Open Borders Advocates Are Unhappy Over ICE Being Alerted When An Illegal Applies For A Firearm

By William Teach February 28, 2019 – 3:24 pm

It’s illegal for a non-resident to possess a firearm, except under a very small set of circumstances, usually having to do with hunting or security, and both came with a heavy dose of restrictions. Makes sense, right? Well, you already surely know that Democrats attempted to sneak in a provision to their check backgrounds and end up requiring a registry of law abiding citizens bill, which wouldn’t stop most criminals from getting a gun, that would keep ICE from being alerted when an illegal alien applied for a firearms license

Activist Group: Don’t Expand Gun Control ‘at the Expense of Our Immigrant Communities’

House Democrats passed universal background checks to leftist fanfare Wednesday, but one activist group worries the gun control could make life more difficult for illegals.

On February 18, 2019, Breitbart News reported that the Democrats rejected a Republican push to add an alert for ICE to the gun control bill. The Republican wanted to alert ICE if an illegal alien was discovered via a background check for a firearm.

On February 27, 2019, the Republicans secured a “motion to recommit,” thereby adding the ICE alert to the Democrats’ gun control bill.

In response the Community Justice Action Fund hedged its support for the Democrats’ gun control bill, noting that more gun laws should not be passed at the expense of illegals:

https://twitter.com/_cjactionfund/status/1100880765984878592

Alerting ICE when an unlawfully present person tries to purchase a firearm is keeping communities safe. Realistically, how many illegals attempt to get a background check to get a firearm? I’d hazard to say it is very, very, very low. But, we see how the Open Borders lobby will attempt to protect illegals at all turns.

Read: Open Borders Advocates Are Unhappy Over ICE Being Alerted When An Illegal Applies For A Firearm »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

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

…is a lake that will soon flood the surrounding countryside from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Creeping Sharia, with a post on an Islamist activist wanting to use schools to convert kids to Islam.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Americans Prefer Building A Wall Over The Green New Disaster Deal

By William Teach February 28, 2019 – 11:01 am

I still maintain that there are much better ideas to solving illegal immigration than the focus on the wall, but, it’s still better than the Modern Socialist GND

Poll: Majority of Americans Favor a Border Wall over a Green New Deal

A majority of Americans would rather have a wall sealing America’s southern border than the Green New Deal, according to a poll released on Wednesday.

Fifty-one percent of Americans say that they would rather have a border wall on America’s southern border, compared to 31 percent who say that they want a Green New Deal, according to a poll released by Remington Research Group.

Republicans said that they would prefer a border wall by a 68-point margin, while Independents said that they would prefer a border wall by a two-to-one margin.

Overall, a majority of Americans, or 51 percent, said they oppose a Green New Deal, 51 percent of Democrats support the radical environmental program, while Republicans and Independents overwhelmingly oppose Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-NY) idea outright.

The more they learn about the GND the more they will come out against it, especially Independents and your ordinary Democrats.

Now, just clear something up, based on an email I received, let’s define Modern Socialism. We refer to Democrats as Progressives (which is referred to as Nice Fascism. The nice doesn’t mean they’re nice, it means they are doing things For Your Own Good, never expecting the bad parts to hurt their own lives), Marxist, Communists, straight Fascists, and Socialists. But, what is Socialism? In Political Theory 101, it is part of the Democracy model, with Liberalism (often called Classic Liberalism) in the center and Conservatism (again, often called Classic. American Conservatives are really classic liberals) to the right. There are three defining cores: Economic, Political, and Moral.

True Socialism is focused on the Economic, where the government is heavily involved in running the economy, up to and including owning the means of production. That is the defining characteristic. In the Political, this is where the term Direct Democracy comes from: there are few restrictions on voting, and we vote on everything. In the Moral, the government stays out of our private lives in almost everything. It pretty much leaves us alone.

And that’s where we get the Modern Socialist name: yes, they want the Economic policies as the model states, but, they want the control of citizens’ lives even more than you would get in Classic Conservatism. Really more into the Authoritarian model (which includes Fascism). They want the Government to dictate everything about our personal lives (and still never think this would negatively effect their own lives).

As for the Political, they are fine with voting on everything, as long as they win. Because they won’t accept when they lose. We see this with Trump winning. We see this with all the lawsuits.

Continuing to call it Progressivism doesn’t help, because the average person goes “huh? Not sure what that is.” You say Socialism, or Modern Socialism, and they get it. And their GND is a giant step towards enacting their policies.

Read: Americans Prefer Building A Wall Over The Green New Disaster Deal »

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

Bummer: Democrats Are Grappling With How They Vote On The Green New Deal (And Not Vote At All)

By William Teach February 28, 2019 – 9:19 am

We’ve already seen one report on this, now along comes The Hill to make it more clear

Dems wrestle over how to vote on ‘Green New Deal’

Senate Democratic leaders are grappling over how to vote on a controversial climate change proposal that is being championed by progressives and mocked by conservatives.

The plan, offered by firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will be voted on on the Senate floor later this year in a GOP-led effort to divide Democrats and get them to go on the record about the “Green New Deal.”

But Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (N.Y.) has floated a plan with his caucus to vote present on the ambitious legislation. It remains to be seen if Senate Democrats will embrace Schumer’s strategy.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday panned the Green New Deal as “the far-left’s Santa Claus wish list dressed up to look like serious policy.”

The nonbinding legislation calls for the federal government to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, eliminate pollution as much as technologically feasible and provide training and high-quality education so that “all people of the United States” can participate in the Green New Deal mobilization. McConnell says the Senate will vote on the Green New Deal before the August congressional recess.

A Democratic senator familiar with internal deliberations said that Schumer reached out to his more liberal colleagues who are running for president to make sure they’re on board with the present vote strategy.

So, the strategy is to go weasel and vote present (BTW, Mitch needs to hold the vote sooner than sometime before August recess)? How brave! Here’s a howler, though

Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 after Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) launched a frenzied and ultimately successful effort to pass a comprehensive climate change bill in 2009.

Senate Democrats, however, never took up cap-and-trade after then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said it faced too much Republican opposition. Democrats subsequently kept control of the Senate in Obama’s first midterm election.

If true, this would mean that it is a bad idea for Democrats to pass Hotcoldwetdry legislation. Of course, we all know they lost the House over Obamacare, and almost lost the Senate that election over the same.

(Washington Examiner) The Green New Deal, a 16-page resolution calling on Congress to tackle climate change by eliminating fossil fuels, has gained nearly two dozen sponsors since freshman star Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced it on Feb. 7.

But the proposal makes many House Democrats uneasy and Democratic leaders have acknowledged it may never get a vote.

“I can’t say we are going to take that and pass it,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who once called the resolution a “Green New Dream,” told a Howard University audience Wednesday.

The plan is so extreme that most Democrats do not want to have to go on the record in supporting it with an actual vote.

(Daily Caller) Marc Morano, the executive director of Climate Depot, says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s extreme views on climate change actually help him make the case against man-made global warming.

“She’s doing the work of climate skeptics for us. Having her out there every day making these wacky claims, questioning whether we should have kids — I can’t think of anything better to discredit the man-made global warming fear movement than AOC,” said Morano.

Seriously, is AOC a GOP plant designed to expose the Dems as the extremists they really are? No one can be this bad, right? Anyhow, interesting video at the DC link.

Read: Bummer: Democrats Are Grappling With How They Vote On The Green New Deal (And Not Vote At All) »

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

Washington Post: Cohen Hearings Were Explosive Or Something

By William Teach February 28, 2019 – 8:54 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board takes on the Michael Cohen, remember, he’s going to jail and one the convictions is for lying to Congress, hearings, and think they have the goods!

Michael Cohen’s hearing was explosive — but not for what was new

FORMER TRUMP lawyer Michael Cohen’s Wednesday hearing before the House Oversight Committee was explosive not for what was new — but, depressingly, what was not new to anyone watching this administration with clear eyes. The takeaway: President Trump is a liar with a defective character — and, possibly, a criminal.

Corroborating allegations previously revealed in court documents, the president’s former fixer said Mr. Trump was deeply involved in the felony campaign finance violation to which Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty in a Manhattan courtroom. Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump asked him to pay adult-film star Stormy Daniels $130,000 shortly before the 2016 election to keep her silent about an alleged affair. Mr. Cohen provided a copy of a check, signed by the president, reimbursing him for the illegal payoff. “I am going to jail in part because of my decision to help Mr. Trump hide that payment from the American people before they voted a few days later,” Mr. Cohen said. “He knew about everything.”

Mr. Cohen also insisted that Mr. Trump got advance notice in July 2016 from GOP trickster Roger Stone that WikiLeaks was planning to publish documents damaging to Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. If true, this means Mr. Trump lied to the country when he denied ever speaking with Mr. Stone, who is now under indictment, about WikiLeaks.

Mr. Cohen offered a similar account of the president’s dishonesty on the question of whether Mr. Trump pursued a Trump Tower in Moscow during the campaign. “Mr. Trump knew of and directed the Trump Moscow negotiations throughout the campaign and lied about it,” Mr. Cohen said. He stipulated that Mr. Trump did not order him to lie to Congress about the matter, as Mr. Cohen did, but explained that he “made clear to me, through his personal statements to me that we both knew were false and through his lies to the country, that he wanted me to lie.”

Even if any of this was true, the only thing that would be even reasonably close to a criminal violation is the Stormy Daniel payoff, but, there’s zero proof that the payoff happened the way Liar Cohen stated, nor is there any proof that any of the other things happened the way he said. Which wouldn’t be illegal anyhow. Remember, the WP was protecting Hillary, who actually did violate numerous federal laws, including ones ones on national security, in the straight news, the op-eds, and the editorials.

Mr. Cohen also offered a dishearteningly believable account of Mr. Trump’s character. Calling the president “a racist,” “a con man” and “a cheat,” Mr. Cohen recounted that “while we were once driving through a struggling neighborhood in Chicago, he commented that only black people could live that way. And he told me that black people would never vote for him because they were too stupid.”

The WP also believed what Jussie Smollett was claiming.

Rather than ignore Mr. Cohen’s allegations, House Republicans might have taken his warning, learned over a decade carrying water for the president: “The more people that follow Mr. Trump, as I did blindly, are going to suffer the same consequences that I’m suffering.”

Orange Man Bad! I wonder if the WP will ask about the collusion where Cohen spent time talking to Democrats to get his testimony correct

That would be collusion and witness tampering. Of course, if we’re to believe Cohen on those things, then what about him saying he’d never been to Prague, or even Czechoslovakia, which would drive a stake into the heart of collusiondrive a stake into the heart of collusion

Michael Cohen denied he’s ever visited Prague and the Czech Republic despite an explosive claim made in the infamous Russia dossier.

The dossier contains allegations against several of Trump’s campaign officials and associates of having secret contacts with Russians during the campaign. The dossier also claims Cohen secretly met Russian officials in Prague to coordinate Kremlin interference in the election and do damage control if the alleged collusion was exposed or if Clinton won.

Huh.

So, what was the point of the hearing? An attempt to embarrass Trump? Why would they think Trump would care? Why would they think anyone other than political junkies would be interested in this? Further, most know who Trump is. They don’t care. They care that he’s getting things done and trying to get things done that can make their lives better and hold off the creeping Modern Socialism of the Democratic Party.

Read: Washington Post: Cohen Hearings Were Explosive Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Launch Single Payer Push, Want To Eliminate All Private Insurance

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 3:20 pm

Forget “if you like your plan you can keep your plan”, this is “Government will provide whether you like it or not”

107 Democrats to Launch ‘Medicare for All’ Bill; Eliminates Private Health Insurance; No Funding Plan

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) and 106 other Democrats will launch a “Medicare for All” bill on Wednesday that will shift every American to government health insurance and eliminate private insurance — with no funding plan.

Politico reported Tuesday:

The bill, co-sponsored by 107 House Democrats, doesn’t include a price tag or specific proposals for financing the new system, which analysts estimate would cost tens of trillions of dollars over a decade.

The proposal calls for a two-year transformation of Medicare into a universal single-payer system, eliminating nearly all private health plans. It would also expand Medicare coverage to include prescription drugs, dental and vision services, and long-term care, without charging co-pays, premiums or deductibles — and would provide federal funding for abortions. It would also potentially pave a path for a future Democratic administration to extend coverage to undocumented immigrants.

A few states have tried similar proposals, with no success. Vermont, the home state of socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders — who is running on a “Medicare for All” platform for president again — abandoned a similar single-payer health care plan several years ago: “[W]hen you just see the price tag, it’s very shocking,” one expert told NPR.

Also, remember that the cost for California to do this was two to three times their annual budget for everything. How much would it cost for well over 325 million Americans? How would the federal government run something this big? Democrats will say “well, hey, look at Canada and the U.K., they’re able to do it!!!!” Yes, they do, and often not very well. And their populations are 37 million and 66 million, respectively. And they both allow private health insurance.

So, Dems can call it Medicare for All, but, it is plainly Government Run health insurance.

Read: Democrats Launch Single Payer Push, Want To Eliminate All Private Insurance »

Posted in Democrats, Healthcare | 35 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible air conditioning unit that is bad for ‘climate change’, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on common sense cookie control.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Woman Who Assaulted Man Wearing MAGA Hat Faces Deportation

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 10:30 am

Pro-tip: if you’re going to assault someone, especially as it’s being video’d, it’s probably a good idea if you aren’t already a criminal

Mass. woman charged with assaulting man in ‘MAGA’ hat now faces deportation

A Brazilian woman who made headlines this week after she was charged with assaulting a man wearing a “Make America Great Again” hat inside a Massachusetts restaurant has been taken into ICE custody, officials said Tuesday.

Rosiane Santos, 41, was charged this month with disorderly conduct and assault and battery after police said she admitted to attacking a man because he supported President Trump.

Video submitted by 23-year-old Bryton Turner showed Ms. Santos yelling at him and knocking the red, “Make America Great Again” hat off his head at the Casa Vallarta restaurant in Falmouth. Ms. Santos told local media at the time that she was the victim in the situation, even though a bartender at the restaurant said Mr. Turner did nothing to provoke the alleged attack.

On Tuesday, ICE officials took Ms. Santos into custody after determining that she was in the country illegally.

“Deportation officers with ICE’s Fugitive Operations Team arrested Rosiane Santos, an unlawfully present citizen of Brazil, today near Falmouth, Massachusetts,” said ICE spokesman John Mohan, a local CBS affiliate reported. “Santos is currently facing local charges for assault and other offenses. She is presently in ICE custody and has been entered into removal proceedings before the federal immigration courts.”

Read: Bummer: Woman Who Assaulted Man Wearing MAGA Hat Faces Deportation »

Posted in Current Affairs, Illegal Immigration | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Really, Really, Really Do Not Want To Vote On The Green New Deal

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 7:31 am

Many Senate Democrats have gone on the record in support of the Green New Disaster, er, Deal, especially those who are running for president. Some others have said they were not in favor of it, such as Dianne Feinstein. None of them want to actually go on the record in doing their actual job, namely, voting

Dead On Arrival: Democrats Won’t Back ‘Green New Deal’ In ‘Sham’ Vote

If Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) calls a vote on the “Green New Deal,” it looks likely that many — or even all — Senate Democrats would vote “present” to avoid a public intraparty fight, said activists, lawmakers and congressional aides.

The environmental group behind the climate resolution is not planning to punish Democratic lawmakers for doing so — a departure from the Sunrise Movement’s recent history of attacking both Democrats and Republicans who question the “Green New Deal,” a massive government-led jobs program.

“This vote is a sham,” said Evan Weber, co-founder and political director of the Sunrise Movement. “Mitch McConnell obviously doesn’t support [the “Green New Deal”] so he’s trying to put [the vote] forward as a political ploy.”

Because of that motivation, Weber said he would be fine with Senate Democrats simply voting “present” on the resolution — as most of them did in July 2017 when Senate Republicans tried to split the Democratic caucus by holding a vote on “Medicare for All,” a similar hot-button issue on the left.

“I think it’s perfectly reasonable and respectful for Senate Democrats to call it out for what it is, and if voting present is how they want to do that, by all means go for it,” Weber said.

Well, of course it’s a stunt, just like with the Medicare for All, and, heck, in the wayback one calling for pulling all troops out of Iraq due to Dems stated opposition. The GND isn’t even a bill, though: it’s a resolution, so, voting for it wouldn’t mean anything would be enacted. If Democrats believe in this stuff, why wouldn’t they vote yay or nay on it, rather than present? They really do not like to be called out for their bullshit.

And then there’s this

Read: Democrats Really, Really, Really Do Not Want To Vote On The Green New Deal »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrat Run House Set To Vote On Firearms Bills That Mostly Won’t Make A Difference

By William Teach February 27, 2019 – 7:21 am

This doesn’t seem that bad, right?

House slated to vote on most significant gun control bill in years

The House is slated to vote Wednesday on landmark legislation to require universal background checks for gun sales, a top priority for Democrats.

It will mark the most significant gun control vote in years after the Senate failed in 2013 to pass similar bipartisan legislation to expand the federal background check system.

It’s not the only day this week the House will take up legislation to address gun violence.

House Democrats plan to follow Wednesday’s vote with another on Thursday for a bill to lengthen the review period for background checks, which is meant as a response to the 2015 shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, S.C. (snip)

The universal background checks measure would require background checks to cover sales made at gun shows and over the internet. Current law only mandates federally licensed firearms dealers to conduct background checks before making a gun sale.

The universal background checks measure, authored by Reps. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) and Pete King (R-N.Y.), is titled the Bipartisan Background Checks Act.

But it’s not expected to attract more than a handful of House GOP votes beyond the five who have co-sponsored the bill: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Brian Mast (Fla.), Fred Upton (Mich.), Chris Smith (N.J.) and King.

The waiting periods one would mandate a 10 day waiting period, which would give Los Federales more time to perform the background check, then another 10 days if the check hasn’t been completed. This changes from the current federal three days, in which they sometimes fail to get it done, which means it is approved. As for background checks, there are a few squishy Republicans, like the above.

But House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who was nearly killed in 2017 after a man targeting GOP lawmakers opened fire on a congressional baseball practice, is on the opposite side of the debate. He doesn’t think the legislation would have necessarily prevented recent mass shootings. The man who shot him, for example, had obtained his firearms legally.

“If you look at the bill, it wouldn’t have stopped many of these mass shootings. What it would do is make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights,” Scalise told The Hill on Tuesday.

Which is exactly the point of these bills, and the more to come.

Thompson dismissed criticism that his legislation wouldn’t have prevented recent mass shootings, arguing that shouldn’t be a reason to reject expanding background checks.

“As far as anybody who says, ‘Well, this bill wouldn’t have solved this incident’? The only thing that will solve every one is to do away with guns,” Thompson said Tuesday.

So, it won’t actually solve the issues they’re claiming it will solve? Huh. Just look at California, which already requires these background checks, yet, has lots of shootings.

(Daily Caller) “They’re bills that [Democrats are] putting on the floor under the guise of saying that they’re going to address issues related to gun violence — neither one of these bills would have done anything to stop some of the tragedies that we have seen,” Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney told a crowd, referring to the Bipartisan Background Checks Act (HR 8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act (HR 1112).

The House is expected to vote on HR 8 and HR 1112 by Friday, which would require a background check for nearly every firearm purchase and a 10-day waiting period for firearm sales, respectively. While neither bill specifically calls for a national gun registry, GOP lawmakers argue neither could be enforced without a federal database in place. (snip)

Republican Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz further criticized Democrats for trying to impose anti-gun legislation that “fails to protect vulnerable people” while simultaneously voting against GOP-sponsored, “common sense” measures like notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when an illegal immigrant fails a background check.

“This isn’t really about public safety,” Gaetz said. “It’s about blood lust that Democrats have to take away guns from law-abiding citizens.”

You really can’t do it without a registry, and the same people want to protect illegal aliens who attempt to buy a firearm through legal channels (which very few actually do). Very little of this, nor their upcoming bills, targets actual bad people, just the law abiding firearms owners.

Read: Democrat Run House Set To Vote On Firearms Bills That Mostly Won’t Make A Difference »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove