Islamists Infest England With Slavery And Child Sex Rings

By William Teach August 11, 2017 – 7:21 am

But, you know what’s more important to the British police? Mean words on social media. First, this

The BBC tries to dink and dunk around the subject, but, a goodly chunk of those running slavery rings are Islamists. Not all, mind you. But, a goodly chunk.

Then there’s this

Where Police Care More About Internet Trolls Than Child Sex Rings

Another child sex ring was broken up in the United Kingdom this week, and questions are already swirling about how police handled the matter.

Seventeen men and one woman were arrested in connection to this vile criminal operation that is believed to have abused at least 600 girls. The men appear to all hail from Muslim immigrant communities.

The case evokes the infamous Rotherham sex ring that was finally taken down in 2014. In that criminal operation, several Pakistani men were able to abuse and exploit an estimated 1,400 girls for several years. One local official, Jayne Senior, tried to alert police when the ring first began operating, but her warnings were suppressed as “racist” and she was ordered to take sensitivity training by her superiors.

In fact, there is heavy concern, per the “were arrested in connection” link, along with many others, that there are plenty more grooming gangs in the UK, most of whom are Muslim immigrants. This Newcastle incident took 3 years to complete, ending with the arrests and breaking up of the slavery and sex grooming, and the Muslim perpetrators convicted.

While the authorities may appear to be troubled by speaking out against immigrant grooming gangs, there is one thing they have no problem addressing with full vigor: mean words on the internet.

Around the same time news broke of the Newcastle grooming gang, Sussex police were announcing their investigation into a more grievous crime — harsh “transphobic” words exchanged between school children.

Sussex Police Hate Crime Sergeant (yes, that’s a real title) Peter Allan tweeted out on Tuesday how his department had conducted a thorough investigation into the “hate incident” involving children. No charges were filed, but Allan was adamant to his many critics that the “education” officers gave children was valuable police work.

In fact, there was a complete blackout on news of the Newcastle sex grooming case till they were convicted. The media, and the police, do not like to talk about how sex grooming is rampant throughout the UK, again, perpetrated mostly by Muslim immigrant communities. But, heaven forbid you offer up some Wrongthink on social media, because the British law enforcement folks will be right there going after you. The article offers plenty of examples.

To Americans, this all looks incredibly ridiculous. Police should be out finding real criminals — like child rape gangs — instead of focusing on internet trolls. But British police, at least according to their social media accounts, appear to be more obsessed with rooting out wrong-think.

At the same time police Twitter accounts shriek about hate speech, hundreds of young girls are raped by immigrant predators, and few dare address it out of fear of the “racist” charge.

It’s not hyperbole. It’s happening. One has to wonder, though, if this same thing is happening in the United States, what with all the Muslim immigrant populations imported by Mr. Obama.

Read: Islamists Infest England With Slavery And Child Sex Rings »

Posted in Europe, Islamification | 14 Comments | Trackback URL

Washington Post Is Concerned That Trump May Deport Fewer Illegals Than Obama

By William Teach August 11, 2017 – 7:00 am

Seriously, Trump, like any Republican, cannot catch a break. He’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. The so-called impartial media will always find something to complain about, versus when they’d always find something to squee about when it came to Obama, Hillary, and other Democrats

Trump is deporting fewer immigrants than Obama, including criminals

President Trump has vowed to swiftly deport “bad hombres” from the United States, but the latest deportation statistics show that slightly fewer criminals were expelled in June than when he took office.

In January, federal immigration officials deported 9,913 criminals. After a slight uptick under Trump, expulsions sank to 9,600 criminals in June.

Mostly deportations have remained lower than in past years under the Obama administration. From January to June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 61,370 criminals, down from 70,603 during the same period last year.

Well, it helps when sanctuary jurisdictions are not working overtime to make sure ICE doesn’t pick the illegal up.

During the election, Trump vowed to target criminals for deportation and warned that they were “going out fast.” Later, he suggested he would try to find a solution for the “terrific people” who never committed any crimes, and would first deport 2 million to 3 million criminals.

But analysts say he is unlikely to hit those targets. Since January, immigration officials have deported more than 105,000 immigrants, 42 percent of whom had never committed any crime.

Except for coming across the U.S. border/overstaying visas, which is against federal law.

John Sandweg, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said part of the reason for the decline is that illegal border crossings have plunged since Trump took office pledging to build a “big, beautiful” wall and crack down on illegal immigration. Immigrants caught at the border accounted for a significant share of deportations under the Obama administration.

Trump’s policy of making potential illegals, and current illegals, fearful has worked well to keep the potentials from attempting to cross the border illegally.

Another factor, however, is that immigration officials are arresting more people who never committed any crime — some 4,100 immigrants in June, more than double the number in January — clogging the already backlogged immigration courts and making it harder to focus on criminals.

Except for being present in the U.S. in contradiction to federal law. Why is it so difficult to understand that?

A big difference in the numbers is that Obama was counting those caught at the border and immediately sent packing as a deportation. In fact, interior deportations, including of those “bad hombres”, was down during the Obama administration. People throw around numbers ranging from down 25% to 40% to 70%. In 2014, the LA Times wrote

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

On the other side of the ledger, the number of people deported at or near the border has gone up — primarily as a result of changing who gets counted in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency’s deportation statistics.

The vast majority of those border crossers would not have been treated as formal deportations under most previous administrations. If all removals were tallied, the total sent back to Mexico each year would have been far higher under those previous administrations than it is now.

All in all, ICE and the Trump administration are doing pretty well. Counting deportations the same way as Obama makes it seem as if there are fewer, but, it comes from there being fewer illegals being caught and immediately deported because there are fewer illegals attempting to come across the border. But, many, many more are being scooped up in the interior.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Washington Post Is Concerned That Trump May Deport Fewer Illegals Than Obama »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 6:01 pm

Gee, who would have thought that to solve Hotcoldwetdry we’d need a totally new type of economic model? Well, if you’ve been paying attention, you. Because Warmists tell us their intentions, couched in cute language. This article initially seems as if it is Excuse-making for people not going fully climate change compliant, but…

Going green a drop in the ocean of change needed to fix climate crisis

So, you drive a Toyota Prius, you don’t eat red meat, you only buy organic food, you’ve started buying clothes made from organic bamboo, your household-cleaning products contain no nasty chemicals, you’ve got LED lightbulbs throughout your home and you’ve reluctantly decided to have only one child, despite really wanting more.

Are you now assured your place in a green heaven? Are you now confident your child will not turn to you in your dotage and blame you for the climate spiralling out of control? Can you have your cake and eat it too?

There is an argument that we cannot buy our way out of the climate crisis — that green consumerism is an oxymoron.

Well, if all Warmists practiced what they preach…

Environmental activist Derrick Jensen says green consumerism (now worth about $5-trillion globally) and other acts of “green thrift”, such as having shorter showers, is a “campaign of systematic misdirection” because it assigns blame to the individual instead of those who actually create the problems and wield real power within the economic system.

He argues that it is not individuals who create climate crises but corporations, international financial institutions such as the World Bank and compliant governments.

Blame-shifting. There’s lots more to that, but, let’s skip to the big notions

All of these problems speak to the lie at the heart of green consumerism.

The prevailing economic orthodoxy is wedded to the idea of perpetual growth, which is premised on the continual need to increase production and consumption.

This means hypercapitalism will never voluntarily accept reductions in production and consumption. To do so would be to accept a reduction in profits in a culture where profit is the only objective.

The only thing that will lead to a reduction in production and consumption is organised political resistance. But as Jensen notes, green consumerism has cleverly “redefined us from citizens to consumers, reducing our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming”. Therefore we must reject green consumerism as a solution, for it is only through large-scale collective public resistance against corporate interests, international financial institutions and compliant governments that we can hope to manage the climate crisis.

Is this starting to sound more like a political movement towards Progressive (nice fascism) goals?

Therefore, we must organise, lobby, boycott, vote and vociferously protest. We must campaign for the tighter regulation of corporate power, for environmentally sustainable and equitable transport and housing systems, for higher taxes on the rich and corporates (reversing decades of tax cuts) to enable massive investment in renewable energy and climate-change mitigation and adaptation, for economic equity, and for a socially conscious instrumentalist state that is interested in equity and our long-term survival, not just short-term gain at any expense.

This is a monumental task given the hollowing out of the state via privatisation and deregulation and the hyperindividualism (to reject consumption we have to reject established social norms) that characterises the hypercapitalism of the neoliberal project.

In essence, bigger and bigger government with more and more control. Yet, these same idiots who follow along with these proposals never seem to see the downside in giving over their freedom to government. Because that’s what they’ve been brainwashed to believe. And, if it comes to fruition, they suddenly realize that this isn’t what they wanted. In a similar vein, this is why so many Democrats have abandoned the Democrat led states to head to Southern states. They don’t like the way the policies they supported were harming their own lives.

If you advocate for authoritarian government, don’t be surprised when you get it and it hurts.

Read: Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | Comments Off on Going Green Totally Needs A Completely New (Government Controlled) Economy | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is horrible cheese from evil carbon polluting cows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Political Clown Parade, with a post on an ascendant nightmare.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 1 Comment | Trackback URL

Manure Management Is Next Battle For Cult Of Climastrology Or Something

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 10:52 am

Is this one the most perfect headlines you’ve ever seen in regard to ‘climate change’?

Conference to focus on manure management in battle against climate change

Just let that resonate for a few.

  • A big conference with people coming in using fossil fueled vehicles and airplanes? Check
  • Positioning it as a “war”? Check
  • Big-wigs looking for some sort of solutions (which will involve government force)? Check
  • Talking about manure, which is what this issue is? Check

On to the article

More than 250 delegates from across Europe and around the world will gather in Wexford next month to discuss a range of scientific research topics with potentially profound importance for the future environmental performance of Irish agriculture.

The biennial Ramiran (Recycling of Agricultural, Municipal and Industrial Residues in Agriculture Network) conference is being hosted by Teagasc and will focus on new cutting-edge strategies and technologies to improve the efficiency of manure and residue management on farms.

This has implications far beyond the farm gate, according to Teagasc research officer and conference co-host Dr Karl Richards. “Agriculture accounts for one third of Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions,” he says. “By tackling manure management as much as 3-4 per cent of national emissions can be addressed and that could make a significant contribution to meeting our targets for greenhouse gas reductions.”

Four checks. And nothing is better than talking about manure than when talking about anthropogenic climate change.

Read: Manure Management Is Next Battle For Cult Of Climastrology Or Something »

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

Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 8:30 am

Heartache in Illegal Immigration World as Immigration and Customs Enforcement is allowed to do the job they were tasked to do by Congressional legislation

Immigration Raids Are Sweeping Up More People Who Weren’t Targets

More undocumented immigrants are being swept up in immigration raids targeting their friends, neighbors and coworkers.

Under the Trump Administration’s new enforcement priorities, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents are instructed to detain and deport anyone who is in the country illegally, which means even so-called “non-targets” may end up in custody after a raid.

“The biggest change is under the previous Administration, there were a lot of individuals that were not considered amenable to arrest that now, since the change in Administration, our director has said there are not going to be any classes or categories of removable aliens that are exempt,” says ICE spokeswoman Danielle Bennett.

In a four-day operation at the end of July, ICE arrested 650 people. Of those, 457 weren’t targets of the raid. In other words, a full 70% of the immigrants swept up in this operation were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So, if law enforcement was engaged in an operation to get drunk drivers, should they let the ones who are speeding, running red lights, and driving like morons because they’re looking at their smartphones go? Just ignore them? At the base level, they are all unlawfully present in the United States. They’re trespassing. The same liberals, like Time writer Tessa Berenson, would call the police if people were squatting in their backyard.

Andrew Nietor, an immigration lawyer based in San Diego, said that under the Obama Administration, many of these people would have never ended up in deportation proceedings, because they weren’t seen as a priority. The focus then was on people who had aggravated felony convictions or who were recidivists. That’s changed.

Interestingly, these same criminals are protected by sanctuary jurisdictions in practice, in contradiction to the talking points. Regardless, if an illegal alien is caught in sweeps, so be it. They should have thought about the consequences of their actions.

You look at the freakout over a mom deported for changing lanes. Well, get this: she had already been deported once, and came back. Thats’ a felony. Recidivism.

So far, the get tough approach is working

(Fox News) Deportation orders have jumped 31 percent this year compared to last year, according to numbers released by the Justice Department.

The numbers, released Tuesday, are an indication President Trump is carrying out his pledge to get tough on illegal immigrants.

From February 1 to the end of July, there were 57,069 illegal immigrants who were either deported or left voluntarily. That’s a 31 percent increase from the same time period last year, when there were 43,595 deportations or self-deportations.

Couple this with the reduction in border crossings, and things are working quite well. It would be interesting to know the numbers when it comes to people overstaying visas.

Read: Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Immigration Raids Sweeping Up Other Illegals Who Weren’t Targets | Trackback URL

On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself

By William Teach August 10, 2017 – 8:07 am

We shouldn’t be surprised that the Editorial Board of the NY Times has chimed in on President Trump’s bellicose comments on North Korea threats, and come down on the side of finding fault. They were very enthused by many of Obama’s bellicose statements, such as against Osama bib Laden, al Qaeda, and setting the “red line” for Syria (they were much less enthused when Obama failed to uphold said red line). They also had zero problem with Obama making pretty much everything about himself. But, hey, they have to #Resist Trump

Fears of Missiles, and Words

On some emotional level, one might be able to see why Donald Trump threatened to unleash “fire and fury” against North Korea if it endangered the United States. The North’s nuclear program is a growing menace, its warmongering tirades are unquestionably unnerving, and peaceful solutions to the threat it poses have been maddeningly elusive over many years and many American administrations.

But Mr. Trump is president of the United States, and if prudent, disciplined leadership was ever required, it is now. Rhetorically stomping his feet, as he did on Tuesday, is not just irresponsible; it is dangerous. He is no longer a businessman trying to browbeat someone into a deal. He commands the most powerful nuclear and conventional arsenal in the world, and any miscalculation could be catastrophic.

You can see where this is going: all blame. God forbid the NY Times stand behind the president, as you know they would had it been Hillary or Obama making the statement.

Mr. Trump and his aides must have anticipated that he would be asked by reporters about North Korea after the United Nations Security Council tightened sanctions on Saturday after the North’s latest missile tests. Why, then, didn’t his team of generals — John Kelly, the new chief of staff; Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and Jim Mattis, the defense secretary, who know well the perils of war — caution him about the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategy, about better ways to signal toughness and about the dangers of idle threats?

Except, Mr. Trump made no mention of using nuclear weapons. It might be implied, but, the U.S. is quite able to reign “fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before” with conventional weapons.

Since Truman, presidents have largely avoided the kind of militaristic threats issued by Mr. Trump because they feared such language could escalate a crisis.

It worked well in Reagan’s case, where the Soviet Union started disintegrating under his watch. How’s it worked out in North Korea’s case? How have those sanctions worked? Anyhow, here’s where it gets funny

Mr. Trump has again made himself the focus of attention, when it should be Kim Jong-un, the ruthless North Korean leader, and his accelerating nuclear program that, The Washington Post reported, may have succeeded in miniaturizing a warhead to fit on a missile and may have accumulated as many as 60 nuclear weapons. Mr. Trump’s threats have also diverted attention from a genuine accomplishment, the new Security Council sanctions.

There was never this concern when Obama made everything about himself. Always talking about “I”, including himself in photos of things. And Democrats, including the editorial board of the NY Times, screamed like girls at a Beatles concert. Of course, the “making it about himself” thing is only a thought in the martini sipping boardrooms of Liberal Land, while the rest are saying “good job, Mr. President, stand tough for the United States.” The NYTEB would have surely said the same thing if it was President Trump threatening Adolph Hitler in this manner pre-WWII.

Tougher sanctions, coupled with Mr. Tillerson’s continued efforts at a diplomatic solution, are the best path to a peaceful end to this conflict. That is what Mr. Trump should also be focused on. Engaging in a war of words with North Korea only makes it harder for both sides to de-escalate.

Again, how have those calm words coupled with sanctions worked out? No one wants war. It would be devastating. The U.S. would be pretty much fine, but, millions to tens of millions could be killed, what with Seoul, South Korea, being 30 miles south of the DMZ, with over 25 million in range of regular, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Perhaps it’s time to try the forceful tact.

Of course, this is the same paper that allowed Susan Rice, who lied repeatedly about what happened in Benghazi, and failed spectacularly when it comes to North Korea, to write an op-ed on North Korea.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself »

Posted in Donald Trump, Wonky Media | Comments Off on On North Korea, NY Times Is Suddenly Concerned That Trump Made It About Himself | Trackback URL

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Causes Little Known Tribe To Give Up Being Vegan

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 3:49 pm

Is there anything that Hotcoldwetdry can’t do?

Climate change effect: Ladakhi tribe no longer vegan

The little-known Brokpa tribals of Ladakh, who claim to have been vegans for some 2,200 years of their existence, are slowly opting for an alternative diet including dairy products, eggs and meat — thanks to climate change.

Climate change has made summer and winter warmer and seen the advent of pests, leading to a significant drop in their traditional crops, forcing the Brokpa to change their lifestyle.

“We have had to shift to an alternative lifestyle, not exactly what the Brokpa once used to be. People also consume meat. Some old folks still avoid this, but eggs, meat and milk are on the menu,” Tsering Namjial, the Nambardar or head of Dha village, told this visiting IANS correspondent.

This is all Al Gore’s fault your fault for refusing to give up your fossil fueled vehicle, refusing to move to a tiny home, and refusing to live like it’s 1499.

Read: Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Causes Little Known Tribe To Give Up Being Vegan »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is evil carbon polluting (and sexist) cheese that comes from evil carbon polluting, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Legal Insurrection, with a post on a USC cleared of rape charges who could still be expelled.

Read: If All You See… »

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

New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something

By William Teach August 9, 2017 – 10:33 am

In case you hadn’t noticed, I’ve mentioned the whole “practice what you preach” thing when it comes to Warmists and their pet cult for over a decade of blogging now, because few actually do more than make a few token changes in their own lives, yet, they want to force Everyone Else to make changes in their lives at the end of the government sword. And here we have something fun, via Just One Minute, where Tom Maguire notes that “words speak louder than actions so stop hating you haters”, as the New Republic’s Emily Atkin takes a shot at defending climahypocrisy

Al Gore’s Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter
Conservatives say environmentalists are hypocrites if they consume more energy than the average American. It’s a deceitful, disingenuous argument.

Al Gore is back in the spotlight with his new documentary, An Inconvenient Sequel, making him a top target again of the right-wing counter-intel complex. On Thursday, the conservative National Center for Public Policy Research released a report, “Al Gore’s Inconvenient Reality,” that paints the former vice president as a hypocritical climate advocate. In near-creepy detail, NCPPR author Drew Johnson maps Gore’s home in Nashville, Tennessee, down to the number of windows, and concludes that “Gore’s own home electricity use has hypocritically increased to more than 21 times the national average this past year with no sign of slowing down.” Johnson also slams Gore’s numerous attempts to modernize his home through energy efficiency, solar panels, and geothermal heating, saying they have been inadequate in offsetting his energy use.

Emily later notes that Gore isn’t the only Warmist who’s taken shots for being a climahypocrite. Interestingly, she inadvertently lays out the case that all these folks pushing anthropogenic climate change, are, in fact, hypocrites, before finally arriving at her actual argument

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issue of climate change) and of poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier, and perhaps more rhetorically effective, than debunking climate science itself. That’s why you only see groups like the National Center for Public Policy Research releasing “studies” on Gore’s energy use. NCPPR, which has been funded by oil interests,

Isn’t that schtick about oil interests exactly what Emily just railed against, a redirection? Anyhow, it’s not up to Skeptics to debunk AGW (though that has been done many, many times, including by Warmists themselves, who trot out false studies, models that fail, etc), it’s up to Warmists to prove their hypothesis using the Scientific Method.

advocates against policies to fight global warming because it denies that global warming exists. “The world isn’t warming,” the group falsely claimed in a 2014 paper arguing against climate regulations. Thus, it’s in their interest to try to undermine one of the most effective advocates of aggressive climate action.

We don’t deny warming, we deny that it is mostly/solely caused by Mankind. But, this is all a deflectionary argument, moving on to

But the hypocrisy charge simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. An anti-abortion advocate who believes abortion is immoral and should be illegal, but gets one herself, is a hypocrite. But climate change advocates who don’t live a carbon-neutral lifestyle aren’t hypocrites because, for the most part, they’re not asking you to live a carbon-neutral lifestyle. They’re asking governments, utilities, energy companies, and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please, without contributing to global warming.

Um, if they’re asking others to practice what they preach while refusing to do the same, that would make them…..hypocrites! And, as Tom Maguire points out, they aren’t asking: they’re demanding that Government pass laws that force compliance.

But the most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people like Gore and DiCaprio and Obama won’t be affected by climate change.

Nor will they be affected by ‘climate change’ policies. They have enough money to avoid all the negatives of rising taxes, fees, energy and food costs, a general cost of living increase, and restrictive government policies. The middle and lower classes will, though.

Read: New Republic: Al Gore’s Massive Carbon Footprint Doesn’t Matter Or Something »

Posted in Climahypocrites, Global Warming | 1 Comment | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove