Open Borders Democrats Prefer Open Borders Instead Of Trading Border Security For A DACA Deal

By William Teach January 13, 2019 – 7:54 am

The Hill’s Rafael Bernard reports on a little measure that is going nowhere, but, it is very interesting to see why from the Democrat point of view

Dreamers-for-wall trade going nowhere in House

A deal to reopen the government by trading border wall funding for immigration benefits for so-called Dreamers doesn’t stand a chance in the House, according to legislators on both sides of the aisle.

House Democrats say they don’t trust President Trump to keep his end of any bargain, and are wary of negotiating a deal that could benefit those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program while throwing other undocumented immigrants under the bus.

Got that? They’ve been yammering about these Dreamers for a long time, caterwauling about helping them, yet, are unwilling to help these kids who were “brought to the U.S. through no fault of their own so they shouldn’t be punished” because it would mean implementing measures that would make it a lot more difficult for foreign nationals from crossing the border illegally. They would prefer open borders over helping the so-called Dreamers.

And, really, they wouldn’t even be giving Trump a wall

That bill would have granted a path to citizenship to Dreamers both within and outside DACA in exchange for technological and manpower investments in border security, but no wall construction.

The Hurd-Aguilar bill, which lacked the support of GOP leadership, never made it to the floor.

Aguilar ruled out even preliminary cross-aisle negotiations while the partial government shutdown is in effect.

“If Republicans want to have conversations, we’re always happy to, and you know that I will continue to have conversations with Republicans about a long-term solution to this. But we can’t negotiate while the government is shut down, period,” he said.

From the point of view of Trump and most in the GOP this would have been a non-starter as there is no money for the wall. Further, this would have given upwards of 800,000 illegal alien kids eligible for DACA a pathway to citizenship, would have allowed their parents who committed the sin of bringing them illegal to stay, and allowed them to bring in many more relatives. What Democrats would get would outweigh what the GOP would get by a factor of, what, 100-1?

But the fact that this bill, which would give Democrats tons more benefits than the GOP would get, that would provide almost meaningless border security methods, is going nowhere with Democrats shows that they really do not want to Do Something about Dreamers, that they just want to have an issue to thunder about on the floors of the House and Senate, as well as in front of cameras.

Further, they are sticking with the plan of refusing to talk about securing our southern border (and, yes, we do need to do something about the 45% of illegals who overstayed their visas), which is a duty given them in the Constitution, until such time as the GOP and President Trump give them everything they want. And we know that Democrats will refuse to discuss it once government is re-opened.

If Democrats do not want a wall, here’s an easy solution: the minute someone is caught crossing the border illegally they are put back on the other side. Period. No hearings, no long processes, we caught you, bye. Then a wall wouldn’t be that necessary.

Read: Open Borders Democrats Prefer Open Borders Instead Of Trading Border Security For A DACA Deal »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

Popularity Of Green New Deal Totally Enthusing Warmists That They Are No Longer Irrelevant

By William Teach January 12, 2019 – 3:10 pm

They are super excited!

The Green New Deal’s Sudden Popularity Is A Reason For Climate Change Optimism

There were several moments in 2018 when it was difficult to remain hopeful for any sort of meaningful action on climate change. The Trump administration has worked tirelessly to impede a transition to a green economy with actions ranging from opening the long-protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, to implementing tariffs on imported solar panels, to the president’s own denial that humans are causing unprecedented warming ― despite his own government’s comprehensive report stating the opposite.

Given the severity of the challenge we now face, it would be easy to see 2018 as an irreversible step backward, the sealing of our already grim fate. Yet despite all this, 2018’s midterm elections showed that politicians do have a path forward with American voters when it comes to comprehensive action on climate. The message, as it turns out, isn’t any sort of brilliant political calculus either. It’s a return to kitchen-table issues: jobs and economic opportunity. (snip)

The Green New Deal is a unifying political message that gets back to the basics of creating an economy that works for all people and protects the planet as a result. In fact, a recent poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and George Mason University showed that a staggering 93 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans agree with the basic components of the Green New Deal (our own poll data from earlier this year echoed those findings, showing the American public’s overwhelming preference for renewables over fossil fuels). The only other thing that gets such a high level of bipartisan agreement is that Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on basic facts.

It’s now important that we take advantage of this consensus, and fast. The 2018 midterm election should be a clear lesson for the still-forming roster of 2020 presidential contenders: What Americans crave the most is a government that works for the people, not just some of the people. Americans, first and foremost, want their basic needs met and candidates who are willing to listen to their concerns and then work to address them in Washington.

Well, good luck with that. First, Democrats have long given up on economic opportunity, and not just via the free market, for the middle and lower income classes. They are happy to patronize these people when elections come around, but, really, most of their policies do not help. The rest simply make the middle and lower classes reliant on government.

Second, the minute people, even most of the casual believers in anthropogenic climate change, learn how much this will cost them out of their own pockets, how much their taxes and fees will go up, how much energy, clothing, food, housing, etc, will rise, and how much power government will not have over their lives, the minute that happens most will abandon this idiocy.

We should probably thank AOC and the other Democrats for pushing this, because it may well put a nail in the man-caused climate change scam, exposing it as the fascist big government push it really is.

Read: Popularity Of Green New Deal Totally Enthusing Warmists That They Are No Longer Irrelevant »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach January 12, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…are trees that a turning colors earlier than they used to because the ecology should never change, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is neo-neocon, with a post on how we are all dead from the end of Net Neutrality.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Not A Cult: Warmists Katherine Hayhoe Called A “Climate Prophet”

By William Teach January 12, 2019 – 10:30 am

Remember, though, this is totally serious science, you guys

Climate Change Prophet
On the podcast: A scientist who is also an evangelical Christian wants conservatives to understand the dangers of climate change.

Climate change is one of the most politically divisive issues in the United States today: Most liberals embrace the scientific view that it’s a largely man-made phenomenon threatening our very existence, whereas many conservatives see it as fake news.

Standing at the intersection between these two groups is Katharine Hayhoe, an evangelical Christian who is also an atmospheric scientist. Hayhoe, who runs the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, has devoted herself to persuading skeptics that climate change is real—including people in her own community.

Hayhoe is featured in the Winter 2019 edition of Foreign Policy magazine as one of 100 Global Thinkers. She is also the guest on our podcast this week.

Let’s be clear on one thing: climate change is real. But, there is no actual scientific proof using the scientific method nor real facts and data that Mankind is mostly/solely responsible for the current warm period. And the way in which the Believers present it makes it look like a cult.

Read: Not A Cult: Warmists Katherine Hayhoe Called A “Climate Prophet” »

Posted in Global Warming, New Climate Deniers | 67 Comments | Trackback URL

Individual Responses Are Immaterial In Fight Against ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach January 12, 2019 – 7:19 am

Quite often, when you get in a discussion with a Warmist, they’ll blow off the question asking them what they are doing in their own lives, saying that we all need to do something, by which they mean government has to force everyone to comply. Things like this

Focusing on how individuals can stop climate change is very convenient for corporations
Sure, it’s morally good to reduce your footprint–but don’t let that deflect attention from who is really to blame.

What can be done to limit global warming to 1.5°C? A quick internet search offers a deluge of advice on how individuals can change their behavior. Take public transport instead of the car or, for longer journeys, the train rather than fly. Eat less meat and more vegetables, pulses and grains, and don’t forget to turn off the light when leaving a room or the water when shampooing. The implication here is that the impetus for addressing climate change is on individual consumers.

But can and should it really be the responsibility of individuals to limit global warming? On the face of it, we all contribute to global warming through the cumulative impact of our actions.

By changing consumption patterns on a large scale we might be able to influence companies to change their production patterns to more sustainable methods. Some experts have argued that everyone (or at least those who can afford it) has a responsibility to limit global warming, even if each individual action is insufficient in itself to make a difference.

I like the part about “those who can afford it.”

Yet there are at least two reasons why making it the duty of individuals to limit global warming is wrong.

INDIVIDUALS ARE STATISTICALLY BLAMELESS

Climate change is a planetary-scale threat and, as such, requires planetary-scale reforms that can only be implemented by the world’s governments. Individuals can at most be responsible for their own behavior, but governments have the power to implement legislation that compels industries and individuals to act sustainably.

Although the power of consumers is strong, it pales in comparison to that of international corporations, and only governments have the power to keep these interests in check.

(Lots more to this you should read)

GOVERNMENTS AND INDUSTRIES SHOULD LEAD

Rather than rely on appeals to individual virtue, what can be done to hold governments and industries accountable?

Governments have the power to enact legislation that could regulate industries to remain within sustainable emission limits and adhere to environmental protection standards. Companies should be compelled to purchase emissions rights–the profits from which can be used to aid climate-vulnerable communities.

(and lots more of this you need to read)

So, it is the companies which provide products and services people want and use who are at blame, not the people want those products and services. And only Government can stop this by force of legislation.

Funny how it always comes down to government force.

Read: Individual Responses Are Immaterial In Fight Against ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

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

Open Borders Dems Consider Suing Trump If He Declares National Emergency On Border

By William Teach January 12, 2019 – 7:07 am

We keep being told that Democrats are not in favor of open borders, but they keep offering policies like using drones and cameras so we can watch illegals cross the border rather than a barrier to stop them, and threatening stuff like this

Dems eye lawsuit if Trump declares border emergency

Democrats are eyeing a lawsuit challenging President Trump if he attempts to circumvent Congress and declare a national emergency to build a border wall.

The legal strategy remains in the theoretical stages, since Trump has so far declined to take such a step — and it’s unclear if he ever will.

But on day 21 of the partial government shutdown — a closure prompted by an impasse over border wall funding — Democrats are prepping for the possibility that Trump will try to sidestep Congress and divert other funds to new wall construction by proclaiming the situation a formal emergency.

Increasingly, Democratic critics of that maneuver view a lawsuit as their best recourse.

“Let’s fight it out in court,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a former law professor who represents a suburban district around Washington.

“Let’s get the president’s obsession out of the legislative context, let’s put it into the courts, let’s reopen the government, and we’ll see if he has those powers or not,” Raskin added.

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), who also represents a Washington suburb that’s been disproportionately affected by the shutdown, said it’s “a safe bet” that any emergency proclamation from the White House on the wall would go to the courts.

“I think it is a face-saving — a rather desperate face-saving — measure by the president that has very little intellectual underpinning to justify it,” Connolly said.

Well, this might be interesting from a legal standpoint, as Congress pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which President Bush signed, which calls for 700 miles of double layer fencing to be built, for which there is not much more than 5% built. Congress refused to fund it when Democrats took over the House, and failed to do anything since. Certainly Barack Obama had little interest in building it.

That double layer wall could be more than Trump is asking for, and a federal suit by Democrats could have a judge saying “Congress passed the law, why are you not funding it?”

And maybe it would stop most of

Those kinds of things go on and on and on. This is what Democrats want to keep allowing.

Read: Open Borders Dems Consider Suing Trump If He Declares National Emergency On Border »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

NC Small Business Blames Govt Shutdown For Failure To Get Loan

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 3:07 pm

This story unintentionally makes the points that the federal government is way too big, is too involved with our lives, and has assumed way too many roles

From the link, which is a reprint from a sister site out of Charlotte

The government shutdown entered its 21st day on Friday, and local small businesses are starting to feel the impacts.

“What they are doing is stalling my business. One of the most important things in my life is to run this business,” said Brooks Troxler, the President and Owner of Trox Tech Inc.

Troxler owns the tech company that is currently based in Matthews and he employs seven people. (snip)

Troxler was set to start 2019 with moving into a brand new, larger, street front business in Charlotte. However, he needs a loan from the Small Business Administration to make that happen. The SBA is a federal agency that provides loans at low interest rates for small businesses.

“This is something a small business desperately needs. Not a lot of places give out loans to small businesses because they are uncertain,” said Troxler. “There are not many more options out there to get this type of loan.”

There are these things called “banks.” They provide loans. But, if we’re reading into this, it appears as if the business itself is shaky, so banks might not loan the money. So, the taxpayers are supposed to back a shaky loan? Of course, since the reporter failed to do the job and ask a simple question “why didn’t you go to a bank?” we are left to speculate.

But, then, the purpose here is to try and softly throw blame towards Trump as well as saying how super awesome government is and how we totally need them.

The hope was to be in the new property and the ability to hire four additional employees immediately.

“When we stop growing, we stop adding more employees. Right now, I cannot hire anymore employees because I do not have the space to do it,” said Troxler.

How about going and renting a property? Troxler is looking for a $550,000 loan from the SBA. Certainly, the bank would loan less to move into an existing building, right?

Read: NC Small Business Blames Govt Shutdown For Failure To Get Loan »

Posted in Government | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a house collapsing from too much carbon pollution bad weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on a news station doctoring what Trump looks like during speech.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Washington Post Is Suddenly Enthused To Roll Back Presidential Powers Given By Congress

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 10:32 am

The Washington Post Editorial Board is on a roll. They’re really upset that Trump most likely has the power to declare a national emergency and build the border wall

Congress gave the president too many powers. Now it must scale them back.

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S assertion that he might sidestep Congress and get funds for a border wall by declaring a national emergency has sent lawyers, legislators and journalists scrambling to figure out whether he actually possesses the legal authority to do so. What they’ve found, in part, is that Congress has delegated a surprising amount of emergency or quasi-emergency power to the executive branch over the years, possibly too much. The implications for constitutional government are potentially serious. Whatever happens with Mr. Trump and the wall, therefore, this body of law is long overdue for a review, and not by the courts but by the body that created it — Congress.

The Brennan Center for Justice has compiled a list of 123 statutes that enable the president to circumvent ordinary lawmaking processes upon the declaration of a “national emergency,” including the statutes Mr. Trump seems most likely to cite if he goes for a wall-building without new appropriations from Congress: two provisions that allow the Pentagon to reshuffle existing military construction funds and redirect them to previously unauthorized purposes in the event of a national emergency. Some of the other laws on the Brennan list are obvious relics: Did you know that the president can press the Fort McHenry National Monument back into military service in an emergency? Many of the provisions on the Brennan list appear never to have been invoked. Still, the laws have real-world impact: Many economic sanctions, past and present, were declared by the president, citing “national emergencies” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Mr. Trump’s tariff war on steel imports is being waged under the authority of a trade law known as Section 232 (not on the Brennan list) that allows the imposition of levies when the executive branch decides “national security” requires it. (snip)

To its to-do list, the new Democratic majority in the House should add convening hearings on this area of law, with an eye toward cleaning it up. There’s every reason for the Republican-majority Senate, to the extent it cares more about constitutional balance than partisan interests, to join in. The rise of Mr. Trump has reminded everyone of the potential danger from unchecked power in the executive. That power may be doubly dangerous if the unchecked power has, in effect, been handed to the president by Congress in the past. Perhaps those Congresses could not imagine a truly erratic and irrational figure in the White House. The current Congress has no excuse.

Hey, remember how the WPEB was super concerned over then-president Barack Obama circumventing ordinary lawmaking? Oh, they were cheering things like DACA, Waters Of the U.S., the Clean Power Plan, Paris Climate Agreement, and so much more. Nor did they have any issue with how the Affordable Care Act gave enormous new powers to the Executive Branch, up to the point that HHS invented the Contraception Mandate out of thin air.

Heck, media outlets like the Washington Post were telling Obama to go around Congress to do things that the duly elected Legislative Branch did not want to do.

But, you know, Trump, so, #Resist, even when it is utterly hypocritical.

Read: Washington Post Is Suddenly Enthused To Roll Back Presidential Powers Given By Congress »

Posted in Donald Trump, Journalistic Malpractice | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

After Banning Straws, California Now Looks Towards Paper Receipts

By William Teach January 11, 2019 – 6:52 am

You remember when California went utterly overboard in banning straws, right? It was supposedly for ecological reasons, and, there’s some validity there with plastic pollution, but they made the case of ‘climate change’ even stronger. Now we get

California Democrats made plastic straws hard to get. Are paper receipts next?

We’ve all been there. We go to a grocery store or pharmacy, buy an item and walk away with a receipt as long as the Nile River.

One California lawmaker says enough is enough.

Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, unveiled a plan on Tuesday to take the state off of printed receipts. Under Assembly Bill 161, businesses would have to give customers electronic receipts if they don’t ask for physical copies.

“Most people assume that all these receipts can be recyclable. Guess what? They can’t,” Ting said. “It’s common-sense legislation. We think it’s a minimal cost, and it’s really putting the power back in the consumers by saying, ‘Hey, if you want the paper, yeah, you can ask for it, but why force you to take the paper?’”

Many of the bill’s provisions match those of a new law requiring customers to ask for plastic straws if they want one. Businesses that don’t comply with the law would receive two warnings before being fined $25 for each subsequent violation. The penalties would stop once a business hits $300 in a given year.

And, oh, yes, it is about ‘climate change’

Pamela Williams, acting president of the California Retailers Association, said it’s too soon for the group to take a position on the bill. She wonders how the proposal would affect smaller to medium-sized retailers who can’t afford to invest in software that would offer e-receipts.

And therein lies the issue. Not everyone is set up to do this, and it would cost money. Many people want a paper receipt right there in order to make sure it is correct at that time. You won’t look at the emailed receipt immediately. Certain places, like Best Buy, I always get emailed receipt. No problem there. Supermarket? I want the paper. Sometimes a product gets double scanned (I blame myself) and do not catch it till after I paid. Plus, many places want to see a receipt on the way out, like Walmart and Costco.

Yes, some receipts are ridiculously long. Some give them coupons. Some are just wastes. Do we really need an emailed receipt for minor transactions? Do we need to give our email to freaking everyone, now? One big reason many retailers ask if you want it emailed or paper is to get your email so they can market to you.

What about at restaurants? Don’t you have to see the bill first? What would this cost them and so many other businesses? Doesn’t matter, Phil has an Idea, and, being California, it will probably pass.

Read: After Banning Straws, California Now Looks Towards Paper Receipts »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Democrats, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove