NY Times: Other Border Measures Would Be Cut To Help Pay For Wall

Every once in a while, hardcore Progressive #Resist sites like the NY Times will commit random acts of journalism. Even if the main point is about attempting to slam President Trump, because that is first and foremost in every article, it seems, and really belongs in the opinion section. In this case, though, they’re actually saying things about border and interior security that I and many others, including Ann Coulter before she went gaga for Trump and the wall, have been saying for a long time

To Pay for Wall, Trump Would Cut Proven Border Security Measures

The Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border surveillance, radar technology, patrol boats and customs agents in its upcoming spending plan to curb illegal immigration — all proven security measures that officials and experts have said are more effective than building a wall along the Mexican border. (snip)

But security experts said the president’s focus on a border wall ignores the constantly evolving nature of terrorism, immigration and drug trafficking. (snip)

Homeland Security officials have long and frequently described border security as a holistic system, made up not just of walls and fencing but also patrol routes, lighting, cameras, sensors and personnel.

David Bier, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute, said a border wall would do little to stop the drug trade. Most of the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines smuggled into the United States come through legal ports of entry rather than areas that would be stopped by a wall, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Nor would a wall stop illegal immigration, other experts said. Data from the Department of Homeland Security and research groups like the New York-based Center for Migration Studies show that most undocumented immigrants now simply overstay legally obtained short-term visas — and did not sneak across the border.

A border wall certainly can’t hurt, and many have recommended putting long stretches in the middle of nowhere places, along with sensors and such, rather than along the entire border. What can’t be diminished, and needs to be expanded, is interior security, because the Times is correct on visa over-stays. The latest measure is that 45%+ of the illegals present in the U.S. are visa-overstays. We need more officers to deal with this, along with judges to quickly deport them. We need more personnel to inspect the shipments coming into the nation, something recommended by the 9/11 Commission. Nothing will deter people coming illegally/overstaying visas like quickly deporting them, as we’ve seen this past year where mostly words on cracking down, along with a more visible ICE presence, has drastically decreased those coming illegally.

There are many other things that can be done in conjunction, such as making businesses and colleges who host those on visas responsible for their upkeep, and requiring them to inform ICE when those visas are about to expire. Full implementation of E-Verify. Cracking down on those who shelter illegal aliens. And much more. Such as cracking down hard on companies that hire illegals, and hitting them with hard criminal penalties, not just civil ones.

An internal budget guidance document for the 2019 fiscal year shows that the White House Office of Management and Budget asked officials at the Homeland Security Department to reduce or delay funding requests for additional border security technology and equipment. Instead, the document instructed, Homeland Security should dramatically increase funding for a wall on the Mexico border.

So, the Times wasn’t quite kidding in the first paragraph of the article, but

Parts of the document were viewed by The New York Times; the rest of it was based on reports by the Democratic staff of the Senate Homeland Security Committee

So, take it all with a grain of salt, but yes, there does seem to be a reduction in expenditures in the White House recommendation to help fund the wall (which is already supposed to be built per previous law).

The internal document also suggested delaying a request to buy 15 new Coastal Interceptor boats to catch drug smugglers. The agency had sought nearly $15 million to replace its aging fleet to keep up with drug smugglers’ smaller, faster boats.

It also would cut nearly 200 of the 500 canine units that customs officials say play a key role in programs to prevent terrorism and drug smuggling. The dogs’ handlers would then be reassigned to ports on the southwest border to help with staffing shortages.

It would also drastically cut funding for hiring officers for new customs positions, which are key in stopping people from coming illegally as well as drugs, illegal weapons, and other banned things. But, it does call for 5,000 more Border Patrol agents and 10,000 ICE agents.

The wall is OK, but, there needs to be a focus on many other things.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: Other Border Measures Would Be Cut To Help Pay For Wall »

Good News: Trump To Finally Visit California

Lots of Democrats have had a sad that Trump hasn’t visited their People’s Republik since he took office, because that would make the crazy #resist nutter moonbats go apeshit with his visit, and we know how they like to be Outraged.

Well, good news! Ask and ye shall receive

Troll Level Expert.

Read: Good News: Trump To Finally Visit California »

If All You See…

…are horrible carbon pollution clouds, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is JoNova, with a post on the Sydney “hottest ever” mistake.

Read: If All You See… »

Frigid Temperatures Totally Confirm ‘Climate Change’, Ya Know

It’ll be interesting to see what the Cult of Climastrology is saying by the end of the week and through the following week, as much of the country thaws out and could even see above average temperatures (see, this is how you end up with an average. Some days above, some days below). Will they switch to “see, this warmth is exactly what we expect in the winter from ‘climate change’?

Yes, Frigid Temperatures Are Part of Climate Change

Baby, it’s cold outside — and those sub-freezing temperatures don’t disprove the existence of climate change. If anything, this extreme weather adds to the growing body of evidence that something is going very wrong on everyone’s favorite blue marble, Earth.

If this conversation feels like deja vu, it should. Remember 2014′s polar vortex, pictured above? It was another period of severe cold filled with dramatic photos and headlines. And then, as now, it marked a good time to talk about climate change, as well as the importance of distinguishing between climate and weather — something the current president of the United States appears to have some difficulty with.

Essentially, if they can fit it into their talking points, it’s anthropogenic climate change. If it’s not their talking points, it’s weather.

Okay, but what does this have to do with climate change, exactly? Well, for starters, the cold weather illustrates why people are shifting towards “climate change” as a descriptive term for what’s happening on Earth, versus “global warming,” which is only an element of a changing climate. When people hear “global warming,” they tend to assume it means everything across the Earth is getting hot uniformly, so rain, extreme cold and other weird weather conditions are proof that nothing’s wrong.

In fact, these things are all tied together.

Read: Frigid Temperatures Totally Confirm ‘Climate Change’, Ya Know »

Senator Cotton: Democrats Should Be Willing To Compromise On DACA

The other day, the NY Times was whining that it was Trump who was imperiling the bipartisan talks on DACA and border security by offering up his requirements. It included this from Senator Dick Durbin

“President Trump has said he may need a good government shutdown to get his wall,” a furious Mr. Durbin said in an emailed statement Friday afternoon. “With this demand, he seems to be heading in that direction.”

The senator went on: “It’s outrageous that the White House would undercut months of bipartisan efforts by again trying to put its entire wish-list of hard-line anti-immigrant bills — plus an additional $18 billion in wall funding — on the backs of these young people.”

There’s a line I use quite a bit in my business when people are demanding my “best price”: this is a negotiation. You give some, I give some, we get to an agreement. Of course, there are times when there is no agreement, because the customer’s demands are unattainable and they won’t move off them. And what Democrats are demanding is a clean DACA bill, which includes absolutely no immigration enforcement, allows legalization of the very parents who committed the “sin” of bringing the kids illegally. Senator Tom Cotton discussed

(Newsmax) Democrats are opposing President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda from an “unreasonable negotiating position,” specifically where it relates to Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and funding for the border wall, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., said Sunday.

“I hope the Democrats will come off their unreasonable negotiating position and be willing to compromise,” Sen. Cotton told ABC’s “This Week” about the early January agenda items of the budget, spending and immigration.

Cotton pointed to the existing U.S. law in defending Trump’s actions and immigration policies, which have been fought endlessly by his opposition – often with no legal standing.

“The president has said all along that while President Obama acted unlawfully by giving them legal status without an act of Congress, that he wants to solve this problem with a compromise piece of legislation,” Cotton told host George Stephanopoulos. “We’ve been working on it now for four months.

“In addition to having some funding for the border wall and border security, we are also going to have to take steps to stop unskilled and low skilled immigration coming into this country, like ending chain migration and ending the diversity lottery,” he said.

All that low skilled, and often illegal, labor does is deflate wages. Regardless, if Democrats want legalization for upwards of 800,000 Dreamers, they are going to have to give back quite a bit.

“Sen. [Dick] Durbin’s, D-Ill., DREAM Act would cost $26 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. So, Sen. Durbin should reconsider who is making unreasonable, costly demands if he’s criticizing the president for requesting $18 billion to secure our southern border that creates such a huge magnet for illegal immigration and crime and drugs.”

Let’s also not forget that the border wall was passed into law long ago. Illegal aliens are not. They’re here in contradiction of long standing federal law. Democrats are standing up for things that are in violation of federal law. And the Dreamers themselves really have no right to demand anything.

Read: Senator Cotton: Democrats Should Be Willing To Compromise On DACA »

Responsible Journalism: Trump’s Physical Won’t Tell Us About His Mental Fitness Or Something

The Russian collusion thing hasn’t actually gone anywhere further than talking points, and, after over a year of yammering, hasn’t actually proven any collusion. None of the other things have worked, either, so Democrats are going back to one of their standards for when there is a Republican president: that he has mental issues. This is what passes for “news” and “journalism” at CNN

Trump physical unlikely to shed light on mental fitness

President Donald Trump’s staunch defense of his own mental acuity this weekend all but ensured the questions mounting about his fitness will increase in the coming week, which is set to culminate Friday with his first known medical exam since taking office.

Of course, that “staunch defense” came after accusations which appeared in media outlets, who ran with them without any sort of, you know, proof. And, really, go back to accusations when he started running.

Coming amid a previously-unheard-of debate over the mental capacity of the country’s oldest president at the time of his first election, the yearly presidential physical has attracted renewed attention from a capital now consumed with Trump’s mental health. But there is little to indicate the checkup will provide much clarity about the state of Trump’s mind.

Anyone remember how the media worried about Obama’s mental health, considering all the drugs he admitted to doing when younger?

On Friday, Trump is due at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland for a medical exam conducted by the White House physician, Dr. Ronny Jackson, who performed President Barack Obama’s last several physicals while he was in office. The White House has said it will provide a readout of the exam once it’s complete.

But any hopes that the publicly released information will shed light on Trump’s mental state appear largely misplaced. A review of the past five presidents’ physical exams show only brief mentions of mental health, and none provide a readout of mental health tests.

So, this isn’t taking place for 5 days? Oh, right, this gives CNN five days to continue a Narrative.

Democrats should just get over it. Trump won fair and square. The rules of presidential elections were known. Laid out. Right there. Stop being petulant children who didn’t get a cookie and need their diapers changed.

BTW, remember how this same media circled the wagons around Hillary’s health, with things like not being able to walk up stairs without help, unusual pauses during appearances, and fainting?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Responsible Journalism: Trump’s Physical Won’t Tell Us About His Mental Fitness Or Something »

It’s Time To Get Serious About Cold Weather Climate Change Or Something

Listen, and understand! That Warmists are out there! They can’t be bargained with. They can’t be reasoned with. They don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear! And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead paying taxes!

It’s time to get serious about climate change

When former Vice President Al Gore released his documentary in 2006 entitled An Inconvenient Truth, somehow the public was lectured with the consequences of global warming. Some may have missed it or did not pay attention. But truth of the matter-climate change is real.

That’s when he was blaming pleasant, warm weather on Other People taking fossil fueled flights.

Climate change has showed its severe impact in large scale destruction in mankind and the environment we are living in. The unrolling cold weather that continues to blanket the eastern U.S. can be an example of the biggest changes that we have to expect entering this new year.

Many experts are also blaming this cold season on climate change-at least it is part of the problem.

If Warmists want to get serious, why don’t they practice what they preach? Why do so many of them seem to have higher carbon footprints than non-Warmists?

Notice that the link is from a Chicago outlet. In the same Chicago Tribune, they just tied an 80+ year old for number of days below freezing. Raleigh, and many others, have done the same. On one hand, they’ll say “this is just weather.” In the next “it’s climate change!!!!!!”

Read: It’s Time To Get Serious About Cold Weather Climate Change Or Something »

If All You See…

…is horrible heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is MOTUS A.D., with a post on plan 9 from outer space.

Just kinda cleaning out the IAYS folder this week.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! A gorgeous, but freaking cold day in America. All because you drove a fossil fueled vehicle, making the birds and squirrels shiver. This pinup is by Mayo Olmstead, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Weasel Zippers starts us off with a dog who’s figured out how to sled himself on the snow for hours
  2. Vox Popoli covers making California Mexico again
  3. The Other McCain notes the war on Whiteness
  4. The Last Tradition discusses Senator Paul’s idea to fund infrastructure
  5. The Daley Gator notes the wonders of universal healthcare
  6. Small Dead Animals touches on Feminist Science
  7. Raised On Hoecakes notes that super heroes are now bad for the environment
  8. Powerline notes that for liberals, everything is about Trump
  9. Political Clown Parade covers #MeToo and the Golden Globes
  10. Pacific Pundit notes why the LA Times wants you to believe Michael Wolff
  11. neo-neocon wonders if Trump’s critics have lost their sense of humor (yes)
  12. Moonbattery notes Costco exposing Liberal soda fees
  13. Legal Insurrection covers calls for Intifada at ….. Grand Central Station
  14. Jihad Watch notes a Muslim complaining about Muslims being blamed after Muslim crimes
  15. And last, but not least, Doug Ross @ Journal wonders if there is a Democrat anywhere who cares about America

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

NY Times: It’s A Clash Between California And Following The Law

The New York Times seems rather upset that California is being told that they need to follow federal law

In Clash Between California and Trump, It’s One America Versus Another

When drivers entered California recently from the borders with Arizona and Nevada, they were greeted with signs welcoming them to an “official sanctuary state” that is home to “felons” and “illegals.” It was a prank, but the message was clear: By entering California, they might as well have been entering foreign territory.

And in many ways it feels like that these days, as the growing divide between California and the Trump administration erupted this past week over a dizzying range of flash points, from immigration to taxes to recreational marijuana use.

What had been a rhetorical battle between a liberal state and a conservative administration is now a full-fledged fight.

By conservative, they mean “an administration that requires that states follow federal law.”

Just as Californians were enjoying their first days of legal pot smoking, the Trump administration moved to enforce federal laws against the drug. On the same day, the federal government said it would expand offshore oil drilling, which California’s Senate leader called an assault on “our pristine coastline.”

When President Trump signed a law that would raise the tax bills of many Californians by restricting deductions, lawmakers in this state proposed a creative end-around — essentially making state taxes charitable contributions, and fully deductible. And California’s refusal to help federal agents deport undocumented immigrants prompted one administration official to suggest that state politicians should be arrested.

I wonder if anyone has explained to any of these folks that they made a big deal of telling us all that federal law held primacy when it was Obama in the White House? Or, hey, that California lawmakers can submit legislation to take marijuana off the federal books as a Schedule I drug? California Senator Kamala Harris, for one, who is going on and on about marijuana.

The clash between California and Mr. Trump and his supporters — between one America and another — began the morning after he won the presidency, when Kevin de León, the State Senate leader, and his counterpart in the Assembly, Anthony Rendon, said they “woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land.”

Since then the fight has metastasized into what could be the greatest contest over values between a White House and a state since the 1950s and 1960s, when the federal government moved to end segregation and expand civil rights.

Back then, of course, the ideologies and values at issue were reversed, as conservative Southerners, under the banner of states’ rights, fought violently to uphold white supremacy. In these times it is liberal California making the case for states’ rights, traditionally a Republican position.

By “conservative”, they mean “Democratic Party voters.” But, it’s great how Democrats suddenly believe in States’ rights again, albeit for different purposes. A notion which will disappear the minute a Democrat wins the White House at some point. Need I point out that many of these issues, like immigration, are actually tasks of the federal government?

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times: It’s A Clash Between California And Following The Law »

Pirate's Cove