Mayor Of Sanctuary City Threatens To Sue If Illegal Aliens Sent To City

By William Teach April 17, 2019 – 10:20 am

 

It’s almost like illegal aliens are a threat

‘Sanctuary city’ mayors say they want asylum seekers — while Bill de Blasio calls it ‘illegal’

Self-styled progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio says he’ll go to court to stop President Trump from shipping asylum seekers to New York City — but other sanctuary city mayors across the US are putting out the welcome mat for the migrants.

“It’s illegal. It is just plain illegal. We will meet him in court. We will beat him in court,” de Blasio, who is considering a presidential bid, warned on NY1 Monday night.

Well, huh. So, why wouldn’t all those Democrat Open Borders advocates want the illegals they agitate for? Heck, perhaps ICE should just not bother arresting any illegal as long as they stay in NYC, and even announce they will not operate in NYC. Oh, wait, Bill doesn’t want them, right?

But, some other mayors do want them

Mayors of other sanctuary cities — including Philadelphia, Chicago and San Francisco — took the opposite tack and opened their doors.

“The city would be prepared to welcome these immigrants just as we have embraced our immigrant communities for decades,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement.

Again, ICE should refuse to operate in those cities, and make sure illegals know about it. As long as they stay there, ICE will not interfere, no matter how bad they are. Let them have the criminals, the arsonists, the murderers, the rapists, the thieves.

San Francisco Mayor London Breed predicted that Trump’s threat was a distraction that would never become a reality.

“This is just another in a long line of scare tactics and half-baked ideas that are just about chasing headlines and distracting people from real issues. In SF we are proud to be a sanctuary city and we’ll continue to stand up for all of our residents,” she tweeted.

What it really is is a way to get the media and Democrats chasing their tails, just like Trump keeps making them do. And it exposes some as being against illegals in their cities in practice, while others are exposes as wanting the criminal illegals. Trump really put Democrats in a no win situation. Except with their own Open Borders base.

Read: Mayor Of Sanctuary City Threatens To Sue If Illegal Aliens Sent To City »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 42 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Nutters Glue Themselves To Trains, Ruin The Day For Average People

By William Teach April 17, 2019 – 7:57 am

These people are committed, and should be committed. Nothing says “we care” like ruining the day of people just trying to go on with their lives

Activists glue themselves to train at Canary Wharf

Two climate change activists from British organization Extinction Rebellion have climbed on top of a commuter train at London’s Canary Wharf.

The pair have each glued a single hand to the top of the train car to hold themselves in place and prevent officials from removing them.

A third individual has glued his hand to the side of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) train, near the carriage door.

(pull, pull!)

Authorities are on scene and have provided the pair atop the train with protective gear while they work around them.

It only caused minor delays for that line, but delays first thing in the morning as people are trying to get to work causes problems for a lot of people. You can see the dirty hippy type person who glued himself.

(City A.M.) “During the next 24 hours, these intelligence-led patrols will be in place to help keep everyone safe and to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum.”

Extinction Rebellion protesters have already brought traffic to a standstill in Oxford Circus, Waterloo Bridge, Marble Arch, Piccadilly Circus, and Parliament Square.

Yesterday the Metropolitan Police warned the protests had closed 55 bus routes and affected half a million people.

The Met has made 290 arrests in a bid to clear routes after ordering the protesters to confine demonstrations to Marble Arch in an effort to keep London traffic running.

However, Extinction Rebellion activists have continued to swarm over London landmarks, blockading Waterloo Bridge despite police making 177 arrests there alone.

Besides causing problems for half a million people, this means police officers are being taken away from dealing with protecting people from property and violent crimes.

Read: Climate Nutters Glue Themselves To Trains, Ruin The Day For Average People »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 26 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Questions Whether Trump Is Man Of The People Or Of His People

By William Teach April 17, 2019 – 7:41 am

Yet another reason why the news media is not trusted and dying: running an “analysis”, ie, opinion piece, on the front page which is supposed to be news, which is all about taking shots at Orange Man Bad. But really, really forgets to mention a few things

A President of the People or a President of His People?

In the last couple of weeks, President Trump repeatedly called his enemies “treasonous.” He threatened to punish Democrats by dumping migrants in their districts. He promoted a video tying a Muslim congresswoman to images of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

The message seems clear and so does the audience: more red meat for red-state Americans who have been the foundation of his political enterprise since his against-the-odds campaign for the White House. And it is a reminder that this president governs as none of his modern predecessors did.

The old-fashioned idea that a president, once reaching office, should at least pretend to be the leader of all the people these days seems so, well, old-fashioned. Mr. Trump does not bother with the pretense. He is speaking to his people, not the people. He has become, or so it often seems, the president of the United Base of America.

Mr. Trump travels nearly five times as often to states that were in his column in 2016 as to those that supported Hillary Clinton. He has given several times more interviews to Fox News than to all the other major networks combined. His social media advertising is aimed disproportionately at older Americans who were the superstructure of his victory in the Electoral College in 2016. His messaging is permeated with divisive language that galvanizes core supporters more than it persuades anyone on the fence, much less on the other side.

Last time I checked, Trump has not used the Internal Revenue Service to target political opposition. Remember, that is the scandal that media folks, like those at the NY Times, attempted to avoid discussing for a long time, then decided they would defend Obama and his people rather than investigate when dragged kicking and screaming into covering it. This is the same Obama who slurred tens of millions of American Tea Party followers as “tea baggers.” Obama slurred America and Americans multiple times while overseas. Remember when he called Americans “lazy.” How many times did Obama fundraise and have campaign events (while pretending he was in the state for official business) in NY and California, while avoiding visiting typical Red states, even ones he won, like NC?

For all Trump’s verbal attacks, he hasn’t actually taken actions. The NYT forgets that politics is a dirty, nasty business with a veneer of civility.

As far as attacking Ilhan Omar, you know if it had been a Republican who made the comment, the NYT, in the same city that was attacked on 9/11, would be mercilessly attacking that person, and the entire Republican party by extension. Especially if they had a history of anti-Semitism and working with a Jew and Israel hating group with links to terrorist groups (in this case, CAIR).

But Mr. Trump seems to relish divide-and-conquer politics much more than either of them did and has made little effort to expand his coalition beyond the voters who propelled him to the White House in the first place. While other presidents sought to broaden their public support, Mr. Trump appears to be heading into his re-election campaign sticking with his own tribe.

In other words, he’s sticking to his guns, to the things that got him elected in the first place. He’s not changing his policies. He’s telling people why those policies are good, and why his opponents are wrong in objecting to them. Ronald Reagan did the same (without as many attacks, since there was no social media, and, he was a more political speaking man): he stuck to his policies, rather than moderating. He pulled people into voting for him. And the more the media and Democrats caterwaul, the easier it will be for Trump.

Funny thing is, the Times doesn’t attack Democrats for their divisive talk. Go figure.

Read: NY Times Questions Whether Trump Is Man Of The People Or Of His People »

Posted in Donald Trump, Politics, Wonky Media | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

UK Guardian: Those Violent Nutters In Extinction Rebellion Aren’t Going Far Enough

By William Teach April 16, 2019 – 4:45 pm

It’s great when one of the major world news outlets advocates for massive violence, and this is from their editorial board

The Guardian view on Extinction Rebellion: one small step

The planned choking of traffic in central London on Monday by climate activists of Extinction Rebellion falls somewhere between street theatre and direct action. If it is successful it will be costly for the demonstrators, some of whom plan to be arrested, burdensome for bus passengers who can’t get to work, and vexing for car drivers who (unlike those in emergency vehicles) will be held up. And yet, should it fail, the long-term costs of climate change will be immense for almost everybody now alive and for all our descendents, too.

In the short term, the rage of the frustrated motorist remains one of the most powerful political forces in countries like ours (WT – yet, the rage won’t be aimed at solving ‘climate change’, but at the ER wankers). The gilets jaunes movement in France started off in part as a protest against price rises on petrol; the Blair government sustained its first big defeat at the hands of lorry drivers in the fuel protests of 2000, which destroyed a sensible and ecologically necessary plan to raise fuel taxes steadily over time to discourage the use of fossil fuels.

Any movement towards ecological sanity will have to confront this anger. The drivers’ blockades were effective direct action in support of the destruction of the planet. The challenge today is to find means of direct action that work towards its preservation while winning the same kind of social acceptance and political force.

The idea that we can change the whole basis of our planetary economy without pain and inconvenience for the global middle classes is simply false. The enormous political challenge is to ensure that the pain of adjustment towards a carbon-neutral economy is fairly distributed. At the moment the pain is concentrated on those least able to bear it. This is true between countries, in as much as it is sub-Saharan Africa where the destabilising effects of climate change are most visible and painful. It is also true within the rich countries which consume more than they sustainably can. In the west it is the poor who will be hit worst by rising prices for food and fuel. Yet a future of less consumption and less convenience is inevitable. We can choose to some extent how and when to face it, but it cannot be indefinitely postponed.

Hmm, forcing a change in the planetary economy, eh? To what? Here’s where it gets more fun

The purpose of climate activism is to make that choice consciously and deliberately, with planning and forethought, rather than have it forced upon us in a series of improvisations between catastrophes. The activists of Extinction Rebellion use the metaphor of war, and this is not entirely exaggerated. Although one of the purposes of groups like Extinction Rebellion is to avert wars over resources, this may – paradoxically – require the kind of social and political mobilisation only otherwise seen in wartime. The sense of a common purpose, and of suffering borne in common, which has so often and so fraudulently been invoked in the rhetoric of the political right since the financial crisis must now be appropriated and given real meaning.

So, they do not want it forced on us, but, they do want to treat this like a war, which requires, you guessed it, the use of force.

The protests are intended as the start of a global movement, as they must be. By themselves, they will accomplish little. Yet the longest journey begins with the first step – even if this is the step taken by a driver who climbs out of their gridlocked car and tries to find some other way of continuing their journey.

Those steps involved violence and destruction. They involved causing lots of problems for people just trying to go about their day. They involved vandalism and lawlessness. They involved the use of force. This is what the Cult of Climastrology wants, and is moving towards.

Read: UK Guardian: Those Violent Nutters In Extinction Rebellion Aren’t Going Far Enough »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 16, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrendous golf course which evil rich deniers play on, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on how some Muslims reacted to the destruction of Notre Dame

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 28 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Guy Who Wants To Destroy Israel Is Barred From U.S.

By William Teach April 16, 2019 – 10:39 am

The NY Times’ Michelle Goldberg should have done a little research, but, it’s fashionable among liberals to believe that those involved in the BDS movement are just protesters, rather than virulent Jew haters who want to see Israel wiped off the map

Anti-Zionists Deserve Free Speech

The Palestinian activist Omar Barghouti, one of the founders of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, was supposed to be on a speaking tour of the United States this week, with stops at N.Y.U.’s Washington campus and at Harvard. He was going to attend his daughter’s wedding in Texas. I had plans to interview him for “The Argument,” the debate podcast that I co-host, about B.D.S., the controversial campaign to make Israel pay an economic and cultural price for its treatment of the Palestinians.

Yet when Barghouti, a permanent resident of Israel, showed up for his flight from Israel’s Ben Gurion International Airport last week, he was informed that the United States was denying him entry. When I spoke to him on Sunday, he still didn’t know exactly why the country where he went to college and lived for many years wasn’t letting him in, but he assumed it was because of his political views. If that’s the case, Barghouti said, it was the first time someone has been barred from America for B.D.S. advocacy. He has proceeded with his public events, but he’s been appearing at them via Skype.

In recent years, the American right has presented itself as a champion of free expression. Conservatives are constantly bemoaning a censorious campus climate that stigmatizes their ideas; last month, Donald Trump signed an executive order on campus free speech, decrying those who would keep Americans from “challenging rigid far-left ideology.” The president said, “People who are confident in their beliefs do not censor others.”

First, people who supported Obama in denying a German family which wanted to homeschool their kids the right to stay in the U.S., also because they were Christians, shouldn’t be casting stones. Second, the U.S. has barred many people over the years. Third, the U.S. often bars Islamic extremists

OMAR BARGHOUTI: A MAN WITH TWO FACES

In 2005, Omar Barghouti founded the infamous boycott, divest, and sanction (BDS) movement; a movement which on its surface appears to promote the rights of Palestinians by pursuing economic, academic, and cultural boycotts of Israel. Beneath the surface, however, it becomes clear that this movement’s true goal is to bring an end to the State of Israel and replace it with a sovereign Palestinian state.

BDS is an extremist, anti-Zionist movement masked as human rights activism. It should thus come as no surprise that Barghouti also aims to portray himself with the same kind of mask. However, if we take a closer look at his actions and beliefs, we see a very different picture. Who, then, is the man behind the movement?

BDS, Barghouti claims, is a “non-violent human rights movement that seeks freedom, justice and equality for the Palestinian people” and is against the oppressive Israeli regime, not against individuals. However, the BDS movement boycotts Israeli individuals based on their nationality, and Barghouti himself refuses to work with Israelis – even those sympathetic to his cause. A true activist puts the movement above his own personal bias. Yet Barghouti goes so far as to say that Palestinians who engage with Israelis are “clinically delusional,” once again undermining his own movement by placing more significance in his personal prejudice than in achieving the goals of his movement.

Further, Barghouti doesn’t support a two state solution. He wants it replaced with a fully Palestinian state, with all Jews gone. The BDS movement has many links to Islamic terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

(Times Of Israel) Barghouti’s Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement addresses “not only the disputed territories but opposes the very existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state in its entirety and in any kind of borders,” the communal leaders wrote.

You don’t have to be a Jew hater to be an Israel hater. But, most who seem to be leaders in this do hate Jews, and those who join along very much seem to end up being Jew haters. The NY Times should really consider who they are backing. Sure, Barghouti should be allowed to speak: it doesn’t mean an Islamic extremist and Jew hater should be allowed in to the U.S.

Read: NY Times Seems Rather Upset That Guy Who Wants To Destroy Israel Is Barred From U.S. »

Posted in Beyond Moonbat, Israel, Journalistic Malpractice | 32 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrat Contenders: No Drilling, No Nuclear, Urgency On Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach April 16, 2019 – 7:53 am

Every Democratic Party presidential contender will use massive amounts of fossil fuels to not only travel around the country, but for their campaigns to operate. They’re all pretty much rich people, who also live off the labors of U.S. citizens, so, they aren’t worried about their policies hurting their own lives

Warren unveils 2020 plan to stop drilling on public lands

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a 2020 Democratic hopeful, unveiled an ambitious proposal Monday aimed at protecting public lands and rolling back many of President Trump’s environmental policies.

Warren included in her proposal, published on Medium, plans to immediately halt drilling offshore and on publicly owned lands, as well as restoring the original boundary lines for two national monuments shrunk under Trump.

Warren championed the goals as a way to “preserve wild, natural places for future generations.”

“We must not allow corporations to pillage our public lands and leave taxpayers to clean up the mess. All of us — local communities and tribes, hunters and anglers, ranchers and weekend backpackers — must work together to manage and protect our shared heritage,” Warren wrote.

The first step of her plan would be to place a moratorium on any new fossil fuel extraction on public lands or offshore, as a way to show a commitment to fighting climate change.

Certainly, there are places on “public lands” where we shouldn’t drill, but, Warmists like Warren want to stop all drilling, which hurts you at the pump. Instead, they want to despoil the scenery with solar panels and wind turbines, leaving giant concrete platforms behind, slicing birds and even incinerating them as they fly.

BERNIE SANDERS: 12 YEARS LEFT TO SOLVE GLOBAL WARMING, BUT NO NUCLEAR PLANTS

“And I’m sure you’re familiar with the scientific reports that tell us that we have all of 12 years to significantly cut carbon emissions or else they will be irreparable damage to United States and countries all over the world,” Sanders said during a town hall with Fox News Monday night.

So we have a moral responsibility, in my view, to transform our energy system and leave this planet healthy and habitable for our children and our grandchildren, and by the way, when we do that that, we create millions of good-paying jobs,” Sanders said during the Fox News town hall. (snip)

Sanders also told the town hall audience “we should phase out” nuclear power plants — the country’s largest source of greenhouse gas-emissions free electricity. Fox News anchor Martha MacCallum pushed back, however, questioning Sanders’ opposition to nuclear power.

Well, of course he did. Most of the hardcore Warmists do reject nuclear energy. A goodly chunk of the less extremist Warmists are all for nuclear, even if it is just being used as a bridge technology till something else comes along and/or solar and wind become truly viable. Many Warmists are still rooted in their irrational hatred of nuclear energy which goes back decades and decades, including conflating the supposed buildup of nuclear weapons during the Reagan years with nuclear energy.

Inslee: ‘People are coming to realize the urgency’ of climate change

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said Sunday that “people are coming to realize the urgency” of climate change.

Inslee, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2020, added during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he believes focusing on climate change is the best path to the nomination.

“I believe it is the best path because people are coming to realize the urgency of this. Tied with health care it is the number one priority of voters in Iowa and for good reason,” he said.

Urgency, huh? It’s so urgent that most polls have ‘climate change’ as last or next to last on lists of what people are concerned about. Very few news outlets lead with ‘climate change’, and most stories are low hanging fruit. Really, it’s so urgent that most Americans refuse to spend even $10 a month to fight it. But, you do you, Jay.

Read: Democrat Contenders: No Drilling, No Nuclear, Urgency On Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump Wanting To Send Illegals To Sanctuary Cities Is His Next Fight Against Urban Areas Or Something

By William Teach April 16, 2019 – 7:23 am

Really, Trump threatening to send illegal aliens to sanctuary jurisdictions was initially just throwing food against the wall and seeing if it would stick. When told by ICE and DHS that it wasn’t a good idea due to the cost and time involved, Team Trump moved on. The the Washington Post published an article on it, and Trump and his team ran with it. Why? Because it drives Democrats nuts, exposes many as Open Borders advocates, and also highlights the hypocrisy of the illegal alien supporters who didn’t want the illegals sent to their towns.

But, hey, you know what it’s really about? Trump being mad at urban centers who didn’t vote for him, per Excitable Ronald Brownstein

Trump’s battle with sanctuary cities is the next phase of his confrontation with urban America

President Donald Trump’s threats to relocate undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers to “sanctuary cities” capture his determination to constantly press the boundaries of law and morality with hardline immigration policies. But it may reveal even more about his political posture toward the nation’s biggest population centers.

n 2016, Trump lost the largest metropolitan counties by a bigger margin than any Republican presidential candidate in modern times. In 2018, House Republicans were routed in suburban districts not only in metropolitan areas already trending toward Democrat — such as the suburbs of Denver, Philadelphia, Seattle and northern Virginia — but also in places that had still leaned toward the GOP, including Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Richmond and even Oklahoma City.

But rather than looking to rebuild bridges with these growing population centers, Trump appears determined to use them as a foil to energize his predominantly non-urban base.

“He wants to portray cities as alien to the two-car garage in Naperville,” outgoing Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told me in an interview, referring to a suburb west of his city. “They want to make the soccer mom more scared.”

Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan likewise wrote in the Washington Post last weekend: “So if this president wants to send immigrants and refugees to Seattle and other welcoming cities, let me be clear: We will do what we have always done, and we will be stronger for it.”

See? Orange Man Bad! Jenny Durkan, though, never expressly said that Trump should send illegal aliens to Seattle. Nor are any other mayors, or even Governors of sanctuary states like California, offering to actually take illegals.

And Orange Man wants to intentionally punish all those urban areas which didn’t vote for him by…..sending them the illegal aliens who Democrats say are awesome and great and contribute? If illegals are so super duper awesome, then how would sending them to these big cities which are sanctuaries be any sort of punishment?

Read: Trump Wanting To Send Illegals To Sanctuary Cities Is His Next Fight Against Urban Areas Or Something »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 34 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Embraces Venezuelan Dictator Due To Cuban Baseball Restrictions

By William Teach April 15, 2019 – 4:17 pm

This is what happens to people infused with Trump Derangement Syndrome, they take the side of a dictator over something minor

Those Cuban Ballplayers? They Won’t Be Coming Here

When President Barack Obama began thawing long-frozen relations with Cuba — a drive that included attending a baseball game in Havana alongside President Raúl Castro — Major League Baseball began negotiating with the Cuban Baseball Federation to start legally bringing Cuban stars to play in the United States. The deal, heralded as a way to combat the illegal cross-border smuggling of ballplayers, was finally clinched in December, and the Cuban federation sent over its first list of 34 candidates on April 3.

They won’t be coming.

At least not legally, after the Trump administration abruptly ended the deal, announcing last Monday that the Cuban federation was not independent of the Cuban government, as the Obama administration had ruled, and so paying it the fees mandated in the agreement would be a violation of American trade rules.

Officials in the administration also linked the reversal to Cuba’s support for the Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, whom Washington is trying to oust. “America’s national pastime should not enable the Cuban regime’s support for Maduro in Venezuela,” tweeted John Bolton, the national security adviser, on the day before the baseball deal was canceled.

This has made the NYTEB very upset. How dare baseball players in a repressive fascist nation be linked!

The administration’s arguments are not without merit. No organization as prominent as the Cuban Baseball Federation can be fully independent of the Havana government. And Cuba has remained a firm ally of Mr. Maduro, receiving Venezuelan oil in exchange for doctors and other specialists and intelligence, which has helped him remain in power despite demands from Washington and more than 50 other governments that he end his terrible rule.

But that is not entirely what this is about. Mr. Obama’s effort to end more than five decades of hostility toward Cuba was approved by a large majority of Americans as an opening that was long overdue. Allowing some players from baseball-mad Cuba to play legally in the major leagues was a win-win proposition: Players who might have risked dangerous flight could legally reach for stardom and wealth; Cuban baseball would make some money; and their presence would be tangible evidence of a crack in the ice. Accepting the myth of an independent Cuban baseball federation was deemed a necessary wink.

So, basically, the NYTEB knows that what Obama did was all BS, in regards to the baseball federation, but, they must protect the Precious, since Trump is erasing so much of Obama’s legacy.

Yet canceling the deal was a bad move done for the wrong reasons. Cuba’s decision to let its athletes earn their living outside Cuba was a step in the right direction, even if some dollars might have spilled into government coffers. And while Cuba should be dissuaded from propping up the Maduro regime, that should not be a pretext for indulging the right-wing obsession with maintaining a permanent freeze on relations with Cuba.

The NYTEB is propping up a brutal dictator in Maduro because of their TDS.

Read: NY Times Embraces Venezuelan Dictator Due To Cuban Baseball Restrictions »

Posted in Wonky Media | 25 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 15, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is frost caused by carbon pollution cold extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Chicks On The Right, with a post on some people having meltdowns over a patriotic motif on police cars.

And that’s how they aerate greens, right?

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove