SCOTUS Discusses Illegal Alien Bonds

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 5:38 pm

There really is an easy answer to this

(Reuters)  A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday struggled for the second time over how to resolve whether immigrants detained by the U.S. government for more than six months should be able to seek their release while deportation proceedings unfold.

A majority of the justices appeared sympathetic to the idea that immigrants held long-term should be eligible for a bond hearing that would let them argue for their release.

Some of the court’s conservatives seemed skeptical over whether such a hearing should be triggered automatically after six months, as a lower court had ruled. But conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed concern about detainees being held for lengthy periods without any hearings as a result of government delays, suggesting he could side with the four liberals.

Let’s be honest, they have a point. But, so do other Conservatives. Not that Kennedy is much of a Conservative. More of a Lindsay Graham/John McCain type

Conservative Justice Samuel Alito was among those who questioned why there should be a hearing triggered after six months. “Where does it say six months in the Constitution?” Alito asked.

Chief Justice John Roberts said a “more palatable option” would be to restrict claims to individual detainees who have been held for a long time rather than having a blanket rule requiring hearings for all.

Obviously, the Liberals on the court very much want the illegals to be released on bond, at which point they will disappear into America yet again.

The liberal justices were more openly sympathetic to the plight of immigrant detainees. Justice Stephen Breyer noted that even “triple ax-murderers” get bail hearings. Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that allowing people to be detained indefinitely was a sign of “lawlessness.”

Of course, the triple ax murderers typically get denied bail, as do those who are flight risks. Like…… illegal aliens!

The simple solution? Make sure there are enough judges to adjudicate deportation hearings, so illegals, regardless of whether they crossed the border or overstayed their visas, are sent packing within a month of being caught.

Read: SCOTUS Discusses Illegal Alien Bonds »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a wonderful big city, bringing everyone close together, which should be mandated by government, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Bunkerville, with a post on the terrorist supporting mayor of San Juan.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Science Always Win In The End, Warmists

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 10:57 am

The Hill trots out a missive by Arturo Casadevall, MD, Ph.D. (chairman of the Molecular Microbiology & Immunology department at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and Ferric C. Fang, MD (professor of Laboratory Medicine and Microbiology at the University of Washington) with the pithy headline

Climate change deniers, science always wins in the end

showing that Warmists have completely given up on attempting to persuade, and simply going for insults.

Today there are many active fronts in the war on science. Climatologists are attacked for their virtually unanimous consensus that earth is facing a period of anthropogenic climate change. A vocal movement claims that vaccines are responsible for autism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The theory of evolution remains under attack by creationists. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including pest-resistant crops that promise greater bounties, are banned in many countries despite overwhelming evidence that they are safe for people and the environment. In keeping with this mood, the Trump administration has repeatedly belittled the value of scientific expertise and eliminated scientists from panels that advise the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice.

Well, that is very interesting. Who tends to be against these vaccines? Mostly leftists, especially Hollyweirdos. How about GMOs? These are overwhelmingly people who vote to the Left.

Those who deny specific scientific findings and theories are neither idiots or Luddites. Such individuals have no problem using the fruits of science and technology such as cell phones, medicines and computers. Science deniers are selective in their rejection of science when it focuses on a specific finding that they do not like.

Yes, those same things that create “carbon pollution.” When will Warmists give these up? BTW, a lot of these same Warmists also despise Big Business, which brings them all these products and medicines.

Despite the widespread evidence of science denialism, there is no organized opposition to broad swaths of scientific theory. For instance, no one is denying major theories such as the standard model of particle physics, the germ theory of disease, general relativity, lunar origins, continental drift or Mendelian genetics. Those who make war on science are opposed to some particular scientific finding rather than the scientific method or the entirety of science.

That’s because those are real, as proven by the use of said Scientific Method. Warmism isn’t. Hence, how the authors put it in political, consensus, and smear terms.

But, they are right: science will win out in the end. The Cult of Climastrology will be proven to be wrong. Because it isn’t about science, as Casadevall and Fang inadvertently state

On the other hand, the denial of climate science is centered on resistance to economic and lifestyle changes that would bring about major disruption to certain ways of life, as we switch away from carbon-based fuels. Similarly, resistance to forensic science reform is based on a reluctance to change prosecutorial practice.

I wonder if either of these doctors have given up their own use of fossil fuels and made their own lives carbon neutral, disrupting their own economic lifestyles? Do they require their patients and/or employees to only take sustainable means to their offices? How about requiring their buildings to only use non-fossil fuels energy? What’s that? There wouldn’t be power to do what they do? Huh.

Read: Science Always Win In The End, Warmists »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Are Making A Big Push To Come After Cows

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 8:23 am

It’s long been understood that methane is a vastly more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It doesn’t stay in the atmosphere as long, but, it also doesn’t have the doubling effect like CO2, and again, it’s is anywhere from 25 to 45 times more potent (some even claim stronger). But, the Cult of Climastrology has mostly ignored it, because, first, what are you going to do, take food away from people?

Second, it requires a rational, thoughtful, scientific based solution to reduce, unlike with “carbon pollution”, which is a nebulous thing, leading to policies of taxation, fees, and more government control.

Third, it’s hard to have a discussion on methane when it devolves into cow farts. But, they are giving it a shot, starting with a study being pimped that states that the methane output from agriculture, mostly meaning cows, is 11 percent higher than previously thought. And then we get this

Grass-fed beef is bad for the planet and causes climate change

Prince Charles is wrong to support grass-fed beef. The idea that beef from cows raised on bucolic pastures is good for the environment, and that we can therefore eat as much meat as we want, doesn’t add up. New calculations suggest cattle pastures contribute to climate change.

“Sadly, though it would be nice if the pro-grazers were right, they aren’t,” says lead author Tara Garnett of the University of Oxford’s Food Climate Research Network. “The truth is, we cannot eat as much meat as we like and save the planet.”

Many meat eaters have long felt guilty that the beef steaks they love are bringing environmental disaster.

Not me. How about you? If they feel so guilty, they should stop eating beef. And all meat, really. And this new report claims that cattle eating grass (what else are they supposed to eat?) is making things much worse. Which leads back to the 11% study

Garnett’s conclusion is supported by a study published on 29 September, which found that methane emissions from cattle are 11 per cent larger than older methods would suggest, and thus a bigger contributor to global warming (Carbon Balance and Management, doi.org/cdpz).

“We need to reduce emissions from livestock,” says Benton. “That needs to come from dietary change.”

In other words, people need to stop eating so much meat. And, this being the Cult of Climastrology, they will certainly want a government solution, with a forced reduction in meat production. Because this is what they do.

What they mostly do not do is stop eating meat themselves. Go figure.

Read: Warmists Are Making A Big Push To Come After Cows »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

In The Wake Of Las Vegas, Democrats Have Lots Of Ideas Or Something

By William Teach October 3, 2017 – 8:01 am

Democrats, as usual, took full advantage of the Las Vegas massacre to politicize their hatred of Other People owning guns. They say now is time for the debate. You know what? They’re right. Let’s have this debate, so we can see exactly what they will propose.

Late night shows, which are supposed to be funny, but gave that up long ago, were in high dudgeon. Jimmy Kimmel had a long diatribe, long on blamestorming, short on policy proposals. Stephen Colbert went with the same laundry list

He then highlighted a number of legislative options that have been proposed to combat gun violence, such as universal background checks, semi-automatic weapons bans, and mental illness screenings. “Doing nothing is cowardice — doing something will take courage,” Colbert stated.

Same old same old, with nothing showing what this will bring, other than gun confiscation and categorizing people as mentally ill when they aren’t.

James Cordon didn’t offer any more, just complaints. Seth Meyers made it purely political. Trevor Noah did the same. But, what of actual elected officials, who can, get this, submit legislation? Senator Kamala Harris goes political

She has no policy proposals. The Washington Post gives a platform to Senator Chris Murphy, D-Ct

Mass shootings are an American problem. There’s an American solution.

On awful, gut-churning days such as Monday, I find it important to remind myself that mass shootings happen almost nowhere else but the United States. As we become normalized to the regular pace of massive, execution-style killings — Sandy Hook, Charleston, Orlando and now Las Vegas — it’s critical to understand that the Groundhog Day phenomenon of horrific mass shootings is exclusive to the United States. I find consolation in this fact, because if the problem is particularly American, then the solution can be, too.

If you’re thinking that this is going to be one long diatribe against the NRA, Republicans, and gun owning Americans, you’d be correct. Almost the entire thing is meant to bring emotion without really offering that “American solution”. Just this short part

First, contrary to the mythology spread by the gun lobby, there is not much real controversy around the first steps we should take to trim rates of gun crime. Large majorities of Americans support universal background checks, permit requirements for gun ownership and bans on the most dangerous kinds of weapons and ammunition. The gun lobby, and the loud vocal minority it echoes, make the issue seem like more of a hot button than it is.

Second, scores of research shows that these interventions work to a stunning degree. In my states of Connecticut, which has expanded background checks and requires issued handgun permits, gun crimes have dropped by 40 percent.

The Las Vegas shooter purchased multiple guns at gun stores and passed the federally required background checks. The rest? The 40% stat is bordering on a complete load of mule fritters. All it does is make it hard for law abiding citizens to arm themselves per their Constitutional Right to protect themselves. It doesn’t stop criminals from doing what criminals do.

That’s it from Chris, who, like Kamala, and so many other Democrats, forgets that he can submit legislation as an elected lawmaker.

The NY Times gives former Democratic representative Steve Israel a shot, and he makes complaints, rather than offer solutions. It’s the gun lobby this, Republicans that. The list of Democrats, both in and out of Congress, could go on and on and on, but it comes down to one thing: what policies do you recommend to reduce actual gun crimes? Put them up for a vote. Let’s see them. Because, so far, most of your recommendations only affect the law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, not those who use weapons for crimes.

Why not crack down on criminals? How about this: if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you get sent away for life to a prison built in the cold wilds of Alaska. No parole. Let’s crack down on the criminals. Remember, these same Democrats are against stop-and-frisk, which takes so many criminals, and even ones who have illegal guns, off the streets. Democrat ideas are to disarm the law abiding citizens.

Yet, interestingly, these same Democrats refuse to give up their own armed security. Weird, right?

Double interestingly, these same Democrats never connect the dots when it is Islamists perpetrating the attacks, ones which do not always use guns.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: In The Wake Of Las Vegas, Democrats Have Lots Of Ideas Or Something »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Current Affairs, Democrats | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

After Vegas, The Gun Grabbers Are Out In Force

By William Teach October 2, 2017 – 3:21 pm

We have 58 dead and over 400 wounded. We do not know the why’s of the shooting. The bodies weren’t even at the morgue before the gun grabbers were pulling their normal schtick. You have insane people calling for automatic weapons to be banned (which they already are). And you can see more insanity covered at Twitchy, Hot Air, Daily Caller, and so forth, or just head to the crazy sources, like the Democratic Underground, view nutters on Twitter like Kamala Harris and Alyssa Milano, the Washington Post, and, hey, here’s Excitable Nicholas Kristoff

Preventing Mass Shootings Like the Vegas Strip Attack

After the horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas, the impulse of politicians will be to lower flags, offer moments of silence, and lead a national mourning. Yet what we need most of all isn’t mourning, but action to lower the toll of guns in America.

We don’t need to simply acquiesce to this kind of slaughter. When Australia suffered a mass shooting in 1996, the country united behind tougher laws on firearms. As a result, the gun homicide rate was almost halved, and the gun suicide rate dropped by half, according to the Journal of Public Health Policy.

Funny how they keep telling us they do not want to confiscate guns then cite a situation where they confiscated most guns.

So while there’s no magic wand available, here are some steps we could take that would, collectively, make a difference:

1. Impose universal background checks for anyone buying a gun. Four out of five Americans support this measure, to prevent criminals or terrorists from obtaining guns. (we pretty much have this, and criminals don’t generally purchase guns from a gun store)

2. Impose a minimum age limit of 21 on gun purchases. This is already the law for handgun purchases in many states, and it mirrors the law on buying alcohol. (which could violate the Constitution)

3. Enforce a ban on possession of guns by anyone subject to a domestic violence protection order. This is a moment when people are upset and prone to violence against their ex-es. (In principle I agree, however, this is removing a Citizen’s Constitutional Right prior to judgement)

More below the fold

Read More »

Read: After Vegas, The Gun Grabbers Are Out In Force »

Posted in 2nd Amendment, Unhinged Tools | 16 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach October 2, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is an area flooding and turning to desert, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Gay Patriot, with a post on leftist activists explaining leftist activism.

Read: If All You See… »

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

The (Fake) 97% Consensus Is Important Because People Are Stupid Or Something

By William Teach October 2, 2017 – 12:05 pm

Hyper Warmists Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook, Sander Van Der Linden, Tony Leiserowitz, and Ed Maibach are very enthused to tell us just how darned important the 97% study by John Cook et all is, even though it has been debunked numerous times, including by authors cited in the study

Why the 97% climate consensus is important

Some have argued that consensus messaging is counter-productive. Here’s why they’re wrong. (there is a photo of “comedian” John Oliver embedded at the story to tell us how serious this is)

Unfortunately, humans don’t have infinite brain capacity, so no one can become an expert on every subject. But people have found ways to overcome our individual limitations through social intelligence, for example by developing and paying special attention to the consensus of experts. Modern societies have developed entire institutions to distill and communicate expert consensus, ranging from national academies of science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Assessments of scientific consensus help us tap the collective wisdom of a crowd of experts. In short, people value expert consensus as a guide to help them navigate an increasingly complex and risk-filled world.

Unfortunately, humans don’t have infinite brain capacity, so no one can become an expert on every subject. But people have found ways to overcome our individual limitations through social intelligence, for example by developing and paying special attention to the consensus of experts. Modern societies have developed entire institutions to distill and communicate expert consensus, ranging from national academies of science to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Assessments of scientific consensus help us tap the collective wisdom of a crowd of experts. In short, people value expert consensus as a guide to help them navigate an increasingly complex and risk-filled world.

Really, it all comes down to them stating that people are sheep and are stupid, so you must be told what to think. And if you don’t buy into the “consensus”, then you must be a denier, as we read further down in the missive. And Wrongthink is just not allowed.

They desperately need people to buy into “consensus”, because then people are willing to let government take their money and give it to these same “climate scientists”, allowing them to be famous, do their studies on the taxpayer dime, and travel around the world on fossil fueled vehicles to conferences paid for by taxpayers in exotic locations.

Read: The (Fake) 97% Consensus Is Important Because People Are Stupid Or Something »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 8 Comments | Trackback URL

Eagles Malcolm Jenkins Explains What’s Next For The NFL Protests

By William Teach October 2, 2017 – 7:16 am

Originally, the “protest” from a disgruntled quarterback who was demoted to 3rd string and liked wearing socks featuring cops as pigs was about police brutality against Blacks (but failed to mention that roughly 50% of all U.S. murders were committed against Blacks with over 90% of the known killers being Black). So, of course we get mission creep, as Philadelphia Eagles player Malcolm Jenkins is given a platform at the Washington Post (and other outlets, such as Philly.com)

What protesting NFL players like me want to do next

A year ago, I was one of several NFL players who began demonstratingin the hope of sparking conversation about injustice in our country. That effort has now grown to include players and teams across the league, as we proclaim together that we believe in equality and justice for everyone. We understand that these conversations are often uncomfortable, but they are important for progress. Our demonstrations have never been about the symbols and traditions we use to honor America. They have been about us as citizens making sure we hold America to the ideals and promises that make this country great.

Except, there really hasn’t been a conversation, just slogans and annoying fans by disrespecting the flag, the nation, our military, and our first responders. And following the lead of Colin Kaepernick, who wore the pig socks, along with shirts loving Fidel Castro and Mao, not too mention donating $25,000 to a group that supports cop killer Assata Shakur.

But, let’s give Jenkins the benefit of the doubt, and see where he’s going with his mission creep

In the past year, more than 40 NFL players have joined Anquan Boldin, who retired this summer after 14 seasons, and me to form a Players Coalition dedicated to improving our criminal-justice system.

We want to lend our voices to changing this flawed system, which is crippling our nation and especially affects people who are poor or of color. We have gone on ride-alongs with police, visited Capitol Hill and talked with policy advocates and grass-roots organizers. We’ve learned first-hand about the problems we face. We’ve also learned that we aren’t alone. There are plenty of Republicans and Democrats, community leaders and members of law enforcement who agree.

We as citizens must make this work a priority. Consider our money-bail system. In 2016, police punched 58-year-old Gilbert Cruz in the face and arrested him for refusing to leave his own home during an investigation. Unable to make the $3,500 bail, Cruz spent more than two months in a Houston jail. By the time prosecutors finally dropped the case after concluding he had committed no crime, Cruz had lost his job, his car and almost his home.

While Jenkins and his group are aiming this reform along racial lines, let’s note two points. First, they are actually doing something in this push, not just yapping, complaining, and spreading awareness. They’re putting their time and money into this. Good for them.

Second, this is not just a hardcore leftist push. If you visit any media platform of hardcore leftist Democrat Senator Kamala Harris, you’ll see her pushing this. You’ll also see Republicans such as Rand Paul pushing this issue. Some, in pushback, have noted that bail is there to make sure that the accused does not flee prosecution. True. But, sometimes, the money-bail system goes to far, as Jenkins noted above. There certainly does need to be reform. If Rand Paul and Kamala Harris have joined forces, then this is something to consider, IMO.

But, more mission creep

The system punishes even after you’ve served your time. As many as 1 in 3 Americans has a criminal record. Criminal records keep people from getting jobs. Philadelphia native Ronald Lewis runs his own HVAC business, where he hires people from his neighborhood. But two misdemeanor convictions from 13 years ago continue to keep him from getting contracts that could help his business grow.

What the group wants is for records to be sealed on non-violent misdemeanors after 10 years. Good idea? Bad idea? It’s not something that can be immediately answered.

The system has unleashed an extraordinary burden on communities of color. Mass incarceration and the war on drugs have destroyed lives, families and whole communities for generations. Communities of color have also had to watch video after video of unarmed black men and women being handled without regard for their lives or well-being. As a black man, I see these images and I see myself; I wonder whether this will happen to me or one of my loved ones.

Well, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. This is where Jenkins et all should be out in the Black communities, showing there are better ways than shooting each other over crimes of disrespect. Because someone blew off your barbecue or looked at your girl is no reason to pull a gun and start shooting.

I’ve heard people say that my colleagues and I are un-American and unpatriotic. Well, we want to make America great. We want to help make our country safe and prosperous. We want a land of justice and equality. True patriotism is loving your country and countrymen enough to want to make it better.

The way to do it is not pissing off the people who pay good money to come to the stadium. Who buy merchandise. Who give up their time to watch the team play. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar. You catch more fans with hot wings and beer, rather than crapburgers and spoiled milk.

Oh, and perhaps NFL players should consider not committing so many crimes themselves.

Read: Eagles Malcolm Jenkins Explains What’s Next For The NFL Protests »

Posted in Current Affairs, Sports | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Learn That Open Borders Dreamers Will Be A Problem

By William Teach October 2, 2017 – 6:41 am

The illegal alien supporting Democrats learn of the notion of the law of unintended consequences, as Dreamers, whom the Democrats have patronized and supported, given them aid and comfort, become hardcore in their demands

(Daily Caller) A New York Times report Sunday claims that Democrats are facing opposition to saving DACA from many Dreamers themselves, who don’t want any compromise on border security.

The New York Times’ Michael D. Shear and Yamiche Alcindor report, “The pressure from some immigrant activists to reject any compromise that would tighten border security has frustrated Democratic leaders, who recognize the political risks of being labeled the party of open borders — a potentially lethal tag as they seek to regain support from working-class voters across the Midwest.”

The NY Times article itself is entitled “On ‘Dreamers’ Deal, Democrats Face A Surprising Foe: The Dreamers“. Democrats do seem surprised that these illegal aliens, who came across our borders illegal, whose parents made a conscious choice to violate US sovereignty and laws, want to stop all border security.

“Fearful of concessions to Mr. Trump that could increase immigration enforcement aimed at their families and friends, the activists are targeting Democratic congressional leaders with loud political protests. And Democratic politicians may be vulnerable,” the article says. It later added, “But moving too far to the left on border security could hold serious risks for a party that lost the presidency with defeats in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa — all states where immigration remains a hot-button issue.”

Of course, many of the Democrats agree with the Dreamers: they want open borders, regardless of the damage that is done to the nation. They just do not want to admit it. (switching to the Times article itself)

But activists worry that any compromise could carry a very personal price: Their own long-term safety might be secured only in exchange for an increased threat of deportation for their undocumented parents and friends who do not qualify for such protections under the program.

In other words, illegal aliens who should be deported in the first place, but are being protected by Democrats (and some squishy Republicans), want even more illegals to come, and do not want other illegals deported. Including their parents, who committed the “sin” which we keep being told should not be put on the children.

Conservatives want those principles to include a call to limit the number of new legal immigrants and emphasize the entry of high-skilled workers instead of the family members of immigrants already in the country. They want to expand the “E-Verify” system to ensure that businesses do not hire undocumented workers. They are insisting on stepped-up immigration enforcement throughout the country’s interior. And they want Mr. Trump to get his wall along the southern border.

Does this mean that Democrats do not want any of these things that protect America from foreign invasion? Rhetorical

Immigration activists reject such demands as meanspirited and too far-reaching.

Criminals do not get a say. Or shouldn’t, except for the Democratic Party supporting them. And, as Peggy writes in the DC comments

You second mistake is in failing to show gratitude to the American people & “OUR NATION” by marching in our streets carrying the flags of the nation you were born in thus angering the American people and leading them to question your loyalties for a nation that you now lay claim to!

Your third and most offensive mistake is in making demands of a nation that is not yours! All or none??? I say none!

Huzzah. And this is a bed that the Democrats made, and will have to deal with.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Democrats Learn That Open Borders Dreamers Will Be A Problem »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove