‘It was just so loud. It happened so fast’

'Here is the plane crash on I26 a quarter mile ahead of me'

Sharon eventually reportedly died due to her injuries

Don’t hold your breath that some senators will be able to squeeze border sanity out of the White House in exchange for billions more in aid to Ukraine‚ all before they go home for Christmas. Before discussing the latest effort‚ it’s worth noting new laws aren’t even needed to fix about 80% of the border crisis. President Joe Biden could with a phone call restore policies that kept the border controlled under previous presidents‚ including Jimmy Carter‚ Bill Clinton‚ and Barack Obama. But unlike them‚ he has allowed his administration’s policy to be dictated by a leftist hard core that rejects borders and law enforcement. He has also diverted billions of tax dollars to the non-governmental organization mass immigration support industry. After nearly three years‚ we know that the Biden administration officials will not only fail to enforce immigration law‚ but that they also will continue to subvert and defy it. So‚ where are we on border security deal negotiations? It looks like senators won’t reach agreement before leaving Washington this Friday until the New Year. Even if they did‚ the deal would need to pass the House‚ where Speaker Mike Johnson‚ R-La.‚ has shown a spine when it comes to fighting for real border security. In backroom negotiations‚ the Washington Post reports Senate “Democrats have made major concessions … and advocacy groups on the left are furious.” Nonsense. The embryonic Senate deal would reportedly make it easier for the Department of Homeland Security to deport illegal aliens whose asylum claims fail in court. But with the current backlogs‚ it takes five or more years for even a patently bogus case to conclude. DHS already has all the authority to deport it needs‚ yet their annual targets are to remove fewer than 30‚000 criminal convict illegal aliens a year‚ never mind the millions of illegal aliens without such convictions who the administration has released into the country. They have no intention of deporting anyone else here illegally‚ including failed asylum seekers. The expensive and lengthy asylum process is just Kabuki theater for this administration. The Senate proposal would also give Biden a new legal authority to expel illegal migrants before they can enter and claim asylum. This power would be simlar to Title 42‚ which allowed summary expulsions because of COVID-19 until May of this year. Pro-illegal immigration activists describe this as a massive concession‚ but it isn’t. The president already has the authority—and duty—to deter or detain illegal aliens instead of processing and releasing them as he does. If the cap to trigger the new expulsion authority is at the discretion of Biden’s DHS secretary‚ then it would never be reached. Hence‚ the new‚ improved Title 42 would be triggered by some acceptable number of illegal border crossers. Obama’s DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson once said that 1‚000 of these a day was a “bad day.” We’re now experiencing over 10‚000 a day. If the cap is‚ say 3‚000 a day‚ then you can expect Biden’s DHS to divert all their energies into expanding their bogus and illegal immigration parole programs. These  bypass the required visa process to fly illegal aliens directly to U.S. ports‚ thus  avoiding high numbers between ports of entry. The open borders activists in charge of the nation’s immigration policy have done everything in their power to subvert Congress and the law‚ and they won’t stop now. Most importantly‚ “the White House has not expressed any willingness to limit Biden’s power to parole certain categories of immigrants‚” a demand that “could throw the negotiations into a tailspin‚” according to the Post. Immigration parole is the administration’s favorite open border tool. Disregarding the clear language of the law and the expressed congressional intent behind it‚ Biden uses parole as an infinite method to bring in illegal aliens. If parole is untouched‚ the Biden administration can ramp it up  exponentially‚ moving the traffic from the border to  interior U.S. airports‚ and allowing in unlimited illegal migrants under the guise that they will claim asylum. This has not solved the problem; it has just hidden it better in Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ shell game. Using parole‚ DHS will continue to pour in hundreds of thousands of aliens for whom they have no proven identification‚ let alone criminal records or background checks. Senators have to resist a “border security” trap and not sign on to a fig-leaf deal that hands the Biden administration more tools and money to bring in more illegal aliens. Only serious reforms‚ like those the House passed in May‚ will restore the rule of law to our borders. What’s needed includes a substantial change to the current asylum process to weed out the bulk of fraudulent or spurious claims before they clog the pipeline‚ and a hard numerical cap on the use of true “humanitarian” parole —say 1‚000 a year‚ among other policy and defunding changes. The Senate should not agree to a bad deal that would further harm America. Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Will We Get a Bad Border Deal for Christmas? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Each year sees new popular names that dog parents select for their dogs. And this year is no different. Find 2023's most popular dog names here!

Finland Reopened Its Border Today and Then Immediately Announced It Would Be Closing Tomorrow

While WH Admits We Still Need Oil &; Gas‚ UK Says You Can Stop Breathing Now

More Thoughts on the Vibecession

When the global climate elites meet‚ no one expects the media to offer any skepticism to the doomsaying consensus. No‚ the only way journalists can dissent is to say the climate crackdown isn't moving fast enough. When can we get rid of fossil fuels?  On her eponymous MSNBC show‚ Katy Tur on Wednesday afternoon welcomed frequent guest and climate alarmist Michael Mann to call for the elimination of fossil fuel use as she devoted a segment to whether the recent COP 28 environmental summit had accomplished enough.Tur seemed skeptical about whether there was enough new regulation as she recalled: Something potentially amazing happened in Dubai today at the COP 28 international climate summit. Delegates from nearly 200 nations agreed to a deal to transition away from fossil fuels. Now‚ I say "potentially" because it is only just that -- a deal with potential. While the wording was a breakthrough‚ it still stopped short of calling for a complete phaseout of fossil fuels. The agreement is also nonbinding‚ so what will it actually do functionally speaking? After Tur began by asking her guest if the agreement is a "big deal‚" the University of Pennsylvania professor lamented: I would say it's sort of mixed‚ you know. Promising to transition away from fossil fuels -- I liken it to being told by your doctor that you have diabetes. You've been diagnosed with diabetes and you'll promise to transition away from donuts. Transitioning away isn't enough. We need to phase out fossil fuels‚ and we need to do so rapidly. We need to bring down carbon emissions to 50 percent by 2030 and down to zero by the middle of the century. I don't think this agreement meets the moment. It doesn't really speak to the urgency of a dramatic and immediate need to transition quickly off of fossil fuels. Tur then wondered if these non-binding meetings were pointless: "Do these summits do anything? Are they worthwhile?" After praising the conference for agreeing to reduce methane‚ Professor Mann reiterated his push for less fossil fuel use: ...but the central problem is‚ of course‚ the carbon dioxide that we're producing from fossil fuel burning‚ and the agreement doesn't go far enough‚ especially because that window of opportunity is closing. If we are to keep warming below a catastrophic three degrees Fahrenheit‚ we've got to bring those carbon emissions‚ like I said‚ down by 50 percent this decade and down to zero shortly thereafter. So that window of opportunity is closing‚ and‚ as of yet‚ we are not on the path that we need to be onto avert catastrophic warming. After asking her liberal guest about the use of technology to reduce fossil fuel use‚ she wrapped up the segment with a lame suggestion that people use a new "very white paint" that will soon be available. Transcript follows: MSNBC's Katy Tur Reports December 13‚ 2023 3:56 p.m. Eastern KATY TUR: Something potentially amazing happened in Dubai today at the COP 28 international climate summit. Delegates from nearly 200 nations agreed to a deal to transition away from fossil fuels. Now‚ I say "potentially" because it is only just that -- a deal with potential. While the wording was a breakthrough‚ it still stopped short of calling for a complete phaseout of fossil fuels. The agreement is also nonbinding‚ so what will it actually do functionally speaking? Joining us now‚ presidential distinguished professor of Earth and environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania and author of the new book‚ Our Fragile Moment: How Lessons from Earth's Past Can Help Us Survive the Climate Crisis‚ Michael Mann. Michael‚ it is good to have you. I think that‚ you know‚ when you look at what happened today at COP 28‚ and you're just looking from the outside‚ it does seem pretty major. Is it a big deal? Can it potentially be a big deal? MICHAEL MANN‚ UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Yeah‚ good to be with you‚ Katy. And‚ you know‚ I would say it's sort of mixed‚ you know. Promising to transition away from fossil fuels -- I liken it to being told by your doctor that you have diabetes. You've been diagnosed with diabetes and you'll promise to transition away from donuts. Transitioning away isn't enough. We need to phase out fossil fuels‚ and we need to do so rapidly. We need to bring down carbon emissions to 50 percent by 2030 and down to zero by the middle of the century. I don't think this agreement meets the moment. It doesn't really speak to the urgency of a dramatic and immediate need to transition quickly off of fossil fuels. TUR: Do these summits do anything? Are they worthwhile?  MANN: Well‚ I mean‚ there were some‚ you know‚ positive developments here. There was an agreement on methane‚ and methane is a greenhouse gas‚ and it adds to the warming‚ but the central problem is‚ of course‚ the carbon dioxide that we're producing from fossil fuel burning‚ and the agreement doesn't go far enough‚ especially because that window of opportunity is closing. If we are to keep warming below a catastrophic three degrees Fahrenheit‚ we've got to bring those carbon emissions‚ like I said‚ down by 50 percent this decade and down to zero shortly thereafter. So that window of opportunity is closing‚ and‚ as of yet‚ we are not on the path that we need to be onto avert catastrophic warming. TUR: Michael‚ is there any technology out there that you think might be helpful? MANN: I do think there is. You know‚ we can actually do this with existing renewal energy technology. The limitations aren't technological at this point‚ but new technology will help ease that transition‚ and it will speed up that transition. And so we're looking at not just‚ you know‚ better solar panels and wind turbines and geothermal technology‚ but energy storage is critical because the wind isn't always blowing‚ and the sun isn't always  shining‚ and there's new technology. For example‚ hydrogen cell technology that may really help with‚ you know‚ the speedup of that transition that we need. TUR: There's also a very white paint coming on the market next summer that could help with it as well. I'm serious. It's a very‚ very white -- MANN: Sure. Why not paint your (inaudible) white? It helps a little bit‚ sure. TUR: Absolutely. Everything helps a little bit. I mean‚ might as well take it all. Michael Mann‚ thank you very much. Appreciate it.

First lady Jill Biden shared a video featuring a performance by the Dorrance Dance tap dance company‚ and people on social media have been mercilessly panning the spectacle."A bit of magic‚ wonder‚ and joy brought to you by the talented tappers of Dorrance Dance‚ performing their playful interpretation of The Nutcracker Suite‚" the first lady's social media posts read. "Enjoy!" — (@) But far from enjoying it‚ many commenters skewered the performance. Some drew comparisons to "The Hunger Games.""The chestnuts are not getting roasted but Jill Biden is for her Hunger Games Capital District Christmas approach this year. Brutal comments‚" Mollie Hemingway wrote."Evidently the White House has become an elaborate set for the next Hunger Games movie‚" GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri tweeted."Thanks it's the worst thing I've ever seen‚" Matt Walsh tweeted."This is a crime against Christmas‚" Stephen Miller declared."Okay‚ I'm onboard with impeachment‚" Frank J. Fleming tweeted."What fresh Hell is this?" BlazeTV host Steve Deace tweeted."Watching this is making me racist and homophobic‚" quipped Rob Smith‚ who is black and identifies as gay."Why would Jill Biden do this to us? This is flopping harder than Bidenomics‚" Jason Rantz tweeted.In a note on the dance company's website‚ Michelle Dorrance describes herself as "a white tap dancer with Black cultural ancestors in a society that privileges white people and whiteness.""It is from this place of white privilege that I invite you to join me in lifelong antiracism work. Understanding how deeply embedded white supremacy‚ racism‚ and colonialism is in our culture is paramount to understanding our role (as white people) in perpetuating it‚ and embracing our job to dismantle it. That understanding is incredibly important to me as a human being and to me as a tap dancer‚" Dorrance wrote.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!