Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The Obama administration released illegal immigrants who went on to commit more crimes, including charges of 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the House Judiciary Committee said in a report Tuesday.
All told, the nearly 47,000 illegal immigrants the administration was notified of but declined to deport between 2008 and 2011 under its Secure Communities program had a recidivism rate of 16 percent, the committee said.
They were just part of the nearly 160,000 immigrants — most of them here legally — who were flagged by Secure Communities during the three year period but who were either not eligible to be deported or who the administration decided to release. Those immigrants went on to be charged in nearly 60,000 more crimes, according to the committee and the Congressional Research Service, which issued a report on the matter.
The findings stem from the Obama administration's Secure Communities program, which was designed to identify immigrants who run afoul of the law and who the administration decides it wants to deport.
While hundreds of thousands have been sent back home under the program, 159,286 were not put in deportation proceedings during the period under review, CRS said.
About three quarters of those weren't eligible for deportation because they were legal immigrants and their criminal records didn't rise to the level of deportation, though nearly a quarter could have been deported, CRS said.
Those who could have been deported but were released later went on to commit the 19 murders, 3 attempted murders and 142 sex crimes, the Judiciary Committee said.
"The Obama administration could have prevented these senseless crimes by enforcing our immigration laws," committee Chairman Lamar Smith said. "But President Obama continues to further his anti-enforcement agenda while innocent Americans suffer the consequences. His unwillingness to enforce immigration laws puts our communities at risk and costs American lives."
Mr. Smith requested the CRS report, which used data he had subpoenaed from the Homeland Security Department.
The department didn't immediately return a request for comment Tuesday morning.
Secure Communities has come under fire from both sides of the aisle.
Many Democrats say it casts its net too wide, which means illegal immigrants who have committed relatively minor offenses could be deported. But Republicans, led by Mr. Smith, say the administration is actually being too picky in those it chooses to deport, which results in criminals being released back onto the streets to commit more crimes.
In one of the cases, the committee said, an illegal immigrant named Evin Adonis Ortiz was identified by Secure Communities but released, and later went on to be charged in the killing of California man. According to the Los Angeles Daily News, police said Ortiz and two others robbed a 68-year-old grandfather and then killed his grandson when he tried to chase the bandits down.
The Obama administration has set records for deportations, removing about 400,000 aliens a year. But it has dramatically altered the composition of those being deported, shifting attention away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and towards those who already have criminal records or who have repeatedly broken immigration laws.
In June President Obama announced yet another policy that shields most illegal immigrants age 30 and under from deportation. That policy won't fully take effect until the middle of August, but it has already had an effect on those being deported.
Through June 16, 51 percent of those being deported had criminal records. But in the month after that, the percentage jumped to 57 percent — a record high rate.
His attempts to educate Phil Donahue. (To his credit, while occasionally revealing a little of the standard leftist smugness, Donahue is civil and fair in most of these discussions, something one couldn't imagine if he were being interviewed by one of the MSNBC clowns today. But Phil is completely out of his league when trying to debate Friedman)
A long interview with Richard Haffner:
Selections from lectures given by Friedman:
A search of Milton Friedman on Youtube will come up with many more. They are a pleasure to watch, I heartily recommend you try to see them all.
Monday, July 30, 2012
NEW YORK (AP) - A staff writer for The New Yorker has resigned and his best-selling book has been halted after he acknowledged inventing quotes by Bob Dylan.
He must be comfortable lying.
Follow link in headline to read the rest.
A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.
The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.
Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:
The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.
In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.
The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.
“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”
At the urging of Valerie Jarrett, President Barack Obama canceled the operation to kill Osama bin Laden on three separate occasions before finally approving the May 2, 2011 Navy SEAL mission, according to an explosive new book scheduled for release August 21. The Daily Caller has seen a portion of the chapter in which the stunning revelation appears.
In ”Leading From Behind: The Reluctant President and the Advisors Who Decide for Him,“ Richard Miniter writes that Obama canceled the “kill” mission in January 2011, again in February, and a third time in March. Obama’s close adviser Valerie Jarrett persuaded him to hold off each time, according to the book.
Miniter, a two-time New York Times best-selling author, cites an unnamed source with Joint Special Operations Command who had direct knowledge of the operation and its planning.
Obama administration officials also said after the raid that the president had delayed giving the order to kill the arch-terrorist the day before the operation was carried out, in what turned out to be his fourth moment of indecision. At the time, the White House blamed the delay on unfavorable weather conditions near bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
But when Miniter obtained that day’s weather reports from the U.S. Air Force Combat Meteorological Center, he said, they showed ideal conditions for the SEALs to carry out their orders.
“President Obama’s greatest success was actually his greatest failure,” Miniter told The Daily Caller Friday. ”Leading From Behind,“ he said, traces the arc of six key Obama administration decisions, and shows how the president made them — and, often, failed to make them.
Another chapter, he told TheDC, concerns the push to pass the Affordable Care Act. The president, Miniter said, was less interested than then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in passing his own signature legislative achievement.
Osama bin Laden steered the global operations of the al-Qaida terror network until his death last year at the hands of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six. The president and his surrogates have made the terrorist leader’s death a focal point in Obama’s re-election campaign, painting Obama as a decisive leader who took down America’s greatest mortal enemy.
The rest here.
Where’s Mel Gibson When You Need Him?George Miller’s 1981 post-apocalyptic film The Road Warrior envisioned an impoverished world of the future. Tribal groups fought over what remained of a destroyed Western world of law, technology, and mass production. Survival went to the fittest — or at least those who could best scrounge together the artifacts of a long gone society somewhat resembling the present West.In the case of the Australian film, the culprit for the detribalization of the Outback was some sort of global war or perhaps nuclear holocaust that had destroyed the social fabric. Survivors were left with a memory of modern appetites but without the ability to reproduce the means to satisfy them: in short, a sort of Procopius’s description of Gothic Italy circa AD 540.Our VersionSometimes, and in some places, in California I think we have nearly descended into Miller’s dark vision — especially the juxtaposition of occasional high technology with premodern notions of law and security. The state deficit is at $16 billion. Stockton went bankrupt; Fresno is rumored to be next. Unemployment stays over 10% and in the Central Valley is more like 15%. Seven out of the last eleven new Californians went on Medicaid, which is about broke. A third of the nation’s welfare recipients are in California. In many areas, 40% of Central Valley high school students do not graduate — and do not work, if the latest crisis in finding $10 an hour agricultural workers is any indication. And so on.Our culprit out here was not the Bomb (and remember, Hiroshima looks a lot better today than does Detroit, despite the inverse in 1945). The condition is instead brought on by a perfect storm of events that have shred the veneer of sophisticated civilization. Add up the causes. One was the destruction of the California rural middle class. Manufacturing jobs, small family farms, and new businesses disappeared due to globalization, high taxes, and new regulations. A pyramidal society followed of a few absentee land barons and corporate grandees, and a mass of those on entitlements or working for government or employed at low-skilled service jobs. The guy with a viable 60 acres of almonds ceased to exist.Illegal immigration did its share. No society can successfully absorb some 6-7 million illegal aliens, in less than two decades, the vast majority without English, legality, or education from the poorer provinces of Mexico, the arrivals subsidized by state entitlements while sending billions in remittances back to Mexico — all in a politicized climate where dissent is demonized as racism. This state of affairs is especially true when the hosthas given up on assimilation, integration, the melting pot, and basic requirements of lawful citizenship.Terrible governance was also a culprit, in the sense that the state worked like a lottery: those lucky enough by hook or by crook to get a state job thereby landed a bonanza of high wages, good benefits, no accountability, and rich pensions that eventually almost broke the larger and less well-compensated general society. When I see hordes of Highway Patrolmen writing tickets in a way they did not before 2008, I assume that these are revenue-based, not safety-based, protocols — a little added fiscal insurance that pensions and benefits will not be cut.A coarsening of popular culture — a nationwide phenomenon — was intensified, as it always is, in California. The internet, video games, and modern pop culture translated into a generation of youth that did not know the value of hard work or a weekend hike in the Sierra. They didn’t learn how to open a good history book or poem, much less acquire even basic skills such as mowing the law or hammering a nail. But California’s Generation X did know that they were “somebody” whom teachers and officials dared not reprimand, punish, prosecute, or otherwise pass judgment on for their anti-social behavior. Add all that up with a whiny, pampered, influential elite on the coast that was more worried about wind power, gay marriage, ending plastic bags in the grocery stores — and, well, you get the present-day Road Warrior culture of California.Pre- and Post-ModernI am writing tonight in Palo Alto after walking among nondescript 1,500 square-foot cottages of seventy-year vintage that sell for about $1.5-2 million and would go in a similar tree-shaded district in Fresno or Merced for about $100,000. Apparently, these coastal Californians want to be near Stanford and big money in Silicon Valley. They also must like the fact that they are safe to jog or ride bikes in skimpy attire and the general notion that there is “culture” here amid mild weather. I suppose when a car pulls out in front of you and hits your bumper on University Avenue, the driver has a license, registration, and insurance — and this is worth the extra million to live here. My young fellow apartment residents like to jog in swimming suits; they would last one nanosecond doing that on De Wolf Avenue outside Selma.Survival?Meanwhile, 200 miles and a world away, here are some of the concerns recently in the Valley. There is now an epidemic of theft from tarped homes undergoing fumigation. Apparently as professionals tent over homes infested with termites, gangs move into the temporarily abandoned houses to burrow under the tarps and loot the premises — convinced that the dangers of lingering poisonous gas are outweighed by the chance of easy loot. Who sues whom when the gangbanger prying into the closet is found gassed ? When I get termites, I spot treat myself with drill and canisters; even the professional services warn that they can kill off natural pests, but not keep out human ones.No one in the Central Valley believes that they can stop the epidemic of looting copper wire. I know the local Masonic Hall is not the Parthenon, but you get the picture of our modern Turks prying off the lead seals of the building clamps of classical temples.Protection is found only in self-help. To stop the Road Warriors from stripping the copper cable from your pump or the community’s street lights, civilization is encouraged to put in a video camera, more lighting, more encasement, a wire protective mesh — all based on the premise that the authorities cannot stop the thieves and your livelihood is predicated on the ingenuity of your own counter-terrorism protocols. But the thief is always the wiser: he calculates the cost of anti-theft measures, as well as the state’s bill in arresting, trying, and rehabilitating him, and so wagers that it is cheaper for all of us to let him be and just clean up his mess.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
When President Barack Obama blocked the Keystone Pipeline, Republicans said the move would encourage Canada to pursue oil deals with China instead of the United States and cede a massive chunk of North American oil assets to the communist nation.
A recent 7,900-word New York Times article singularly illustrates the huge gulf between victims of barbaric crime and the zealous rationalizers of their victimizers. Strongly suggesting that a prisoner's being "sorry" for the premeditated murder of both his parents should be "enough" to free him, the article would likely repulse most survivors of violent crime, including loved ones of murder victims and others who care about them.
Repulse, but not surprise. Pro-murderer fanatics have long manifested the views and tricks employed by the Times. (To avoid misunderstanding or misrepresentation, "pro-murderer" is not "pro-murder." These people do not advocate murder. However, when murders occur, they provide solace for the clearly guilty, with none for victims. Indeed, to protect murderers, they aggressively inflict unspeakable additional torture upon victims.) Having long pretended merely to oppose capital punishment, their real goal is to minimize punishment for murder, period. The Times punctuates one more time what has always been realized by capital punishment supporters: the "life without parole" alternative is a sham. Murderer advocates seek to save not only the lives of their idols, but also their freedom. They already have succeeded in prohibiting punishment for additional murders by select convicted murderers.
The Times' hero here, Gregory Ousley, was never sentenced to death. But that is not "enough" for champions of his cause. What follows is not about a commonplace anti-death penalty screed, but opposition to any further incarceration for a still young man indisputably capable of planning and committing multiple murders.
What the Times Can't Ignore
In arguing Ousley's case, the Times cannot avoid inconvenient facts. First, although he originally lied about his guilt, signifying consciousness of wrongdoing, he quickly confessed when confronted with his own written words; he can make no false claim of innocence, an oft-used pro-murderer ploy. Second, although apologists have sought to excuse murderers' deeds by asserting that anyone is capable of murder ("there but for the grace of God go I"), the Times acknowledges that "instances of a child's murdering a parent ... are among the rarest of homicides." So this is not a case of "everybody does it." Fourteen-year-olds may be "immature," but they know that murder is wrong. Again, Ousley knew that what he did was wrong. Third, having "planned and carried out a crime so unthinkable, ... Ousley is an unlikely representative for sentencing reform."
Translated into honest language, "sentencing reform" means freeing murderers, heedless of the certainty that some of them will commit more murders and other violence. Undaunted, however, the Times uses Ousley to make the case for its notion of "reform."
A Pro-Murderer Bag of Tricks
Although the tactics of murderers' advocates are well-known to active supporters of what a substantial popular majority deems appropriate punishment for murder, it is important to review, for the many who are not aware, some of the more egregious artifices made use of by the Times -- far from the first time.
First, "humanize" (n357) the perpetrator of monstrous murder. For example, the lengthy article never refers to the murderer as "Ousley," but instead refers to him throughout as "Greg." Just an ordinary guy. A real pal.
Second, avoid sympathy for victims, reserving compassion for the convicted murderer. Written from the perspective of "Greg," the article tellingly opens by inviting readers to be concerned that the double-murder "has haunted and dictated his life" because "for 19 years, [he] has sought to make sense" of it. Lest there be any mistaking where his sympathies lie, the writer says that "I wanted to understand how a man who had served 16 years for killing his parents made sense of what he had done and what his life could still be."
It should surprise no one if crime victims and their supporters do not share the desire to "make sense" of murder. And, as with so much of what murderer apologists say, it is again necessary to translate. For them, to "make sense" of murder really means to rationalize, justify, and excuse it.
Third, we should have sympathy for Ousley not only because he has been "haunted," but also because of the poor thing's "isolation": "To say that he has spent his entire adulthood behind bars doesn't begin to capture the isolation he has experienced." Of course, it is not worth referring to the tormented, lonely isolation of those who have had their loved ones seized from them by the barbaric acts that the Times thinks can "make sense." Some must live alone after losing a spouse, an only child, or even a whole family. But here it is more important to stress the murderer's "isolation"! The Times worries about what a convicted murderer's "life could still be," while showing no interest in what murder victims' lives and the lives of their lonely loved ones could have been but, in fact, can never "still be."
Fourth, the claim is made that Ousley has been a "model inmate." Of course, no mention is made of the innocent murder, rape, and assault victims of previously released "model inmates." The Times proclaims flatly that Ousley "is" sorry. If theTimes were in the truth rather than the propaganda business, it would concede that the most it could say is that Ousley "says" he is sorry. Violent inmates are often all too eager to accommodate the even more eager gullible; others have paid with their lives. Of myriad examples, perhaps the Times, were it honest, would examine the Jack Abbott-Norman Mailer and Edgar Smith-William F. Buckley duos.
Fifth, of course, it is very common to demand expressions of remorse as a precondition for forgiveness. Is Ousley sincere, as the Times would have us believe? According to the article, Ousley, now 33, has "campaign[ed]" since age 30, for his premature release, which the Times avidly supports. Alas, sometimes the truth slips out despite the worst of intentions. Revealingly, Ousley declared: "I'm really confident it's going to happen [although] I have one aunt who might be a problem[.]" However, Ousley magnanimously understands: "I really don't blame her for opposing my release[.]" Incredulous victims must wonder exactly whom Ousley is to be absolving of "blame" -- a traumatized person who is "a problem" for him? Is this a truly contrite prisoner or a self-centered, narcissistic smooth talker arrogantly thinking of himself?
Sixth, in making the case to free Ousley, the Times states that he would present "low risk of future criminality." Yet again, let's translate this. "Low risk" is not "no risk."
One of the oldest demands of so-called death penalty opponents has been for absolute perfection: there must be a guarantee that no innocent person will ever be executed. But they do not demand a perfect guarantee that released convicted murderers will not murder more law-abiding innocents. On behalf of convicted murderers, they eagerly put true innocents at risk. The "low risk" that a particular released convicted murderer will commit additional murder is vastly greater than the risk, under current judicial safeguards, of executing anyone wrongfully convicted. Moreover, as noted, it is a 100% certainty that some released convicted murderers will murder again -- the Times shows no sign of caring.
Seventh, the Times leaves no doubt about its moral values: "Strong or not, Greg's case is a telling one in the national debate over just what is accomplished by sentencing juveniles to long prison sentences." What "national debate"? The public strongly supports severe sentences for severe crimes. The only debate is in the minds of pro-murderer elitists who have a disproportionately dominant influence in the media and with five justices of the Supreme Court, who have defied the public by imposing their own values on everyone else in this clearly unrepresentative democracy (made more unrepresentative by Chief Justice Roberts' recent assault on self-government). On June 25, the Court abolished mandatory life sentences for convicted premeditated murderers almost 18 years old, seven years after abolishing the death penalty for them and two years after abolishing life sentences for nearly 18-year-old non-homicide predators.
Eighth, while lacking any genuine concern for victims, future as well as past, the Times feigns the usual pro-murderer pretense of caring: it is "better for society" to release convicted murderers in their 30s, when they "still [have] the potential of patching together a somewhat-normal life [rather than their] 40s when [their] options will be far more limited[.]" Better for society to turn convicted murderers loose on society? The Times omits that younger murderers pose a greater danger.
Finally, the Times demonizes those who disagree with its pro-murderer values, referring to their "thirst for punishment." Having no such "thirst," the Times has long rejected the obvious connection between incarceration and protection of the innocent against future predations of those with a demonstrated capacity to commit brutality. Nor does the Times recognize that its rhetoric is really disparagement of justice for victims.
Ultimately, it is a question of values when it comes to whether murderers deserve the kind of compassion showered upon a double-murderer by the Times. All too often, the elite media and elite judges eagerly identify with brutal murderers at the expense of their long-dead victims and the tormented souls left behind. It is safe to say that most people would consider it an obscenity to worry that a murderer might be "haunted." Most people would have no trouble reserving the term "haunted" for murder victims' loved ones and survivors, not to mention the future victims of released individuals capable of the worst depravity.
The 2012 election will determined whether anti-victim values will be entrenched on the Supreme Court for another generation.
Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hospitals to hide their baby formula behind locked doors so more new mothers will breast-feed.
Starting Sept. 3, the city will keep tabs on the number of bottles that participating hospitals stock and use — the most restrictive pro-breast-milk program in the nation.
Under the city Health Department’s voluntary Latch On NYC initiative, 27 of the city’s 40 hospitals have also agreed to give up swag bags sporting formula-company logos, toss out formula-branded tchotchkes like lanyards and mugs, and document a medical reason for every bottle that a newborn receives.
While breast-feeding activists applaud the move, bottle-feeding moms are bristling at the latest lactation lecture.
“If they put pressure on me, I would get annoyed,” said Lynn Sidnam, a Staten Island mother of two formula-fed girls, ages 4 months and 9 years. “It’s for me to choose.”
Under Latch On NYC, new mothers who want formula won’t be denied it, but hospitals will keep infant formula in out-of-the-way secure storerooms or in locked boxes like those used to dispense and track medications.
With each bottle a mother requests and receives, she’ll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead.
“It’s the patient’s choice,” said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. “But it’s our job to educate them on the best option.”
Lisa Paladino, of Staten Island University Hospital, said: “The key to getting more moms to breast-feed is making the formula less accessible. This way, the RN has to sign out the formula like any other medication. The nurse’s aide can’t just go grab another bottle.”
Some of the hospitals already operate under the formula lockdown.
“New York City is definitely ahead of the curve,” said Eileen DiFrisco, of NYU Langone Medical Center, where the breast-feeding rate has surged from 39 to 68 percent under the program.
Breast-feeding in the first weeks gives a baby a critical healthy start, many medical experts say. It helps the digestive system develop and protects the baby with the mother’s immunities. Nursing also helps the mother recover from childbirth.
But not everyone is convinced.
“They make formula for a reason, and the FDA makes sure it’s safe,” said Roxanne Schmidt, whose 14-month-old twins were fed with formula from birth. “Locking it up is just wrong.”