November 28, 2018
Now Mexicans are screaming ‘migrants go home’
My guess is that the people behind the caravan didn’t plan for things to work out this way. As that Bee Gees’ song goes: “Oh, if I’d only seen that the joke was on me.”
The caravan planners have a few problems.
First, they were not expecting President Trump to take a firm stand and then enforce it.
Second, they didn’t see those anti-caravan marches in Tijuana happening.
Most importantly, third, they didn’t realize the terrible situation that all of this would put President-Elect Andrés López-Obrador in.
This is from the New York Times and right on target:
After more than 15 years of campaigning as a leftist firebrand, Mr. López Obrador must swiftly decide: Will he stand up to Mr. Trump and defend the migrants’ pleas to be allowed into the United States, even if many of their asylum requests will ultimately be rejected? Or will he acquiesce to Mr. Trump’s demands and the economic imperative of good relations with the United States?
“The Mexican government is in a dead-end alley,” said Raúl Benítez Manaut, a professor of international relations at the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
“López Obrador is facing a baptism of fire, and a dilemma of whether he should maintain his promises of humanitarian policies, or stop the masses of migrants trying to reach the U.S.”
Baptism of fire? More like a no-win situation.
The article finishes by saying Mr. López-Obrador needs to calm things down because they are heated south of the border.
Here are a couple of things to remember:
Tijuana is in the north of Mexico, or the states that border with the U.S. This is the home of the PAN, or the right-center party.
These states are skeptical of Mexico’s central government. I recall a Mexican friend in Monterrey saying this: “Why am I paying taxes so that those people in Mexico have a cheap metro?”
These Mexicans are more prosperous and closer to the U.S. than the rest of the country. In other words, the Dallas Cowboys are on TV every Sunday, at home and at la cantina, where men get together for a beer.
This is not the part of the country that elected López-Obrador. Instead, this is where you find cities like Tijuana and Monterrey with large middle-class populations. Many professionals work for maquiladoras (foreign companies) or send their kids to U.S. colleges.
Also, it’s impossible for Mexico to defend the caravan. That will just invite more caravans.
Finally, Mexico’s political class loves illegal immigration when Mexicans are going north and send remittances to Mexico. In this case, we are talking about Central Americans, not Mexicans. What are they sending back? Nothing! They don’t even pay a toll when they go through Mexico.
The caravan has blown up in the faces of its framers. The days of caravans through Mexico are over.
President-Elect López-Obrador has to make a decision. Do I pick a fight with Trump and the Mexican middle class that I can’t win? Or do I send the Central Americans home? Hopefully, the incoming president has the common sense to make the right call.
November 28, 2018
Jerome Corsi explains the perjury trap Mueller’s team sprang on him
Last night, Jerome Corsi explained to Tucker Carlson and his audience how the Mueller team was able to charge him with lying to them in order to pressure him to (in his view) to give false testimony implicating Paul Manafort. It is a harrowing tale as he tells it. If you believe him, he is a victim of a ruthless team that took possession of his computer, smart phone, and other records, and then spent hours grilling him over details of his communications years earlier. When he failed to remember that he forwarded one email, they had him on a charge of lying, even though, as he told Tucker Carlson (rush transcript via Grabien):
Now the special counsel came in and blew up and they actually sent me home and gave me an opportunity to review the emails. When I came back, I amended the testimony to say that I now remember the email. The special counsel was happy with that until I couldn’t give them what they wanted. Which was a connection that I had with Assange, which they assumed I have come which I I didn’t have. Now suddenly, they forgot they allowed me to amend my testimony and they are going back to the mistake I made, when I forgot the emails. So really, I think, it is completely fraudulent, the charge that they were trying to get me to plead to. I refused to plead to a lie.
There should be written records of this offer to allow him to amend his testimony, subsequently deep-sixed. If the Mueller team has failed to keep such records, that would call into question the integrity of the entire operation.
I suppose it is possible that Corsi is making up this story, but it as the ring of truth. Watch for yourself and make up your own mind.
Jerome Corsi explains the perjury trap Mueller’s team sprang on him
Tucker asked in his introduction how Robert Mueller would fare if he were subjected to the same sort of detailed questioning over his communications years earlier, if he did not have access to his records. The question answers itself. Nobody is capable of flawlessly recalling whether or not a specific email out of thousands was ever forwarded.
The migrant caravan just ruined its close-up
The caravan was not ready for its close-up.
Protests turned into riots on Sunday as hundreds of Central American migrants rushed a border fence and tried storming their way into the United States. They waved flags from their country while trying to enter this one illegally. They chucked rocks at U.S. Border Patrol. They chanted “Yes We Can.”
Hundreds try to storm the border. Expect significant US response #tijuana pic.twitter.com/0T50XUnXtY
— emma murphy (@emmamurphyitv) November 25, 2018
Stuffed with turkey and flipping through cable, many in the U.S. watched the 500-man mob trying to invade their country over the Thanksgiving weekend and formed an opinion about all of the 6,000 or 10,000 or 20,000 migrants who may still be on their way to the border, seeking asylum. Just like that, sympathy for legitimate asylum seekers took a permanent hit.
These optics weren’t lost on the Mexican government., which condemned the protesters for “violently” attempting to enter the U.S. Anyone following their example won’t find refuge in the U.S., Mexico’s interior secretary warned, but will instead be deported out of Mexico. What’s more, they will ruin the chances for anyone trying to enter legally.
“These acts of provocation, far from helping achieve their objectives, are in violation of legal migration and could result in a grave incident at the border,” the statement said.
President Trump has only toyed with the idea of closing the Southern Border, and so far only traffic at the San Ysidro border crossing south of San Diego was temporarily halted. But as soon as the next “grave incident” occurs, the consequences will be more permanent. The violent caravanners made certain of that on Sunday.
It isn’t that the United States isn’t sympathetic to those fleeing tyranny. It’s that most Americans view asylum as an act of generosity, as something they are far less likely to offer migrants who resort to violence. By bull rushing the border in the middle of the day, while cameras rolled, they made themselves that much easier to dismiss.
The Los Angeles Times reported on an “election fraud scheme” and criminal charges have been filed against nine people. They are believed to have bribed homeless people in L.A. with cigarettes and cash in exchange for signatures on ballot initiatives and voter registration forms.
These nine alone came up with hundreds of fake and/or forged signatures in the 2016 election and the year’s midterms. Since they have been doing it for years, it’s probably thousands, not hundreds.
They even registered non-existent people to vote.
They went to L.A.’s skid row and gave destitute and homeless individual’s $1 or $2, even $6 for the signatures, according to the LA Times.
DON’T BELIEVE YOUR LYIN’ EYES
State officials say it’s not really a voter fraud problem.
“It’s not really voter fraud, in terms of illegal voting and manipulation,” Dean Logan, the head of Los Angeles County elections, said in September, according to the Times. “But I am certainly concerned about any activity that causes voters to lose faith in the process.”
If so, why are they charged with voter fraud?
The individuals were charged with a slew of crimes – including circulating a petition with fake names, voter fraud and registering a fictitious person – with the most egregious violators facing over six years in prison.
We hate to break the news, but it is really, really voter fraud.
MORE ON THE STORY
Petitions to qualify measures for the state ballot must be signed by registered voters, according to the California secretary of state’s office — explaining why the homeless would be asked to forge other people’s names.
“It’s been going on for years,” Officer Deon Joseph told KABC. “They say, ‘Hey, you want to make a quick buck?’ ”
“We didn’t charge any homeless people,” district attorney spokesperson Shiara Davila-Morales said, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The suspects have been identified as Kirkland Kauzava Washington, 38, Harold Bennett, 53, Louis Thomas Wise, 36. Richard Howard, 62, Rose Makeda Sweeney, 42, Christopher Joseph Williams, 59, Jakara Fati Mardis, 35, Norman Hall, 61, and Nickey Demelvin Huntley, 44.
Several walked into court in orange jumpsuits, handcuffed, and laughing.
Using cash and cigarettes as lures, the defendants approached homeless people on skid row and asked them to forge signatures on state ballot measure petitions and voter registration forms, the district attorney’s office said. https://t.co/xZyqqeWXkF
— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) November 21, 2018
November 24, 2018
Nothing new in administration climate change report
The White House released a report on climate change this week that made headlines for some of the dire warnings it contained.
But there’s nothing in the report that hasn’t been stated publicly before and, in most instances, simply reiterates what was in previous reports.
As many as 9,300 more people could die each year because of extreme heat or cold related to climate change by the end of this century, the Trump administration said Friday in releasing a massive new report on the controversial issue.
The range of disease-spreading mosquitoes and ticks will expand, as will extreme weather events — all of which will bring additional mental health problems such as depression and even suicidal tendencies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, made up of 13 federal agencies, said in the Fourth National Climate Assessment.
All told, the health problems and other damage and mitigation costs will total hundreds of billions of dollars in drag on the U.S. economy by the end of this century, the experts said.
They also said there is no doubt humans are contributing to global warming.
“Both human and natural factors influence Earth’s climate, but the long-term global warming trend observed over the past century can only be explained by the effect that human activities have had on the climate,” the assessment concluded.
All of this could have been lifted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment report issued in 2014. What this report from the administration does is summarize what is known about the science of climate change.
How much warming depends on what steps are taken. If the world can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, warming could be limited to 2 degrees centigrade. But without those limits, global temperatures could rise 5 degrees or more by the end of this century, compared to where they were before industrialization.
While the report acknowledges some uncertainty about the extent of warming and its damages, the conclusions are mostly grim. The analysts said there may be some aspects of the economy that would benefit from a modest warming, but said the rates and pace the country is looking at are likely to be catastrophic overall.
The report breaks down the various ways that the environment is changing and how each region in the U.S. is being affected by the radical ecosystem shifts. In concluded that weather is becoming more extreme on the coasts as the oceans warm.
Even among global warming believers, there is a wide range of disagreement about the amount of warming and its effect on humans. The question isn’t so much is the earth warming – even NASA has issued contradictory data on that – the big question for policymakers has been what to do about it.
It’s an article of faith that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will automatically lead to moderating climate change. This is logical, but unproven except by models. And the accuracy of climate change models leaves much to be desired. So do we damage the economy by stifling economic activity to the tune of losing $5-13 trillion dollars in growth between now and 2050 based on questionable data? Or do we continue to improve our models until we are reasonably certain they are telling us what might truly happen?
I am a skeptic of catastrophic climate change. If things are really as dire as many predictions tell us, it’s already too late to save the planet. Many former advocates of the theory of catastrophic warming have been backing off those predictions for the last several years. Instead, it is more likely we are looking at a 2 degree rise in temperatures or less. This gives us time to come up with a lot more innovative ideas to cut emissions than blowing up capitalist economies because one is opposed to capitalism.
We all know there is a difference between weather and climate – all us except Donald Trump who tweeted how cold it was across the country and wondered “what happened to global warming”? The president damages the skeptical case against radical climate change activists when he tweets out idiocy like that.
But Trump won’t be alone spouting stupidities. Watch this coming week as Democrats and greens adopt this report as if it were a revelation from god rather than simple rehashing of the science of climate change.
Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri is leading an investigation into the February 14, 2018, Parkland high school shooting and insists teachers must be armed to stop attacks.
This is a change in his position as he long contended that only law enforcement should be armed in schools.
The Associated Press reports that Gualtieri is heading up the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission and he indicates that things he has learned in the investigation have caused him to change his position in favor of arming teachers.
He notes that the gunman who killed 17 on February 14 was able to stop shooting and reload five times during his attack. The times he stopped provided a window of time for an armed teacher to take him out, but teachers were not allowed to carry guns. Gualtieri says that scenario “gnaws” at him.
He noted, “People need to keep an open mind to it as the reality is that if someone else in that school had a gun it could have saved kids’ lives.”
Sheriff investigating the Parkland massacre says teachers SHOULD be armed so they can stop school shooters https://t.co/dySSsV5oKv
— Daily Mail US (@DailyMail) November 21, 2018
Defenseless teachers were simply gunned down with their students in Parkland. And the Florida Education Association (FEA), a teachers union, wants to maintain the status quo by keeping teachers unarmed. FEA spokeswoman Joni Branch said, “Teachers should not be acting as armed security guards. The majority of our members don’t want to be armed – they know it would be impractical and dangerous.”
Branch did not explain why teachers would be dangerous with guns as there are no instances of an armed teacher harming a student (or students) in any of the states where armed teachers are allowed.
Findings from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) show that 97.8 percent of mass shootings over a 68-year period occurred in “gun-free zones.”
The study covers 1950 through May 2018. Otherwise, it would also include the November 7, 2018, mass public attack at Borderline Bar & Grill, in which 12 were killed. The November 19, 2018, attack at Chicago Mercy Hospital, where three were killed, would not be listed because it does not meet FBI criteria for a mass shooting, but it should, nevertheless, be noted that Borderline Bar and Mercy Hospital were both state-mandated gun-free zones.
According to CPRC, 97.8 percent of mass public shootings from 1950 to May 2018 occurred in gun-free zones. These include the Virginia Tech University attack, which killed 32 (April 16, 2007); the Fort Hood attack, which killed 13 (November 5, 2009); the Aurora movie theater attack, which killed 12 (July 20, 2012); the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack, which killed 26 (December 12, 2014); the D.C. Navy Yard attack, which killed 13 (September 16, 2013); the Chattanooga military base attack, which killed 5 (July 16, 2015); the Umpqua Community College attack, which killed 9 (October 1, 2015); the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 (December 2, 2015); the Orlando Pulse attack, which killed 49 (June 12, 2016); the Parkland high school attack, which killed 17 (February 14, 2018); and the Santa Fe High School attack, which killed 10 (May 18, 2018).
For the purposes of highlighting errors in a report by Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety, CPRC also shows figures for a condensed time frame, from January 1998 to December 2015, demonstrating that even in that shorter period, 96.2 percent of all mass public shootings occurred in gun-free zones.