don’t want them to stop: it just makes it easier for 2020.

Read: Post Mueller Wrapup »

Posted in Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: We Now Only Have 18 Months To Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach July 24, 2019 – 3:55 pm

Next month it’ll be 1 year

The BBC’s Matt McGrath seems a bit upset. Or, is that “unhinged“?

Do you remember the good old days when we had “12 years to save the planet”?

Now it seems, there’s a growing consensus that the next 18 months will be critical in dealing with the global heating crisis, among other environmental challenges.

Last year, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that to keep the rise in global temperatures below 1.5C this century, emissions of carbon dioxide would have to be cut by 45% by 2030.

But today, observers recognise that the decisive, political steps to enable the cuts in carbon to take place will have to happen before the end of next year.

The idea that 2020 is a firm deadline was eloquently addressed by one of the world’s top climate scientists, speaking back in 2017.

“The climate math is brutally clear: While the world can’t be healed within the next few years, it may be fatally wounded by negligence until 2020,” said Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founder and now director emeritus of the Potsdam Climate Institute.

We can solve this with a tax meeting

The first major hurdle will be the special climate summit called by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, which will be held in New York on 23 September.

Mr Guterres has been clear that he only wants countries to come to the UN if they can make significant offers to improve their national carbon cutting plans.

This will be followed by COP25 in Santiago, Chile, where the most important achievement will likely be keeping the process moving forward.

But the really big moment will most likely be in the UK at COP26, which takes place at the end of 2020.

Almost no country has plans in place to achieve their signing of the “historic” Paris Climate Agreement…which you’ll remember is voluntary…and almost none is close to meeting their stated goals nor those of Paris. No one should be surprised, because almost no country came close to the Kyoto Protocol goals. Fortunately, tens of thousands of Warmists will take long, fossil fueled trips to discuss this. Otherwise, doom in 18 months.

Read: Bummer: We Now Only Have 18 Months To Save The Planet From Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 14 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove