Anti-Gun Democrats Look To Protect Illegal Aliens In Background Checks Bill

By William Teach February 15, 2019 – 11:01 am

Democrats are good with assaulting the rights of law abiding American citizens. Illegal aliens must be protected at all times, though

(Daily Caller) The House Judiciary Committee passed legislation known as the Bipartisan Background Check Act Thursday that would mandate background checks on all gun sale transactions and most transfers in the United States.

“This is a bill that will expand criminal background checks to close the gun show loophole and close the Internet sale loophole,” Democrat Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries said of the bill.

With the support of five committee Republicans and after nine hours of debate, the bill passed 21 to 14. Republicans on the Committee attempted to amend the bill.

Democrats, however, voted down one such amendment that would notify ICE authorities when an illegal alien fails a background check to purchase a firearm.

Every illegal aliens should fail a background check, because they are forbidden from purchasing/possessing a firearm.

Also

North Carolina Republican Rep. Richard Hudson, however, responded, “Any attorney general and any local officials could set the price for running a background check for a person so high that individuals couldn’t afford to do it.”

He added, “So, what if they said it cost $5,000 to run a background check at a gun store? Well, most Americans can’t afford that,” Hudson noted. “So, those are two of the different levers that they intend to use to limit law-abiding gun owners from purchasing guns.”

Really, who thinks that the gun grabbers wouldn’t do something like that these days?

Read: Anti-Gun Democrats Look To Protect Illegal Aliens In Background Checks Bill »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 12 Comments | Trackback URL

The Useful Idiotism Of The Green New Deal

By William Teach February 15, 2019 – 7:16 am

Most Democrats knew just how bad the Green New Deal was, mostly because it exposed what the Democrats really want. But some are still trying to mainstream what is a massive government takeover of the economy and our lives, like Michelle Goldberg at the NY Times

The Useful Idealism of the Green New Deal

Amid the unceasing awfulness of the Trump administration, I’ve lately found comfort in the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s concept of “political time,” which has in turn informed my thinking about the almost utopian ambitions of the Green New Deal.

Surveying the American presidency, Skowronek sees politics unfolding in cycles. Every so often, insurgent coalitions bring an agenda-setting president to power who sweeps away the verities of the old regime, fundamentally restructuring our politics. These “reconstructive presidents,” as Skowronek refers to them, create the political framework that their successors of both parties must operate within. (snip)

Viewed through this schema, Donald Trump’s presidency looks more like the end of a cycle than the end of the Republic. Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign and the early months of the Trump administration, the constitutional law professors Jack Balkin and Sanford Levinson exchanged letters arguing about the durability of our system; the letters will be published this spring as a book, “Democracy and Dysfunction.” Balkin is the more sanguine of the two, in part because he sees Trump fitting into Skowronek’s model.

Huh what? This seems more about Trump Derangement Syndrome than about the Green New Deal. It reminds me of the article in the Washington Post entitled “The Left: Online and Outraged” from back during the Bush years, were Liberals would wake up unhinged and angry and look to link everything to Bush.

Eventually, we get to the GND

The young progressives pushing the Green New Deal have a similar sense of historic opportunity. Waleed Shahid, communications director for the Justice Democrats — the group that recruited Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to run for Congress — frames the Green New Deal as an overarching vision for political renewal.

“This is not just an environmental sustainability policy,” Shahid told me. “It’s also about rewriting and expanding the social contract that began under the New Deal, was expanded under the civil rights movement and then was completely torn apart over the past 50 years.”

Maybe McConnell is right. I’ve lived through enough right-wing backlashes to worry about left-wing overreach. But it seems at least possible that, at this moment of social breakdown and planetary emergency, the calculus of what’s politically feasible could be changing. The electorate certainly is; within the next decade, millennials, the most diverse and perhaps most progressive generation in history, will be the single largest voting bloc.

If we are in fact on the cusp of a new political epoch, then a sweeping, idealistic plan for social transformation is not a wild fantasy but a practical necessity.

It’s “idealistic” to use the fiction of ‘climate change’ and environmentalism to implement sweeping controls on everything? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were idealistic, too. I don’t write that lightly, not in terms of what the GND wants to do.

Read: The Useful Idiotism Of The Green New Deal »

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

Trump Reportedly To Sign Spending Bill, Declare Border Emergency

By William Teach February 15, 2019 – 6:51 am

There is virtually no way that any member of the Senate read the $333 billion budget bill prior to voting for it. At best they skimmed it. It’s a typical trainwreck, and provides little for border security. So, what’s Trump to do?

Trump plans to allocate $8 billion to fund border wall, source says

President Trump‘s plans to declare a national emergency in order to fund his long-promised border wall will enable his administration to move $8 billion from various federal agencies to fund the project, a senior administration official told Fox News late Thursday.

The news comes as Trump is expected to sign a House border security package that provides $1.4 billion for the project, which is far below the $5.7 billion Trump insisted he needed and would finance just a quarter of the 200-plus miles he wanted to be defended against illegal immigrants.

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said earlier Thursday that Trump will sign the spending bill and declare a national emergency at the same time Friday morning.

The White House said Trump would sign the legislation but act unilaterally to get more funding, prompting condemnations from Democrats and threats of lawsuits from states and others who might lose federal money or said Trump was abusing his authority.

All Democrats had to do was give him the money. It would have been easy. Instead, they passed this bill, and idiot Republicans in the Senate voted for it, despite including things like a reduction of money for housing detained illegal aliens. But, hey, Dems have Open Borders idiots like Beto O’Rourke, a good representative of the current beliefs-set in the DNC, calling to tear down the existing walls. Don’t call them Open Borders, though, right?

Then there’s this

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday theorized that if President Trump can declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress to fund a border wall, there’s no reason that a Democratic president in the future can’t employ the same measure to deal with gun violence in the country.

Pelosi made the remarks during a press conference in the Capitol Thursday – the anniversary of the Parkland massacre in Florida that left 17 people dead.

“Let’s talk about today: The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,” Pelosi said. “That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. “But a Democratic president can do that.”

What would that Dem president do, Nance? Declare that it is illegal to murder someone with a gun? Or is she threatening to confiscate firearms from law abiding citizens? Good luck with that in the courts. Remember, these same Dems are against stop and frisk.

A few squishy Republicans are also concerned with declaring it an emergency, but, since most of the Democrat 2020 candidates are against doing it, it must be a good idea.

Read: Trump Reportedly To Sign Spending Bill, Declare Border Emergency »

Posted in Current Affairs, Donald Trump, Illegal Immigration | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Stopping Illegal Aliens From Getting License’s Hurt Us All Or Something

By William Teach February 14, 2019 – 3:46 pm

Illegal alien supporters have all sorts of reasons why they should have driver’s licenses, which avoids the point that they shouldn’t even be here to start with. Esder Chong, an illegal alien and DACA recipient from South Korea, and Nancy Cantor, Chancellor of Rutgers-Newark, give it another shot

Preventing young undocumented immigrants from getting a driver’s license affects us all: Rutgers student and chancellor

For many New Jersey young people, getting a driver’s license is a critical on-ramp to their road to success. With 420,000 college students statewide but dormitories less than half of all campuses, ours is a state where access to educational opportunity for hundreds of thousands of students can depend on being able to drive to school. But current licensing regulations are a major roadblock for nearly half a million New Jersey residents who cannot access a driver’s license because they are undocumented.

Out of New Jersey’s 100,000 young dreamers, only 17,400 currently benefit from the access provided under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a federal program that is now not available to new applicants. We need to make driver’s licenses accessible to all our aspiring students as the proposed Assembly Bill 4743/Senate Bill 3229 would do.

New Jersey has made tangible progress in supporting our N.J. dreamers with state laws making undocumented students eligible for in-state tuition and state financial help, but the inability to drive remains a significant obstacle preventing many from reaching their full potential. (snip)

The lack of a driver’s license impacts all aspects of student life: not only class attendance, but participation in student leadership programs and professional development opportunities such as internships that require easy mobility between campus and community. No license could also mean no job to help pay for school or even to help contribute to supporting a family.

They’re taking available spots from U.S. citizens.

The impact on families is also immense. When parents or siblings are undocumented and cannot drive legally, educational and job opportunities are severely restricted for them, as well, multiplying the stresses that families of immigrants already experience as they strive to contribute to our economy and our communities.

They can have those opportunities in their home countries, rather than taking them from U.S. citizens. The idea here, though, is just like always, once you get past the language: to give illegals some legal documentation, which leads to calling for more legalization, followed by calls for granting citizenship via amnesty.

This is not the time to slow down on opening up access to education and opportunity to young immigrants. Instead, let’s speed up to allow all qualified residents to access a driver’s license regardless of immigration status. These students are our next generation of leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, and change-makers who deserve a fair chance to pursue their educational aspirations. When they succeed, we all succeed. Let’s make that a reality in New Jersey by passing legislation to expand access to drivers’ licenses now.

See? It’s about legalizing them.

I have to wonder, would Chancellor Cantor be fine with students stealing from the campus bookstore, as well as refusing to pay off their student loans debt? The kiddies need those books (which are required and vastly overpriced) and materials to do their class-work, right? So why not just take what they need? If they are spending all that money instead, it could cause stress on their families and themselves, right? So, theft is no big deal, right?

The same with the loans: it can cause major stress. So, why pay it back, right?

Nancy’s cool with that, right?

Read: Stopping Illegal Aliens From Getting License’s Hurt Us All Or Something »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 49 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 14, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle serving evil beef to people, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on how to destroy a police department.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Schumer Callers Voting On Green New Deal A Distraction

By William Teach February 14, 2019 – 11:19 am

It’s almost like Democrats don’t want to vote on their big idea

Isn’t “Congress needs to act” part of voting on the Green New Deal? Heck, Bob Menendez threatened to call the cops on a reporter for asking a question

U.S. Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., had a fiery exchange with a reporter on Capitol Hill on Wednesday when asked to comment on the Green New Deal.

Henry Rodgers, the Daily Caller’s Capitol Hill reporter, approached the senator at a subway station and asked him if he supported Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s legislative proposal.

Menendez avoided the question and asked where Rodgers worked. Rodgers said that when he told Menendez he worked for the Daily Caller, the Democrat responded by saying he would not answer any questions. An intern who was with Rodgers asked a follow-up question, and tensions apparently rose.

https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1095790133373218820

Why are Democrats so afraid of going on the record?

Read: Schumer Callers Voting On Green New Deal A Distraction »

Posted in Democrats, Global Warming | 45 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times: The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like Or Something

By William Teach February 14, 2019 – 8:35 am

Basically, op-ed writer Jedediah Britton-Purdy, professor of law at Columbia and is the author, most recently, of “After Nature: A Politics for the Anthropocene” exposes that ‘climate change’ is all about politics, and the Green New Deal is the ultimate extension

The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like

Everyone is lining up to endorse the Green New Deal — or to mock it. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have all endorsed the resolution sponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts.

Conservative critics predictably call it “a shocking document” and “a call for enviro-socialism in America,” but liberal condescension has cut deeper. The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, essentially dismissed it as branding, saying, “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Others have criticized it for leaving out any mention of a carbon tax, a cornerstone of mainstream climate-policy proposals, while embracing a left-populist agenda that includes universal health care, stronger labor rights and a jobs guarantee.

What do these goals have to do with stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels before climate change makes large parts of the world uninhabitable? What has taken liberal critics aback is that the Green New Deal strays so far from the traditional environmental emphasis on controlling pollution, which the carbon tax aims to do, and tries to solve the problems of economic inequality, poverty and even corporate concentration (there’s an antimonopoly clause).

But this everything-and-the-carbon-sink strategy is actually a feature of the approach, not a bug, and not only for reasons of ideological branding. In the 21st century, environmental policy is economic policy. Keeping the two separate isn’t a feat of intellectual discipline. It’s an anachronism.

Every once in a while, a Warmist will let the cat out of the bag as to what they really want to do. The Green New Deal itself was a big reveal as to what they really want, and Britton-Purdy continues that. Basically, it involves everything. Implementing controls and changes in terms of fossil fuels and EVERYTHING that is touched by it (which is a goodly chunk of our lives), refitting buildings, retooling transportation (meaning you may not have your own private vehicle), the entire jobs policy of Government, farming, ranching, and energy, among others, are linked to the economy, which, in Warmist World, is controlled by the Central Government.

The Green New Deal isn’t the only approach, of course, but its broad ambitions mark out the ground where future climate fights will happen. Because reshaping our environmental impact means reworking our economy, there will inevitably be competing visions about who deserves to benefit and what kind of economy we should build. Centrist proposals will concentrate on promoting investment in new technologies, with profits going, pharma-style, to private researchers and manufacturers.

And this means Government dictating what it looks like. Funny how it always comes down to institution greater and greater government power.

Read: NY Times: The Green New Deal Is What Realistic Environmental Policy Looks Like Or Something »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Democrats, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

TDS: Unhinged Sex Doctor Blames Trump For Liberals Not Wanting To Have Sex

By William Teach February 14, 2019 – 8:13 am

We’re into full blown Category 5 Barking Moonbat Syndrome with this one

Not feeling the love? Blame Trump, racism and war says self-described sex doc

Just in time for Valentime’s day, a sex therapist has some warm thoughts and a kooky theory for what may putting people out of the mood for love: It’s mostly President Trump’s fault, with a little help from racism and America’s “war worship.”

Dr. Susan Block, a sex therapist known for her HBO appearances, best-selling books, and appearances on TV networks such as Oprah, believes if you’re not getting intimate these days, it is all because of the negative vibes she sees emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

“It has had a big impact. For some people Trump’s campaign and presidency has created a type of PTSD — what I call ‘Post-Trump Sex Disorder’,” she said during an interview with Salon, a liberal publication.

“Trump has created feelings of fear, loathing, and nausea,” she added. “People just don’t want to have sex. This would mainly be seen with women who are just appalled at how creepy Trump is. He takes what is often a positive male attributes of confidence and pushes it way over the line into a rape-like and rape-entitled kind of arrogance.”

The sex therapist says the media is also to blame for people becoming disinterested in sex. “The news is full of stories about bad sex. They don’t really like to talk about good sex. When you have this media obsession with bad sex with the usual ‘all American’ war worship and racism, as well as economic disparities and the way that corporations are in control, it really sucks the life out of a person,” she said.

It would be great if all Liberals suffered from this, so that they aren’t bringing more kids who will end up with all sorts of mental disorders into the world. Really, this is how deranged liberals are. Sure, Conservatives hated Obama’s policies and what he stood for, but, did anyone ever see an article where we weren’t having sex because we hated him so much? No.

But, wait, there’s more!

“In this way, Donald Trump is the daddy of a dysfunctional United States family. And of course evil can be very sexy. Evil is fascinating. As you said previously, Donald Trump is a cult leader and Charlie Manson-like figure. People are just charged up by him and some of those people are driven to commit great crimes by that kind of charisma,” the therapist added.

She went on to decry the president as “a right-wing authoritarian and aspiring tyrant,” with the “fascist conception of the State” being masculine that prompts his followers to “want to literally be inside of him, to become him, to have a libidinal relationship with the Great Leader.”

“The fascist aesthetic can be very erotic for the followers,” she therapist added.

There are so many wacky quotes that the Fox article can’t put them all in, like

Trump’s supporters want to be spanked by him. Trump’s supporters want to be hugged by him. They want to be with him. They want to identify with him.

You just have to read the whole thing. Your coworkers will wonder who you have a look of incredulity on your face all day.

Read: TDS: Unhinged Sex Doctor Blames Trump For Liberals Not Wanting To Have Sex »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Democrats Now Pushing Large Magazine Ban At Federal Level

By William Teach February 13, 2019 – 4:15 pm

This would effect a few shooters, but, mostly it impacts law abiding citizens

Democrats propose high-capacity gun magazine ban

After a year without any significant gun legislation passed by Congress since the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting in Parkland, Florida, Democrats introduced a bill banning high-capacity gun magazines Tuesday, as the one-year anniversary of the massacre nears.

The Democratic legislation, cosponsored by Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida and Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, would ban any magazine that exceeds 10 rounds of ammunition. The legislation, which has been dubbed the “Keep Americans Safe Act,” currently has no Republican cosponsors, one of many obstacles that would stand in the way of it advancing.

During a news conference on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, the Democratic legislators described the bill as one step in a process of passing individual gun control measures instead of a big comprehensive package.

“Guns become doubly and triply deadly in these massacres because of these high-capacity magazines,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat. “And so if we take one simple step in approving this prohibition, we can literally save lives. There is no more simple, straightforward way to save lives from gun violence than to ban these high-capacity magazines.”

Right, because criminals, especially those bent on mass murder, will follow the law.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the National Rifle Association, said:

“This legislation would effectively ban the most commonly owned firearms for self-defense. It is an arbitrary limit pulled out of thin air with no evidence that the limits would improve public safety. In fact the after report from the deadliest school shooting in American history states that magazine limits would have had no impact. This is just more nonsense from anti-gun zealots who are looking to score political points by proposing legislation that would make criminals out of law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to self-defense while doing nothing to deter criminals from committing crimes.”

And that’s the thing: it could end up banning weapons that accept magazines with more than 10 rounds. You can always put a smaller mag in a rifle, but, what about handguns, where they are built to take a certain magazine size? Will they be banned, or will owners have to purchase mags that hold 10 rounds or less? The bill itself is S.447, and, according Menendez’s Senate webpage

  • Provides limited exceptions for devices possessed before enactment, for certain current and former law enforcement personnel, for certain Atomic Energy personnel and purpose, for tubular devices that can only accept .22 rimfire ammunition, and for certain authorized testing or experimentation;
  • Modifies the high-capacity definition to prevent coupled or joined magazines;
  • Authorizes a buyback programs for high capacity magazines using Byrne JAG grants;
  • Requires devices manufactured after enactment to have conspicuous serial numbers and date of manufacture to help law enforcement identify restricted magazines;
  • Harmonizes forfeiture provisions for magazines with current law; currently FBI and ATF can seize and destroy certain firearms but not high capacity magazines.

There is a grandfathering of larger mags. A Republican should add a rider that all security protecting the Congressional buildings and the lawmakers themselves cannot have mags that hold more than 10 rounds.

Read: Democrats Now Pushing Large Magazine Ban At Federal Level »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Democrats | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach February 13, 2019 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible beef from carbon polluting moo cows causing the planet to over-heat and snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Not A Lot Of People Know That, with a post on a union boss claiming the Green New Deal will destroy jobs.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 21 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove