Surprise: ICE Is Targeting Illegals In Sanctuary Cities

By William Teach March 25, 2017 – 7:45 am

Where better to go to detain those unlawfully present in the United States than places where lots of illegals hang out because the cities coddle them?

Source: ICE is targeting ‘sanctuary cities’ with raids

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been targeting so-called “sanctuary cities” with increased enforcement operations in an effort to pressure those jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration agents, a senior US immigration official with direct knowledge of ongoing ICE actions told CNN.

A sanctuary city is a broad term applied to states, cities and/or counties that have policies in place designed to limit cooperation or involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration operations. More than 100 US jurisdictions — among them New York, Los Angeles and Chicago — identify as such.

High-ranking ICE officials have discussed in internal meetings carrying out more raids on those locations, said the source.

Ah, the old unknown anonymous source. Even if true, sanctuary cities are a great place to go to detain illegals for deportation, especially for the more criminal element amongst illegals, because those with criminal offenses are confident that nothing will happen to them.

This week, a federal judge in Texas seems to have confirmed that tactic. US Magistrate Judge Andrew Austin revealed during an immigration hearing Monday that a mid-February raid in the Austin metro area was done in retaliation for a local sheriff’s recent decision to limit her department’s cooperation with ICE.

“There’s been questions about whether Austin is being targeted. We had a briefing…. that we could expect a big operation, agents coming in from out of town. There was going to be a specific operation, and it was at least related to us in that meeting that it was a result of the sheriff’s new policy that this was going to happen,” Austin says in audio of the proceedings provided by the court.

Well, if the cities and counties did their jobs in upholding the law instead of protecting those who are unlawfully present in the country, this would not be necessary.

Officials in several sanctuary cities began complaining that they may be getting intentionally targeted after a series of raids around the country in February resulted in almost 700 arrests, but ICE described these operations as routine and said they were planned during the previous administration.

The senior immigration official pointed out that the raids overwhelmingly took place in sanctuary jurisdictions.

Again, this is where a goodly chunk of illegals reside, because they are protected. They know if they are picked up that the city/county won’t report them to ICE. They’ll be let go. And who is being released back? Illegals with crimes on their resumes like arson, homicide, assault, rape, sexual assault on a child, identity theft, and so much more. These are the people sanctuary cities are protecting, and these are the people CNN and the sanctuary cities are complaining that ICE is targeting.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Surprise: ICE Is Targeting Illegals In Sanctuary Cities »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Need Safe Spaces To Protect Them From ‘Climate Change’ Mental Danger

By William Teach March 24, 2017 – 4:50 pm

Man up, buttercup. Put your big boy/girl pants on

The Problem With Climate Catastrophizing

Climate change may or may not bear responsibility for the flood on last night’s news, but without question it has created a flood of despair. Climate researchers and activists, according to a 2015 Esquire feature, “When the End of Human Civilization is Your Day Job,” suffer from depression and PTSD-like symptoms. In a poll on his Twitter feed, meteorologist and writer Eric Holthaus found that nearly half of 416 respondents felt “emotionally overwhelmed, at least occasionally, because of news about climate change.”

For just such feelings, a Salt Lake City support group provides “a safe space for confronting” what it calls “climate grief.”

The rest of the article is too involved in the nuttbaggery of the Cult of Climastrology and how they are beyond unhinged and making themselves paranoid nutjobs. If you cannot read it at the above link, Climate Depot has it reproduced in full.

Read: Warmists Need Safe Spaces To Protect Them From ‘Climate Change’ Mental Danger »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming, Unhinged Tools | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach March 24, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is what might be a horrible fossil fueled vehicle, you might be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Climate Change Dispatch, with a post on the muddled messaging of the March for Science.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

Warmists Come Up With A Roadmap To Meet Paris Climate Goals Or Something

By William Teach March 24, 2017 – 10:30 am

Listen, I read a lot of science fiction and horror stories. I love a good space opera story, and I love a good zombie book. I like those Kaiju type books, and ones like Jake Bible’s Mega series. A good mystery. Some vampires (not sparkly). All sorts of fiction. But, really, it’s all more believable than this schlock being pushed by the Cult of Climastrology

Scientists made a detailed “roadmap” for meeting the Paris climate goals. It’s eye-opening.

(yammering about the Paris climate agreement)

In a new paper for Science, a group of European researchers lay out a more vivid way to frame the climate challenge — with details on what would have to happen in each of the next three decades if we want to stay below 2°C.

They start with the big picture: To hit the Paris climate goals without geoengineering, the world has to do three broad things:

1) Global CO2 emissions from energy and industry have to fall in half each decade. That is, in the 2020s, the world cuts emissions in half. Then we do it again in the 2030s. Then we do it again in the 2040s. It’s a wrenching, ambitious plan, and they dub this the “carbon law.” Lead author Johan Rockström told me they were thinking of an analogy to Moore’s law for transistors, and we’ll see why.

2) Net emissions from land use — i.e., from agriculture and deforestation — have to fall steadily to zero by 2050. This would need to happen even as the world population grows and we’re feeding ever more people.

3) Technologies to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere have to start scaling up massively, until we’re artificially pulling 5 gigatons of CO2 per year out of the atmosphere by 2050 — nearly double what all the world’s trees and soils already do.

It’s utter fantasy. Are we supposed to stop feeding people? By 2020, no more of what they falsely call subsidies to the fossil fuels industry (which would mean those things which are actually tax breaks would be taken from every other company that uses them), no more coal plants allowed, and all sorts of commitments. And then the real pain starts

2020-2030: Now the hard stuff begins! In this decade, carbon pricing would expand to cover most aspects of the global economy, averaging around $50 per ton (far higher than seen almost anywhere today) and rising. Aggressive energy efficiency programs ramp up. Coal power is phased out in rich countries by the end of the decade and is declining sharply elsewhere. Leading cities like Copenhagen are going totally fossil fuel free. Wealthy countries no longer sell new combustion engine cars by 2030, and transportation gets widely electrified, with many short-haul flights replaced by rail.

So, lots of taxes and restrictions on people’s travels…interesting how this is mostly solved by these, eh?…all while decimating one of the biggest industries on the planet, putting huge numbers of people out of work. People forced to travel like it’s the late 1800’s on trains, instead of planes.

And, of course, relying on technologies that do not work and others that do not exist.

Seriously, how does all this work if members of the Cult of Climastrology refuse to practice what they preach today?

Read: Warmists Come Up With A Roadmap To Meet Paris Climate Goals Or Something »

Posted in AGW Idiocy, Global Warming | 7 Comments | Trackback URL

Immigration Offenses Account For Half Of All Federal Arrests

By William Teach March 24, 2017 – 7:09 am

It’s pretty bad when federal authorities are having to spend so much time dealing with people who shouldn’t even be present in the country in the first place

(CNN) Immigration offenses account for half of all federal arrests, according to Justice Department statistics released Thursday, which focus heavily on the role immigration plays in the federal justice system.

The analysis of federal justice statistics from 2013-14 highlights how much of federal law enforcement is dedicated to immigration-related offenses, continuing the Trump administration’s efforts to place an emphasis on the criminal side of illegal immigration.

“These statistics make it clear that immigration-related offenses along the United States border with Mexico account for an enormous portion of the federal government’s law enforcement resources and that we must enforce our immigration laws in a way that consistently deters future violations,” said Sarah Isgur Flores, a Justice Department spokeswoman.

A few numbers

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, half of all federal arrests in 2014 were immigration-related, a total of nearly 82,000.

Sixty-one percent of all federal arrests were in the five districts along the US-Mexico border, along with 55% of suspects investigated and 39% of offenders who were given a federal prison sentence.

Other highlighted statistics included that 32% of defendants facing charges in district courts were from Mexico, along with 5% from Central America, and 42% of defendants were non-US citizens. Non-citizens were also one-quarter of federally sentenced prisoners in 2014.

The report also noted that 17% of immigration offenders who were released in 2012 ended up back in federal prison within three years.

It’s high time to implement measures which would make people think twice before they come to the United States illegally/overstay their visas.

Read: Immigration Offenses Account For Half Of All Federal Arrests »

Posted in Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

NY Times Suddenly Thrilled By The Use Of Filibuster Against Neil Gorsuch

By William Teach March 24, 2017 – 6:52 am

During the Obama years, when Democrats were in charge, the NY Times was very much against the GOP using the filibuster, and very much approved of using the nuclear option. Of course, that belief changed when Republicans took over the Senate, and, suddenly, filibusters by Democrats were great examples of Democracy!!!! in action and the nuclear option should never be used.

Well, now the Democrats plan on filibustering Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. It was just a little under two months ago that the NY Times was telling Democrats not to filibuster Gorsuch, because it could cause Republicans to use the nuclear option. But, now….

Editorial: A Roadblock to the Court for Neil Gorsuch

Senate Republicans had to know there would be a price for their unprecedented theft of President Barack Obama’s final Supreme Court pick last year.

On Thursday, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, named it: Either find 60 votes to overcome a filibuster of President Trump’s extremely conservative nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, or find another, more moderate choice. (snip)

Judge Gorsuch is clearly qualified for the court, and for the most part he handled himself smoothly over 20 hours of mind-numbingly predictable hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. There’s also no question he would be a conservative vote on many of the most pressing issues facing the court, including abortion and reproductive rights, gay rights, religious liberty, gun-safety legislation, protections for workers and the environment, the flood of private money into political campaigns and more. Despite his insistence that he would approach every case with an open mind, his record strongly suggests he would rule the way Republicans would like in most, if not all, cases. Over three or four decades on the court, he would help push the law further to the right in many areas.

So, clearly qualified.

The best rationale for the filibuster, however, is the outrageous behavior of Mr. Schumer’s Republican colleagues, who refused even to consider Judge Merrick Garland, Mr. Obama’s highly qualified choice to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, in February 2016 — solely to hold the seat open for a conservative judge.

While eliminating the filibuster would pay off for Republicans salivating for Judge Gorsuch right now, they might keep in mind that one day, perhaps sooner than they expect, they will be in the minority again, and then they’ll be stuck with one rule of politics they can’t change: What goes around comes around.

So, in essence, the NY Times Editorial Board is telling Democrats to go ahead and filibuster because they’re whiny little children who didn’t get their way in the rough and tumble world of politics. Crying baby party.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Suddenly Thrilled By The Use Of Filibuster Against Neil Gorsuch »

Posted in Democrats, Unhinged Tools | 11 Comments | Trackback URL

If You Really Care About ‘Climate Change’, You’ll Boycott Earth Hour

By William Teach March 23, 2017 – 5:06 pm

Hey, it’s not me saying this, it’s uber-Warmist Adam McGibbon

If you really care about climate change, you should boycott the ridiculous Earth Hour stunt

I am an environmentalist. For my whole adult life I have protested, campaigned, helped to elect climate-savvy politicians and worked hard on what I see as the cause of my life: putting a stop to the dangerous change to our climate that is killing millions.

And yet I hate one of the world’s most prominent environmental events with the intense heat of a burning climate – the annual WWF event “Earth Hour”, which this year will take place on 25 March. The charity expects millions of people around the world to symbolically switch off their lights for an hour.

Earth Hour is terrible, and not just because the symbolism of darkness is very poorly thought out. The worst thing about Earth Hour is that it tricks people into thinking they’ve done something useful by turning off the lights for 60 minutes, and lets the real villains in the climate change story off the hook.

By focusing on individual behaviour, Earth Hour sends out the message that ordinary citizens are the ones to blame for climate change. It passes on the unhelpful message that all we need to do is change our lightbulbs and do more recycling and everything will be fine. Every time someone says that environmentalists are nagging busybodies obsessed with making you turn your TV off standby before you go to bed, Earth Hour has contributed to that.

Yes, Gaia forbid that these Special Snowflake Warmists modify their own behavior to match their beliefs.

Ultimately, this publicity stunt doesn’t put pressure on anyone to change, let alone the genuinely powerful who hold our futures in their hands. And let’s be clear: the people who are wrecking the planet are the fossil fuel companies, not Georgina from Enfield or Bob from Middlesbrough who occasionally leave the kitchen light on all night.

But, um, Georgina and Bob are the ones who use the fossil fuels. They’re the ones who take fossil fueled trips to work, the grocery store, to friends and relatives, on vacation. Their the ones who use it to light and heat/cool their homes, and to cook. Without lots and lots of Bobs and Georginas, the fossil fuels companies would be out of business.

Let’s stop messing about with lightbulbs and fight the real enemy, through financial divestment, through direct action, by ruining the public reputations of those companies responsible for wrecking the climate.

Interestingly, there is no mention in the screed that the Bobs and Georginas should stop using fossil fuels themselves. Go figure.

You really need to read the entire screed, because a few excerpts cannot capture the anger and unhingedness of the whole thing.

Read: If You Really Care About ‘Climate Change’, You’ll Boycott Earth Hour »

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

If All You See…

By William Teach March 23, 2017 – 1:00 pm

…is pond that will soon either dry up or flood from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The People’s Cube, with a post on Terror Response Bingo.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause More Snake Bites Or Something

By William Teach March 23, 2017 – 10:37 am

The only way to stop this is with higher taxation, you know

From the fable

And as water supplies dwindle, rainforests burn, and corals bleach, we may have yet another thing to worry about: frickin’ snakes.

Some parts of the world know all too well the danger posed by venomous snakes. Scientists estimate that anywhere between 421,000 and over 1.8 million envenomations from snakes occur every year, with as many 94,000 deaths. Here in the United States, we’re fairly lucky: we have less than ten deaths per year. Meanwhile, our neighbors to the south are plagued by serpentine foes which cause a few thousand deaths annually.

But as our climate changes, so, too, will the habitats that these snakes call home. And with those changes comes the potential for species to expand their ranges and come in contact with people they never would have before.

How do they think this might maybe possibly feel this could happen?

To determine what might happen to American snakes under different climate change scenarios, scientists from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México’s Laboratorio de Biología de la Conservación and the University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute used climate and habitat (niche) models to predict how the distributions of 90 species of snakes—about half the total number of venomous species in all of North and South America—will react to changes in climate. They then used current occurrence and bite data to estimate how snakebite risk will change as the snakes move around.

And, of course, with their models, they found Dooooooom!

These people. Sheesh.

Read: Hotcoldwetdry Will Cause More Snake Bites Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Supposed Deal Between Freedom Caucus And Trump Proves There Is No Real Obamacare Repeal

By William Teach March 23, 2017 – 8:39 am

Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, ie, Obamacare, was passed, Republicans have promised to repeal it in full. That’s why they were elected in a wave to the House in 2010. We were promised this in 2012, 2014, and 2016, adding on “replace” as Ocare took effect. The Ryan “Trumpcare” bill is supposed to do this. Does it?

(The Hill) Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Wednesday night he and President Trump have come to an “agreement in principle” on a plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, just one day before a historic House vote on the bill.

“The president and I came to an agreement in principle,” Meadows said during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity, adding that he was still ironing out a few final details with the White House. (snip)

The round-the-clock negotiations between the White House, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus have centered on adding to the bill a repeal of ObamaCare’s “essential health benefits,” as well as other insurance regulations in Title I of the existing health law.

Many of the Freedom Caucus members are poo-pooing the notion that there is any sort of deal, and this supposed deal is driving away the squishy Republicans. Regardless, reading between the lines, does this look like an actual repeal of Ocare, or just dinking and dunking around the edges? Reading the actual text of the bill, it repeals this and that and the other from Ocare, but, never repeals it in full. Which means a lot of it is left in place. Which also means that so many of the Health and Human Services rules, such as the contraception mandate, are still in place, because the statutory authority to create all those rules is still in place.

Paul Ryan, meanwhile, is yammering on at the Wall Street Journal about Keeping Our Promise To Repeal Obamacare. Well, Paul, first, your article is behind a paywall, so most can’t read it. Second, your bill doesn’t actually repeal Ocare in full.

Read: Supposed Deal Between Freedom Caucus And Trump Proves There Is No Real Obamacare Repeal »

Posted in GOP, Healthcare | 12 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove