Speaking of global warming, it’s worth noting that:
A. African immigration leads to increased street crime,
B. Increased street crime leads to White Flight,
C. White Flight leads to lower density living and less reliance on mass transit,
D. More use of private vehicles leads to more greenhouse gas emissions.

And it's fairly well deserved.
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2018...eat-stall/

Sweden: Women Raped, Authorities Too Busy
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/13332...pes-police

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti..._HeM7tLKmc
good-looking blond tells why.

In the systematic dismantling of common sense in America, Jared Kushner’s “sentencing reform” bill is the coup de grace — a Mack Truck hurtling down the highway about to take out thousands of Americans. The Idiot Army is already in place to fight and win this battle.
Jared and the hip-hop artists currently advising him have decided that too many people are in prison. If you think you’ve heard this before, you have: Genius insights of this sort have preceded nearly every major crime wave this country has experienced, from Philadelphia to California to a bloody period known as “the Warren Court.”
As anyone with an amoeba’s understanding of recent history knows, beginning in the early ’60s, assorted heads-up-their-asses liberals jettisoned logic, common sense and a basic understanding of human nature by releasing criminals from the prisons where they belonged.

Instead of punishing criminals, we would give them social services, education and job training — with the implied understanding that they wouldn’t move next door to any of the reformers. The experts assured a disbelieving public that these policies would reduce crime.
As Thomas Sowell writes in The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy, the stage was set. Liberal criminologists’ soft-on-crime policies were in place. We only needed empirical evidence.
“THE RESULTS: Crime rates skyrocketed. Murder rates suddenly shot up until the murder rate in 1974 was more than twice as high as in 1961. Between 1960 and 1976, a citizen’s chances of becoming a victim of a major violent crime tripled.”
Prior to this period, crime had been declining for three decades.
Thousands of Americans were murdered, raped, assaulted, disfigured and robbed as a direct result of the exact same policies that Jared and his assistant, Donald Trump, are trying to foist on the country right now.
“Thousands of Americans were murdered, raped, assaulted, disfigured and robbed as a direct result of the exact same policies that Jared and his assistant, Donald Trump, are trying to foist on the country right now.”
Then-Princeton professor John DiIulio Jr. looked at the consequences of a single order by a Carter-appointed judge, Norma Shapiro, that put a population cap on Philadelphia prisons in the 1990s. In an 18-month period between 1993 and 1994, 9,732 prisoners released as a result of Judge Shapiro’s order were re-arrested for committing 79 murders, 90 rapes, 701 burglaries, 959 robberies, 1,113 assaults, 2,215 drug offenses and 2,748 thefts.
It took more than a decade of Reagan and Bush judges, Republican mayors and governors, and the endless complaints of ordinary people to produce the low crime rates we have today. Their formula was: Do the precise opposite of whatever the ACLU, the Brennan Center for Justice and The New York Times recommend.
In New York City alone, at least 10,000 people — mostly minorities — are not dead because Rudy Giuliani revived the idea of punishment for criminals, in lieu of understanding them.
Progressive young hipsters living in Brooklyn today have no concept that their trendy neighborhoods would be uninhabitable war zones but for Mayor Giuliani. If you don’t have order and safety in big cities, you can’t have anything else.
In 1991 the U.S. murder rate was well over twice what it is today.
Normal person: Thank God we started putting criminals in prison again!
Jared: LET’S RELEASE THEM.
A 2014 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that, within five years of release, 82 percent of property offenders, 77 percent of drug offenders, 74 percent of public order offenders and 71 percent of violent offenders were arrested for a new crime — after not getting caught committing God knows how many others.
This is not rocket science. Lock up criminals and they can’t commit any more crimes. As a New York Times headline put it in 2004 with characteristic cluelessness: “Despite Drop in Crime, an Increase in Inmates.”
But there are no permanent victories with liberals. Brennan Center acolytes have been patiently waiting for everyone who knows anything to leave the building, so they could go back to springing criminals again.
Hillary’s losing the election was a major setback. But then — in a stroke of luck! — criminologists discovered the president’s ridiculously naive son-in-law! Joy reigned throughout the land!
Not only does Jared have the advantage of knowing absolutely nothing about the history of the precise policies he’s pushing, but he has a personal interest in lenient sentencing, inasmuch as his father is — as Obama calls criminals — “justice involved.”
In 2005, Charles Kushner was thrown in federal prison for felony tax evasion, illegal campaign contributions and witness tampering, to wit, hiring a prostitute to sleep with his brother-in-law.
For a wispy little fellow like Jared, of all the things life has given him to be embarrassed about, having to visit his father in prison has to rank pretty high. Surely we can come up with a better way for him to deal with the shame and humiliation of his father being a convicted felon than sentencing thousands of Americans to a new and dangerous crime wave.
Jared is the kind of moron who believes that the crime listed on a convict’s baseball trading card is the worst crime he committed.
Thus, we’re incessantly told that sentences will be cut only for “nonviolent drug offenders.”
If you are even passingly familiar with our justice system, you know that virtually everyone in prison is there as the result of a plea bargain — “97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases,” according to The New York Times.
You don’t strike a deal with the prosecutor to plea to the worst crime you’ve committed. You plea to the least serious offense.
Rape = indecent exposure
Armed robbery = illegal gun possession
Felony assault = disorderly conduct
You also plead guilty to the crime that can be proved unequivocally. Unlike witnesses, guns and drugs can’t be intimidated out of testifying.
So what does Jared’s bill do? It slashes the sentences for illegal possession of drugs and guns.
Trump ‘s attitude is, Yes, the sentencing reform bill is an idiotic idea that will do great harm to our country, but Jared’s been down in the dumps, so it’s the least I can do for the guy.
Americans will be murdered, raped and assaulted for the sole purpose of ensuring that Jared has something on his Wikipedia page other than: “BFF of Saudi bone carver Mohammed bin Salman” and “Got into Harvard because his felon father gave the college millions of dollars.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...0mj-bDbZjQ

Quote:Interesting blog post by Michael Rozeff. Interesting in the fact that we learn where that phrase "You can't yell, "Fire"... came from and what the actual case that came from was about. I was shocked to learn this little tidbit.

Jim Acosta has no right to be in the West Wing. He doesn’t own it. That’s a no-brainer. If he is admitted, he has no right to shout “FIRE!” whenever he pleases; that’s discussed below. If he accosted Trump in any number of other ways that flouted comity, he’d likewise wear out his welcome and be subject to expulsion. Comity means “courtesy and considerate behavior toward others”. His lack of it led to cancellation of his invitation. A press pass is simply an invitation. It can be revoked. The people running the press conference can discriminate on grounds of a lack of comity, a lack that defeats the purposes for which the press conference has been called. They can also discriminate arbitrarily, although the political price for doing so will be high. People do expect there to be reasons for expulsion, and there are in fact many improper behaviors that people will accept as justifiable, such as cursing out Trump, not shutting up, shouting him down, interrupting, making wisecracks, unfurling banners, grabbing the microphones, wearing provocative clothing, etc.
The media do not have a right to a press conference there or anywhere else in the first place. If they are invited, does any one of them have a right to shout “FIRE!” when there is no fire? Clearly not. Why not? It’s because it creates an aggression. It creates the danger of panic and injury contingent on such panic. It also sets in motion the diversion of firefighters and security from more urgent tasks and duties, creating secondary unnecessary risks. The third effect is confusion. If people can shout “FIRE!” at will, how will people know if it’s for real or not? False alarms will undermine the effectiveness of a genuine warning. A theater owner has a right to forbid many kinds of speech, including shouting “FIRE!”. The White House officials similarly have a right to forbid many kinds of speech and other behaviors on that property.
The original Supreme Court decision, unanimous at that, in which Holmes used the “shouting fire” analogy was very, very bad, it should be strongly noted. It stopped a man (Schenck) from distributing flyers that opposed the draft in World War I. It’s bad because of the grounds it invoked, which were that this distribution was a “clear and present danger” to the government’s war-making efforts. This sacrificed the First Amendment. There could not have been a greater violation of free speech than this horrible judgment. The case of Julian Assange is very similar in its injustice. The First Amendment rules out a government law against free speech or a free press. Schenck was stopped from speaking. No amount of Supreme Court twisting and turning can change the fact that they made up grounds for invoking the law (the Constitution) itself against free speech. Those fake grounds were “clear and present danger”. The whole thing is disgusting.
If speech upon the property of others is restricted, it’s because it’s the property right of those in control of the property. They may have reasons or no reasons at all for the restrictions. They don’t need to kowtow to those whom they invite in. An invitation can be conditional upon rules of behavior imposed by the property owner. The Bill of Rights nowhere guarantees that you have a right to exercise your freedom to speak when on the property of others. Although Murray Rothbard made this clear decades ago, the knowledge hasn’t penetrated our society yet.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly has issued a temporary restraining order that reinstates Acosta. It was a great day for misunderstanding the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the rights of property owners. Trump’s White House doesn’t have to prove that Acosta has been accorded due process, as the judge thinks. Due process doesn’t even enter into the equation at all because Acosta has no rights at all in this situation.

https://www.rt.com/news/444180-france-wi...aste-test/