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

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 »

Let’s Go Devils

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 »

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

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 »

If All You See…

…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… »

Warmists Manufacture Position That Banning Fossil Fuels Will Be Super Awesome

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 »

Escondido Votes To Join Trump’s Lawsuit Against Sanctuary State California

The dominoes continue to fall

(San Diego Union Tribune) Following a contentious, three-hour meeting filled with name-calling and impassioned pleas, the Escondido City Council voted 4-1 Wednesday to file a legal brief in support of the U.S. government’s lawsuit challenging the state’s sanctuary laws.

The action is the first by a San Diego County city. The county Board of Supervisors is expected to discuss filing a similar brief during a closed-door meeting on April 17.

At the beginning of the meeting, Escondido City Attorney Michael McGuinness explained what was, and what was not, being contemplated by the council.

He said the city was not suing the state, only filing a legal brief in support of the Trump Administration’s lawsuit, which contends California laws contradict and are in violation of federal law.

Police Chief Craig Carter said the new state laws put his officers in a difficult position. Since 2009, federal immigration officers have worked closely with Escondido police, he said. But as of January, when the new state laws went into effect, immigration officials no longer have a desk in police headquarters and local officers are forbidden in most circumstances from inquiring about someone’s immigration status.

One has to wonder how many more cities will take a stance. There are a lot of areas in California that do vote Republican, that aren’t unhinged illegal alien supporting Liberals.

Councilman John Masson made an interesting statement on Unintended Consequences

They said recent California laws hurt the city’s predominantly Latino community by not allowing local officers to work with immigration police. Instead, they said, federal agents are out there on their own now arresting people, some of whom are not criminals.

“When (the laws) got passed and we were no longer able to deal with ICE, that relationship with ICE disappeared,” Masson said. “So, no longer do we have control over our community and who we go after in our community, which was very controlled through our (police department).”

That’s an interesting take which really needs no explanation

One speaker, 17-year-old Maria Martinez, said she was an undocumented city resident whose father was deported in October.

“How shameful of you to think that tearing families apart will help the community,” she said. “This unethical behavior has to be stopped. If the sanctuary law is not in place, more behavior like this will continue.”

It’s not our fault, sweety. Blame your father for knowingly violating U.S. federal law.

Read: Escondido Votes To Join Trump’s Lawsuit Against Sanctuary State California »

Not Coming For Your Guns: Illinois Town Authorizes Confiscation Of “Assault Weapons” And Large Capacity Magazines

Remember, they’re totally not coming for the guns of law abiding citizens……because they legislate turning law abiding citizens into criminals (while being soft on actual criminals)

(Chicago Tribune) Owners of assault weapons living in north suburban Deerfield have until June 13 to remove the firearms from within village limits or face daily fines after a ban was approved Monday night.

The Village Board of Trustees unanimously approved a ban on certain types of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, amending a 2013 ordinance that regulated the storage of those items.

The new ordinance prohibits the possession, sale and manufacturing of certain types of assault weapons and large capacity magazines within the village, according to the ordinance. One change from the law as it was originally discussed exempts retired police officers from the ban, according to Village Manager Kent Street.

Violations carry a fine of between $250 and $1,000 per day, according to Matthew Rose, the village attorney. He said the fine is levied each day until there is compliance.

Street said the new law is modeled after one approved by Highland Park in 2013. That ban survived a legal challenge by one of the city’s residents and the Illinois State Rifle Association. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that legislation constitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court let the decision stand when it declined to take up the appeal.

This may or may not survive a legal challenge that you know is coming. But, it is illuminating to see Democrats enact a ban which requires people to turn in their lawfully purchased and owned property, and I cannot find any article that states that the lawful owners will be compensated. And since the government mostly knows who has what thanks to the a previous law on storing the weapons, the police can spend time rounding them up rather than doing things like….stopping crime.

Citizens can also place them outside of the Village, but, will have to tell the Government where in order to be in compliance and not get fined for possession of legally purchased property. Both apply to possession of “high capacity magazines”, which they find to be any that can accept more than 10 rounds.

But, this might possibly maybe make them all feel safe, as we see from the actual ordinance

WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Deerfield find that amending Village of Deerfield Ordinance No. 0-13-24 (July 1, 2013) to prohibit the possession, manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the Village of Deerfield may increase the public’s sense of safety at the public schools, public venues, places of worship and places of public accommodation located in the Village of Deerfield;

So, it’s all about squishy feelings, rather than anything concrete.

Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior who favors the legislation, said she wants more action both on a local and national level.

“This is our fight,” Kharasch said. “This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.”

In other words, they’re coming for your guns. The ordinance itself has the potential to impact all semi-automatic rifles (page 5 of the ordinance, at the (2)), since most can be made to take a magazine with more than 10 rounds.

Read: Not Coming For Your Guns: Illinois Town Authorizes Confiscation Of “Assault Weapons” And Large Capacity Magazines »

People Who Use Lots Of Fossil Fuels Demand Shell Stop Giving Them Fossil Fuels Or Something

Shell should give the Netherlands what they’re asking, and refuse to sell fossil fuels to all things Netherland

Netherlands Group to Shell: Stop Wrecking the Climate, Or We Will Sue

Royal Dutch Shell received an ultimatum from a climate activist group on Wednesday, demanding the company help address climate change or face legal consequences.

Friends of the Earth Netherlands / Milieudefensie, a national organization with 65 local chapters, delivered a liability letter to the Dutch oil giant demanding it cut back on its oil and gas production to align with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

“Many of us are doing [our] best to put an end to the climate problem. In the meantime, Shell continues to invest in new oil and gas sources. Shell, just like the rest of us, should take its responsibility to stop wrecking the climate,” said Milieudefensie director Donald Pols.

Under Dutch law, Shell, which is headquartered in the Netherlands and is one of the largest oil companies in the world, has eight weeks to comply with the demands or face a lawsuit by the organization.

“Shell was informed in the liability letter that was sent today, that the company has a legal duty to bring its policy in line with the Paris climate agreements,” said Milieudefensie attorney Roger Cox, who successfully led a case by Dutch citizens in 2015 requiring the government to curtail the country’s emissions to address the climate crisis.

The Netherlands is dependent on fossil fuels for over 90% of their energy consumption. They are “the most dependent on fossil fuels of any country in Western Europe.” I wonder what would happen if Shell moved their headquarters out of the Netherlands and did refuse to sell fossil fuels in the nation?

Milieudefensie is inviting all Dutch citizens to register as co-plaintiffs.

Yet, all these people, and I would bet all the members of the Friends Of the Earth Netherlands, have fossil fueled vehicles.

Read: People Who Use Lots Of Fossil Fuels Demand Shell Stop Giving Them Fossil Fuels Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an evil water pistol that shoots water that is disappearing from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post noting we need better Vegan controls.

Read: If All You See… »

Good News: Before We Drown From ‘Climate Change’ (scam), We’ll Starve

If only all the True Believers would give up their own use of fossil fuels, this wouldn’t be an issue

BEFORE WE DROWN HUMANITY WILL STARVE

Climate change impedes access to food and water to the world’s most vulnerable. Syria is facing its worst drought in 900 years. Climate change-driven drought makes it more difficult for places like Kenya to maintain successful livestock and agriculture, exacerbating hunger.

Over 815 million people in the world are chronically hungry, and the number is rising. It can be hard to make sense of a number so large, so a study released in Royal Society Publishing yesterday mapped all the parts of the world that will be affected by climate change-driven hunger and drought in the next century.

It’s almost all of it.

If the Earth warms 2 degrees Celsius compared to a pre-industrial Earth, this is how much of the world will be vulnerable to hunger. The darker the red, the more vulnerable the area. It averages five different climate models—which make slightly different assumptions about air and water circulation.

Everybody Pani……oh, wait, we’re nowhere near a 2C increase, this is all fearmongering by people who refuse to practice what they preach.

Seriously, Warmists wonder why most people rank ‘climate change’ as a very low ranking issue. People tend to tune out the unhinged.

Read: Good News: Before We Drown From ‘Climate Change’ (scam), We’ll Starve »

Pirate's Cove