Open Borders Advocates Pitch “Food Insecurity” As Means For Asylum

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 10:30 am

The open borders advocates are always finding some reason to let people who show up at our border in. Strangely, they never offer to house and feed these people at their own homes

Food insecurity is a legitimate basis for seeking asylum

In debates about whether to give asylum to the thousands of migrants at the southern border of the U.S., one crucial issue has been blatantly overlooked: food insecurity.

Imagine you and your children have been chronically hungry for days, weeks or possibly months. You have no resources to purchase food. Your government does not distribute food aid. For a variety of reasons, you’re no longer able to meet your family’s nutritional needs. Meanwhile, you’re barely able to register your children’s suffering because you’ve given them every last morsel, forsaking your own needs in the process.

What would you do to stop your family from starving?

Food insecurity is a form of violence which stems from an uneven distribution of resources both across and within societies. When asylum-seekers talk about violence in their home countries, they’ve often experienced food-specific violence, such as gangs giving or withholding food as collateral or punishment, or paramilitary groups setting fire to crops. These are explicit threats to human life. (snip)

If you’re wondering why more asylum-seekers do not explicitly name these experiences of chronic food insecurity or hunger when coming into contact with immigration officials or the media, you only need to understand the power of shame in silencing certain narratives.

The ability to feed oneself and others within a household or family indexes biological, moral and social obligations. We feel shame in failing to feed those to whom are obligated. Obstructions to feeding can have significantly uneven consequences for men and women.

It’s an interesting argument, but it misses one important point: it’s not our problem. The United States should be taking care of our own first. It’s not our job to support the billions of people who have problems growing and/or obtaining food, often because the government of that country is terrible (see Venezuela for the most current issue). And this is just an excuse to let in millions and millions of people who will be immediately 100% dependent on the U.S. government, taking taxpayer money and funneling it to non-Americans.

Why don’t people like writer Megan A Carney start using their own money to provide aid? There are more than enough open borders advocates amongst the Democratic Party to do this. They can enlist their rich Hollywood friends. Seriously, they don’t really need all those millions they get paid to make movies and tv shows, right? Pony up.

One commentor makes a good point (before going a bit too far)

If you show up to my door and you’re starving, I’ll give you a meal. If you continue coming to my door everyday for 40 years telling me you’re starving, I’ll give you a a 50 ft head start before I shoot. Enough is…… enough

And another

And the photo? A guy in a tank top who looks like he works out. Another guy with cool sunglasses on his backward turned baseball cap. Another guy with a smartphone laughing and taking pictures. Maybe they don’t have food because they are paying for gym memberships, fashion, and phones. But no matter, they are starving and only America can save them.

The photo in this post is from the article. Further, the U.S. sends lots and lots of food aid to countries around the world. We send experts and expertise on how to better increase crop yields and other agricultural assistance. It’s not our job to take in everyone who claims an issue. Especially when they come here Demanding.

Read: Open Borders Advocates Pitch “Food Insecurity” As Means For Asylum »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Disses Green New Deal, Offers Their Own Silly Plan

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 7:52 am

When will the Washington Post give up it’s own use of fossil fuels? If the Editorial Board is giving the opinion of the company, then they should lead, right?

The Democrats’ Green New Deal isn’t right. Here’s a better one.

WE FAVOR a Green New Deal to save the planet. We believe such a plan can be efficient, effective, focused and achievable.

The Green New Deal proposed by congressional Democrats does not meet that test. Its proponents, led by Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), are right to call for ambition and bold action. They are right that the entire energy sector must be reshaped.

But the goal is so fundamental that policymakers should focus above all else on quickly and efficiently decarbonizing. They should not muddle this aspiration with other social policy, such as creating a federal jobs guarantee, no matter how desirable that policy might be.

And the goal is so monumental that the country cannot afford to waste dollars in its pursuit. If the market can redirect spending most efficiently, money should not be misallocated on vast new government spending or mandates.

In this series of editorials, we propose our own Green New Deal. It relies both on smart government intervention — and on transforming the relentless power of the market from an obstacle to a centerpiece of the solution.

In other words, the GND offered by AOC – let’s face it, she is the face of that turd of a resolution. Markey hasn’t talked about it much, and isn’t getting the press on it, so it’s all on SandyFromTheBronx – is a stupid plan, per the WPEB. They blast it further in the editorial, especially regarding the pie in the sky stuff and how it veers off into dealing with all the non-climate stuff while attempting to say all that non-climate stuff is necessary.

The opinion is a long one, and next delves into the explosion of natural gas usage, noting it is very much replacing coal, which is a good thing, leading to

Natural gas’s displacement of carbon-rich, toxic coal as the country’s top electric fuel source would have seemed a preposterous dream just a decade ago. It has come about with no government mandate and while saving consumers money. When the market demands an outcome, things change fast.

But, they aren’t happy with the market deeming anthropogenic climate change to be low hanging fruit, so

Putting the planet first requires accepting both insights. The government should insist on cutting emissions but, to the largest extent possible, decline to dictate how, instead setting incentives and standards that unleash public and private effort.

Funny how government force is always required, eh? Team Trump should release a Papers Of The USA rule, which deems that the use of fossil fuels and CO2 sucking trees to be national treasures, restricting them for usage for news outlets. Let’s see what the WPEB has to say then.

And, of course they want a carbon tax, the latest iteration where some people get rebates from the government to help out a bit from the massive cost of living increase caused by the govt carbon tax. Which makes citizens even more reliant on gov’t.

Then they discuss “filling in the gaps”, which is government forcing companies to do R&D and create products for “social value”. And

Similarly, a carbon price would encourage homeowners to invest in more efficient appliances or double-paned windows, but renters pay their own electricity bills yet have little say over such decisions. Because of this dynamic, even with a high carbon price, the country would get less investment in energy efficiency than it needs. The government must fill this efficiency gap. Federal standards for appliances and buildings could slash energy waste where price signals failed to do so. Government loan programs could also help low-income people finance money-saving investments.

In other words, Government will force you to spend money on your home, money you may not have. Remember when Democrats yammered about choice? I guess that only applies to killing the unborn (and now, apparently, the just born).

The government must also account for the fact that not all greenhouse-gas emissions come from burning the fuels that a carbon pricing program would reach — coal, oil and gas. How would the government charge farmers for the methane their cows emit or for the greenhouse gases released when they till their soil? How about emissions from cement, ammonia and steel production? The federal government would have to tailor programs to the agricultural and industrial sectors, which might include judicious use of incentives and mandates. Tying eligibility for the nation’s extensive farm subsidy system to environmental stewardship would be a place to start.

Finally, there is transportation, a sector that is deeply hooked on oil and dependent on government decision-making on infrastructure investment. Carbon pricing would deter unnecessary driving and spur the purchase of cleaner cars, but only government can ensure adequate mass transit options. Local governments could help with zoning laws to encourage people to live in denser, more walkable communities. The federal government should also press automakers to steadily improve fuel efficiency.

And farmers and those evil moo cows. And everything. This is pretty much the definition of an authoritarian government, as it is dictating policy for the economy and for our private lives. They want to force citizens to live in Approved Places.

It keeps going on and on, ending with

Good intentions will not solve the global warming crisis. Massive social reform will not protect the climate. Marshaling every dollar to its highest benefit is the strongest plan. Our Green New Deal would do that.

And a centralized government dictating how the economy works and how we live our lives? Nothing could go wrong there, right?

Read: Washington Post Disses Green New Deal, Offers Their Own Silly Plan »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Wonky Media | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Excitable Adam Schiff Seems Rather Agitated Over Coming Release Of Mueller Report

By William Teach February 25, 2019 – 7:26 am

Democrats have been banging the drum over the so-called collusion for years now, with one of the leaders being Rep Adam Schiff. Yet, they haven’t provided any proof themselves, and pretty much everyone busted by Mueller have been involved in process crimes, many because of the actual Russian collusion investigation. Meaning they wouldn’t be in trouble if this farce wasn’t going on. With the Mueller report set to be finalized, Dems are rather antsy that it won’t show what they think it should, so, they’re lashing out

Schiff warns against withholding Mueller report: ‘We are going to get to the bottom of this’

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sunday warned the Department of Justice against withholding special counsel Robert Mueller’s final report and threatened action if the report isn’t released.

Schiff, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” threatened to subpoena the report, bring Mueller in to testify before Congress and take the Trump administration to court if the findings aren’t made public.

“We are going to get to the bottom of this,” Schiff said. “We are going to share this information with the public. And if the president is serious about all his claims of exoneration, then he should welcome the publication of the report.”

Mueller is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. At the conclusion of the special counsel’s investigation, Mueller is required to submit a written report to the attorney general.

Attorney General William Barr, who was confirmed earlier this month, did not commit during his confirmation hearing to making Mueller’s final report public, however.

Schiff said Sunday that Barr will have a “tarnished legacy” if he tries to “bury” any part of the report.

If there were any true collusion it would have come out by now, instead of prosecuting people for old crimes. Someone would have leaked something.

Other Democrats are complaining, as well. Kamala Harris, Ed Markey, and Richard Blumenthall all received their talking points memos on the subject.As Twitchy notes

There seem to be quite a bit of preemptive threats coming from leading Democrats concerning Mueller.

Is there something they already know about his report?

Yeah, they know it will be a big nothing burger for Trump. But it will probably show the fecklessness of the Obama admin in taking the Russian threat seriously.

Read: Excitable Adam Schiff Seems Rather Agitated Over Coming Release Of Mueller Report »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 24, 2019 – 1:10 pm

…is a place that helps people lose weight because being overweight is bad for ‘climate change’ (but also don’t shame fatties), you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Right Scoop, with a post on Kamala not having a clue on how to pay for her policies.

It’s fit girls week! Wish I could get my hamstrings like that.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach February 24, 2019 – 9:25 am

Happy Sunday! Another gorgeous day in America! Some much needed rain, some warmth and sunshine coming later, and two squirrels chasing each other were really surprised I was standing there having a smoke. This pinup is by Peter Dribben, with a wee bit of help.

What’s happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Climatism notes the reality of sea level rise in Sydney
  2. JoNova covers Millennial never knowing Mao, Stalin, or Lenin
  3. Not A Lot Of People Know That covers fighting change being only for the plebes
  4. American Elephants notes the crisis in Venezuela continuing
  5. Chicks On The Right discusses Tucker Carlson and that sex worker
  6. Creeping Sharia notes the new job obtained by a guy who joined ISIS
  7. Datechguy’s Blog wonders why hoaxers hoax
  8. Geller Report covers an anti-Trump Muslim hoaxer being sentenced
  9. Jihad Watch discusses the ISIS bride who wants to come back to America
  10. Legal Insurrection notes another unhinged Trump hater arrested for attacking a Trump supporter
  11. Moonbattery notes Millennials are opting for plants instead of babies
  12. neo-neocon covers Leftists and reality
  13. Pacific Pundit covers AOC’s paying of staff issues
  14. Political Clown Parade notes that Hollywood still isn’t handling Hillary’s loss well
  15. And last, but not least, Powerline discusses the Amy Klobuchar experience

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Posted in Patriotic Pinup | 40 Comments | Trackback URL

The Green New Deal Is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare Or Something

By William Teach February 24, 2019 – 8:12 am

Here’s a NY Times op-ed the other dayday

So, massively expensive and taxes will skyrocket, along with the government taking away lots of choice and instituting massive controls on our lives.

Here’s the NY Times Editorial Board (featuring racist Sarah Jeong) today

The Green New Deal Is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare

It’s hard to believe, but worth recalling, that during the presidential debates in 2016, not a single question about climate change was put to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. That, of course, was before a plague of hurricanes, droughts and savage forest fires in California and around the world captured the public’s attention; before Mr. Trump brought renewed focus to the very issue he had dismissed as a hoax by fecklessly rolling back nearly every positive policy thing President Barack Obama had done to address it; before a series of frightening scientific reports appeared last year, warning that the window of opportunity to ward off the worst consequences of a warming globe was quickly closing.

It was also long before anyone had seen a nonbinding congressional resolution calling for something called the Green New Deal, an ambitious plan to tackle climate change (and a lot else, too) that earlier this month burst like a shooting star upon the Washington political and legislative scene. The resolution — introduced by Ed Markey, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a newly elected Democratic representative whose district covers parts of the Bronx and Queens — calls for a “10-year national mobilization”through giant investments in infrastructure and carbon-free energy. It has since won the full or partial allegiance of a half-dozen Democratic presidential hopefuls who pray that town hall participants or debate moderators will ask them what they think about global warming. Which in turn means that, whatever becomes of the plan, it will have moved climate change — a serious issue that has had serious trouble gaining traction — to a commanding position in the national conversation. That alone is reason to applaud it.

So, it’s a horrible, horrible piece of legislation, which, if you remember, isn’t a bill but a resolution, but, hey, it starts the National Conversation. I don’t think the Conversation is going the way the NYTEB thinks it is. Remember, Democrats were very upset that Mitch McConnell was going to bring it up for a vote in the Senate.

As far as Democrats wanting to be asked what they think of ‘climate change’, heck, I want candidates to be asked questions, as the answers will show what they really want, which is more taxes and fees, a skyrocketing cost of living, and to take more power and restrict citizen’s freedom.

In name and concept, the plan is not new. The term Green New Deal appeared in a column in The Times by Thomas Friedman in January 2007, in which he called for a vast public and private investment program that would throw everything under the sun (including, actually, the sun itself) — wind, solar, nuclear power, energy efficiency, advanced research, tax incentives and a price on carbon — into a massive effort to build a more climate-friendly energy system while also revitalizing the American economy.

The GND does away with nuclear. It actually doesn’t discuss carbon taxes that much, but, then, everyone would be paying a lot more in taxes. Except for all those put out of work due to the skyrocketing cost of doing business. And supporting those who do not want to work.

The NYTEB next attempts to Blame AOC’s staff for releasing the plan with the cow farts, getting rid of air travel, and people people who do not want to work, saying it wasn’t the real plan, when we know it was. That the big idea is to decarbonize the economy (when will the NY Times stop using fossil fuels and make their operations carbon neutral, as well as making their employees do the same in their private lives?). And, of course, some Trump Derangement Syndrome (“the nation must endure Mr. Trump’s boneheaded policies”). They mostly ignore how expensive this would be, how much taxes and fees would go up, how much the cost of living would go up, and how much freedom citizens would lose

Whether such measures will satisfy the activists who have gathered around Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is another matter. After all, her talking points, as well as the resolution itself, speak also of providing higher education for all Americans; universal health care; affordable housing; remedies for “systemic injustices” among the poor, the elderly and people of color; and a federal job guarantee insuring “a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security.”

In other words, despite the flowing rhetoric designed to make it appear super mega awesome, the Central Government will be in all of our private business, clear violations of our privacy and the 10th Amendment. Call it what you want, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, Progressivism, etc (I like Modern Socialism), the government will own you, and you won’t have a choice. I wonder what the NYTEB will think when the Central Government is dictating how the Times operates?

Read literally, the resolution wants not only to achieve a carbon-neutral energy system but also to transform the economy itself. As Mr. Markey can tell you from past experience, the first goal is going to be hard enough. Tackling climate change in a big way is in itself likely to be transformative. We should get on with it.

Change it to what, exactly? Funny they forget that part. But, yes, let’s have the conversation. Most who advocate this climaidiocy never have to defend it. It’s high to to stick a stake in the heart of the Cult of Climastrology by making politicians explain just what their policies would do.

BTW, there’s not one shred of evidence provided that shows that mankind is responsible for any climatic changes.

Read: The Green New Deal Is Better Than Our Climate Nightmare Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming, Wonky Media | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Is The Culprit Behind Trump’s Border Emergency Or Something

By William Teach February 23, 2019 – 3:18 pm

Obviously, no one ever snuck into other countries, or just moved, before the so-called man-caused climate emergency. This is also yet another case of activism by the Credentialed Media, being as this is in the straight news, not opinion as it should be

The Real Culprit Behind Trump’s Border Emergency? Climate Change

President Donald Trump is expected to convene a new panel that will likely undermine the expert consensus that climate change threatens national security.

But experts say that move is at odds with his recent declaration of a national emergency at the U.S. border, where thousands of the Central American migrants have arrived after fleeing the effects of climate change.

“Yeah, they’re economic migrants, but they’re really climate refugees,” says Robert Albro, a researcher American University who has studied the effects of climate change in Latin America. But “the politics around this is so toxic that it’s unlikely to have any kind of productive forward motion in the foreseeable future.”

We can solve this with a tax, though, right?

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Is The Culprit Behind Trump’s Border Emergency Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach February 23, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat induced snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Other McCain, with a post on the Bible being considered “hate speech”.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Snowflakes Want John Wayne’s Name Taken Off Airport Over 1971 Interview

By William Teach February 23, 2019 – 10:59 am

This is seriously where the Perpetually Offended Left is going. There was already a freakout over the 1971 interview, and now Michael Hiltzik is melting down in the LA Times

It’s time to take John Wayne’s name off the Orange County airport

Most people familiar with the life story of John Wayne are aware that the late movie star was a dyed-in-the-wool right-winger — after all, he was still making a movie glorifying America’s conduct of the Vietnam War (“The Green Berets,” 1968) well after the country had begun to get sick of the conflict.

But the resurrection of a 1971 interview Wayne gave to Playboy magazine has underscored the sheer crudeness of the actor’s feelings about gay people, black people, Native Americans, young people and liberals.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s impossible or immoral to enjoy Westerns and war movies starring John Wayne; that’s a personal choice. But it certainly undermines any justification for his name and image to adorn a civic facility. (snip)

Wayne’s May 1971 Playboy interview has been unearthed before, notably in 2016 when his daughter Aissa endorsed Donald Trump for president. But it may well resonate more today, when iconic representations tied to racism, such as statues of Confederate war heroes, are being evicted from public spaces.

So, this is really all about Trump Derangement Syndrome, to pair with the utter intolerance of thought.

So let’s take a gander at some of John Wayne’s opinions, circa 1971. A typescript of the Playboy interview, which I link to here, has been circulating widely and is the source of the quotes, but I validated it against facsimile pages from the original Playboy edition. Magazine writer Richard Warren Lewis conducted the interview at Wayne’s home in Newport Beach.

Now, you can go read the material, but, remember, this was 1971. Heck, I was 4 at the time. It was a very different time, and mainstream thoughts were much different. One where they weren’t attempting to get rid of men being men.

Interestingly, no one from the Left is calling for the removal of Robert “KKK” Byrd’s name from the dozens of things that bear his name.

Read: Snowflakes Want John Wayne’s Name Taken Off Airport Over 1971 Interview »

Posted in Special Snowflake Syndrome | 38 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag On How Costly The Green New Deal Would Be

By William Teach February 23, 2019 – 7:17 am

As Senator Dianne Feinstein was throwing shadethrowing shade at a bunch of school kids telling her we need the GND (and certainly put up to this by their teachers and parents. Dianne should have asked the kids to explain the deal), the NY Times was throwing cold water on the deal

From the link

President Trump derided the Green New Deal as a “high school term paper that got a low mark.” Congressional Republicans mocked it as “zany.” Even Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic House speaker, called the proposal a “green dream,” and some of the party’s 2020 candidates are starting to describe it as merely aspirational.

Yet, despite that disdain, the goals of the far-reaching plan to tackle climate change and economic inequality are within the realm of technological possibility, several energy experts and economists said in recent interviews.

Getting there will cost trillions of dollars, most agreed, and require expansive new taxes and federal programs. It certainly could not be accomplished within the 10-year time frame that supporters say is necessary, according to these experts.

The Green New Deal, in other words, is an exciting idea for many liberals and an enticing political target for conservatives. But, most of all, it is an extraordinarily complicated series of trade-offs that could be realized, experts say, with extensive sacrifices that people are only starting to understand. (snip)

Replacing [fossil fuels] with sources that do not emit greenhouse gasses will cost trillions of dollars; potentially increase energy costs for millions of families; and entail federal intervention in swaths of the economy, like transportation, where there is already a mixed record of government success. Republican critics gleefully noted last week that California’s Democratic governor scaled back a state-owned bullet train linking San Francisco and Los Angeles because of costs. (snip)

The plan does not include a cost estimate, though it presumably would require massive new government spending and disrupt existing jobs and industries.

So, unsustainable levels of spending, which will necessitate an enormous increase in taxes, coupled with a massive increase in the size of Government, with citizens losing huge amounts of liberty, not too mention the government taking over huge amounts of the economy. Which would cause massive economic trouble, including job losses, which will supposedly be replaced by new jobs. Or the whole “government will pay you if you don’t want to work thing.”

But environmental activists said the details and hurdles are less important than the broad ambition of the plan, which proposes a national mobilization with the scale and urgency of the original New Deal.

Wishful thinking is not a plan. You may be able to get away with not having a plan when you go shopping, but having nothing more that some feelings for the GND, which would be incredibly more intrusive than Obamacare is a recipe for a disaster. Well, it’s a recipe even before you get to thinking about “how will they do this?”

Read: NY Times Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag On How Costly The Green New Deal Would Be »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 13 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove