Trump Signs Memo Ending “Catch And Release” For Illegal Aliens

By William Teach April 7, 2018 – 7:55 am

The policy really should be “catch, detain, and deport”

(Daily Caller) A memorandum signed by President Trump on Friday could be the beginning of the end for America’s longstanding “catch and release” policy at the border.

The memo gives the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies 45 days to detail “all measures that their respective departments have pursued or are pursuing to expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices,” according to The Hill.

In addition to other measures, the departments are also supposed to provide “a detailed list of all existing facilities, including military facilities, that could be used, modified, or repurposed to detain aliens for violations of immigration law at or near the borders of the United States.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have also been directed to identify additional means “that may be needed to expeditiously end ‘catch and release’ practices.”

Catch and release has mostly ended up being “catch, release, and see them fail to show up for their hearing, having disappeared into America.”

From The Hill article, we see this from press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders

“The safety and security of the American people is the President’s highest priority, and he will keep his promise to protect our country and to ensure that our laws are respected,” she said in a statement.

“At the same time, the President continues to call on congressional Democrats to cease their staunch opposition to border security and to stop blocking measures that are vital to the safety and security of the United States,” she added.

Democrats do not care about the safety and security of the U.S.: they simply want to expand their voting base and the number of people who are beholden to the government.

Read: Trump Signs Memo Ending “Catch And Release” For Illegal Aliens »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Oregon Looks To Enact Gun Measures That Primarily Affect Law Abiding Citizens

By William Teach April 7, 2018 – 7:46 am

Once again, Liberals are showing that their debate on gun control is dishonest (shocking, right?). They tell us that they want to lower shootings, and that they do not want to take guns from law abiding citizens, but then they keep pushing laws, rules, and regulations that go after the law abiding citizens, rather than the criminals. Now Oregon is giving what Vermont just did a whirl

Gun measures could come to Oregon with or without gun owners’ input

While much hand-wringing was going on following the filing of an initiative to ban the sale of assault weapons in Oregon, a second gun measure, Initiative Petition 44, was filed Monday, April 2, just 11 days later.

The newest measure, submitted by the group called Oregonians for Safe Gun Storage, would require gun owners to use safety devices in storing and transferring firearms and report stolen or lost guns within 24 hours. Owners who fail to comply and have their gun used to injure or kill someone within five years could face liability for the harm.

The initiative faces the same high hurdles as the first. More than 88,000 signatures must be collected by July to be certified by the Secretary of State before the general election in November.

Both measures likely face appeals to the Oregon Supreme Court by either in- or out-of-state opponents, which means it could take months for a ruling. And by law, petitioners can’t gather signatures while the court case is being reviewed.

Which means it’s unlikely either measure will be on this November’s ballot.

Whether or not they make it on the ballot, the groups will keep pushing. More importantly, we see what the gun grabbers are attempting to do: turn law abiding citizens into criminals, along with making it harder to defend themselves. What’s the point of having a handgun or rifle for home defense if you must keep a safety device on it by law? Interestingly, I’ve ran across a few articles which make the claim, at least regarding the Vermont law, that carrying the weapon, both open and concealed, could be considered “transferring”, and would require safety devices, such as a trigger lock, when carrying for protection. Which would make them useless.

Now, the above is an editorial from the Statesman Journal, so

These two attempts in Oregon’s two initiative attempts should be a wake-up call for responsible gun owners in Oregon.

The Second Amendment does not guarantee “unregulated” access to guns. So while some are bleating that they would welcome IP 43, because a vote would bring out the redness in the state like never before seen, it might also bring out a deeper shade of blue.

Yes, it should be a wake-up call, but not how the editorial board means, especially as we see the very next paragraph. It’s a wake-up call that Democrats are duplicitous wankers, hell bent on eroding our 2nd Amendment Rights, while caring not a whit about the actual criminals. There’s no honesty in this debate from the gun grabbers: these same people have conniption fits if the police perform a raid that goes after criminals and ends up scooping up lots of guns. They’ll yammer on about law enforcement terrorizing a community. Usually, Democrats are fine with high crime which involves gun play, because that happens in the neighborhoods far from where the Democrats live. And usually Black ones, and the Democrats only care about Blacks as a voting block.

BTW, here’s an idea: gun owners should push for ballot initiatives in these Democrat run areas which would require all the armed security for the elected lawmakers to have trigger locks on their firearms at all times. The resulting hypocritical freakout would be educational.

Read: Oregon Looks To Enact Gun Measures That Primarily Affect Law Abiding Citizens »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach April 6, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is wine which will be grown in the Arctic due to Other People’s use of fossil fueled vehicles, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Victory Girls Blog, with a post on the Democrats midterm playbook wishes.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Search Engines Are Making Us More Raaaaacist Or Something

By William Teach April 6, 2018 – 10:30 am

These people. Sigh

How search engines are making us more racist

photo 2fafda1b-e5d9-4d86-bf11-619941b220d4_zpsmsibb8cb.jpgAre search engines making us more racist?

According to Safiya Umoja Noble, a professor of communication at the University of Southern California, the answer is almost certainly yes.

Noble’s new book, Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, challenges the idea that search engines like Google provide a level playing field for all ideas, values, and identities. She says they’re inherently discriminatory and favor the groups that designed them, as well as the companies that fund them.

This is totally not trivial, either

This isn’t a trivial topic, especially in a world where people get more information from search engines than they do from teachers or libraries. For Noble, Google is not just telling people what they want to know but also determining what’s worth knowing in the first place.

Of course, what Google wants you to know is the Progressive POV. Really, though, this just goes to show how so many leftists see everything in terms of race, because they’re pretty much racists.

PS: If everything looked funny before, the update WordPress app does some funky things when cutting and pasting.

Read: Search Engines Are Making Us More Raaaaacist Or Something »

Posted in Barking Moonbats | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Deerfield Sued For “Assault Weapons” And Magazine Ban Ban

By William Teach April 6, 2018 – 7:14 am

Well, it didn’t take very long for the lawsuit to happen

(Washington Times) Gun-rights advocates on Thursday sued an Illinois village over its new ban on military-style semiautomatic “assault” rifles and high capacity ammunition magazines, saying the ordinance not only stops purchases but could lead to confiscations.

The ban passed by the Deerfield Village Board earlier this week “flies in the face of state law,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, which sued along with the Illinois State Rifle Association and a Deerfield resident.

John Boch, president of Illinois-based Guns Save Life, also vowed to file a lawsuit.

“We are going to fight this ordinance, which clearly violates our member’s constitutional rights, and with the help of the NRA, I believe we can secure a victory for law-abiding gun owners in and around Deerfield,” he said. (snip)

The new lawsuit Thursday says the village is breaking state law, which allows for amendments to previous ordinances. The lawsuit says the outright ban goes far beyond an amendment.

“While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally owned semi-auto firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense,” Mr. Gottlieb said.

The question here is, does the city of Deerfield back down and repeal their new law, or will they fight? I guess that depends as to whether the deep-pocketed anti-gun groups like Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown (Mike is protected by people carrying firearms) gives them money.

Gun-rights groups pointed to Deerfield’s new language that specifically allows police to confiscate the banned weapons as particularly concerning.

“This certainly puts the lie to claims by anti-gunners that ‘nobody is coming to take your guns,’” Mr. Gottlieb said.

Of course they are. They usually try to dink and dunk their way towards their ultimate goal, no private ownership of firearms. Even if Deerfield backs down or loses this, it gives other cities an idea to try. One can see another city giving it a shot, but leaving out the confiscation language.

Read: Deerfield Sued For “Assault Weapons” And Magazine Ban Ban »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Parents Of Kids Killed By Illegal Aliens Launch Ballot Initiative To End California’s Sanctuary State Status

By William Teach April 6, 2018 – 6:53 am

Being a state that overwhelmingly votes Leftist, there’s a low chance that this would pass, but, then, who thought that the anti-gay marriage ballot initiative would have passed (which was, of course, thwarted by a Leftist judge)

(Sacramento Bee) The parents of two young people killed by immigrants (no, they are illegal aliens) are leading an effort to repeal California’s “sanctuary state” policy and criminalize officials who obstruct federal law.

“You’re already here illegally,” said Don Rosenberg, whose son Drew was hit on a motorcycle by an unlicensed driver who had been granted temporary immigration status to remain in the U.S. in 2010. “You already have no right to be here. Why are we bending over backwards for someone who commits more crimes on top of that?”

Senate Bill 54, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to help the federal government enforce immigration violations, prompted the U.S. Department of Justice to sue California last month and survived an early referendum attempt that failed to qualify.

Now a group called Fight Sanctuary State is taking another shot at the law and announcing a new ballot measure initiative Wednesday to delete sections of the government code related to SB 54 and another law that penalizes employers who give federal immigration authorities access to employee records or buildings without a warrant.

It would mostly likely take till 2020 to make it onto the ballot. This initiative would require state and local police to notify federal authorities when an illegal alien is going to be released. And

The measure would also impose criminal penalties and fines on government officials who obstruct federal immigration enforcement, prohibit the Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing licenses for undocumented immigrants and require voters to provide proof of citizenship to register.

They aren’t playing around. Of course, the top Dems aren’t happy

Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, on his way to a West Covina City Council meeting to defend the bill he authored, said the restrictions on rights of undocumented immigrants under the initiative suggests the “ghosts of Prop 187 are being brought back to life.” The 1994 initiative, which was overturned by the courts, eliminated public services for undocumented immigrants.

The part de Leon is probably the most unhappy about would be the stopping of driver’s licenses, which give illegals a sense of legalization, and proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Meanwhile, the city of Aliso Viejo voted to join Trump’s lawsuit against California on it being a sanctuary state.

Read: Parents Of Kids Killed By Illegal Aliens Launch Ballot Initiative To End California’s Sanctuary State Status »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Let’s Go Devils

By William Teach April 5, 2018 – 9:48 pm

Oh Yeah!

https://twitter.com/NJDevils/status/982070276275036161

Absolutely no one picked the Devils to even get close to the Playoffs. Heck, even us fans thought this team was a year or so away.

Read: Let’s Go Devils »

Posted in Devils!!!!!, NHL | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Across Pennsylvania, 4 in 10 Registered Voters Have Literally Witnessed Bad Weather Or Something

By William Teach April 5, 2018 – 5:41 pm

Across Pa, 4 in 10 voters are dumbasses who should not be allowed to vote because they’re mindless drones

Poll: Climate change causing problems for significant number of Pennsylvanians

Across Pennsylvania, four in 10 registered voters say they have personally experienced problems related to climate change, according to a recent poll from StateImpact Pennsylvania and Franklin & Marshall College.

Dealing with extreme weather is a common theme among Pennsylvanians who responded that they believe climate change is affecting them. Some have had to cancel vacations due to hurricanes, while others have experienced flooding in their basements.

For Carol Gingrich of Bushkill, a town in the Pocono mountains along the New Jersey border, it’s the seemingly nonstop storms.

“We have gone through four nor’easters just this winter,” she said. “Now, it’s not unusual to have a nor’easter come onto the East Coast like this. But four pretty much back to back, and one really devastated the area, is pretty intense.”

First, there’s no proof that any of these storms are anything other than normal weather during a Holocene warm period.

Second, when did so many people become so soft?

Read: Across Pennsylvania, 4 in 10 Registered Voters Have Literally Witnessed Bad Weather Or Something »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach April 5, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from Other People’s sugary drink habits, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on the UK Thought Police stating they aren’t Thought Police while acting like Thought Police.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Manufacture Position That Banning Fossil Fuels Will Be Super Awesome

By William Teach April 5, 2018 – 10:52 am

The Cult of Climastrology often comes up with talking points to counteract reality when reality is making a mockery of the original CoC talking points. Take for instance this whole notion that greenhouse gases are now causing the Arctic to shift and make it cold and snowy. By this measure, it would mean that the last glacial age was super warm. And, it conveniently forgets that the Southern Hemisphere has seen the same thing. Oh, and did you know that D.C.’s largest April snow was all the way back on 4/1/1924, with 5.5 inches? What caused that?

Now we have this from the always Nutty Vox, by their hyper-warmist David Roberts (who’s actually a pretty nice guy)

It’s time to think seriously about cutting off the supply of fossil fuels

There is a bias in climate policy shared by analysts, politicians, and pundits across the political spectrum so common it is rarely remarked upon. To put it bluntly: Nobody, at least nobody in power, wants to restrict the supply of fossil fuels.

Policies that choke off fossil fuels at their origin — shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals — have been embraced by climate activists, picking up steam with the Keystone pipeline protestsand the recent direct action of the Valve Turners.

But they are looked upon with some disdain by the climate intelligentsia, who are united in their belief that such strategies are economically suboptimal and politically counterproductive.

Now a pair of economists has offered a cogent argument that the activists are onto something — that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.

Well, of course they have. Alternate headline: People who use lots of fossil fuels recommend getting the government (which uses lots of fossil fuels) to cut off fossil fuels for Other People and dramatically increase the cost of living while doing vast harm to Black and brown people in 3rd world nations. Too long?

Here’s what they propose

Climate policies can apply to the supply side (production of fossil fuels) or the demand side (consumption of FF), and they can be restrictive or supportive. That creates a grid with four quadrants:

  1. Restrictive supply side: policies that cut off FF supply, including declining quotas, supply taxes, and subsidy reductions
  2. Restrictive demand side: policies that restrict demand for FF, including carbon prices and declining emission caps
  3. Supportive supply side: policies that support the supply of FF alternatives, like renewable energy subsidies and mandates
  4. Supportive demand side: policies that support demand for FF alternatives, like subsidies for purchase of energy-efficiency appliances or favorable government procurement policies

It’s always interesting that the CoC’s policies always revolve around giving Centralized Government lots and lots of power over people’s lives and private industries and economies. And then they’re shocked when they’re called Marxists and Fascists.

The article attempts to portray just how all of this has positive economic benefits. I’ll let you read that in full and in context to see the idiocy they attempt. It boils down to “if you ban them you’ll make it easier for government to ban them and hit people with carbon taxes.” Let’s move to this

Cutting off fossil fuel supply has unique political benefits

This is all about the politics of control, the antithesis of freedom.

Yet, these same people refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. Go figure.

Read: Warmists Manufacture Position That Banning Fossil Fuels Will Be Super Awesome »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 15 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove