NY Times Op-Ed Calls For Doxxing Federal Immigration Officials

By William Teach June 30, 2019 – 7:34 am

This is liberalism: calling for harassment and violence against people who you disagree with, at least while the person in the White House is not part of your Party. Remember, Democrats were not concerned with children being separated while it was occurring under Mr. Obama. Doing the job as required by federal law as passed by the Legislative Branch. Now, though

NYT Op-Ed Calls For Public Shaming Of Border Protection Agents

The New York Times published an op-ed Saturday that calls for border protection agents to face “serious social costs” and public shaming over their work at facilities housing migrant children.

“The identities of the individual Customs and Border Protection agents who are physically separating children from their families and staffing the detention centers are not undiscoverable,” writes Kate Cronin-Furman, an assistant professor at University College London.

“Immigration lawyers have agent names; journalists reporting at the border have names, photos and even videos. These agents’ actions should be publicized, particularly in their home communities.”

In the article, Cronin-Furman proposes a public shaming campaign — which she insists is not the same as “doxxing” — in hopes of forcing border protection agents to quit their jobs. She also said her proposal would deter others from taking jobs as border agents. (snip)

Cronin-Furman suggests shaming rank-and-file agents — whom she calls “foot soldiers” — because they have less “personal investment” than politicians and government officials in border control policies.

The NY Times can say that the opinion piece doesn’t represent the NY Times as much as they want, but, they allowed this person who is not a NY Times employee to publish this opinion piece, one which calls for going after the private lives of CBP employees, and, considering the violence and abuse that comes from Democrat voters, could lead to very bad things.

And this is definitely doxxing, no matter how much she argues it isn’t. If it happens, perhaps the agents should sue Kate Cronin-Furman and the NY Times.

Read: NY Times Op-Ed Calls For Doxxing Federal Immigration Officials »

Posted in Democrats, Journalistic Malpractice | 24 Comments | Trackback URL

Cost Of Healthcare For Illegals? $660 Billion Per Decade

By William Teach June 29, 2019 – 4:27 pm

This is what Democrats want to give illegal aliens, and guess who pays for it?

Free Health Care for Illegal Aliens Could Cost American Taxpayers up to $660B a Decade

Providing free health care for all illegal aliens living in the United States could cost American taxpayers an additional $660 billion every decade in expenses.

This week, half of the 24 Democrats running for their party’s presidential nomination confirmed that their healthcare plans would provide free health care to all illegal aliens at the expense of American taxpayers — including former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).

Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research Steven Camarotta told Breitbart News that only rough estimates are available for what health care for illegal aliens will cost American taxpayers, and though a comprehensive study has yet to be conducted on this specific issue, taxpayers can expect to pay a “significant” amount.

“If we offered Medicaid for illegal immigrants, it is possible the costs could be over tens of billions of dollars,” Camarotta said. “However, it would depend on eligibility criteria as well as how many illegal immigrants actually sign up for program once it was offered. So while the actual costs are uncertain, the size would be significant for taxpayers.”

A reasonable estimate of health care for each illegal alien, Camarotta said, is about $3,000 — about half the average $6,600 that it currently costs annually for each Medicaid recipient. This assumes that a number of illegal aliens already have health insurance through employers and are afforded free health care today when they arrive to emergency rooms.

Based on this estimate, should the full 22 million illegal aliens be living in the U.S. that Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers have estimated there to be, providing health care for the total illegal population could cost American taxpayers about $66 billion a year.

So, $660 billion per decade. Why are Democrats always putting illegal aliens above citizens? And the majority of citizens are against giving illegal aliens any free healthcare.

Read: Cost Of Healthcare For Illegals? $660 Billion Per Decade »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 19 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 29, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful low carbon raft needed to move around the flooded earth, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on something the left will never admit on illegal alien deaths.

And a second photo below the fold, so, check out Virtual Mirage, with a post wondering if Che would wear a Bernie shirt.

Read More »

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Vancouver Demands Oil Companies Pay Their Share On ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach June 29, 2019 – 10:30 am

Something is missing from this resolution by the Vancouver city council

City of Vancouver votes to demand fossil fuel companies pay share of climate-change costs

Vancouver city council has voted in favour of a motion that demands global fossil fuel companies pay their share of costs arising from climate change.

The motion, which passed 7-4 on Thursday, points to a B.C. government report that projects the City of Vancouver will have to spend $1 billion this century to mitigate rising sea levels.

The motion says the city will send letters to 20 of the world’s largest oil, gas and coal companies with its demand.

The city also says it will ask the B.C. and Canadian governments to enact laws to confirm the responsibility of fossil fuel companies to pay their share of costs.

Vancouver says it is the 24th community in British Columbia to pass such a motion since 2017.

They can demand all they want, but, the fossil fuels companies will simply ignore them. And, if any pass laws that put extra taxes/fees on the companies, they will just get passed down to consumers, including the governments.

Now, there are two big points with this. First, let’s look at actual data

At 0.16 feet per century, that is well below the Holocene average of 6-8 inches per century. So, what sea rise? Especially to the tune of $1 trillion (which we all know would be spent on other Social Justice garbage).

Second, if these cities are so Concerned, why are they not doing away with their own use of fossil fuels? Replace the entire city fleet with non-fossil fuels vehicles. Restrict citizens from using fossil fuels in the city. Do away with the airports. Walk the talk.

Read: Vancouver Demands Oil Companies Pay Their Share On ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate-Change’ Anxiety Is Now A Part Of Growing Up Or Something

By William Teach June 29, 2019 – 7:24 am

Have you ever felt anxious and then realized you had yourself work up over nothing? Perhaps you had too much coffee or you’re hungover. Perhaps you’ve been eating poorly. Or skipped the gym. These are all things you’ve done to yourself, creating anxiety over nothing. Kinda like this

Climate-change anxiety is now a part of growing up. Pop culture has caught on.

The kids are anxious.

Can you blame them? In a nation inundated with news of mass shootings and the separation of migrant families, the youngest generation must also learn to cope with the debilitating knowledge that they will be the generation most affected by climate change, should it continue on the trajectory scientists believe it will take. According to a study by the American Psychological Association (APA) released in October, 58 percent of surveyed Gen Zers, ranging in age from 15 to 21 years old, reported feeling stressed by news coverage of the subject. That’s 7 percent higher than adults overall.

“Here’s this big situation that’s clearly getting worse, and that we didn’t start. We inherited it,” Lynn Bufka, associate director of practice research and policy at the APA, said of what might run through a Gen Zer’s mind. “What are we going to do?”

No, I don’t really blame the kids, I blame the idiot adults who have been pushing this doomsday cult, telling the kids that they only have 12 years to save the human race, that the seas will boil, that all the animals will die, that it will get hot and cold. What should we do about it? Move on from it. It’s fake. It’s not going to happen. But, the news media loves broadcasting Stories Of Doom (if it bleeds it leads), especially when they are part of the same Cult of Climastrology.

Seriously, many of us grew up with the specter of nuclear doom, and we did just fine. Worrying about a tiny increase of 1.5F since 1850 is a big nothingburger.

That anxiety has started to boil over into popular culture. Although movies and television have long toyed with doomsday scenarios, we’re now seeing deeper, more poignant treatments of the issue, with scenes of children and young adults trying to grapple with their fears about a fast-changing world. In the nihilistic new HBO series “Euphoria,” for instance, an anxiety-prone teen addict defends her post-rehab drug use by remarking that “the world’s coming to an end, and I haven’t even graduated high school yet.”

Last Sunday’s episode of “Big Little Lies,” which airs before “Euphoria,” included a subplot in which Amabella (Ivy George), daughter of the fiercely protective Renata Klein (Laura Dern), passes out from a panic attack while learning about climate change and sustainability.

Well, that should certainly help stabilize the kids, eh? It is pretty much child abuse at this point. And the show did this as the character learned about the Doom while in school, where teachers are programing children with this abusive doomsaying.

Independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch built much of his recent zombie movie “The Dead Don’t Die” off this apprehension. The creatures rise up because of an unsustainable human activity (the fictional “polar fracking”) that knocks the Earth off its axis. We witness a small town’s adult residents fall prey to zombies one by one, their attackers a representation of the relative apathy humankind has exhibited toward serious issues such as the world’s destruction. The only glimmer of hope resides in a juvenile detention center, where a few of the town’s youngest residents express concern about what’s happening to the planet.

Well, hey, I love a good zombie book (reading one right now, though it is not that good, but too far in to quit), but I understand they are fake. Even when the premise is that they were created by biological weapons research, I know it ain’t happening, and do not feel anxious. Nor should kids feel that way because of idiocy about fracking causing the earth to come off its axis and creating zombies. Dumb.

That sense of resignation is explored in Paul Schrader’s “First Reformed,” nominated for best original screenplay at the Oscars earlier this year. The film is, as Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday put it, an “austere drama of one man’s apocalyptic crisis of faith.” The story is prompted by the suicide of an anguished eco-activist whose wife was pregnant and who had worried about bringing a child into an ecologically doomed world.

These people are just insane, and should be kept away from children.

But, hey, we can fix this all with a tax, you know.

Read: ‘Climate-Change’ Anxiety Is Now A Part Of Growing Up Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | Comments Off on ‘Climate-Change’ Anxiety Is Now A Part Of Growing Up Or Something | Trackback URL

Identity Politics: Where Was The Love For Caribbean-American Voters?

By William Teach June 29, 2019 – 7:02 am

When you live by identity politics you die by identity politics. If you patronize one group another will be mad you didn’t patronize them

We heard Spanish on debate stage in Miami, but where’s love for Caribbean-American voters?

When several Democratic presidential candidates answered questions in Spanish during the debates in Miami on Wednesday and Thursday, it was a clear overture to the Latino voting bloc — a message of inclusiveness from a party that needs strong turnout to win the White House in 2020.

But for some in the growing Caribbean-American community of South Florida, it came across as a snub.

“They never mention black immigrants,” said Francesca Menes, a 34-year-old of Haitian descent who in December resigned from her post as treasurer for the Florida Democratic Party.

“They make us feel invisible,” Menes said of the Democratic hopefuls.

Not one of the 20 candidates on stage in Miami uttered a word in Creole, which would have connected with South Florida’s Haitian population of more than 330,000 — the majority of whom were born here or are naturalized citizens. Nor did any of the candidates directly address the impact of immigration policy on Caribbean-Americans and their families.

Once you start playing the Identity Politics game, you have to make sure you play it for every single voter group you’ve created boxes for. Because that’s the way Democrats think of voters: according to the label on their box, instead of as individuals.

“The party keeps playing from the same playbook, and doesn’t understand that the black community is not monolithic — especially in a state like Florida,” Menes said. “You have to come from all of the different angles and you have to meet people where they’re at.”

She saw missed opportunities to reach Haitian-Americans and other voters of Caribbean descent via ads on radio stations and other media platforms when she worked with the Democrats during Andrew Gillum’s campaign for governor.

How will Democrats pander to voters in Detroit, seeing as how the next debate will be there in July? Perhaps a little causal gun play in the streets? Will they start quoting rap songs? Perhaps they’ll talk about how they love keeping abortion unfettered in 79% Black Detroit, since Democrats do not seem to actually like Black people that much.

Read: Identity Politics: Where Was The Love For Caribbean-American Voters? »

Posted in Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Arguments On Trump Ending The Illegal DACA

By William Teach June 28, 2019 – 3:52 pm

Remember, even Obama said that he did not have the authority to initiate DACA (Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals) and that it was un-Constitutional

Responding in October 2010 to demands that he implement immigration reforms unilaterally, Obama declared, “I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself.” In March 2011, he said that with “respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case.” In May 2011, he acknowledged that he couldn’t “just bypass Congress and change the (immigration) law myself. … That’s not how a democracy works.”

But, because PBO initiated it by executive fiat, suddenly it is supposed to be legal and can’t be ended, even though every president has the authority to get rid of any previous president’s executive orders

Supreme Court to hear cases on Trump efforts to end DACA

The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear cases surrounding the Trump administration’s rescinding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The justices will hear the cases during their next term, which starts in early October.

A pair of appeals courts have ruled against Trump officials who sought to end the Obama-era program. The administration urged the court last month to quickly decide whether it would take up a case on the program, but the justices rejected that request. (snip)

But Friday’s order puts the Supreme Court back at the heart of yet another controversial Trump policy move.

How is it controversial to cancel a program that the person who started it said was un-Constitutional and that he had no authority to initiate, and that could be cancelled by the stroke of a pen?

The eventual ruling in the case could come in late June or early July 2020, just months before Election Day.

Either way is ruled will fire up the Republican voting base to get out and beat the Republicans.

Read: SCOTUS Agrees To Hear Arguments On Trump Ending The Illegal DACA »

Posted in Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 28, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a canyon certainly flooded by extreme weather from Other People’s carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on Biden’s staffing freaking after his debate performance.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Say, Did ‘Climate Change’ Destroy The Aliens?

By William Teach June 28, 2019 – 10:30 am

This isn’t the first time that aliens are dragged into the ‘climate change’ brawl, and won’t be the last. But, it is an even hotter take, since it comes from The Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists

Did climate change destroy the aliens?

Italian physicist Enrico Fermi had a knack for back-of-the-envelope calculations. In a famous lunch-time conversation in 1950, Fermi used his knowledge of astronomy and probability to highlight a problem: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy and if long-distance space travel is achievable, then Earth should have been visited by aliens by now.

So, Fermi asked his colleagues: “Where are they?”

Despite tantalizing hints, such as the inexplicable sightings by US Navy pilots recently reported in the New York Times, there is still no reliable evidence of alien life, either on our humble planet or elsewhere in this infinite universe. (snip through other explanations)

Self-inflicted climate change has frequently been identified as a possible Great Filter. According to this theory, any intelligent lifeform will consume vast amounts of energy as it develops technologies. Since harnessing energy always results in some kind of pollution, the planet’s ecosystem will eventually be degraded to the point where it imperils the polluting species.

With this in mind, consider anthropogenic climate change. Our species has increased Earth’s average temperature by only slightly more than 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), yet we are seeing increasingly frequent and severe floods, droughts, and forest fires, as well as melting sea ice, crumbling glaciers, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and widespread biodiversity loss.

Where do they come up with 1.8F? Everything says it is 1.5F since 1850.

With atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at 415 parts per million and rising, we are on track to shoot far past the 2-degree Celsius increase (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) that scientists have identified as the safe outer limit for preserving our civilization—and some researchers warn that even that 2-degree figure is far too optimistic to be considered safe).

Add in all the known and unknown feedback loops and tipping points—such as the possible release of the vast stores of methane trapped in the now-melting Arctic—and the future of our species is looking rather bleak.

Somewhere out there in the vastness of space, other forms of intelligent life likely faced similar problems; some might have been able to develop cleaner energy sources from the start, or switch to them before calamity struck. There is still an outside chance that humanity could do this—though we are running out of time, fast.

Perhaps this stupidity in pushing a scam has the aliens laughing.

We know that human beings have the capacity for intelligent foresight and large-scale cooperation. It cannot be pure luck that our species has survived as long as it has.

But now, we need to raise our game. Are we an exceptional species, or just another flash in the cosmic pan?

Mankind survived plenty of warmer and cooler periods, and with less technology. We’ll do just fine.

Read: Say, Did ‘Climate Change’ Destroy The Aliens? »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Kamala Harris Is Super Excited To Support The Green New Deal, Whatever It Is Or Something

By William Teach June 28, 2019 – 6:59 am

This should make Warmists happy, since ‘climate change’ was mentioned during both debates. But, they won’t be, as the time spent on Hotcoldwetdry, what they are now referring to as the “climate crisis”, was small

The Green New Deal Finally Makes a Debate Appearance

A number of Democratic primary candidates have proclaimed their support for the Green New Deal or something like it. But the first person to actually endorse it on the debate stage either Wednesday or Thursday night was Senator Kamala Harris of California. (Former Governor John Hickenlooper was the first to mention the idea, saying that he “admired the sense of urgency” but that “we can’t promise every American a government job.”) Asked by Chuck Todd to describe her climate-change plan, Harris replied briskly and corrected his terms: The rapid warming of the planet should be called the “climate crisis” because “it’s an existential threat to us as a species.” She mentioned visiting the site of last year’s wildfires in California “while the embers were smoldering.”

Well, she got her talking points about the climate crisis. Too bad those wildfires in California were caused by downed power wires from the power company, not a tiny increase in carbon dioxide.

“That’s why I support a Green New Deal,” she said. “It’s why on day one as president, I will reenter us into the Paris Agreement.”

But what kind of Green New Deal would she support? How much federal spending would she want to authorize? Does she, like Elizabeth Warren or Jay Inslee, want to turn the United States into a major exporter of green technology? She didn’t say. She quickly pivoted away from climate change as a topic. “You asked what is the greatest national-security threat to the United States. It’s Donald Trump,” she said. “You want to talk about North Korea, a real threat in terms of its nuclear arsenal. He embraces Kim Jong Un.” She mentioned Vladimir Putin before Todd regained control of the conversation.

It was not the strongest of her moments. Asked to describe her climate plan, Harris alluded to two policies—one of them more a brand than a specific agenda—and then started talking about Putin. The moment exemplified the awkwardness that basically all the candidates seem to feel when talking about climate change. As Justin Worland, a writer at Time, tweeted: “There’s a marked difference in the fluidity of the way moderators and candidates talk about climate change versus how they talk about other issues.” Not many of the folks onstage, journalists included, seem as comfortable with climate policy as they do with Medicare for All. They all know they should care, but they’re not sure where to go after that.

Probably because they know that, again, ‘climate change’ plays well in theory, not practice, so, why learn the nuts and bolts? These are sound bites to show the Cult of Climastrology members that They Care.

Democrats Dodged An Important Question: Who Pays For Trillion-Dollar Climate Change Plans?

Democratic presidential candidates eagerly touted their costly climate change plans during the first primary debate, but tip-toed around the questions of how they would pay for trillions in spending.

Roughly seven minutes of Wednesday night’s primary debate were devoted to climate change questions. Democratic presidential candidates were eager to tout their climate change plans, but tip-toed around the question of how to pay for them.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren said their plans would create millions of green jobs, with Warren saying there will be a $23 trillion green product market to take advantage of in the future.

However, neither Inslee nor Warren put a price tag on their climate change plans during the debate. Inslee did say his plan could save Miami from climate change.

Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro dodged when asked by MSNBC’s Chuck Todd “who pays for the mitigation to climate?” Castro, instead, talked about his record as San Antonio mayor trying to phase out coal plants and actions as HUD secretary.

Nor did anyone else from that first debate say how they were going to pay for it. Probably The Rich, right? Because that’s their standard answer. Anyone with half a brain knows that it means “all Americans” will see their cost of living skyrocket and their liberty infringed.

Read: Kamala Harris Is Super Excited To Support The Green New Deal, Whatever It Is Or Something »

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