Harry Reid/Democrats Blocks Kate’s Law Again

By William Teach November 5, 2015 – 7:49 am

The Democrats previously blocked Kate’s Law in late October, and were given a chance to support it again, and said no. First, a little bit about Kate’s Law

What’s wrong with imposing a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five years for illegal immigrants who are convicted of re-entering the United States after being convicted of an aggravated felony or have three strikes for trying to enter the country illegally?

Nothing. It’s what should be done to stop the senseless crimes perpetrated by the worst element of illegal aliens entering this country.

But Senate Democrats no longer can see the forest from the trees on immigration. It’s either the whole enchilada — amnesty for all, even the criminals — or nothing.

Two weeks ago, Massachusetts U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey joined with 45 Democrats to block the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act. The measure needed 60 votes to proceed to the floor for debate, but garnered only 54 votes.

Kate is, of course, Kate Steinle, the American citizen who was murdered by Francisco Sanchez, a 5 time deported illegal with 7 felony convictions. Democrats would prefer to take his side over hers.

(Breitbart) Senate Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked legislation Wednesday increasing the penalty for illegal immigrants who return to the U.S. after a deportation, also known as Kate’s Law.

Reid’s obstruction of Kate’s Law — named in honor of Kathryn Steinle — occurred Wednesday afternoon when Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) asked for unanimous consent to proceed to Kate’s law. Reid objected, saying the legislation represents an “attack on the immigrant community.”

“All we’ve seen from Republican leaders and their caucus is bills that attack immigrants and tear families apart. So I object.” the Democratic leader said.

Ted Cruz responded

“It is sad that the Democratic leader chooses to stand with violent criminal illegal aliens instead of the American citizens. But even sadder is that he impugns legal immigrants,” Cruz, who is running for president, said.

“When the Democratic leader suggests that incarcerating aggravated felons, murderers and rapists who illegally reenter this country is somehow a sleight to immigrants — Well, Mr. President, I am a son of an immigrant who came from Cuba. There is no one in this chamber who will fight harder for legal immigrants than I will,” Cruz said.

“For the Democratic leader to cynically suggest that somehow immigrants should be lumped into the same bucket with murderers and rapists demonstrates the cynicism of the modern Democratic party, demonstrates just how out of touch the modern Democratic Party is,” he continued.

Out of touch, he says

(Rasmussen) Fifty-six percent (56%) of Likely U.S. Voters favor a five-year mandatory prison sentence for illegal immigrants convicted of major felonies who return to America after being deported. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 27% oppose such legislation, while 18% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Usually, I would say “just deport them” rather than paying to incarcerate them, but, these illegals have shown that they will keep coming back. How about making it a 100% federal crime, and building a jail up in the wilds of Alaska? Let them enjoy the beauty of the frozen north for a few years prior to sending them back?

But, obviously, Democrats would prefer to put illegals with felony convictions, who’ve crossed the border illegally again and again after being deported, over the safety of American citizens.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Harry Reid/Democrats Blocks Kate’s Law Again »

Posted in Democrats, Illegal Immigration | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

Study Finds Solar Power Causes ‘Climate Change’, Too

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 5:26 pm

Well, this is a sucker punch to the groin

(Washington Post) Large solar arrays could have some surprising side effects, according to a new study, including causing changes in the local climate.

On a global scale, these changes will be minor compared to what would happen if humans continue to burn fossil fuel for energy instead, but are still worth watching, scientists say.

Figuring out how renewable energy sources will affect their local landscapes is an increasingly relevant challenge for scientists, as more and more nations are vowing to slash their carbon outputs and switch to alternatives, such as solar and wind energy. Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or disrupting local airflow patterns.

With this in mind, Aixue Hu, a climate change research scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, conducted a study, published Monday in Nature Climate Change, that attempted to predict the climatic effects of solar arrays.

