Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 10:50 am

Fear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(ABC News)  The Trump administration plans to arrest parents and other relatives who authorities believe smuggled their children into the United States, a move immigrant advocates said would send a wave of fear through vulnerable communities.

A new “surge initiative” aims to dismantle human smuggling operations, including identifying and arresting the adult sponsors of unaccompanied minors who paid coyotes or other smugglers to bring the children across the U.S. border, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials confirmed Thursday.

That marks a sharp departure from policies in place under President Barack Obama’s administration, during which time tens of thousands of young people fleeing gang and drug violence in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador crossed the border and were placed with sponsors in communities nationwide. Sponsors — typically parents, close relatives or family friends — have been expected to care for the minors while they go to school and seek legal status in immigration court.

“Arresting those who come forward to sponsor unaccompanied children during their immigration proceedings, often parents, is unimaginably cruel,” said Wendy Young, president of Kids in Need of Defense, a nonprofit that has matched thousands of unaccompanied minors with pro bono attorneys in the last eight years. “Without caregivers to come forward, many of these children will languish in costly detention centers or be placed in foster care at great expense to states.”

The idea here is exactly to stoke fear, which will drastically reduce the number of minors being sent across the border to come live with people who are unlawfully present in the U.S. themselves.

Children whose sponsors were arrested would be placed with another verified relative or guardian, or under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the federal agency that takes custody of unaccompanied minors, said ICE spokeswoman Sarah Rodriguez.

“ICE aims to disrupt and dismantle end-to-end the illicit pathways used by transnational criminal organizations and human smuggling facilitators,” Rodriguez said. “The sponsors who have placed children directly into harm’s way by entrusting them to violent criminal organizations will be held accountable.”

They should arrest Democrats who enable and embolden this behavior by constantly coming out in favor of illegal aliens, and end up putting children in harm’s way.

Read: Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Bummer: Los Federales To Target Relatives Who Bring Kids Illegally | Trackback URL

Study Finds That Southeast And Midwest Will Suffer Most From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 7:14 am

Where do you find the most pro-science skepticism when it comes to anthropogenic climate change? The Southeast and Midwest. Republican leaning states. So, shockingly, guess which areas are targeted in this new “study”?

As Climate Changes, Southern States Will Suffer More Than Others

As the United States confronts global warming in the decades ahead, not all states will suffer equally. Maine may benefit from milder winters. Florida, by contrast, could face major losses, as deadly heat waves flare up in the summer and rising sea levels eat away at valuable coastal properties.

In a new study in the journal Science, researchers analyzed the economic harm that climate change could inflict on the United States in the coming century. They found that the impacts could prove highly unequal: states in the Northeast and West would fare relatively well, while parts of the Midwest and Southeast would be especially hard hit.

In all, the researchers estimate that the nation could face damages worth 0.7 percent of gross domestic product per year by the 2080s for every 1 degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature. But that overall number obscures wide variations: The worst-hit counties — mainly in states that already have warm climates, like Arizona or Texas — could see losses worth 10 to 20 percent of G.D.P. or more if emissions continue to rise unchecked.

Since 1850, there has only been a mild 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase. Will 1 more degree Fahrenheit really be noticeable? Only in Warmist World. The notion here is to attempt to scaremonger aimed at the areas with the most skeptics, all in order to get them to accept more taxes, fees, a higher cost of living, higher energy costs, and more centralized governmental control of their lives.

Previous economic models have been relatively crude, focusing on broad global impacts. The new study, led by the Climate Impact Lab, a group of scientists, economists and computational experts, took advantage of a wealth of recent research on how high temperatures can cripple the economy. And the researchers harnessed advances in computing to scale global climate models down to individual counties in the United States.

Who’s shocked by the use of computer models? Raise your hands.

There are still limitations to the study. It relies heavily on research showing how hot weather has caused economic losses in the past. But society and technology will change a lot over the next 80 years, and people may find novel ways to adapt to steadily rising temperatures, said Robert S. Pindyck, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who was not involved with this study.

Limitations? The heck you say. People survived Holocene warm periods that were warmer than today, we’ll survive this one.

Read: Study Finds That Southeast And Midwest Will Suffer Most From ‘Climate Change’ Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

House Passes Kate’s Law Along With Anti-Sanctuary City Bill On Mostly Party Line Votes

By William Teach June 30, 2017 – 6:57 am

Unsurprisingly, most Democrats voted against both bills

(CNN) House Republicans joined President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon in declaring war on sanctuary cities — passing legislation targeting the cities’ funding while hammering a message of the dangers posed by undocumented immigrants.

“Kate’s Law” is named for Kate Steinle, a young woman murdered on a busy walkway in San Francisco two years ago allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who was deported multiple times. It would increase maximum penalties for undocumented immigrants who repeatedly enter the country illegally after deportation, especially with criminal records. It passed 257-167.

The “No Sanctuary for Criminals Act” would expand what is required of cities regarding federal immigrant enforcement and allow the government to deny jurisdictions federal law enforcement funds if they don’t comply. It passed 228-195.

CNN forgets to mention that for the No Sanctuary bill, 188 of the 195 no votes were from Democrats. Only 3 Dems voted for the bill. For Republicans, Amash, Curbelo, Diaz-Balart, Donovan, King (NY), Reichert, and Ros-Lehtinen need to be targeted for being primaried.

For Kate’s Law, only 24 Democrats decided that it was a good idea to increase the penalties on criminal aliens who came back into the country after being deported. 166 voted against a law named for an American citizen murdered by a 5 time deported alien with a long criminal background. Justin Amash was the lone Republican to vote against it.

Democrats also slammed what they alleged was an effort to vilify undocumented immigrants, despite studies showing they are no more likely to commit crimes than the general population.

“This bill perpetuates the ugly myth that immigrants are more dangerous and more likely to commit crimes than native Americans,” New York Rep. Jerry Nadler said on the House floor. “This bill demonizes immigrants, punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and law enforcement and allows indefinite detention, … all while making us less safe.”

The “undocumented” are committing a crime by being in the nation to start with. Why would law enforcement, tasked with, get this, enforcing law and stopping criminals, want to bond with a criminal element? As for indefinite detention, if Democrats would stop caterwauling about deporting people who shouldn’t be in the United States, the illegals would be held a short time and then sent packing.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: House Passes Kate’s Law Along With Anti-Sanctuary City Bill On Mostly Party Line Votes »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: Californians Will Continue To Pay Up For ‘Climate Change’

By William Teach June 29, 2017 – 3:37 pm

But, hey, this is what they all wanted, right? To pay for this themselves? No? They wanted Other People to pay for their beliefs? Huh

Californians pay to fight climate change – and court says they’ll keep paying

Californians pay more for gasoline and other goods to finance the state’s war on climate change. The state Supreme Court decided Wednesday they’ll continue paying for at least three more years.

The court declined to hear a lawsuit challenging the state-run auctions of carbon-emissions allowances, which cement makers, food processors and others must purchase in order to spew greenhouse gases. Two lower courts already ruled the auctions, which have raised billions of dollars since their introduction in 2012, are constitutional.

The estimates are that this artificially raises the cost of a gallon of gas by 11 cents. Doesn’t seem like much, until you add it to all the other taxes and fees, and that products and services also go up because companies are pay more themselves and passing the costs on.

The suit was claiming that since this was a tax, it was illegally passed, as two-thirds supermajority is required to enact a new tax in California

The 3rd District Court of Appeal ruled in April that the auctions aren’t a form of taxation because buying the carbon credits is voluntary – companies could choose instead to reduce emissions – and the credits are a “thing of value.”

Damned if you do damned if you don’t in Liberal World. Fortunately, Governor Moonbeam is happy that Californian’s will be paying more

“With this Supreme Court victory, now it’s up to us to take action extending California’s cap-and-trade system on a more permanent basis,” Brown said Wednesday.

And see more businesses leave the state.

Read: Good News: Californians Will Continue To Pay Up For ‘Climate Change’ »

Posted in Carbon Credits, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 29, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is wonderful park which will soon be too hot from a meager .5C increase, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on why John McEnroe was correct on Serena Williams.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Two Billion Could Become Refugees By 2100 From Sea Rise Or Something

By William Teach June 29, 2017 – 10:30 am

Today’s unhinged and scientifically baseless scaremongering prognostication

Two billion people may become refugees from climate change by the end of the century

An unimaginable 2 billion people could become displaced from their homes by 2100 due to climate change-related rising ocean levels.

That would be about one-fifth of the world’s population at that time, and account for those who live near coastlines, according to new Cornell University research.

“We’re going to have more people on less land and sooner than we think,” the study’s lead author, Charles Geisler, said in a statement. “The future rise in global mean sea level probably won’t be gradual, yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to higher ground.”

The researchers at Cornell estimate that these issues, exacerbated by climate change, will create 1.4 billion refugees by 2060. Geisler said that number could reach 2 billion by 2100.

If you’re guessing that this comes from another in a long line of failed models, you’d be correct

(HuffPost) To get the 2 billion figure, Geisler extrapolated from a 2015 study published in the journal PLOS One. That research predicted that by 2060, there would be some 1.4 billion people living in low-lying coastal regions at risk from sea level rise. Drawing from nearly a dozen other studies, Geisler and his co-author, the University of Kentucky climate researcher Ben Currens, modeled what he called a “rather extreme scenario.”

“The paper is the worst-case scenario,” Geisler said. “We looked for estimates in these various barriers to entry that were coming from the most draconian changes that could hit us from climate change and sea level rise.”

Unsurprisingly, neither article mentions what the 20th Century sea rise was (an utterly average 7 inches) nor what the current sea rise is. Essentially, the same. Which is well below what one would expect for a Holocene warm period. But, hey, gotta push the doom to get that sweet, sweet climate research cash.

Read: Two Billion Could Become Refugees By 2100 From Sea Rise Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions Start Thursday Night

By William Teach June 29, 2017 – 7:56 am

Had liberals who support extremist Muslims not complained and sued all those months back, the 90 day time frame for the travel ban would have been over already. Now, they take affect at 8pm tonight

(UK Daily Mail) The revised version of President Donald Trump’s travel restrictions is set to come into effect Thursday night with new criteria for visa applicants from six Muslim-majority countries and refugees fleeing persecution.

The strict news rules come after the Supreme Court partially restored Trump’s executive order on Monday, following months of legal battles and it being widely criticized as a ban on Muslims.

The court ruling means Trump can place a 90-day ban on new visa applicants from Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Iran and Yemen if they can’t prove they have a close relationship someone living in the US (like a spouse) or an entity (like a school or job).

A refugee from any country can be banned for 120 days if they can’t establish such a close relationship.

Visas that have already been approved will not be revoked.

A parent, spouse, child, adult son or daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law or sibling already in the United States will be accepted as a close relationship under the new rules.

Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, fiancees or other extended family members are not considered to be close relationships, according to the guidelines that were issued in a cable sent to all US embassies and consulates late on Wednesday.

One has to wonder, what is the problem with restricting the types of people we want in our country? Why are we bringing people into our nation who have no real ties, do not speak the language, and seemingly have no interest in assimilation?

Quite frankly, it’s time to shut down immigration to the United States, just as has been done many times prior, in order to allow those already here to assimilate. And, yes, definitely stop immigration from areas that are known Muslim extremist hotbeds.

Read: Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions Start Thursday Night »

Posted in Donald Trump, RoP | Comments Off on Trump’s Revised Travel Restrictions Start Thursday Night | Trackback URL

Unsurprisingly, Democrats Are Against Illegal Alien Bills

By William Teach June 29, 2017 – 7:37 am

For all the Democrats talking points about being OK with getting tough on violent illegal aliens, they’re not fine with cracking down on violent illegal aliens

(CNN) The House Thursday is expected to pass bills that would hand President Donald Trump key pieces of his immigration agenda, especially efforts targeting sanctuary cities.

The bills, “Kate’s Law” and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, would install harsher penalties for repeat illegal entry to the US, and expand US law on sanctuary cities to pressure localities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.

But it’s unlikely either would have enough votes to pass the Senate, which struggled with Kate’s Law last year.

That’s because most Democrats refuse to vote for cloture, the 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. Does anyone want to bet that Mitch McConnell goes nuclear or finds a way to thwart this level? Furthermore, if the GOP had cajones, they’d be broadcasting that Democrats do not want to protect the nation from criminal illegal aliens. Let’s not forget that Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, who was murdered by a 5 time deported illegal alien who had been convicted of several felonies, then crossed the border again and headed to the sanctuary city of San Fransisco.

Immigration and civil liberties advocates have also come out swinging against the bills, saying they bolster a “deportation force” and anti-immigrant agenda from the Trump administration.

It’s unclear why CNN wouldn’t name the ACLU, which opposed Kate’s Law last year, and does so again

Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy and campaigns at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants. Despite claims to the contrary, Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act will make our communities less safe by undermining the trust that law enforcement builds with its communities — citizen and immigrant alike.

“The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda. We urge the House to reject these bills, to defend the Constitution, and protect the rights of all people, no matter their background.”

Once again with the trust between law enforcement and people who shouldn’t even be in our nation thing. We already know that the majority of illegals won’t report a crime as it is, even during Obama’s “we love illegals” period. All the ACLU is doing is coming up with excuses so they do not have to provide their real reason, namely, that they want illegals legalized so they can vote Democrat. If they really cared, they’d put the lives of legal U.S. citizens and residents over those of people who are unlawfully present.

(The Hill) House Democratic leaders will encourage their troops to oppose the Republicans’ crackdown on so-called sanctuary cities this week, but members will face less pressure on “Kate’s Law,” the leaders indicated Tuesday.

“Kate’s Law is a little more complicated,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the Democratic whip, told reporters in the Capitol Tuesday morning. “I’m advising members to look at it carefully and see what their conclusion is.”

Hours later, Hoyer and the Democrats decided they would whip opposition to the legislation when it hits the floor later this week. But they’re not twisting arms, due to the politically fraught nature of the illegal immigration issue, which could prove a tough vote for vulnerable Democrats.

In other words, they’re still trying to decide on their talking points on how to vote against a bill that bears the name of a woman murdered by an illegal alien.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Unsurprisingly, Democrats Are Against Illegal Alien Bills »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | Comments Off on Unsurprisingly, Democrats Are Against Illegal Alien Bills | Trackback URL

Bummer: World Has Only Three Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry

By William Teach June 28, 2017 – 4:27 pm

You know, there comes a point when it gets tedious trying to keep track of all the apocalypse prognostications from the Cult of Climstrology. Here comes another one

World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts

Avoiding dangerous levels of climate change is still just about possible, but will require unprecedented effort and coordination from governments, businesses, citizens and scientists in the next three years, a group of prominent experts has warned.

And lots and lots of redistributed money from taxing/feeing the hell out of citizens. Of course, these experts will get their cut

The authors, including former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, argue that the next three years will be crucial. They calculate that if emissions can be brought permanently lower by 2020 then the temperature thresholds leading to runaway irreversible climate change will not be breached.

Neither is actually a climate scientist, though, they do stand to gain a lot of money and prestige, and power, from this fable. Schellnhuber is the one that came up with that 2C yammering point back in 1995, though.

They set out six goals for 2020 which they said could be adopted at the G20 meeting in Hamburg on 7-8 July. These include increasing renewable energy to 30% of electricity use; plans from leading cities and states to decarbonise by 2050; 15% of new vehicles sold to be electric; and reforms to land use, agriculture, heavy industry and the finance sector, to encourage green growth.

Interesting. When Leftists, and make no mistake that these are far, far left leftists, want to reform something, it means putting it under control of centralized government. Do you want them in charge of land use, food production, and the flow of money? Warmists should step back and moment and ask themselves if they would want government in charge of their land, what they eat, and their own money, and wonder why things like this are so important to the climate big wigs. Perhaps some Warmists will have a mental breakthrough.

Read: Bummer: World Has Only Three Years Left To Stop Hotcoldwetdry »

Posted in Global Warming, Progressive Goals | 13 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach June 28, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is a world turning to desert due to extreme weather from YOU using an ice maker, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Coyote Blog, with a post on Progressives creating income inequality in Seattle.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 10 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove