They don’t seem to actual understand what it is
"I'm Confused": ICE official has to explain to Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono that illegal immigrants break the law. pic.twitter.com/lgM9WhHWco
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) July 31, 2018
Read: Sen. Mazie Hirona (D) Highlights Democrat Problem With Illegal Immigration »
…is a world flooded by Other People’s carbon footprints, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is hogewash, with a post on medicating moonbats.
Read: If All You See… »
Warmists are making a big deal out of this, but, they shouldn’t hang their hats quite yet
US Supreme Court Signals Serious Doubts About The Youths’ Global Warming Lawsuit Against Trump
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the Justice Department’s request to stay discovery in a lawsuit filed by group of youths and young adults that alleges a constitutional right to a “stable climate system.â€
Justices, however, took the unusual step of expressing doubts about the justiciability of the plaintiffs’ global warming claims and urged a “prompt ruling†on the federal government’s dispositive motions.
“The breadth of respondents’ claims is striking, however, and the justiciability of those claims presents substantial grounds for difference of opinion,†the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.
“The District Court should take these concerns into account in assessing the burdens of discovery and trial, as well as the desirability of a prompt ruling on the Government’s pending dispositive motions,†the court ruled.
In other words, they’re saying the lawsuit will need some serious facts, figures, and science to prove the case. Also, that SCOTUS seems to be remanding the case back for the trial judge to make it go away.
The youths argue they have a right to “a climate system capable of sustaining human life,†and that the government had violated the public trust doctrine to the detriment of future generations.
The kiddies and their lawyers are going to have a hard time proving their case, which will be great when they end up losing. Especially since the case seems to be about the judiciary making law. First question from the government should be ” have y’all given up fossil fueled travel and made your lives carbon neutral? No? Huh. Guess you don’t believe that much.”
Read: Supreme Court Rules Kids’ ‘Climate Change’ Suit Can Go Forward, But….. »
Trackback URL
What’s the Democrat agenda for November?
Along with some other crazy things. And now they are mainstreaming Medicare for all, otherwise known as Single Payer
Liberal Dems lay groundwork to push Medicare for All
Democrats are laying the groundwork to make a push for “Medicare for All†legislation if they win back the House in November.
More than 60 House Democrats launched a Medicare for All caucus this month, a sign of the popularity surrounding the concept of a government-run health insurance system for all that’s supported by liberal firebrands like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
The caucus plans to hold briefings with experts as part of its efforts to revise a previous bill that will act as the framework for future legislation to establish single-payer national health insurance.
“We’re going to do what it takes to get health care for every American,†said Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), one of the co-chairs of the new caucus.
This should work out well
For perspective, the entire federal budget is $4 trillion, revenues are $3.3 trillion. Bernie’s fantasy Medicare for All plan would consume close to 100% of federal revenue. https://t.co/B2XntFqRFh
— Drew Cline (@DrewHampshire) July 30, 2018
That’s $32.6 trillion over 10 years. In a static universe. We’ll pay for this mumble mumble garble garble…oh, right, they’ll just raise takes on the rich (like all their Hollywood buds, athletes, and so forth). That’s always their solution. In reality, your taxes would go up as you no longer pay for health insurance through your work. You can expect your overall costs to skyrocket, though.
Leaders of the caucus are planning to revise a single-payer bill in January 2017 by former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). The measure has 123 Democratic cosponsors.
“The idea would be to introduce something that has a little bit more detail and is an actual legislative path,†said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), another co-chair of the caucus. (snip)
Adam Green, co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said that if Democrats win back the House, his organization will push for a series of health care votes on legislation addressing single-payer and somewhat less-drastic ideas like a public option.
It’d be a hoot if Republicans would introduce the plan on the floor for a vote. Watch Democrat freak out and call voting on their beliefs a stunt.
And let’s not forget, if the government is in charge of your health care, they pretty much own you.
Read: Democrats Look To Add One More Crazy Idea To Midterms: Medicare For All »
Either the Cato Institute has moved far left in their Never-Trump status, or Libertarians are loons. Or they didn’t realize they had a far left moonbat in their midst, as Jeffrey Miron, director of economic studies at the Cato Institute and the director of undergraduate studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University, calls for open borders. Though, this isn’t that out of bounds when it comes to official Libertarians, who also want all drugs legalized
Forget the wall already, it’s time for the U.S. to have open borders
President Donald Trump’s recent tweets against open borders come as no surprise. Indeed, even fervent immigration advocates worry that open borders would lower the wages of low-skilled natives, erode national security, and overburden the social safety net. Trump doubled down, tweeting that he would be “willing to ‘shut down’ government” unless Congress approves funding for a border wall with Mexico.
Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: The solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
If we have no borders, we have no country.
Illegal immigration will disappear, by definition. Much commentary on immigration — Trump and fellow travelers aside — suggests that legal immigration is good and that illegal immigration is bad. So, legalize all immigration.
Government will then have no need to define or interpret rules about asylum, economic hardship, family reunification, family separation, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals)Â and so on. When all immigration is legal, these issues are irrelevant.
See? It’s so easy. We could totally save money!
Expenditure on immigration enforcement would shrink to nothing, because open borders means no walls, fences, screening at airports, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), deportations, detention centers or immigration courts. A 2013 report estimated that immigration enforcement cost more than $18 billion annually, and standard indicators suggest costs have grown further since then.
And they’ll send their best!
The government’s fiscal balance could actually improve with more legal immigrants earning income and paying taxes in America. And under open borders, any added immigration will plausibly come from those with even higher skills and incomes, who faced weaker incentives to immigrate when faced with the burden of current restrictions.
And Jeffrey tells us that there won’t be any bad consequences. They won’t flood into America (though, since we have no borders, there’s no need to name the nation), the won’t put down roots, crime won’t skyrocket, terrorists won’t stream in, but,
Open borders are not without risks. Social safety nets might come under pressure, and natives will face added competition for jobs (though the evidence on this is mixed).
If it’s “mixed” now, when they’re streaming in, natives (notice he doesn’t call us Americans. Very telling) will lose, and social safety nets will crash. I wonder if Jeffrey locks the doors in his car and home? Does he have a fence?
Here’s another lunatic
I want to start a conversation about restructuring ice and granting amnesty to the 10 million plus people who are already here. Here’s the @courierjournal coverage:https://t.co/OFPwvXCPAg
— Hank Linderman for Congress KY-02 (@hank4ky) July 30, 2018
Read: Libertarian Lunatic Calls For Completely Open Borders »
I would assume Super Socialist agrees with this sentiment since she retweeted it, and, sure, a retweet doesn’t necessarily mean agreement, it usually does, this is Super Socialist we’re dealing with
Huh.
https://twitter.com/WilliamTeach/status/1023911053728665601
The 2016 election had Dem Joe Crowley winning with 82.9% of the vote. Previous elections saw the Democrat winning with well over 70% of the vote. Seems like a pretty big Blue district where it’s impossible to compete. Say, by that measure, we should be splitting up California to be equal party districts, right? Seems like a good socialist thing to do, right?
Read: Super Socialist Super Excited To Make Other People’s Districts More Fair »
Apparently, reporter members of the Cult of Climastrology can read minds
Climate change: Trump not happy to be listed in climate case
Young people taking legal action in 10 US states all say their lives and futures are irreparably affected by climate change, writes Caroline O’DohertyIn the US, Donald Trump is among the defendants listed in a climate case and he’s not one bit happy about it.
But then it probably doesn’t help that the people who listed him are children.
They range in age from 11 to 22 — they were aged eight to 19 starting out — and come from 10 states, although half are in the state of Oregon, home to the lead plaintiff, Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana.
Kelsey was 19 when she and her co-plaintiffs, with the assistance of the Our Children’s Trust campaign group, filed their case in 2015 against the president personally, the office of the president, seven government departments and their secretaries [ministers], the US Environmental Protection Agency and numerous other federal agencies.
Barack Obama was president at the time and he left the case as a legacy to his successor who has been instructing his legal representatives to block its hearing any way possible.
How does Caroline O’Doherty know that Trump is “not one bit happy about it”? There’s nothing in the screed to substantiate this claim, other than the reality that the Trump admin is trying to squash this suit
They’ve been to the local court in Oregon and to the Supreme Court arguing for an end to “this clearly improper attempt to have the judiciary decide important questions of energy and environmental policy to the exclusion of the elected branches of governmentâ€.
Interestingly, Catherine forgets to mention that the Obama administration itself attempted to quash the same suit when it was filed against his administration. And still fought on against it. Does this mean that Obama was “not one bit happy about it”?
But, this is the age of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and how many who read articles such as the one above will do any research or ask questions?
Read: Trump’s Not Happy To Be Part Of Kids’ Climate Change Lawsuit Or Something »
Trackback URL
…is the need to live on a boat from doomy sea rise, you might just be a Warmist
The blog of the day is 90Ninety Miles From Tyranny, with a post on political blackface and Marxist minstrel shows.
Read: If All You See… »
Could we possibly put this under of government sponsored extortion?
San Francisco climate change resolution ‘just the start of pressure’ on US insurers
The city of San Francisco has taken a definitive stance towards climate change by passing a resolution urging insurance companies to stop insuring and investing in fossil fuels. It’s the first municipal body in the US pressuring insurers to break ties with dirty energy.
“This resolution is sending a powerful message: San Francisco is committed to acting on climate, and that means it won’t work with insurers who are perpetuating destructive fossil fuel projects. This resolution is an invitation to all cities to cut ties with insurers that are creating climate risks for current and future generations,†commented Ross Hammond, senior advisor for US Campaigns at The Sunrise Project, a group that supports social movements to drive the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy as fast as possible.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors is first urging the city to screen potential insurers for investments in coal and tar sands, as they’re “fueling climate change and creating an uncertain future for California,†according to Hammond.
Now, the actual resolution is aimed specifically at coal and tar sands projects, not oil and gas. They have gone after those previously. Yet, even if it is about coal and tar sands, why won’t the city give up its own use of fossil fuels 100%? Further, this kind of extortion would be illegal in the private sector, would it not? It’s a shakedown.
Perhaps San Fran should worry more about the poop, dirty needles, and people doing drugs opening in their streets than this silly thing.
Trackback URL
Remember, they aren’t coming for our guns. Or so they keep telling us
One way to reduce gun deaths: restrict big bullets and guns
The bigger the gun, the deadlier it is. Or, rather, the bullet.
The Washington Post’s Christopher Ingraham on Friday highlighted a study published in the journal JAMA Network Open that found larger-caliber firearms are much likelier to kill a shooting victim than smaller-caliber ones. Caliber measures the internal diameter of the barrel of the gun, or how wide the bullet is.
Analyzing data on hundreds of shootings in Boston between 2010 and 2014, researchers Anthony Braga of Northeastern University and Philip Cook of Duke University discovered that on a bullet-by-bullet basis, shootings with larger-caliber guns were deadlier than smaller-caliber handguns, but they’re not more accurate. Shootings with a medium-caliber weapon were 2.3 times likelier to result in death than with a small-caliber gun; large-caliber guns increased the odds of death by 4.5 times compared to small-caliber guns.
Well, um, yeah. That’s kinda the way it works. I openly carry my Walther P22, which is a .22LR caliber weapons, as a deterrent, not necessarily to kill an attacker. I don’t want to have to pull the trigger. Having a gun pointed at your face will make most people stop. If you break in my home, I’m pulling the 9mm, though.
This is what they consider to be sizes
Actually, guns do kill people, according to a new study https://t.co/CUjjPGUbNR pic.twitter.com/hhlqmHQIna
— Barry Ritholtz (@Ritholtz) July 28, 2018
Notice anything missing? Where’s the .223/5.56 ammo, which is the predominant caliber in all those scary “assault rifles” like the Frightening AR-15? It’s almost like they left it out on purpose. It would most likely be classified as a medium caliber, or at least around the low end on large caliber
“Whether a victim of a serious assault lives or dies is to a large extent a matter of chance, rather than a question of the assailant’s intent,†Braga and Cook write. “The probability of death is connected to the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon. That suggests that effective regulation of firearms could reduce the homicide rate.â€
In other words, having fewer big guns on the streets could make gun violence in America less deadly.
In other words, they want to grab the larger caliber weapons and bullets from the law abiding citizens, who use them to protect themselves and their families from criminals. I have to wonder, would these gun grabbers also restrict ownership from law enforcement, which has embraced the .40 and 10mm calibers? They’re guns are lost and stolen, as well.
Read: Next Big Gun Grabber Idea: Restrict Ammunition And Big Guns »
All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.
NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.
Pirate's Cove by Pirate's Cove is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.