NY Times Blames Trump For Illegals Storming The Border Or Something

By William Teach January 8, 2019 – 7:51 am

Throughout Donald Trump’s campaign, both the primaries and the general election, he talked about building a wall and stopping illegal aliens from entering the U.S. He told them not to come. After he won election and took office he did the same. Yet, somehow, he’s at fault for all the illegal aliens coming to the U.S. according to the Editorial Board featuring racist Sarah Jeong

Bordline Insanity
President Trump rained cruelties on immigrants and asylum seekers and now wants hundreds of millions of dollars to address the humanitarian crisis he caused.

Immigrants applies to coming legally. Which most did not. Most do not qualify for asylum even under the relaxed rule. This is where the biased news tag applies

As the government shutdown over President Trump’s demand for border-wall funding moves through week three, the administration is looking to cut a deal with Democrats by emphasizing the deepening humanitarian crisis at the border — a crisis caused in large part by this administration’s inhumane policies, political grandstanding and managerial incompetence.

In a letter Sunday to lawmakers, the White House laid out its latest proposal for addressing the border tumult. The administration called for more immigration and Border Patrol agents, more detention beds and, of course, $5.7 billion to build 234 new miles of border wall. The White House also demanded an additional $800 million for “urgent humanitarian needs,” such as medical support, transportation and temporary facilities for processing and housing detainees.

Translation: Mr. Trump’s mass incarceration of migrant families is overwhelming an already burdened system that, without a giant injection of taxpayer dollars, will continue to collapse, leading to ever more human suffering.

The situation is an especially rich example of the Trump Doctrine: Break something, then demand credit — and in this case a lot of money — for promising to fix it.

Translation: Trump is just supposed to allow every person who shows up at the border to cross in to the country and just let them go on their way.

Open borders.

That’s what the NYTEB is saying. What else is Trump supposed to do? He not only didn’t invite these people to show up, he told them not to. He specifically told the migrant caravans to not come. For those who do make it, the choice is to detain till a hearing or to release them, and the rate of people who show up for their hearing is low. Trump is having to respond to a crisis created by the open borders lobby, which has been protecting illegal aliens for decades and have all but offered an invitation to just come to the U.S. Many were helping the migrant caravans.

So, again, what does the NYTEB suggest we do with all these uninvited illegals? They do not say. But, the only other choice is to let them go vs detaining them. And, then, a couple years from now, Democrats will want to protect those illegals when caught and going through the deportation system, and want to reward them with citizenship, which entices more to come illegally.

Read: NY Times Blames Trump For Illegals Storming The Border Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration, Liberal World, Wonky Media | 20 Comments | Trackback URL

Youth Worried Won’t See More Birthdays From Coming Climate Apocalypse

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 9:37 pm

Is it any wonder we see all sorts of articles about ‘climate change’ causing mental health issues? It’s pretty much from people being force fed constant articles about coming doom

Letter: Marylanders in Congress must support climate change initiatives

I just turned 15. How many more birthdays will I be able to celebrate before the Armageddon of climate change occurs?

We have less than 12 years to avert irreversible crisis. Our constitutional rights are being violated, fossil fuels are continuing to be subsidized, climate disasters are occurring all around us, we are suing our government for their failure on climate. (snip)

This month 1,000 activists from the Sunrise movement, a youth organization of young climate activists across the country, sat in at multiple congressional offices to demand a Green New Deal as the top priority for the next Congress. More than 20 members of Congress are already on board with this solution.

Come on, Maryland, we can do so much better! We need all eight Maryland House members to sign on to the resolution. Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin has already signed on. If all the other house members claim to care about climate change, then please sign on.

I may not know much about how the government works, but our government should be working for all of us, including young people. Climate change isn’t just an “environmental problem.” Climate change is also a health and education problem. An economic and equality problem. And a community, social justice, and global problem.

Read: Youth Worried Won’t See More Birthdays From Coming Climate Apocalypse »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees dying from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on race baiters calling the wall white nationalism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 10:45 am

Remember, though, that his has nothing to do with politics, you guys

From the link

At this past February’s “Alternative Models of Ownership Conference” hosted by the Labour Party in London, party leader Jeremy Corbyn asserted the centrality of energy policy to his vision of socialism: “The challenge of climate change requires us to radically shift the way we organize our economy.” He outlined a radical vision of an energy system powered by wind and solar, organized as a decentralized grid, democratically controlled by the communities that rely on it, and — crucially — publicly owned.

Corbyn’s declaration laid out an exciting and ambitious vision of how socialists can press on climate change. But it also served as a reminder that socialists need to get serious about the politics of energy — lest disaster capitalism continue to shape energy policy. We must get involved in concrete campaigns to transform how energy is governed and push for a just transition to renewable sources. The terrain of energy politics is multifaceted, comprising the production, transformation, distribution, and consumption of energy. Energy sources such as coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, sunlight, and wind each entail distinct social and environmental costs related to their extraction or capture, and their subsequent transformation into usable electricity. ….

In this terrain, there are several points of entry for eco-socialist politics. Broadly, our energy vision should center on the three D’s: decarbonize, democratize, and decommodify. Decarbonizing energy sources requires massive political confrontation with the fossil-fuel industry — a movement currently being led by the frontline communities most impacted by fossil-fuel extraction and its transformation — combined with federal and state-level policies that punish carbon emissions and a regulatory framework that encourages transition to renewable sources. Meanwhile, democratization and decommodification — the collective control of energy distribution that treats energy access as a human right rather than an opportunity for profit — are another point of entry. To achieve these ends, socialists must politicize the grid, and propose alternative visions of ownership and decision-making. In the United States, over two-thirds of electricity users are served by for-profit utilities. These private monopolies are often overseen by state-level energy commissions that are ripe for regulatory capture by Big Energy and the fossil-fuel industry. Even where utilities are publicly owned, technocratic governance structures provide limited fora for public input, let alone real democratic control. Building a bridge toward a socialist energy future requires a vision of a system that removes the profit motive from the delivery of utilities services and establishes energy as a universal human right alongside other basic human needs.

Woof! That’s quite a lot to consider, but, it really does come down to a simple concept, which is nationalizing the grid, ie, all energy

As we continue developing our plan to #NationalizeGrid here in Rhode Island, throughout the country, and beyond, we must balance the three pillars of democratization, decarbonization, and decommodification with one another to ensure that each is structurally supported by, and complementary to, the other. This means no public takeover without an understanding of utilities as a basic human right that requires a full transition to renewables. It means understanding that affordability may only be achieved once we have transitioned to a sustainable grid that is democratically owned and managed by the public. And it means the transition to renewables will only satisfy our requirements if that transition is both public and affordable for everyone.

In the Democracy model, Socialism stands for three things, what are called cores: 1st, the notion that the government is going to be heavily involved in the means of production, the economy, right up to owning and controlling sectors. Nationalizing. This is the primary focus of Socialism. The other two cores in the Democracy model, to go with the Economic core, are Moral and Political. The Socialist model features the government staying the hell out of our private affairs in the Moral, and virtually no restrictions on voting in the Political. That’s not what these “socialists” want, though. In the Moral, they want government involved in our lives, and, really, if they control your energy they control you. They’re taking away your choices. In the Political, would they accept people voting against nationalizing the grid? Or would they sue when they lost at the ballot box? The latter, of course.

I’ve stated again and again, as have others, that that this whole thing is a far left political schtick, and has little to do with the economy. How well did the Soviet Union and other “socialist” countries do with actual environmental issues? Really, these people are really Fascists/Authoritarians, who want the government to control everything.

And they never seem to realize that the government will be controlling their own lives, that the bad parts will actually effect themselves.

Read: We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Global Warming | Comments Off on We Need Eco-Socialism To Confront ‘Climate Change’ Or Something | Trackback URL

Washington Post: Congress Must Insist On Justice For Officer Ronil Singh

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 7:09 am

Oh, wait, no, the WP Editorial Board aren’t worried about that, they’re worried about a Muslim Brotherhood defending, Islamist reporter

Saudi Arabia’s trial for Khashoggi’s murder is a travesty. Congress must insist on justice.

IT MIGHT not have been a coincidence that as the new Congress convened Thursday, Saudi Arabia announced the opening of a trial of 11 people charged in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. After all, the U.S. Senate so far has come closest to imposing meaningful consequences on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who the CIA believes oversaw the 15-member hit team that awaited Mr. Khashoggi when he entered the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul on Oct. 2, 2018. In December, the outgoing Senate unanimously approved a resolution holding the crown prince responsible for the killing, in spite of his denials and President Trump’s attempts to cover for him. Senators also invoked provisions of a human rights law that will require the administration to issue a finding about Mohammed bin Salman’s responsibility in the coming months.

If the Saudi action was meant to head off further congressional action, it was pathetically weak. The government press agency reported that an initial court hearing had been held and that a state prosecutor planned to seek the death penalty for five of those charged. But the court hearing was not public, and none of the suspects was named. By all indications, not just the crown prince but also other senior officials whom Saudi authorities have previously accused of involvement in the murder have not been charged. Instead, a small group of security personnel, who undoubtedly followed orders when they participated in the attack, are being set up as scapegoats. Those to whom the death penalty is applied will be beheaded, in keeping with the kingdom’s barbarity.

While the murder was terrible, it had little to do with the U.S. other than that Khashoggi did some work for the Washington Post. Yet, the Post, like most other leftist media outlets, isn’t particularly concerned over the recent murder off police officer Ronil Singh by a previously deported illegal alien, who was being helped by six other illegal aliens. This was a direct result of the policies of Democrats, including California’s sanctuary city and state policies

Outgoing California Gov. Jerry Brown said the death of police officer Ronil Singh has “nothing” to do with the state’s “sanctuary” status.

Singh, a 33-year-old Newman police corporal, was allegedly killed by an illegal immigrant when Singh stopped him on the suspicion of drunk driving early in the morning on Dec. 26. After a two-day manhunt, Mexican national Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 32, was arrested as he was preparing to flee to Mexico, according to authorities. He has been charged with murder.

Brown was asked by ABC-affiliate KXTV whether California’s sanctuary law was at fault. “I think people now are looking to blame somebody because of the terrible things that happened,” the Democrat told the outlet, adding, “but it had nothing to do with the law of California.”

Brown signed a “sanctuary state” bill in 2017 that limits law enforcement officers’ cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

In this case, the law had everything to do with the murder, as law enforcement wouldn’t have been restricted from taking 5 minutes to pick up a phone or sending an email to ICE to come pick Arriaga up. Yes, many illegal aliens commit crimes that have little to do with sanctuary jurisdiction policies, as the illegal hadn’t been caught and released previously. In this case, the blood lies on the hands of Brown and the Democrats who passed the law, and for law enforcement for refusing to do the right thing and contact ICE about someone who is illegally present in the U.S.

So when will the Post demand justice for Singh? When will they demand that Congress take action to make sure things like this won’t happen again? Take action against a state that is blatantly flaunting federal law? Take action against a state that is providing aid and comfort for criminals?

Read: Washington Post: Congress Must Insist On Justice For Officer Ronil Singh »

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

Nancy Pelosi Is Super Excited To Force Presidents To Release Their Tax Returns

By William Teach January 7, 2019 – 6:50 am

This is purely over Trump Derangement Syndrome, as he refused to release his tax returns, which are pretty much no one else’s business and not required by the Constitution

Pelosi Introduces Bill to Force Presidents—But Not Members of Congress—to Release Their Tax Returns

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced legislation on Friday that would require the president and vice president and candidates for the presidency and vice presidency to release their tax returns.

The bill, however, would not require members of Congress or candidates for Congress to release their tax returns.

The provision is part of H.R. 1—the “For the People Act”—which Pelosi introduced Friday.

A summary of the bill says that it includes a section titled “Presidential Tax Transparency.” This section, says the summary: “Requires sitting presidents and vice presidents, as well as candidates for the presidency and vice presidency, to release their tax returns.”

In 2017, when members of Congress were calling on President Donald Trump to release his tax returns, Roll Call asked all 535 members of the House and Senateto release theirs. As Roll Call reported at the time, 6 members did release their tax returns as requested by the publication. Another 6 had already released theirs elsewhere. Another 45 members, Roll Call reported, had previously and partially released their tax returns. But 473 members had not released their tax returns and did not respond to Roll Call’s request that they do so.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi was one of the members, Roll Call reported, who had not released her tax returns.

Of course, if it manages to pass the House, it won’t pass the Senate, as there are plenty of poison pills that will cause Republicans to vote against it. Further, let’s say it did pass the Senate: Trump won’t sign it. Further, let’s say he did sign it or Congress was able to override the veto: the Supreme Court would kill it, as the Constitution is pretty darned specific as to the qualifications to be President, and you can’t just expand on that on a whim.

““It’s not a right to privacy that the President has,” Pelosi said. “He’s the president of the United States. There is a question about a Russian connection, politically, personally, financially, to the president; there’s concerns about recent actions by the Chinese government in relation to the Trump Organization.”

“There’s plenty reasons why we need this key to open the door to the information we need to connect the dots,” Pelosi said. “And if they have nothing to fear, then what are they afraid of.”

So, lots of Russia Russia Russia and wanting to go on a fishing expedition, demanding Trump give them his private documents using an old canard, forgetting that it’s up to the nutty Dems to prove that Trump did something wrong, not for Trump to prove that he didn’t.

Read: Nancy Pelosi Is Super Excited To Force Presidents To Release Their Tax Returns »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

The Triangle Needs Light Rail Because Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 6, 2019 – 4:18 pm

Here in the Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area) they’ve been pushing for light rail or some sort of a localized train for 20+ years. It tanked over 13 years ago due to the insanity of the cost vs how many people would actually ride it, the former being high and the latter being low. Further, the route plan was silly, and if people did take it to work, well, how were they actually going to get to work from the stations? It would leave a lot of people needing to take a long walk or drive to the station, then a long walk or a fossil fueled vehicle from the station to their place of employment. Again, the route makes no sense, and for most people it wouldn’t be available for their use in practicality. But, they won’t give up

Durham and Orange can’t afford to miss this train to the future

We stand on the brink of an opportunity that comes along only rarely in the life of any community—the opportunity to make a transformational change that will improve the lives of our residents for generations to come.

It has taken us 20 years to get here, and now we face a very stark choice. In the next 25 years, Durham alone will grow by 150,000 residents. The Triangle region will grow by 1,000,000 people. We will either begin to build our transit system now, or in 15 years we will be the largest metropolitan area in the nation without a rail system. Our quality of life will die as traffic crawls along our bumper-to-bumper streets and freeways.

In April, GoTriangle, our regional transportation agency, will submit an application for a $1.24 billion federal grant to build the Durham-Orange light rail line, which will form the first critical backbone of a regional rapid transit system.

All the indications are good that these funds will be available to us. We have strong support from Sens. Tillis and Burr as well as from Rep. Butterfield and Gov. Cooper. Crucially, Rep. David Price is the new chair of the House committee that oversees transportation appropriations, and he is an ardent champion of the project. This is our time.

If the routes made sense, if they would bring people where they need to go and be easy, like, say, the metro in D.C., it would be fine. Not that many people will ride this.

We will be fighting the highway gridlock that threatens our quality of life, and we will be doing the single most important thing we can do locally to fight climate change.

You know why so many do not take buses to work? Inconvenient and take too long. Know why people won’t take this train? Inconvenient and takes too long, and, will leave them off far from work. But, hey, now they can add Hotcoldwetdry into the mix.

Read: The Triangle Needs Light Rail Because Of ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 6, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a sky full of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is A View From The Beach, with a post noting that mowing your lawn and acting respectable is now raaaaacist.

It’s boots week!

Read: If All You See… »

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

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

By William Teach January 6, 2019 – 9:15 am

Happy Sunday! Another lovely day in the excellent nation of America. The Sun is shining, the birds are singing, and Democrats are barking at the moon. This pinup is by Greg Hildebrandt, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Climate Change Dispatch discusses the overblown and misleading issue of global warming
  2. Blazing Cat Fur notes how bad the ratings are for CNN
  3. Chicks On The Right covers the LA Times being fine with anti-Semites as long as they’re liberals
  4. Cold Fury discusses the British Army looking for snowflakes
  5. DC Clothesline notes that Trutherism is still alive, with a federal grand jury to hear “evidence” that 9/11 was a controlled demolition
  6. Doug Ross @ Journal covers CNN being upset over the latest jobs numbers
  7. Free North Carolina notes Hungary banning Gender Studies, as it’s not an academic study
  8. Geller Report covers more stabbings in Londonistan
  9. Hogewash has thoughts on women and STEM
  10. Legal Insurrection notes a Austrian woman charged with hitting the migrant who molested her
  11. Moonbattery digs into the cost for Medicare for all
  12. Pacific Pundit notes that the latest congress is first to feature a woman married to her brother
  13. Powerline covers Republicans pouncing!
  14. Raised On Hoecakes notes that the shutdown is because Democrats won’t discuss
  15. And last, but not least, The Last Refuge highlights the rebellion continuing in France

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 | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Democrats Prepare Rollout Of Universal Background Checks Bill

By William Teach January 6, 2019 – 8:04 am

And it is totally bipartisan, because there is one Republican co-sponsor!

House lawmakers prepare rollout of gun control proposal

House lawmakers are planning to roll out a measure on Tuesday that would require universal background checks for nearly all firearms purchases, as House Democrats attempt to make good on their pledge to address gun control with their new majority.

The proposal, headlined by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chairman Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), is a bipartisan measure, with Rep. Peter T. King (D-N.Y.) serving as the lead Republican co-sponsor. According to an aide familiar with the package, the existence of which was previously reported in Politico, it will seek to impose universal background checks for the purchase and transfer of firearms, with some exceptions for hunting and family, but will not address an assault weapons ban.

For years, Democrats and several Republicans have been calling for Congress to take steps to better regulate gun purchases and possession, pointing to a spate of recent fatal mass shootings such as the 2018 Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Fla., the 2017 massacre at an outdoor music festival in Las Vegas, the 2016 shooting at a nightclub in Orlando, and the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. and at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Former congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), herself a shooting victim from a 2011 assassination attempt, plans to be in Washington on Tuesday to help unveil the legislation.

“Americans have spoken,” she said on Twitter. “It’s time to address our gun violence epidemic, and this new Congress will not sit silent.”

As I’ve written many times before, I do not have any problem with requiring a background check on all gun transactions, including transfers between family members. In at least one previous post within the last year I’ve written that I think there should be a background check on every firearm purchase. If you just made one last month, you’re getting another check this month. Things can change which would cause someone to fail a check. To me, getting a background check doesn’t interfere with one’s Right to the 2nd Amendment.

But it remains unclear whether such legislation could clear procedural hurdles in the Senate, which remains under Republican control. The closest that the Senate has come to passing gun control legislation expanding background checks was in 2013, following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, when 56 senators rallied behind a measure — four votes shy of what they needed to clear procedural hurdles.

Last time, four Democrats voted against it. And, yes, the NRA did oppose it

The NRA released a statement immediately after the vote that said the measure would have “criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens.”

“As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools,” NRA executive director Chris Cox said in a statement.

On one hand, I’m going to disagree with the NRA, for which I’m a member, on criminalizing transfers between family members. Just because they’re family doesn’t mean they should have a firearm for various reasons. On the other hand, what we see is a lot of shooters having passed background checks then going on a rampage. So, how do they help? Uber-gun grabbing California already has this in place, yet, still sees shootings, including by people who passed a background check.

But, you have to wonder what kind of poison pill will be included in the upcoming legislation. You know it will be there. Something that Democrats have no problem voting for, but will stop the majority of Republicans. That way they can say “look, we tried, but those darned Republicans!” I guess we’ll see on Tuesday.

They would all be best served if they worked on legislation to revamp the backgrounds check system to make sure it works properly.

Read: Democrats Prepare Rollout Of Universal Background Checks Bill »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 16 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove