Democrats Are Concerned Trump Might Rig The Census With Citizenship Question Or Something

By William Teach March 31, 2018 – 7:28 am

Asking people lawfully and unlawfully their citizenship status is now considered “rigging”, as we see in the Detroit Metro Times

Don’t expect Bill Schuette to sue over Trump’s plan to rig the census

Attorney General Bill Schuette reportedly won’t join more than a dozen of his peers in suing the Trump administration over its plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census.

Attorneys general in at least 12 states have signaled they’ll join a suit alleging the change is unconstitutional. California’s AG has already filed a separate suit. The addition of a question that asks whether someone is a U.S. citizen is widely expected to lead fewer immigrants to participate in the census, meaning Michigan could lose federal funding for persons not counted and even have its Congressional districts redrawn, potentially costing Democrat seats.

Schuette’s spokeswoman initially told the Detroit Free Press Schuette did not intend to join the multi-state lawsuit because he hadn’t been asked. When pressed by the paper on whether he’d consider suing independently, the spokeswoman reportedly said she would not comment on “a hypothetical.” Asked whether Schuette could reach out to other attorneys general on the issue himself, the spokeswoman told the Freep that he had not been contacted “because this is about politics, not public policy or rule of law.”

Yes, it is about Democrat #resist politics.

This is reportedly the first time in at least 70 years that the Census is to include a question about US citizenship.

So, it used to be done? And no one else had hissy fits?

In a piece penned last fall for the Brookings Institute’s blog, former Commerce Department head Robert Shapiro described the possibly devastating effects of a major undercount. (In a piece this week, he said he expects up to about 24 million people might skip the Census if the citizenship question is included.)

Who are those 24 million?

To begin, the policy will likely cost the Census participation of not only most undocumented immigrants, but also many of the 8.8 million U.S. citizens and legal residents who live in households with 4.3 million undocumented friends and family members.  If half of those households simply misstate the citizenship status of the undocumented person and the other half ignore the 2020 Census, the Census undercount from this issue alone would be 4.4 million. Add them to the other 6.8 million undocumented people in households without anyone with legal status, and the undercount comes to 11.2 million.

Bummer.

Millions of other Americans would have good reason to hesitate about providing their names and addresses, if they believe their data might be shared with federal law enforcement. For example, 43 percent of the 22 million Americans with federal student loans are in default or very behind in their payments arrears, which covers about 9,460,000 young Americans. If we assume, conservatively, that one-third of those in such arrears will opt for discretion and skip the 2020 Census, it comes to 3,120,000 people. Moreover, the Census collects its information from households, and most of those in default or way behind in payments on their federal student loans live in households with people not in such arrears. Again, assume that half simply leave out the household member in arrears (another 1,560,000 for the undercount) and the other half opt out of the Census. Since an average household consists of 2.54 persons, Americans in arrears on their federal student loans could add a total of another 5,522,400 people to the undercount [(1,560,000 + (1,560,000 x 2.54)], bringing the total potential undercount to 16,722,400.

So, asking citizenship status will cause them to do the above? Good grief. There are two more paragraphs of those who might blow off answering the census, which includes those in arrears on child support and those who are fugitives from justice. This is definitely Trump Derangement Syndrome, thinking that asking a question on citizenship is in any way involved with these people not answering.

But, you know, this is Trump rigging the census, people.

Read: Democrats Are Concerned Trump Might Rig The Census With Citizenship Question Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Unhinged Tools | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Vermont May Give “Comprehensive Gun Control” A Whirl

By William Teach March 31, 2018 – 7:09 am

So, if these “common sense restrictions” that are portrayed as not-infringements do not work, can we move on and put in place stronger penalties on people who use firearms in a criminal manner? Or are Democrats just bound and determined to dink and dunk their way to banning guns from the hands of law abiding citizens?

(The Hill) New gun restriction is headed for Vermont’s governor after the state Senate approved the bill on Friday.

Vermont’s Democratic majority state Senate passed the measure in a 17-13 vote on Friday, Reuters reported. The legislation passed the state House on Tuesday.

The bill will now head to Gov. Phil Scott (R), a lifelong gun owner who also holds a 93 percent approval rating from the National Rifle Association, but is expected to sign the bill.

Scott said his stances on gun control “changed completely” after the February mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school where 17 people died. Vermont also averted a school shooting in February after a tip to law enforcement, according to the Burlington Free Press.

Huh. So Vermont law enforcement succeeded where the school, Sheriff’s office, and FBI failed in Parkland, but, we still need restrictions on law abiding citizens?

The legislation would raise the minimum legal age required to buy firearms in Vermont to 21, expand background checks for private gun sales, ban bump stocks and magazines of more than 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for pistols.

Scott said after the Senate vote that he supports the legislation, and that it would protect citizens from gun violence without infringing on their constitutional rights.

Banning bump stocks? No problem. What they mean by expanded background checks is all private sales require a background check. No problem with that. Raising the age to 21? Silly. Banning legal adults from purchase by law is a violation of Rights, at the federal level and the State level

Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State–and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

This Constitution for the state was passed before the federal Bill of Rights. But, hey, the same people passing this legislation (all Democrats) also want to give children the Right to vote. Anyhow, do they actually think reducing magazine size will make a difference? People will just purchase elsewhere or make their own for rifles. The vast majority of handguns take 15 rounds or less. So, really, this amounts to not doing much about anything. What you can bet will now happen is that the Democrat controlled General Assembly will pass more restrictions. Dink and Dunk, especially when the GOP gov was willing to sign this.

Read: Vermont May Give “Comprehensive Gun Control” A Whirl »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | 17 Comments | Trackback URL

It’s ‘Climate Change’ Vs The Easter Bunny Or Something

By William Teach March 30, 2018 – 5:33 pm

It’s always something with these people, who are often the same ones who complain about Christianity in public (but still want their holiday days off with holiday pay)

Climate change vs. Easter bunnies

Easter is still a great day for worship, candy in baskets, pagan equinox rituals and running around the yard finding eggs, but every year it gets quite a bit worse for bunnies.

And no, not because the kids like to pull their ears. The culprit is climate change, and the folks at Climate Nexus found that rising temperatures are having adverse effects on at least five species of rabbit in the U.S.

Take the Lower Keys Marsh rabbit, for instance. An endangered species that lives in the Lower Florida Keys, this breed of cottontail is a great swimmer – it lives on the islands! – but it is already severely affected by development and now by rising sea levels. According to the Center for Biological Diversity’s 350 project, which highlights species that are most directly impacted by global warming, an ocean level rise of only .6 meters will send these guys hopping for higher ground and a .9 meter rise would wipe out their habitat completely. As creatures go, they are about as charismatic as can be – they’re even named after Playboy eminence Hugh Hefner (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri) – but that’s not going to help them with this problem.

.6 meters is equivalent to 600 millimeters. Key West has a sea rise of 2.42mm per year, equal to 247 years of sea rise. Provided it continues.

Most Easter-y of all are the pygmy rabbits, tiny bunnies native to the U.S. that weigh less than 1 pound and live in sagebrush territory in the American West. They are believed to be the smallest rabbits in the world. More and more, the pine-juniper woodlands have encroached on the sage, or their habitats have been destroyed by development. Several populations, such as the Columbia Basin pygmy, almost went extinct and were saved by zoo breeding programs. Great burrowers, pygmy rabbits also rely on winter cover by digging tunnels through the snow to escape predators, but lesser snowfall is leaving them exposed.

So, woodlands have been encroaching as well as developments have destroyed woodlands? Sounds more like nature and land use, not man-caused climate change. Sorry, sorry, I’m not supposed to mess with the Cult of Climastrology scaremongering.

Read: It’s ‘Climate Change’ Vs The Easter Bunny Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | Comments Off on It’s ‘Climate Change’ Vs The Easter Bunny Or Something | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 30, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…are horrendous fossil fueled ships which will soon be necessary due to sea rise, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Don Surber, with a post on a special counsel investigating the FBI.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bake That Cake: Sacramento Homeowner Refuses To Sell To Trump Supporters

By William Teach March 30, 2018 – 10:16 am

See, if a baker refuses to bake a cake or a florist refuses to do flowers for a gay wedding because of their deeply held beliefs, well, they must be fined by the State and have their businesses and lives ruined. But, when a liberal does something similar…

Sacramento Home For Sale But Not To Trump Supporters

A Sacramento area home is up for sale, but it comes with a catch.

The homeowner has a political preference in mind for the next owner of her house, which has been in her family for decades.

“She entertained people from all walks of life,” said the homeowner who asked we not use her name for fear of retaliation.

“I told her [the realtor] that I didn’t want her to sell it to a Trump supporter,” said the woman.

She wants a sale contingent upon how someone votes, but is that legal?

Attorney Allen Sawyer doesn’t believe so.

“That’s an unlawful contractual term that infringes the freedom of association and First Amendment rights,” said Sawyer.

It’s certainly against California law. Will the State fine her? Most likely, the answer is no. However, what Sawyer is saying seems almost opposite and wrong. She is free to associate with whomever she wants, and the 1st applies to government, not deciding whom she wants to sell the home to. She should have the freedom to make that choice. As should bakers, florists, and so forth.

But, here’s the rub: it has been deemed illegal to not sell a home based on color, creed, beliefs, religion, and so forth. This came about via covenants in which homeowners promised to not sell their homes to Blacks. Is this any different? It is discrimination. The Fair Housing Act doesn’t apply to political affiliation, but court rulings and other laws do apply. If she was wise, she would have kept her mouth shut, and done it on the sly. But, nowadays, it seems everyone wants their Social Media moment.

Regardless, Lefties, you can’t have it both ways. Either all bake the cake or not. Choose.

Read: Bake That Cake: Sacramento Homeowner Refuses To Sell To Trump Supporters »

Posted in Barking Moonbats, Democrats | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Hot Take: “Is The Gun Grabbing Movement Too White?”

By William Teach March 30, 2018 – 7:12 am

There might actually be a point to this, especially as we see so many white, upper middle class and white, rich celebs and politicians push for gun control

Never Again: Is gun control movement too white?

Is the new movement against gun violence that is sweeping America too white and too rich?

It’s a question hotly debated on social media as hundreds of thousands rallied on Saturday in support of the #NeverAgain campaign that emerged after 17 people were killed in a gun attack at a high school in Parkland, Florida, last month.

Protesters are being accused of hypocrisy, as some ask why they didn’t turn out for the Black Lives Matter movement, which was set up in 2013 to end police violence against black people and highlight the impact of gun violence in ethnic minority communities.

In 2016 more than 52% of murder victims (73% killed by guns) in America were black, even though black people make up 13% of the population.

What author Georgina Rannard (who is herself pretty pasty white) forgets to mention is that almost 100% of those Blacks murdered were murdered by Blacks, in the cases where we have info on the murderer.

Debate on Twitter focused on a photograph of white protesters holding up their palms, which read: “Don’t shoot.” The slogan and gesture became a rallying cry in 2014 after 18-year-old Michael Brown, who was reported to be raising his arms, was fatally shot by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.

Accusations that the weekend marches had appropriated the slogan were shared more than 3,000 times.

I’m having a hard time figuring out whether Georgina is pro-too white or anti-too white. Maybe she’s just reporting? In this day and age of an activist press, that would be something, eh?

Race was also the subject of signs posted online with the Black Lives Matter hashtag.

They’ll be happy when a good guy with a gun who happens to be white saves their butts one day in their violent neighborhoods.

Some critics suggested that Never Again has attracted so much attention because of the race and economic background of its founders, who are students at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland.

“The Never Again movement has been spearheaded by white teens – that’s why it’s garnered so much attention,” tweeted @gideonsvid.

“Families of black victims called for an end to violence, but that did not receive widespread media coverage. Black victims, whether victims of neighbourhood violence or otherwise, have not received the support that white victims have received,” said one Instagram user, referring to a picture of a man holding a sign reading: “Black students matter.”

So the leftwing media is racist? Huh. Perhaps it could be other factors, such as whites being much larger in terms of population. Maybe it’s because there hasn’t been looting, arson, rioting, property damage, and violence associated with this #NeverAgain movement, just littering and lots of yelling, unlike what we saw with #BlackLivesMatter.

Read: Hot Take: “Is The Gun Grabbing Movement Too White?” »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Liberal World | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: E.P.A. Plans To Roll Back Obama ‘Climate Change’ Scam Rules For Autos

By William Teach March 30, 2018 – 6:50 am

Do I even have to write it? If Warmists really, really cared, they’d give up their own use of fossil fuels. And the NY Times would stop using fossil fuels to gather and distribute the news (though it seems a lot of the news gathering they do is simply reading hard left websites, rather than getting out there and asking questions and investigating)

E.P.A. Set to Roll Back Rules Forcing Cars to Be Cleaner

The Trump administration is expected to launch an effort in coming days to weaken greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for automobiles, handing a victory to car manufacturers and giving them ammunition to potentially roll back industry standards worldwide.

The move — which undercuts one of President Barack Obama’s signature efforts to fight climate change — would also propel the Trump administration toward a courtroom clash with California, which has vowed to stick with the stricter rules even if Washington rolls back federal standards. That fight could end up creating one set of rules for cars sold in California and the 12 states that follow its lead, and weaker rules for the rest of the states, in effect splitting the nation into two markets.

Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, is expected to frame the initiative as eliminating a regulatory burden on automakers that will result in more affordable trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles for buyers, according to people familiar with the plan.

An E.P.A. spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Pruitt had sent a draft of the 16-page plan to the White House for approval.

The particulars of the plan are still being worked out. Those specifics, which are expected this year, could substantially roll back the Obama-era standards, according to two people familiar with the deliberations.

Pruitt is expected to make an announcement on Tuesday, and this rule change would, of course, make automakers happy

Major automakers would welcome the change. They are prepared to participate in making new rules that meet “our customers’ needs for affordable, safe, clean and fuel-efficient transportation,” said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures, which represents many of the world’s largest automakers.

Really, it’s consumers who would benefit. Consumers are the ones paying for Obama’s Hotcoldwetdry beliefs, all while he traveled around in a large gas guzzling limo, surrounded by lots of large gas guzzling SUVs. The automakers simply pass on the higher costs. Of course, in California and a few other states, they prefer to artificially increase consumer costs for their Warmist beliefs

In California, state lawyers said they were expecting a fight. The state has a special waiver under the 1970 Clean Air Act empowering it to enforce stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government, a holdover from California’s history of setting its own air pollution regulations before the federal rules came into force. “We’re prepared to do everything we need to defend the process,” said Xavier Becerra, the attorney general of California, in an interview.

This simply increases costs for California consumers, and, get this, it also makes the vehicles worth less on the market when an attempted trade in or private market sale occurs.

However, don’t expect much to change. Automakers aren’t going to roll back their improvements to fuel economy. What you might possibly see are more high powered vehicles on the road. This will end up being much ado over nothing.

Read: Bummer: E.P.A. Plans To Roll Back Obama ‘Climate Change’ Scam Rules For Autos »

Posted in Current Affairs, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 3:26 pm

Though, let’s be honest, it was predictable that people in Wyoming would not back it

Climate change rule opponents in majority at Wyoming hearing

Opponents of climate-change regulations that face repeal under President Donald Trump’s administration outnumbered supporters at a hearing in Wyoming’s coal country.

Tuesday’s hearing in Gillette was the last of four held from West Virginia to San Francisco. About 40 percent of the nation’s coal comes from large mines near Gillette.

The Casper Star-Tribune reports over 200 people attended the hearing on the proposed regulations from President Barack Obama’s administration. The rules would seek to reduce greenhouse gas produced by coal-fired power plants.

What they were debating specifically is the Clean Power Plan, as the Casper Star-Tribune notes, and the above, which comes from the AP, doesn’t. It may play well in places like San Francisco (which uses vast amounts of a different fossil fuel), but not in the Heartland, where even Democrats stand against it (at least in voice)

Democrat Mary Throne, also vying to replace Gov. Matt Mead later this year, said the Clean Power Plan was a faulty approach to addressing emissions.

“Coal is not the enemy,” she said, calling for a replacement.

I’ve said before and I’ll say again, I’m no big fan of coal, because it is dirty, and I’m not referring to “carbon pollution.” But, until we can replace it with affordable, reliable energy sources it needs to stick around.

Read: Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | Comments Off on Climate Consensus: Most Against Obama’s Clean Power Plan | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible heat snow from Other People not riding bikes to work, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Moonbattery, with a post on a woman arrested for making lewd comments. To the Easter Bunny.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | Comments Off on If All You See… | Trackback URL

Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something

By William Teach March 29, 2018 – 10:38 am

I’ve actually tried to avoid the nutty Warmist notion of linking their Cult to special events this week, as you just knew they would do this with Easter, as they do year after year. Alas, while cruising the news on ‘climate change’, I ran across a hot take of hot takes

Christ’s ‘crown of thorns’ tree may help in climate change fight -researchers

As the sun beats down on the barren slopes around Jerusalem, a tree of the kind believed to have provided the crown of thorns in Biblical accounts of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion stands unaffected, its fruits ample and foliage green.

While pilgrims prepare to converge on the city at Easter to commemorate the events of Christian tradition, Israeli scientists researching climate change are at work in the surrounding hills studying the Ziziphus Spina-Christi, commonly known as Christ’s Thorn Jujube.

They believe it is a “pioneer species” in the fight against desertification because its hardiness makes it resilient to rising temperatures and aridity. It can draw water from deep underground, and it retains the ability to photosynthesise even when exposed to high temperatures and solar radiation. (snip)

Various plants have been proposed as the source of the crown of thorns the New Testament says was placed on Christ’s head in the lead-up to the crucifixion, and no-one knows for certain. But the consensus among Christian scholars tends towards Ziziphus Spina-Christi.

Just as that crown is associated with suffering and death followed by resurrection, the researchers hope the tree, which provides sustenance to bees and insects, can help support life in areas threatened by deadly heat.

Even uploaded a new facepalm for this occasion.

Read: Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Holidays | Comments Off on Christ’s Crown Of Thorns Tree Might Fight ‘Climate Change’ (scam) Or Something | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove