Sheriff Blasts California Sanctuary Laws For Murder Of Police Officer

So far, California officials have arrested eight on charges surrounding the murder of Newman, California police Cpl. Ronil Singh, who was shot dead early Wednesday. One is Gustavo Perez Arriaga, who is a Mexican national illegally present in the U.S. His girlfriend and brother have both been apprehended for aiding and abetting. We know that at least his brother is in the country illegally. Further, his other brother and a coworker have been arrested for being accessories after the fact.

Both are illegally present. And three others have been arrested for aiding and abetting. No word on their legal status as of yet. But, the chances of them being illegally present are pretty high.

Watch–Sheriff: California ‘Provided Sanctuary’ to Illegal Alien Arrested for Alleged Cop Killing

Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson says the alleged murder of 33-year-old Newman, California police officer Ronil Singh “would have been prevented” if not for California’s “sanctuary state” law that shields criminal illegal aliens from deportation. (snip)

On Friday, during a news conference, Christianson noted that Perez Arriaga should have been deported out of the United States but that California’s sanctuary state law prevented law enforcement from contacting the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency about the “known” gang member.

“This could have been preventable. And under S.B. 54 in California, based on two arrests for DUI and some other active warrants that this criminal has out there, law enforcement would have been prevented, prohibited from sharing any information with ICE about this criminal gang member,” Christianson said. “Ladies and gentlemen, this is not how you protect a community.”

“This is not how you assure the people who live in our community, regardless of their ethnicity, their culture, their race, any of that, that they live in a safe community,” he continued.

“This is a criminal illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should have been reported to ICE and … law enforcement was prohibited because of sanctuary laws and that led to the encounter with Officer Singh,” Christianson said. “I’m suggesting that the outcome could have been different if law enforcement wasn’t restricted, prohibited or had their hands tied because of political interference.”

“If he wasn’t here, he wouldn’t have been driving drunk and it wouldn’t have been reported to Officer Singh and the encounter … potentially never would have occurred,” Christianson said.

“My point is, why are we providing sanctuary for criminals, gang members? It’s a conversation we need to have,” Christianson continued.

It’s a conversation that most California Democrats do not want to have. Neither of California’s two Senators, Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, have mentioned it. Nor has Nancy Pelosi. They have yammered about the illegal alien children who have died in custody after being dragged two thousand miles with poor food, little water, little shelter and other bad hygiene.

In fact, I cannot find one California federally elected Democrat who has mentioned the murder of the officer, including the high profile ones like Adam Schiff, Maxine Waters, Juan Vargas, Ted Lieu, Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee, Jackie Speier, and Eric Swalwell.

Nor has California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Current Ca. gov Jerry Brown doesn’t tweet that often, but incoming gov Gavin Newsome does, and would you be surprised no mention or statement on the murder?

Read: Sheriff Blasts California Sanctuary Laws For Murder Of Police Officer »

Diane Feinstein Wants To Know What’s Going On With The Uninvited Migrants

She’s a peach

That tweet is via Twitchy, but, she was already yammering to the news yesterday, which is all over the news now

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California called Thursday for the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing after two children died in the custody of Customs and Border Protection.

Feinstein, the top Democrat on the committee, made her request in a letter to GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is set to chair the committee in the new year.

“These heartbreaking incidents are sadly consistent with previous reports of widespread abuse of children in immigration custody and the judgment of medical and mental health organizations that Border Patrol facilities are not adequately staffed or equipped to properly care for children,” Feinstein’s letter read.

As noted earlier, the timeline of the custody of the uninvited migrant in question shows that the CPB was doing all they can. Last I checked, they aren’t doctors, nor did they provide the medical care. The migrant kid was taken to a hospital, twice, for that.

In her letter, Feinstein cited the deaths of the two children along with reports of a hospitalized 5-month-old and murdered children in Tijuana.

She said she had reached out to McAleenan “but have not received answers to explain why these deaths occurred.”

It’s very simple: Democrats and all their organizations are making it clear to people that if they show up the U.S. will take care of them, to hell with our laws, and to hell with the Americans who should receive the help first. Perhaps DiFi should take a look at the massive homeless problem in San Francisco, Oakland, and other cities in her own state.

Democrats create this type of problem by not standing strong on immigration. They do the complete opposite of deterring it, so, anything bad that happens is on Democrat heads.

Read: Diane Feinstein Wants To Know What’s Going On With The Uninvited Migrants »

If All You See…

…is a horrid fossil fueled vehicle causing weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post on feelings.

Read: If All You See… »

Some Scientists Are Trying To Make Us Care About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Thirty years of spreading awareness, which includes a goodly chunk of the media being leftists who Believe, and still people do not believe enough to Do Something. They just aren’t willing to give up their modern lives, their liberty, nor see their cost of living skyrocket

How some scientists are trying to get us to care about climate change

Despite life-or-death warnings to curb climate change, the western world isn’t responding as urgently as many climate scientists are hoping.

Rising sea levels and the recent string of record-breaking global temperatures aren’t resonating enough, a conservation scientist and educator said in a phone interview with CTVNews.ca.

“Showing photos of decimated coral reef will tug at your heartstrings, but I’m not sure if it will actually change the way you vote or the choices that you really make,” said Sanjayan Muttulingam, CEO of Conservation International, a non-profit that works to protect natural resources for people’s livelihood and food.

This seems to be confirmed by the alarming admission from scientists that Canada is nowhere close to its own targets in fighting climate change. According to Muttulingam, westerners would change their behaviours if they “fully appreciated how this is impacting their own lives in a real way.”

CTVNews.ca spoke to Muttulingam and a climate change economics professor who both say they’re part of a growing cohort attempting to answer people who are bluntly asking: “Who cares? How’ll this actually affect me?”

And the non-rabid believers, the casual members who have the same beliefs as the hardcores but haven’t transitioned to genuflecting to Al Gore daily, can see that the “solutions” will cause problems in their own lives. Really, it’s something they read about and more on.

They’re hoping to re-frame the scientific conversation by explaining how climate change is ruining the things people love and impacting their personal finances.

“Science isn’t science, until it’s communicated,” Muttulingam argued. But by failing to always put “humans at the centre of the equation,” he believes scientists inadvertently misjudged their audience.

“When it starts hitting our pocketbooks, our jobs, or the health of our children, that’s when you are going to start seeing consumers more willing to act than ever,” he said.

Nice! They’re going to give the “let’s try and scare the crap out of people” talking points a try. Considering they’ve been trying this for 30 years, I don’t think it’s going to work.

Read: Some Scientists Are Trying To Make Us Care About ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Hard-Left’s “New Green Deal” Divides Democrats

This is what happens when they keep replacing moderate and somewhat far left elected members with far, far, far left ones. Call them Progressives, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, whatever, they are all believers in the big, big, big State

‘Green New Deal’ divides Democrats intent on addressing climate change

One week after House Democrats triumphed in the election, Rep. Nancy Pelosi extended her hand to the party’s energized left wing by promising to revive the select committee on climate change.

The move thrilled activists who, joined by incoming Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, had protested in Pelosi’s office that day. And word of reconstituting the panel, which was revered among Democrats for helping produce the 2009 cap-and-trade bill, was greeted as a sign of the party’s commitment to aggressive climate action in the next Congress.

But the committee will not have authority to approve legislation and is not expected to have subpoena power – unlike its 2007 version. The committee’s influence will be limited by Republican control of the Senate and President Donald Trump’s rejection of climate science. While Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has called on the committee to draft a “Green New Deal” to get the country off fossil fuels by 2030, its work may not carry weight with the powerful standing committees in the House.

The coming battle will test liberals’ clout as tensions between the activist left and the Democratic establishment underscore the ideological and strategic rifts that will affect the party ahead of the 2020 presidential primary.

“We should have a robust debate of ideas . . . then we figure out how to come to a consensus so that we are effective and are able in 2020 to defeat Donald Trump,” said Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif. “The worst thing we could do is stifle a very vigorous debate because of a deference to protocol or precedent.”

Congressional Democrats are united on the need to combat man-made climate change, but there is debate over what solutions to pursue and how aggressively in the era of divided government.

So, they all want to Do Something, but you have many who are realists and realize that ramming through policies that will cause problems withe lives of citizens, mostly low and middle class Americans, will not help them get re-elected. They are happy to talk about man-caused climate change and say “we need to do something!!!!!!!!” but doing something is loser policy. Virtually every time a poll is conducted climate change comes in near the bottom or at the bottom for things that concern voters.

The few somewhat rational Democrats left surely also realize that this New Green Deal is a pipedream, and it would look really bad to attempt to force citizens to give up fossil fuels while Democrat members of Congress run around the country and world using fossil fuels.

They’ll spend a lot of time yammering about this, holding their meetings, with the more responsible (politically) elected Democrats, along with re-election advisors, trying to hold back some of the Stateist’s worst offers.

Read: Hard-Left’s “New Green Deal” Divides Democrats »

Surprise: Migrant Brought Child In Order To Gain Easier Access To America

Most outlets running this story, including the Washington Post, are noticing this big admission. There’s actually a bigger one

PARENTS OF 8-YEAR-OLD MIGRANT WHO DIED BROUGHT BOY FOR EASIER US ENTRY

The mother of an 8-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in U.S. custody has revealed her family’s reasons for bringing the boy on the dangerous trek to the U.S. border.

In an interview with Reuters, Catarina Alonzo said that her husband took her son with him to the border in the hopes that the child would afford them easier entry into the United States.

Instead, 8-year-old Felipe Gomez Alonzo became ill and passed away.

“Lots of them have gone with children and managed to cross, even if they’re held for a month or two. But they always manage to get across easily,” Alonzo told Reuters through sobs.

In other words, they were taking advantage of the generosity of the U.S.A. Felipe developed the flu while in custody, and the timeline of their custody, as provided by, shockingly, CNN, shows that they were treated extremely well while in custody.

Alonzo said that her husband, an agricultural worker, wanted to get to the U.S. to find better work to pay off his debts. He also hoped that he could enroll Felipe in a higher quality school.

Notice, she is saying that he didn’t come to the U.S. to be a part of our great nation. No, he just wanted to work and get his child better education. Again, taking advantage of the U.S. while apparently not caring a whit about truly joining. There comes a point where we have to stop being the welfare for people from around the world. Democrats, and some squishy Republicans, want to prioritize the lawful status for people like this over those who apply for citizenship because they love America and want to be a citizen.

Read: Surprise: Migrant Brought Child In Order To Gain Easier Access To America »

NY Times Warmist: Forget The Carbon Tax Now (Till We Can Ram It Through)

Many may remember the name Justin Gillis: he’s a long time hyper-partisan reporter who pushed the man-caused climate change scam in the regular news section. Now he’s over in the opinion section doing this

Forget the Carbon Tax for Now

The angry graffiti have been blasted off the Arc de Triomphe with water jets, leaving unnaturally white patches scarring the base of France’s national monument. The husks of incinerated cars have been cleared from the streets, the glass from shattered store windows swept up. The government has taken steps to appease the demonstrators, which may be working.

With a bit of calm upon us, now would be a good time for those of us concerned about climate change to engage in some introspection.

The violent demonstrations that flared this fall in France were a culmination of decades of rising anger among the working class, it is true, but they were triggered by plans to impose a tax hike on gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump in the name of fighting climate change. Only three years ago, French monuments were bathed in green floodlights to celebrate a global deal negotiated in a Paris suburb to limit emissions; now we are scraping ugly slogans off those monuments.

Days before the French fury boiled over in November, voters in one of most liberal American states, Washington, once again rejected a plan to tax emissions of carbon dioxide in the name of fighting climate change.

These tax proposals all spring from basic economic theory. If people and companies are abusing a public good — in this case, by dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere — the answer, economists tell us, is to put a price on that activity that reflects the harm and encourages the development of more benign alternatives. Because most of the gases that cause climate change contain carbon in some form, the shorthand term for this policy is a “carbon price.”

Yet the climate movement has, I fear, turned this potentially useful tool into a fetish. Discuss any aspect of the emissions problem these days and you will quickly hear somebody say, “A price is the answer,” or equivalent words. You hear that from the lips of politicians, from newspaper editorial boards, from utility executives and even from the heads of oil companies.

Gillis spends many more paragraphs noting how the carbon tax push is a fetish, how it has failed, and how the Cult of Climastrology can push other things, such as “green” building codes (failing to note that these will drastically increase the cost of homes and other buildings). He also notes that these carbon taxes, which translated into expensive gas in Europe, haven’t stopped people from driving.

But just because a stiff carbon price is, in theory, the biggest tool in the toolbox, I am not sure that means we have to whip it out first. Many other tools are available. A policy known as a clean-electricity standard, which would require that a certain share of electricity generation come from low-carbon sources, could get us a long way in the United States. Republicans have shown some interest in it in the past. Stricter building regulations are also needed the world over.

Maybe we need to use those techniques to convince people that emissions really can be cut without wrecking the economy or further impoverishing the working class. Then, having proved that, we would pull the big tool out last.

In other words, frog in a boiling pot. A dink here, and dunk there, and eventually the CoC can slam people with a carbon tax. Of course, that’s rather what happened in France, where the Frogs noticed the boiling water and burned the kitchen down. The CoC just won’t give up on their ideas, which are all designed to…well, you know, I’ve written it enough.

Read: NY Times Warmist: Forget The Carbon Tax Now (Till We Can Ram It Through) »

If All You See…

…is a world turning to desert and coming right up to our homes, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 357 Magnum, with a post on people you know possibly being a threat.

Read: If All You See… »

More Than Four Million Schoolkids Subjected To Lockdowns Because They’re Gun Free Zones

This is all about the anti-gun narrative

More than 4 million students participated in lockdowns over 2017-18 school year: report

More than 4 million school students in the United States participated in lockdowns during the 2017-2018 school year, according to a new Washington Post analysis on school safety.

According to the analysis, 4.1 million students had to participate in at least one school lockdown during the school year, and on average 16 campuses per day across the U.S. were placed on lockdown. There was not a single day between Labor Day of 2017 and Memorial Day 2018 without a lockdown, according to The Post.

Of those lockdowns, 15 percent were reportedly due to bomb threats, while 61 percent were related to firearms.

Many times there was no actual gun, just someone freaking out about what they thought was a gun. And since schools are gun free zones everyone is worried that some nutjob will come in and shoot the place up. Because there is no one to stop them.

Reading the actual Washington Post article, you come away with an impression that many of the lockdowns are caused  by rumors, fearmongering on social media, and perceived danger, not actual real danger. Also, a lot of these occur in Democrat run areas with heavy crime, where gun fire and what they think is gun fire occurs in the neighborhood around the school.

The Post notes that the number of students who participated in lockdowns is larger than the combined populations of Maine, Rhode Island, Delaware and Vermont. As the first study of its kind, there is currently no comparable data on lockdown frequency from past school years.

Wait, if the populations of those states are that small then we should be taking away one senator from each, according to Democrat talking points, right?

The study comes at the end of a year dominated by debate over gun control laws and school safety, after February’s school shooting in Parkland, Fla., refocused the nation’s attention to the issue.

Perhaps we can discuss why the law enforcement in Parkland failed to go in to stop the nutter. And why so many levels of government failed in noting that the Parkland shooter was a raving nutjob beforehand, and that all the signs were there.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who is expected to return as Speaker in the next Congress, has promised that gun control will be a priority under the newly elected Democratic majority. Democratic lawmakers have floated legislation ranging from universal background checks to an assault weapons ban in the wake of recent shootings.

They’ll just highlight that they want to disarm law abiding citizens. Over to a quote from the WP article

While most kids won’t suffer long-term consequences, experts who specialize in childhood trauma suspect that a meaningful percentage will.

“This is a clear and pressing public health issue,” said Steven Schlozman, a child psychiatrist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, after learning of The Post’s findings, which he called “staggering.”

And this is how they’ll attack the rights of law abiding citizens: for the children. And the article leans heavily on this. The gun grabbers will do anything to take away Other People’s guns. Just not those of the actual criminals.

Read: More Than Four Million Schoolkids Subjected To Lockdowns Because They’re Gun Free Zones »

Trump Imperils The Planet Due To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

Funny, when Mr. Obama was traveling all over the nation constantly, and the world, in fossil fueled airplanes, taking constant vacations and seemingly heading to the west coast for fundraisers every other week, when his family, and even the dog, traveled in separate airplanes, the planet was fine. Now, though, the NY Times editorial board, featuring confirmed racist Sarah Jeong, is Very Upset

Trump Imperils The Planet

It’s hard to believe but it was only three years ago this month — just after 7 p.m., Paris time, Dec. 12, to be precise — that delegates from more than 190 nations, clapping and cheering, whooping and weeping, rose to celebrate the Paris Agreement — the first genuinely collective response to the mounting threat of global warming. It was a largely aspirational document, without strong legal teeth and achieved only after contentious and exhausting negotiations. But for the first time in climate talks stretching back to 1992, it set forth specific, numerical pledges from each country to reduce emissions so that together they could keep atmospheric temperatures from barreling past a point of no return.

Two weeks ago, delegates met at a follow-up conference in Katowice, Poland, to address procedural questions left unsettled in Paris, including common accounting mechanisms and greater transparency in how countries report their emissions. In this the delegates largely succeeded, giving rise to the hope, as Brad Plumer put it in The Times, that “new rules would help build a virtuous cycle of trust and cooperation among countries, at a time when global politics seems increasingly fractured.”

But otherwise it was a hugely dispiriting event and a fitting coda to one of the most discouraging years in recent memory for anyone who cares about the health of the planet — a year marked by President Trump’s destructive, retrograde policies, by backsliding among big nations, by fresh data showing that carbon dioxide emissions are still going up, by ever more ominous signs (devastating wildfires and floods, frightening scientific reports) of what a future of unchecked greenhouse gas emissions is likely to bring. (snip)

Wells Griffith, Mr. Trump’s international energy and climate adviser, managed in one quote to summarize the dismissiveness of the American delegation and its fealty to the president’s apparently unshakable conviction that anything that helps the environment must inevitably hurt the economy. “The United States has an abundance of natural resources and is not going to keep them in the ground,” he said. “We strongly believe that no country should have to sacrifice their economic prosperity or energy security in pursuit of environmental sustainability.” The administration is full of zero-sum philosophers like Mr. Griffith. The idea that sustainability may be a necessary condition of future economic growth appears never to have crossed their minds.

The NY Times, which uses vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather and disseminate the news, seems a bit upset.

Further depressing the proceedings were recent defections and political troubles in countries that, along with the United States, had been expected to lead the way to a low-carbon energy future. Germany, which long ago walked away from carbon-free nuclear power, is having a hard time cutting back on coal because of political opposition. In Australia, a prime minister was kicked out of office because he wanted to reduce the use of coal, which Australia produces in abundance. China, despite admirably aggressive investments in wind and solar power, has yet to get a firm grip on its emissions from coal-fired plants. The new president-elect of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, not only named an outspoken climate-change denier as his foreign minister but also, reversing his predecessors’ policy, pledged to open up the Amazon to mining and farming. This will threaten biodiversity in one of the world’s great rain forests while crippling its ability to act as a sink for carbon emissions.

In other words, nations are realizing that we can’t just wish away the use of reliable, low cost coal and other fossil fuels for the pie in the sky “green energy” sources. When will the Times get all its power from solar and wind?

No country’s backsliding, of course, compares with Mr. Trump’s. Determined to demolish President Barack Obama’s entire climate strategy, Mr. Trump has in the past year replaced Mr. Obama’s clean-power plan, which was aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, with an essentially useless substitute that would emit 12 times the pollution envisaged by the Obama plan. He has proposed weakening a major Obama regulation requiring automakers to nearly double the fuel economy of passenger vehicles by 2025. (This rollback, The Times reported this month, came after a lot of whining by oil interests, not, as one might suspect, from the auto companies, which had accepted the challenge.) And the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department have taken multiple steps to roll back Obama-era efforts to control emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas many times more powerful than carbon dioxide. These three programs formed the basis of Mr. Obama’s pledge at the 2015 Paris meeting to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Mr. Obama’s pledge, not the pledge of the United States of America, as it was never meant to be anything that the duly elected lawmakers would vote on. Don’t forget, Obama’s Clean Power Plan was still stuck in court, and was never implemented.

The bottom line, according to the Global Carbon Project, is that after three years in which emissions remained largely flat, global levels of carbon dioxide increased by 1.6 percent in 2017 and are on pace to jump by 2.7 percent this year. Some scientists have likened the increase in emissions to a “speeding freight train.” That has a lot to do with economic growth. It also has a lot to do with not moving much faster to less carbon-intensive ways of powering that growth. Or in Mr. Trump’s case, moving in the opposite direction.

See? We’re doomed! Except, of course, that America’s carbon footprint has actually gone down, while a goodly chunk of the nations which are still in the Paris Climate Agreement are seeing their own CO2 output go up up up. But, hey, Trump lives rent free in the head of every Warmist.

The planet will be just fine.

Read: Trump Imperils The Planet Due To ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Pirate's Cove