Patterico's Pontifications


Threats Now Being Made Against Joaquin Castro

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:03 pm

[guest post by Dana]

This isn’t a surprise. Whether on the left or on the right, there are people just waiting for one little extra nudge to act out on their anger. It is, however, a bit ironic when you consider that Castro said on Morning Joe that he didn’t want anyone on the left or right to be a target of “any crazy person,” and now he himself is a target. It just goes to show it really didn’t matter what Castro wanted. And what arrogance to think that it did. He set the ball in motion, and the chips fell. And because certain unhinged individuals are looking for a nudge to act out on their anger and behave badly, they found one in a list, and in Castro:

The San Antonio Police Department and Bexar County Sheriff’s Office increased patrols at the congressional district office and home of Rep. Joaquin Castro after threats were made against the congressman, records obtained by the KSAT 12 Defenders show.


Police records obtained by the Defenders show that SAPD officers were ordered by Chief William McManus’ office to begin increased patrols of Castro’s district office in downtown San Antonio on Thursday. The order stated that Castro “has received threats.” According to the document, the assignment is still in effect.

Another record obtained by KSAT shows Bexar County Sheriff Javier Salazar requested deputies patrol by Castro’s home on Wednesday.

While the Sheriff’s Office declined to respond to questions about how long the order for increased patrols will last, the agency sent the following statement: “While we cannot comment on the exact details of this matter, Sheriff Salazar along with the men and women of the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office take our responsibility to protect and serve all Bexar County Residents, including our elected officials.”

In other words, they are doing what they are charged to do. With that, I hope that any of the 44 individuals named on the list are harassed or threatened, will be given the same level of consideration by law enforcement, especially the elderly San Antonio woman who was on the list and received a threatening voicemail.

Yesterday, Julian Castro defended his brother, saying he was proud of him:

“I’m very proud of my brother,” Julian Castro told MSNBC’s “Kasie DC.”

My brother took what is publicly available information that newspapers, other publications regularly do about people who maxed out, made the maximum contribution to President Trump here in San Antonio and he put that forward, as he said, as a lament to say, wow, just look.

In the city that is more than 63 percent Hispanic, a lot of these big business owners who were on this list who have basically made their fortune off the Hispanic community are putting money into the pocket of a campaign of a president that is turning around and using that money to fund something like 2,000 ads that say that there’s Hispanic invasion in the United States.

I find that very disappointing, very ironic and, you know, I believe that my brother had every right to do that, and that people should know who was funding that campaign of hate. I believe that’s completely legitimate information, and, you know, I think that one of the reasons that Donald Trump tweeted at my brother is because he must be afraid that people are ashamed that they gave to him or something.

Hm, he might want to rethink that whole bit about being “ashamed”.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


Administration alters Endangered Species Rules

Filed under: Environment,Politics — DRJ @ 12:00 pm

[Headline/Link from DRJ]

Trump rolls back endangered species protections:

The Trump administration on Monday announced it has finalized a controversial rollback of protections for endangered species, including allowing economic factors to be weighed before adding an animal to the list.

The Interior Department has scaled back other provisions within the law, including protections for threatened species and the review process used before projects are approved on their habitat.

There is also a pending change “to meaningfully distinguish species that are likely to be exposed to and affected by the assessed pesticides from those that are not likely.”

In general, environmentalists fear these changes will further endanger habitats and species, while businesses adversely impacted by the EPA view these as reasonable balancing. That makes this a partisan issue since the former are often Democrats and the latter are often Republicans.

I am curious why it took a GOP President 2 years and 204 days to do this.


Federal Gun Charges in connection with Dayton Shooting

Filed under: Crime — DRJ @ 11:01 am

[Headline from DRJ]

Friend of gunman in Ohio mass shooting to face federal gun charges: prosecutors:

(Reuters) – A friend of the Ohio man who killed nine people, including his own sister, in Dayton this month will be charged on Monday with lying on a form related to guns, federal prosecutors said on Monday.

There aren’t many details yet but charges will be released at 2:00 PM (probably CST so an hour from now).


New Rules: Green Cards Can Be Denied Immigrants Using Welfare; COMMENTARY BY PATTERICO

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:34 am

[guest post by Dana]

Per the administration, it’s a move toward “self-sufficiency”:

The Trump administration announced Monday that it is moving ahead with one of its most aggressive steps to restrict legal immigration, denying green cards to many immigrants who use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers or other forms of public assistance.

Federal law already requires those seeking green cards and legal status to prove they will not be a burden to the U.S. — a “public charge” —but the new rules detail a broader range of programs that could disqualify them.

Much of President Donald Trump’s effort to crack down on illegal immigration has been in the spotlight, but this rule change targets people who entered the United States legally and are seeking permanent status. It’s part of a push to move the U.S. to a system that focuses on immigrants’ skills instead of emphasizing the reunification of families.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officers will now weigh public assistance along with other factors such as education, household income and health to determine whether to grant legal status.

They don’t apply to U.S. citizens, even if the U.S. citizen is related to an immigrant who is subject to them.

According to Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services,:

…the purpose of the rule is to promote “self-sufficiency” among the immigrant population.

“Through the public charge rule, President Trump’s administration is re-enforcing the ideals of self-sufficiency and personal responsibility, ensuring that immigrants are able to support themselves and become successful here in America,” he said.

Asked about the impact on the poor, Cuccinelli said: “We certainly expect people of any income to be able to stand on their own two feet.”

And there is this:

Homeland Security officials say they made a series of changes to the proposed rules following 266,000 public comments.

The new rules go into effect this October.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


COMMENTARY BY PATTERICO: I was going to call it an update but I have no new information, just my opinion. I thank Dana for saving me the trouble of explaining what’s going on, making my job (OK, hobby) of commenting on it easier.

The elites are no doubt going to wring their hands about how this is cruel and racist. It strikes me as a common-sense measure, and eminently so. We are a country and we get to choose the criteria by which we choose our citizens. The primary attributes we are looking for are the ability to give at least as much as you take. Therefore, we would like to avoid, for example, criminals, people with communicable disease, and people who live off public assistance.

I see some people make the claim that Hispanic immigrants are on public welfare less per capita than citizens. I don’t know whether that is accurate, but if I had to guess, I would guess that to be true. If so, the rule should have minimal impact. The rule is not designed in any way to hurt people who work and give to society. Quite the opposite.

Yes, it may not seem ultra-compassionate, but we don’t have the resources to handle anyone in the world who would be better off in this country, so our compassion has limits — and part of that means that any safety net is reserved for citizens. Citizens get better treatment, and that is not inherently wrong. Communities must first take care of their own.

So, although this rule will not be popular with the Trump-hating elite, it’s a great step in my view.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0618 secs.