Open Borders Prosecutors Join Suit To Stop ICE From Arresting Illegals In Courthouses

See, there’s only some laws certain people like

After Judge’s Arrest, Massachusetts Prosecutors Sue to Stop Courthouse Arrests of Immigrants

Days after a judge and court officer were arrested on charges they helped a man evade immigration authorities, advocates are filing a lawsuit against Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s practice of arresting people at local courthouses.

The Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office announced a group of prosecutors, public defenders and community groups plan to file a lawsuit on Monday over courthouses arrests, arguing the arrests deter victims and witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement on local criminal cases.

“Prosecutors are forced to abandon cases because many victims and witnesses are deterred from appearing in court. The policy also makes it more difficult to obtain defendants’ appearance[s] in court,” District Attorney Marian Ryan wrote in a joint statement with Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins.

District Attorney Rachael Rollins told her staff to notify her office if they see immigration agents arresting or questioning people inside courthouses, but what happens after?

What happens? Well, ICE agents are in less danger of the illegal alien having a dangerous weapon, and can get them in a controlled space. That whole schtick about abandoning cases is absurd. They shouldn’t be in the nation to start with.

And any officer of the court who is trying to obstruct federal law should be charged if possible for violations of federal laws on illegal immigration.

Rollins, who releases her policy objectives in a memo in March, said her office will take immigration status into account when charging and sentencing as even misdemeanor convictions could get someone flagged by immigration agents. She also asked assistant district attorneys, witness advocates or other employees to notify her if they see ICE agents arresting people scheduled to appear in court or asking them about their immigration status.

So, her office is going to treat illegal aliens better than legal U.S. citizens? Charge her with aiding and abetting illegal aliens, plus, this policy is ripe for a lawsuit from citizens who have gotten stiffer sentences than illegals.

Read: Open Borders Prosecutors Join Suit To Stop ICE From Arresting Illegals In Courthouses »

If All You See…

…is an area that appears to be flooding from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on Philadelphia International airport submitting and allowing a potentially illegal mosque to remain.

Read: If All You See… »

Warmists Now Want To Get Rid Of Your Gas Stove

The very definition of “Progressivism” (nice Fascism): it’s for your own good

Your Gas Stove Is Bad for You and the Planet

We have some good news that sounds like bad news: Your gas stove has to go.

We know how you’ll feel reading those words. We used to love cooking with gas, too. But if our society is going to solve the climate crisis, one of the things we must do is stop burning gas in our buildings.

Nobody is going to shed a tear about having to switch to a more efficient furnace or water heater. But people feel emotional about gas stoves, and the gas industry knows it. Seeing this fight coming, the industry is already issuing propaganda with gauzy pictures of blue flames.

What the gas companies will not tell you is that your stove is a danger not just to the world’s climate but also to your own family’s health. We’ll explain in a moment.

First, here’s the larger situation: The need to tackle climate change is beyond urgent. We are running out of time. Within the next decade we need to cut climate pollution in half in the United States, roughly, to do our fair part in preserving a livable planet.

Burning gas is now a bigger source of such pollution than burning coal, and nearly a third of that gas is burned in homes and commercial buildings. But despite the rising chorus of climate pledges by state and local governments, none of them has really tackled the problem of gas in buildings. In fact, gas companies are still being allowed to spend billions extending new lines, connections that will have to be capped off long before the end of their useful lives if we are to meet our climate goals.

OK, so, let’s say this happens (and the only way to make it happen is through Government banning them): where does all the electricity for non-gas stoves come from? Warmists are mostly against nuclear. Extreme enviros, who tend to be Warmists, attempt to block all attempts at hydro-electric dams, which are only viable in certain areas, and want existing ones torn down. They sue over transmission lines from solar and wind farms, and also sue over wind and solar farms. So, how do we power electric stoves?

Why do all-electric homes make sense now? Because technology has come to the rescue, in the form of devices called heat pumps. They run on electricity, but far more efficiently than the electric appliances of our parents’ generation. So if we start installing them now, then as the electric grid gets greener, our buildings will be contributing less and less to climate change.

You might never have heard of heat pumps, but you already have one in your home. A heat pump is the core technology in your refrigerator. It is basically a loop involving a pump and a compressor that sucks heat out of the interior and blows it into the kitchen, and it can do this even when the interior of your refrigerator is colder than the air in the room.

A heat pump can replace both your furnace and your air conditioner. In the winter, it sucks heat in from the outside, even when the weather is cold, and blows it into your house. In the summer, a heat pump runs in reverse, cooling the house. Highly efficient heat-pump water heaters are also widely available.

If they were so great they would be placed in new homes at a high rate. Of course, there is the problem where most heat pumps can only work down to a temperature of 25-30F, then you have to have your furnace kick in, so, you need both, and a heat pump is way more expensive. Further, heat pumps aren’t even close to being as good as cooling as an AC, nor as inexpensive. One day, perhaps.

Regardless, again, the only way to really make this happen is through government force.

Read: Warmists Now Want To Get Rid Of Your Gas Stove »

Pelosi Looks To Head Of AOC’s Green New Deal By Invoking Obama Or Something

I’m not sure why Pelosi would need to head off the Green New Deal, since virtually no House Democrat, especially co-author (Senator Ed Markey is the other) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is calling for a vote. Even most of the Democrats special interest groups who support it are not Demanding a vote. It’s like the old joke, Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does anything about it

Pelosi Invokes Obama to Head Off Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off her party’s restive progressive caucus by invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama to build support for a climate change bill that falls well short of the ambitions of the Green New Deal championed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Pelosi is planning a vote by the House this week on a bill that would prohibit President Donald Trump’s administration from going through with plans to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.

Liberal Democrats are leaving little doubt that the legislation won’t be enough.

“The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” said Ocasio-Cortez. The New York lawmaker said “there is no harm in passing” the Paris bill, but she still backs the bolder action called for in her Green New Deal, which conservatives have derided as a socialist manifesto.

I wish I had saved the article, or at least could find it again, where several Constitutional authorities, people who teach this in law schools (one was from Harvard, if memory serves), noted that if the House passes something along those lines it would require that the Senate vote on the Paris Climate agreement, since it would then be considered an official treaty. Then, since the Senate is controlled by Republicans, it would be shot down, killed off officially, and would further tarnish Obama’s legacy. One of the people noting this was an Obama and Hillary supporter.

Even if the Senate bothered to take up the House bill as regular legislation to put Democrats on the record, it would still die. Heck, if it managed to make it through the Senate, Trump would veto it, and Dems do not have the votes to over-ride.

The House is expected to begin debate on the climate legislation, H.R. 9, Wednesday and could take a vote by the end of the week.

There is a legislative argument for House Democrats to start with these bills since Trump has been testing the constitutional limits of what he can do to reverse his predecessor’s signature achievements. He has taken executive action to reverse Obama administration policies and chip away at regulations.

Let’s go back a bit in time: Obama had them craft the Paris agreement in order to specifically avoid it being considered a treaty to avoid the GOP controlled Senate, but, this means that Paris has zero force of actual U.S. law. It was Obama’s word, nor is Paris even binding. Trump could have simply scuttled the whole thing with the wave of a pen (and he should have). Instead, he decided to follow the rules of the agreement and gave notice of the U.S. (shouldn’t it be Obama?) pulling out.

Focusing on the Paris accord allows Democrats to paint Republicans as opposing solutions to global warming and highlight what they say is a lack of leadership on the issue by Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax.

So this is simply basic politics. They should be careful with this approach. Certainly, focusing on the Green New Deal allows Republicans to bludgeon Dems with the Socialism, big government, massive taxation, and loss of personal freedom aspects, among others. Bringing up Paris allows the unhinged part of their base which is focused on Hotcoldwetdry to blast them for being weak. Which allows Republicans to highlight just how insane the Cult of Climastrology is. It was just a few years ago that they though Paris was “historic”. Now they say it is not enough.

Read: Pelosi Looks To Head Of AOC’s Green New Deal By Invoking Obama Or Something »

AG Barr Declines To Testify To House Committee After Yet Another Rule Change

Attorney General Barr was going to answer questions to the House today, but, of course, Democrats were Democrats and went and changed the rules at the last minute

Barr Won’t Attend House Hearing, Following Fierce Session In Senate

Attorney General William P. Barr defended himself on Wednesday against withering criticism of his handling of the special counsel investigation as Democrats accused of him of deceiving Congress and acting as a personal agent for President Trump rather than a steward of justice.

If you saw any of it, you saw little from Democrats regarding the actual Mueller report and most on being raving Barking Moonbats with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

The conflict escalated afterward when Mr. Barr announced that he would not show up for a parallel hearing on Thursday before the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee. Mr. Barr objected to the format of questioning, which would have included questioning by staff lawyers, not just lawmakers. Democrats may now opt to subpoena him, setting up a possible showdown in court.

“He is terrified of having to face a skilled attorney,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, the committee’s chairman.

Wait, did Nadler just admit he’s a crummy attorney? Because he is an attorney. Many other Reps on the committee are lawyers, as well. Huh.

(Daily Caller) Attorney General William Barr will no longer testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, as Democrats voted to allow staffers to question Barr.

“It’s a shame Members of the House Judiciary Committee won’t get the opportunity to hear from Attorney General Barr this Thursday, because Chairman Nadler chose to torpedo our hearing. The attorney general gave clear, informative testimony in the Senate Wednesday, as he offered to do more than a month ago in the House tomorrow,” Republican Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Wednesday about the scheduled hearing with Barr.

“By rejecting the chance to question Attorney General Barr or read the materials he’s provided, Democrats are trying to prolong an investigation the special counsel completed. Ultimately, though, they’re ignoring the will of the majority of Americans who want Congress to move on and secure our border and continue to strengthen our economy,” he continued.

The House Judiciary Committee voted Wednesday to allow staff lawyers to question Barr, adding an extra hour to his testimony time before the committee. This comes as Barr threatened to cancel his testimony before the committee Thursday over disagreements with Democrats regarding the format for the hearing.

He wanted the traditional five-minute rounds of lawmakers asking him questions instead of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler’s proposal of allowing committee staffers to question Barr about their concerns.

It is extremely rare to allow people who are not the elected Congressmembers to ask questions, and certainly not in this format, treating it like it is a court room. But, let’s admit it, this was done intentionally to create a situation where Barr would rescind his offer to appear, which allows Dems like Incompetent Lawyer Nadler to grandstand and threaten to arrest Barr and such.

Read: AG Barr Declines To Testify To House Committee After Yet Another Rule Change »

We Can Stop ‘Climate Change’ And Make The World A Better Place Or Something

It’s interesting that Cult of Climastrology moppets always go to the same well, and think that it will somehow not ruin people’s lives. Here we have Rick Stafford in phys.org

How to stop climate change: six ways to make the world a better place

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Greta Thunberg claims we need system change to save the planet, and the majority of experts, from the IPCC, through to our own research, would certainly agree with this.

But for most people, it often isn’t clear what changes actually need to be made to address . And ideas that are presented can be seem as extreme to some. This is despite the fact that many experts agree that to really tackle , the focus needs to be on changing the capitalist system to make it more environment-friendly.

Yeah, let’s listen to the child blowing off school (and taking fossil fueled trips). Anyhow, here are the 6 ideas

1. Less focus on economic growth

The suggestion that GDP is a good measure of a country’s progress has been frequently challenged. To achieve growth, we consume more products, these products need raw materials and energy to produce – and often result in excessive waste when they are disposed of. Hence pursuit of  drives a wasteful use of scarce resources.

Achieving growth isn’t necessarily bad – but focusing solely on growth is. it prevents many other important strategies being put in place, even if they are actually beneficial for the majority of society. As economist Kate Raworth states, we need to be “agnostic about economic growth” and embrace other measures of societal well-being, such as the Human Development Indexand Genuine Progress Indicator, which combine financial gains with non-market benefits – such as human health and reduced environmental degradation.

Well, if we implemented all the CoC ideas, we’d have no economic growth, the systems would collapse, so, sure, a good idea to not focus on it.

  • Higher taxes and subsidised transport (surprise?)
  • Work less (“Less commuting to work, more time to cook healthy food and more time to take holidays, without the need for flying. The reduction in household income…”
  • Think locally (good luck with getting all your Avacados and fancy pants coffee locally)
  • Learn about nature and look after it (climatic changes, regardless of causation, have nothing to do with nature, because they’ve always happened)
  • Don’t just rely on technology (yeah, they want you to change your lifestyle. Funny they never change their own.)

You might wonder why I highlight these types of stories a lot. Well, it needs to be pointed out again and again what the CoC really wants, and that this has almost nothing to do with science.

Read: We Can Stop ‘Climate Change’ And Make The World A Better Place Or Something »

If All You See…

…is a wonderful apartment building keeping everyone together to reduce carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Brass Pills, with a post on the top 3 reasons (liberal) men declare themselves feminists.

Read: If All You See… »

Washington Post: Male Dems Who Say They Get Misogyny Should Drop Out

Suzanna Danuta Walters, writing on the opinion pages of the Washington Post, takes Identity Politics to a whole new level

If male candidates want to show they get it, they should get out

In 2013, Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg urged women to “lean in” to their power and break through that pesky glass ceiling. Predictably — and correctly — feminists argued that “leaning in” not only left male-dominated corporate culture intact but also depended on underpaid female domestic workers to clean and care for children. Both Sandberg’s book and the critiques of it left actual men out of the analysis, as if leaning in (and sorting out the limits of this proposed solution) was yet more women’s work.

I’m reminded of that omission as we head into the Democratic primary season. More women are seeking the party’s presidential nomination than ever before. And yet a few white men sit at the top of the polls and rake in big fundraising hauls. As candidates such as Sens. Kamala D. Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar lean in, maybe it’s time for some of their male competitors to find ways to lean out.

Early media coverage of the campaign demonstrates why merely leaning in can’t dismantle the double standards and deep structural misogyny women face. Studies by FiveThirtyEight and my colleagues at Northeastern University found both fewer “media mentions” of female candidates and also more negative coverage than of their male counterparts. Meanwhile, Beto O’Rourke apparently merits multiple profiles, an HBO documentary about his failed Senate run and an Annie Leibovitz photo shoot in Vanity Fair — while Pete Buttigieg got a literally glowing New York magazine cover profile.

So, wait, the mostly Democratic staffed and run news and media outlets are being sexist in giving the male Democratic candidates more coverage?

Huh.

Anyway, Ms. Walters yammers on about male privilege and other SJW whines, followed by

The really radical thing for a male candidate to do in 2020 would be to step down and step away, realizing that real gender equity is achieved only when men actively refuse the benefits they receive simply for being born male.

This is a great idea. All the male Democrats should bow out. Say goodbye to Biden, Booker, Bernie, Beto, Buttigieg….are there any who aren’t named with B’s?…Delaney (who?), Yang (who?), Castro, Inslee, Hickenlooper, Messam (who?), Ryan (who?), Excitable Eric Swalwell, Gravel (who?), Moulton (who?). This would leave Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobucher, and Kirstin Gillibrand. Perhaps Sore Loser Stacey Abrams if she decides to jump in.

Gender and racial equity are not zero-sum games: Everyone is a winner when we have a more diverse and representative government. But we can’t achieve that vision without men taking responsibility for the inordinate space they take up in the media and the candidate field.

It really is pathetic. This kind of thinking says that women can’t compete on their own, that they aren’t as good as men unless they get lots of help, like with men taking themselves out of the game. Sad. Really sad. And this is what Democrats think. They say women are strong, but, really boil it all down, and they think that women are delicate flowers unable to do it on their own.

Read: Washington Post: Male Dems Who Say They Get Misogyny Should Drop Out »

Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

See, on one hand, high ranking poobahs in the Cult of Climastrology have stated that ‘climate change’ will ruin wine (forgetting that previous warm periods saw great wines being produced in England). And the other hand

How Does Your Love of Wine Contribute to Climate Change?
Consumers don’t have access to much information about how businesses operate, but they can ask questions and focus on one tangible item, the bottle.

Consumers mostly do not care in the least, they just want some wine, not a lecture from anti-science buffoons.

Evil wine causes world to be hazy from carbon pollution

The exquisite vulnerability of grapes to nuances of weather makes wine both particularly susceptible to climate change and a harbinger of what’s to come for many other agricultural products.

Do wine consumers have a role in encouraging producers to take stronger steps to combat climate change? Some in the wine industry think they do, particularly by throwing their economic support to companies that are already acting decisively.

“The consumer is the key to this,” Adrian Bridge, the chief executive of Taylor Fladgate, the historic port producer, wrote in an email. “Changing our own behavior matters, and asking others to change theirs as well. This does mean buying from companies that are doing a good job and avoiding companies that are not.”

Things like grapes are always going to be vulnerable to things like weather. Always have and always will.

It’s equally important for consumers to make clear to the wine industry that fighting climate change is an urgent issue. Both through their buying decisions and through old-fashioned advocacy — which might include letters and emails to producers, importers and wine publications, as well as direct conversations with wine merchants and restaurateurs — consumers must demand that the wine industry take action.

Important to whom? Not the vast majority of people who buy wine, and do not give it any thought as to how it is supposedly linked to climate change, regardless of whether it is natural or man-caused.

That industry is simply a microcosm of larger society. Just as politicians have little incentive to address climate change unless voters require it, many wine producers are less inclined to reduce their own carbon footprints unless consumers demonstrate that such steps are important to them.

And few do, so, let’s move on from this stupidity. But, this is the NY Times, so, we haven’t even gotten a quarter way through the screed.

But how can anybody distinguish the environmental heroes from the do-nothings? That requires consumers to educate themselves in ways that are not easy, particularly because reliable information is difficult to come by. Many in the wine industry are notoriously opaque about their agriculture, their cellar techniques and their ingredients.

How dare they hide their trade secrets! Let’s skip to the end

As Gandhi suggested, no step is too small. The least we can do is make climate issues more urgent in our own lives, and to pass that message on to others.

“Things change,” Mr. Bridge said, “when society demands it.”

Society isn’t demanding it, nor are Warmists making changes in their own live.

Read: Your Love Of Wine Is Driving ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

NY Times Finally Decides To Notice Rising Jew Hatred In Their Own Paper And Around The World

It only took them publishing multiple anti-Semitic cartoons and getting slammed

A Rising Tide of Anti-Semitism

The Times published an appalling political cartoon in the opinion pages of its international print edition late last week. It portrayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel as a dog wearing a Star of David on a collar. He was leading President Trump, drawn as a blind man wearing a skullcap.

The cartoon was chosen from a syndication service by a production editor who did not recognize its anti-Semitism. Yet however it came to be published, the appearance of such an obviously bigoted cartoon in a mainstream publication is evidence of a profound danger — not only of anti-Semitism but of numbness to its creep, to the insidious way this ancient, enduring prejudice is once again working itself into public view and common conversation.

Anti-Semitic imagery is particularly dangerous now. The number of assaults against American Jews more than doubled from 2017 to 2018, rising to 39, according to a report released Tuesday by the Anti-Defamation League. On Saturday, a gunman opened fire during Passover services at a synagogue in San Diego County, killing one person and injuring three, allegedly after he posted in an online manifesto that he wanted to murder Jews. For decades, most American Jews felt safe to practice their religion, but now they pass through metal detectors to enter synagogues and schools.

Interesting. There’s no mention of the 7,000 anti-Jew incidents while Obama was president (Vox of course tries to defend Obama and hurt Trump). This is not to blame them on Obama, just to show the incidents, which mainly occur from Obama’s unhinged base, especially on college campuses, in Dem run cities, and, yes, people who would be considered very far right and whom are unwanted by the Republican party and Conservatives in general.

Nor is there a mention of all the pieces, both in the “news” section and the opinion section, that protected Jew hater and sitting U.S. Representative Ilhan Omar. Nor that many Democrats were very upset that the Trump admin has been working hard to investigate incidences of anti-Semitism on the Democrat run college campuses. Also, the Times forgot to mention other big attacks that didn’t occur under Trump, such as the Holocaust Museum attack.

Jews face even greater hostility and danger in Europe, where the cartoonwas created. In Britain, one of several members of Parliament who resigned from the Labour Party in February said that the party had become “institutionally anti-Semitic.” In France and Belgium, Jews have been the targets of terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists. Across Europe, right-wing parties with long histories of anti-Semitic rhetoric are gaining political strength.

You can’t blame it all on “right wing parties”, unless you want to note that they have the same beliefs that Progressives, Socialists, and Marxists hold.

This is also a period of rising criticism of Israel, much of it directed at the rightward drift of its own government and some of it even questioning Israel’s very foundation as a Jewish state. We have been and remain stalwart supporters of Israel, and believe that good-faith criticism should work to strengthen it over the long term by helping it stay true to its democratic values. But anti-Zionism can clearly serve as a cover for anti-Semitism — and some criticism of Israel, as the cartoon demonstrated, is couched openly in anti-Semitic terms.

Criticism of Israel is not rising: it’s been high among the same groups for a long time, including many in the Democratic party, and in the opinion pages of liberal run newspapers. But, it is good to see the Times’ Editorial Board not that anti-Israel sentiment serves as cover for Jew hatred.

As anti-Semitism has surged from the internet into the streets, President Trump has done too little to rouse the national conscience against it. Though he condemned the cartoon in The Times, he has failed to speak out against anti-Semitic groups like the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 chanting, “Jews will not replace us.” He has practiced a politics of intolerance for diversity, and attacks on some minority groups threaten the safety of every minority group. The gunman who attacked the synagogue in San Diego claimed responsibility for setting a fire at a nearby mosque, and wrote that he was inspired by the deadly attack on mosques in New Zealand last month.

And now they attempt to shift the blame from themselves. Surprise? Funny how the NYT forgets that before Ilhan, whom they protected, Obama mainstreamed anti-Israel and anti-Jew sentiment. The same paper also backed Iran while Obama was making his deal, a nation that has a stated goal of wiping Israel off the map.

In the 1930s and the 1940s, The Times was largely silent as anti-Semitism rose up and bathed the world in blood. That failure still haunts this newspaper. Now, rightly, The Times has declared itself “deeply sorry” for the cartoon and called it “unacceptable.” Apologies are important, but the deeper obligation of The Times is to focus on leading through unblinking journalism and the clear editorial expression of its values. Society in recent years has shown healthy signs of increased sensitivity to other forms of bigotry, yet somehow anti-Semitism can often still be dismissed as a disease gnawing only at the fringes of society. That is a dangerous mistake. As recent events have shown, it is a very mainstream problem.

Yet, the Times will still look to protect those who are anti-Semites on their side. Where’s the condemnation of Omar? How about all the Democrats hobb-knobbing with Keith Ellison and Louis Farrakhan? Taking meetings with the Muslim Brotherhood linked CAIR, and taking their donations? Will they highlight the pro-Palestinian anti-Semitic college kids all over campuses run by Democrats?

It is interesting that only now does the NY Times take a stance, after a cartoonist felt perfectly fine in submitting an anti-Jew cartoon, thinking there would be no issues with this. And, as far as we know, the cartoonist has not had their contract terminated, nor has anyone else been terminated.

Read: NY Times Finally Decides To Notice Rising Jew Hatred In Their Own Paper And Around The World »

Pirate's Cove