What this is about is land use and its effects on the local climate, something we’ve known about for a long time. Mankind has made many, many changes to the land, which changes the way the weather acts locally. Cut down a forest? The glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro melt away. Replant the trees? They regrow. Replace woodlands with homes and shopping centers? The wind patterns change. Which can change precipitation.  The amount of solar radiation changes within the area. It can also make an area warmer than it would normally be, the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Rather than excerpting long paragraphs, I’d recommend reading the rest of the article. In some of the simulations, the panels produced cooling, mostly in non-urban environments. In others, warming, typically in urban environments. The article ends thusly

In the meantime, this study reinforces the idea that a transition to renewable energy is imperative to protecting Earth’s climate future. While the transition won’t be without its own effects, the authors note that the alternative — a world in which fossil fuel burning is allowed to continue unabated — would be far worse.

Of course the study ends that way. If they don’t throw the Danger From Hotcoldwetdry in as a primary study objective, no one would care. Look, moving towards a non-fossil fueled economy would be a good thing, IMO. Let’s do it in a responsible manner, with sources that aren’t going to cause the very problems that fossil fuels supposedly cause, in terms of AGW, and do cause, in terms of real environmental damage.

Read: Study Finds Solar Power Causes ‘Climate Change’, Too »

Posted in Energy, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is a lake level that is dropping because of carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lid, with a post on Obama’s priorities on jail.

Read: If All You See… »

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

Bummer: Just 23% Really Worried About Global Warming

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 10:24 am

Cult of Climastrology scientists hit hardest. This comes via uber-Warmist Heidi Cullen

Let’s take a look at that article, as written by uber-Warmist Seth Borenstein of the AP

Americans are hot but not too bothered by global warming.

Most Americans know the climate is changing, but they say they are just not that worried about it, according to a new poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. And that is keeping the American public from demanding and getting the changes that are necessary to prevent global warming from reaching a crisis, according to climate and social scientists.

As top-level international negotiations to try to limit greenhouse gas emissions start later this month in Paris, the AP-NORC poll taken in mid-October shows about two out of three Americans accept global warming and the vast majority of those say human activities are at least part of the cause.

However, fewer than one in four Americans are extremely or very worried about it, according the poll of 1,058 people. About one out of three Americans are moderately worried and the highest percentage of those polled — 38 percent — were not too worried or not at all worried.

On one hand, it is a victory for the Cult of Climastrology, in that 12% solely blame Mankind, 39% say mostly caused by Mankind, 35% say equally mankind and nature, and just 10% say mostly/solely natural.

But, there’s a 4% drop in belief that global warming is happening (the poll isn’t using the term climate change) between the July and October polls. And, as you can see from the graphic in the tweet, only 23% are super worried, with that figure coming from 8% being extremely worried, and 14% very worried. This is what they get for 25+ years of spreading awareness along with doom and gloom.

Furthermore, just 36% see it as a moral issue. This was a poll regarding the aftermath of Pope Francis’ visit and his Climastrology talk.

Just 25% see it as a social justice (fairness) issue. That’s gotta hurt, since Warmists portray this as a social justice issue.

And here’s the one I love: 55% see it as a political issue. Surprise!

Read: Bummer: Just 23% Really Worried About Global Warming »

Posted in Collapsing Science, Global Warming | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

‘Climate Change’ Will Totally Kill Your Sex Life Or Something

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 7:48 am

It’s almost like researchers know that they have to put ‘climate change’ in all their papers to get funded and noticed nowadays

Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet
And fewer babies would be bad news.

Wait, I thought babies were bad for ‘climate change’? We’ve been told by Warmists to have fewer kids to save the planet. And that babies and kids are also bad because they use up too many resources.

Climate change has been blamed for many things over the years. Never, until now, has anyone thought it was possible to see it as a kind of contraceptive.

Hot weather leads to diminished “coital frequency,” according to a new working paper put out by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Three economists studied 80 years of U.S. fertility and temperature data and found that when it’s hotter than 80 degrees F, a large decline in births follows within 10 months. Would-be parents tend not to make up for lost time in subsequent, cooler months.

An extra “hot day” (the economists use quotation marks with the phrase) leads to a 0.4 percent drop in birth rates nine months later, or  1,165 fewer deliveries across the U.S. A rebound in subsequent months makes up just 32 percent of the gap.

Strange: Third World Nations in higher temperature zones don’t seem to have a problem popping out kids. Might this be more of a 1st World Issue, where people get out and about on warm days, having fun, going to the beach, doing all sorts of things that keep them from having unprotected sex? Might it have something to do with the higher use of contraception in the 1st World? No, no, it must be anthropogenic climate change! It’s foolish to think that there could other causes! Climate change!!!!!!!!

Just because there are fewer pregnancies doesn’t mean there is less sex.

The paper’s title is about as lascivious as the National Bureau of Economic Research gets: “Maybe Next Month? Temperature Shocks, Climate Change, and Dynamic Adjustments in Birth Rates.” The researchers assume that climate change will proceed according to the most severe scenarios, with no substantial efforts to reduce emissions. The scenario they use projects that from 2070 to 2099, the U.S. may have 64 more days above 80F than in the baseline period from 1990 to 2002, which had 31. The result? The U.S. may see a 2.6 percent decline in its birth rate, or 107,000 fewer deliveries a year.

Of course, 95% of the models failed to predict the Pause, which, depending on the data set you look at, shows no or statistically insignificant warming anywhere from 12-26 years. What they are assuming is that CO2 from Mankind is the control nob, and they’ve created a causal relationship without apparently looking at other causes. Because ‘climate change’. And funding. And the need to link everything to climate change in a cultish pseudo-religious manner.

Read: ‘Climate Change’ Will Totally Kill Your Sex Life Or Something »

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

Houston Voters Say No To Houston LGBT Ordinance

By William Teach November 4, 2015 – 7:26 am

A win for common sense and rationality

(NY Times) A yearlong battle over gay and transgender rights that turned into a costly, ugly war of words between this city’s lesbian mayor and social conservatives ended Tuesday as voters repealed an anti-discrimination ordinance that had attracted attention from the White House, sports figures and Hollywood celebrities.

The City Council passed the measure in May, but it was in limbo after opponents succeeded, following a lengthy court fight, in putting the matter to a referendum.

The Times seems a bit upset that citizens would be allowed to vote on this.

Supporters said the ordinance was similar to those approved in 200 other cities and prohibited bias in housing, employment, city contracting and business services for 15 protected classes, including race, age, sexual orientation and gender identity. Opponents said the measure would allow men claiming to be women to enter women’s bathrooms and inflict harm, and that simple message — “No Men in Women’s Bathrooms” — was plastered on signs and emphasized in television and radio ads, turning the debate from one about equal rights to one about protecting women and girls from sexual predators.

In reality, this ordinance was all about pandering to the tiny LGBT community and the liberals who support them, and creating yet another class of people who are protected over others. There was nothing in this about equal protection. Strangely, the Times, like so many other news outlets, forgets to include the voting results. Let’s check the AP

With nearly 95 percent of precincts reporting, Houston residents had rejected the ordinance by a vote of 61 percent to 39 percent.

That’s a pretty big margin against the ordinance.

The ordinance would have applied to businesses that serve the public, such as restaurants and hotels, private employers, housing, city employment and city contracting. It would have allowed residents to file a complaint if they felt they had been discriminated against based on the various protected categories. Religious institutions would have been exempt. Violators would have faced fines up to $5,000.

In other words, it would have given a small number of people the ability to make wild, unsubstantiated claims against businesses that could result in government penalties, instead of the person simply doing what used to be done: never patronize the business again, and tell all your friends to avoid the business.

You can bet that Progressives will not allow this vote by the citizens of Houston to stand: surely, lawsuits will be filed by the end of the week.

(Houston Chronicle) Kristen Capps, a Houston attorney who supported the ordinance, remained optimistic after Tuesday’s defeat.

“It’s just like every civil rights movement. We’re just going to keep on doing it until it’s done,” she said.

Except, long established law provides for equal protection under the law. This law was about providing un-equal protection. And liberals don’t like it when they lose, and will not allow the will of the people to stand. This isn’t about civil rights, it’s about politics.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Houston Voters Say No To Houston LGBT Ordinance »

Posted in Current Affairs | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

What’s The Biggest Sticking Point For Paris Climate Talks?

By William Teach November 3, 2015 – 3:32 pm

What could it be? Asking Warmists to reduce their own carbon footprints? Spreading more awareness?

The biggest sticking point in Paris climate talks: money

……

Another critical policy issue that is at the center of the Paris agenda is an age-old one: money. Going into the negotiations, there is a goal to scale up existing efforts toward providing US$100 billion a year to support climate change action primarily in developing countries by 2020. Ideally, these efforts should also contribute to long-term sustainable development.

Many Paris financing debates will focus on how to most appropriately use the recently created Green Climate Fund (GCF) – the new main multilateral vehicle for helping developing countries to lower their GHG emissions and adapt to the effects of climate change.

It’s almost like this has nothing to do with science.

Read: What’s The Biggest Sticking Point For Paris Climate Talks? »

Posted in Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach November 3, 2015 – 1:00 pm

…is an evil fossil fueled boat causing the seas to turn to acid, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Lonely Conservative, with a post recommending reading Ted Cruz’s tax plan.

Read: If All You See… »

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

EPA Pushes For Allegiance To Cult Of Climastrology

By William Teach November 3, 2015 – 10:32 am

When do Warmists start goose-stepping around the square? In locally produced PETA approved boots, of course

(Climate Depot) Speaking to classrooms across America in a live virtual event, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy presses for school children to take EPA’s Energy Star climate pledge to “become part of the climate solution.” McCarthy: “Get those pledges in. Work with your schools. Work with your community. Bug your family at home to recycle and do all the great things.”

Annoy your family and friends so much that they no longer invite you over, which is great for reducing your own carbon footprint!

Yes, there is video at the link, which includes this

HOST KYLE SCHUTT: “What’s your favorite part about the pledge and what young people are doing?”

MCCARTHY: “I think the greatest part about the pledge for young people, and when old people take it cause we’ve had 4.3 million people take this pledge already, and we want you to take it too.”

4.3 million brainwashed future climate thugs.

MCCARTHY: “Well, that’s because we need everybody… It’s not just about light bulbs. It’s about appliances. It’s about riding your bike instead of riding in a car. It’s about what kind of car you drive. Can you buy one that’s more efficient? Can you use renewable resources in that car, like ethanol? There’s lots of choices that you can make that actually lower that footprint, and you’ll never miss it.”

In other words, it’s about empowering government to tell you what you can drive, what appliances you can use, etc. It’s all very creepy, in a typical leftism fascistic manner.

If you’re thinking “Teach, aren’t you being a bit overboard, kinda going all InfoWars?” If only. When you connect all the dots, not just with Warmism, but throughout the Progressive movement, this is really where it ends up.

Read: EPA Pushes For Allegiance To Cult Of Climastrology »

Posted in Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Leaked Memo Shows Ways Obama Admin Looking To Circumvent DAPA Injunction

By William Teach November 3, 2015 – 7:18 am

If you’re a law abiding US citizen using your Constitutional rights in forming a Conservative group, you’ll be attacked by the IRS. If you’re an illegal alien, you’ll be rewarded by the Obama administration. When a judge says “stop”, you’ll look for ways around the injunction to help out those illegals

(The Hill) A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.

Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADsonly to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.

I’m putting my money down on the judge being very upset over this memo. He’s already smacked the Obama administration around for circumventing his legal rulings.

Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

According to BLS, there are 7.9 million Americans who are unemployed. This metric doesn’t cover those who have given up in despair at finding a job. All these illegals interfere with them getting a job. These are people who should not be in the United States. They either jumped the border or overstayed their VISAs. America is a generous nation, and we could certainly make an exception for some of the illegals, ones who have learned English, haven’t broken any major laws, want to be a part of America, and are willing to pay a fine, then pay the fees to become citizens the right way. Yes, we do give people 2nd chances. It’s part of our makeup (unless you are a conservative and/or climate change Skeptic, then liberals want to put you in jail for your beliefs). Most, though, need to go home.

This is a big reason why Republicans need to win the White House with a candidate that will rescind this type of Obama executive order.

Read: Leaked Memo Shows Ways Obama Admin Looking To Circumvent DAPA Injunction »

Posted in Barry Obama, Illegal Immigration | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove