Wednesday, August 26, 2026
Meta has no moral compass
Meta agrees to historic $16.7B settlement over claims social media platforms harm children— and plans huge overhaul to protect kids
Harrowing footage
Harrowing footage shows moment flood hits China-Nepal border — leaving 98 dead and hundreds missing, including 47 Americans
The cost of California’s ‘sanctuary’ policies — in human lives
The cost of California’s ‘sanctuary’ policies — in human lives
California’s “sanctuary” policies restrict the degree to which local law enforcement can work with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It is a policy that has a terrible cost in human lives.
One life was that of Todd Stewart, 68 years old. He was a retired engineer, a father of two, and a longtime resident of his quiet neighborhood in Martinez, Calif.
On Aug. 6, prosecutors say Stewart encountered a burglar in his home garage and was stabbed to death.
Unfortunately, California’s state law created a system that would ultimately fail Todd Stewart. The man charged with Stewart’s alleged murder, Marcos Iriarte-Valdez, encountered the criminal justice system and was known to federal immigration authorities, but California’s sanctuary policies worked in Iriarte-Valdez’s favor.
Nearly 11 months before this attack, ICE lodged an immigration detainer against Iriarte-Valdez identifying him as a Venezuelan national with Spanish citizenship who was unlawfully present in the United States. Despite this detainer, and in deference to California’s sanctuary laws, ICE was not alerted to the release of Iriarte-Valdez after he had allegedly committed several crimes.
In fact, Iriarte-Valdez was already facing three felony burglary charges involving occupied residences, and had been taken back into custody for allegedly violating the conditions of his home detention. Yet on Aug. 5, a Contra Costa County judge released him on his own recognizance.
Todd Stewart was murdered the next day.
This is the predictable result of policies that prevent local authorities from notifying ICE when a suspect with an active detainer and serious criminal charges is released.
As of early 2026, the Department of Homeland Security noted that California had failed to honor over 4,500 deportation “detainer” requests. In San Diego County, the Sheriff’s Department has rejected over 80% of requests for inmate release dates to ICE.
As mayor of El Cajon, I have been clear about where I stand. Local law enforcement should be able to do their job, protect their communities, and work with federal authorities.
Yet California’s sanctuary policies, including the infamous Senate Bill 54, have placed unnecessary restrictions on that cooperation, limiting the ability of local communities to make public safety decisions for themselves.
To add insult to injury here in San Diego County, Sheriff Kelly Martinez just announced that ICE will no longer be allowed to use sheriff’s facilities for training or firearms qualifications, citing “community concerns.”
While US Customs and Border Protection will continue to have access to the Otay Range, the decision to expel ICE further limits practical cooperation with the very federal agency charged with removing people who are in the country illegally and pose a public safety threat.
Our local leaders cannot claim to prioritize public safety while steadily narrowing the ability of law enforcement to work with ICE.
El Cajon has experienced this conflict firsthand. That is why our city, with the support of the America First Policy Institute, is challenging California’s sanctuary policies in court.
The heart of our case is a simple question: Why should Sacramento prevent local governments from cooperating with federal authorities to enforce federal law?
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s response to the Stewart case has been to point the finger at the federal government. His office insists nothing in California law stops ICE from enforcing federal immigration law.
But that avoids the real issue. No one claims California can prevent ICE from enforcing the law. The real issue is whether California’s state law should prevent local law enforcement from sharing basic information with federal authorities when someone is in custody, has an active detainer, and is about to be released.
Opposition to sanctuary policies is not opposition to immigration, and America has welcomed generations of legal immigrants who have made this country stronger. El Cajon is an incredibly diverse community, and I am proud of that.
The question here is much more basic: When someone who is in this country illegally repeatedly commits crimes, why would we make it harder for local police to work with federal authorities to remove that person?
Todd Stewart’s murder should force lawmakers in Sacramento to confront that question. Cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities should not be treated as a political statement. When it comes to repeat offenders and people accused of serious crimes, it is a public safety tool.
For years, California politicians have defended sanctuary policies in the name of compassion. But our first obligation as elected officials is to protect the people we serve.
Todd Stewart deserved better.
By
Oakland California and violence
Moment California mass stabber starts slashing victims in terrifying 30-minute rampage
Here you have the priorities of the Homeless industrial industry
SF Homeless Shelter Employees Arrested for Hiding Shooter From Cops
This is the kind of crazy story that could only happen in San Francisco. It started on May 31 when a man later identified as Norris Reed III fled from police, crashed his car and wound up shooting a female officer.
...officers were alerted at about 10:29 p.m. Sunday when a license plate reader flagged a vehicle linked to a robbery in the East Bay entering San Francisco via the Bay Bridge.
"We were alerted via an LPR hit, that a vehicle associated with a robbery that was perpetrated in East Bay came into our city and that's why we became involved," Lew said.
Officers located the vehicle near Fifth and Folsom streets, with two people inside. When officers attempted a traffic stop near Mission and First streets, the driver fled, leading officers on a pursuit through city streets, police said.
The vehicle later became disabled near Bayshore Boulevard and Jerrold Avenue. Authorities said the driver then opened fire on officers, striking one officer multiple times. Officers returned fire at the suspect vehicle.
To be clear, there were two people inside the car. One of them was hit by police as they returned fire. The police officer who was shot was identified as Brittney Taylor. She survived but was seriously injured.
Law enforcement sources identified the wounded officer as Brittney Taylor. She has been with the department for nearly 10 years. She was recognized last year in a San Francisco Police Department Facebook post for saving someone's life in the South of Market neighborhood.
"She's an extremely popular officer who's known for her hard-nosed work ethic," Lew said.
Taylor was in the hospital for three weeks and was applauded by fellow officers when she was discharged.
Anyway, up to this point it's a story that could probably happen in any big city. But here's where it gets weird. While police were busy saving Taylor's life, the suspect who fired the shots, Norris Reed, fled to a nearby homeless shelter. And there, according to police he was given help to escape by two of the shelter's staff members. Those two individuals were arrested last week.
Two employees of a Bayview homeless shelter were arrested Thursday, accused of helping an armed gunman evade police after he shot an SFPD officer in May. The nonprofit that runs the shelter disputed the police account, saying its staff were actually de-escalating a dangerous standoff to evacuate 125 people safely.
Officials said Oliver Barcenas, 36, and Erika Porter, 45, helped alleged gunman Norris Reed III evade capture after he fled the scene of the May 31 shooting on foot and entered the Bayshore Navigation Center.
As you can see, the shelter is denying their employees did anything wrong, but police say they have surveillance video showing Barcenas and Porter helping Reed.
At 12:17 am, over an hour after Reed III fled the scene, dispatch received a call stating that the suspect was inside the gate of the navigation center. Officers responded to the fenced courtyard of the navigation center and placed Reed III under arrest. During the arrest, officers seized two firearms from the suspect's waistband.
With assistance from the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, SFPD officers reviewed surveillance footage from the navigation center showing Barcenas providing Reed III with clothing to conceal his identity despite knowing that he was in possession of a firearm when he entered the navigation center.
Additionally, when officers had earlier visited the navigation center while searching for the suspect, Porter gave false statements to the police to prevent the officers from locating him.
They were arrested Thursday and today they were charged. They are of course telling a very different story.
Police chief Derrick Lew said on Monday that security camera footage showed Barcenas pass Reed a jacket and a hat through an open window to the shelter’s courtyard, helping Reed to hide his identity. Porter, said Lew, told officers that she didn’t know where Reed was, while the suspect sat several feet away from her, out of sight.
“I hope they’re not true,” said Steve Good, the CEO of Five Keys, the nonprofit that runs the shelter, of the allegations last week. “This is deeply troubling and concerning, but also incredibly surprising.”
Good said that he was told by staff, including Barcenas and Porter, that they did their best to placate the armed intruder and evacuate nearly 200 staff and clients from the shelter.
According to Good, Reed, who remained in a gated courtyard outside the shelter before he was arrested, showed staff two firearms in his waistband, and warned them to not call the police. It wasn’t until 12:17 a.m. that the police say they were alerted by a staff member that Reed was in the navigation center, over an hour after he ran from officers.
But DA Brooke Jenkins says that's not the case and she has the proof.
When asked about claims that staff were threatened to not call the police, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins responded that the footage, which includes audio that was not shared with the public on Monday, shows “clear evidence” that Barcenas and Porter “made a choice” to “aid and abet” Reed.
And there's one more twist in this story. Why would anyone seek to help someone who shot a cop evade the law? Barcenas, the man accused of helping disguise Reed, has been shot twice by the police. The last time was in 2018:
At 12:17 a.m. June 9, San Francisco Police Department Officer Joshua Cabillo stepped out of the passenger side of a patrol car on Grant Avenue and Vallejo Street, a block from Broadway. He’d spotted four heavyset guys drinking beers on the corner after the Waaaaarriorrrrrrrrrs’ sweeping victory. He approached them alone while his partner parked the car.
Carrying an open alcohol container is a citable offense. A veteran cop might have written up a ticket, or perhaps let the revelers off with a warning. Either way, according to Carl T, a retired 32-year veteran of the San Francisco Police Department, it’s a small infraction. The cop’s goal should have been to get the guys moving to avoid further hassle during a crowded, impromptu party night.
Instead, this particular cop decided to be aggressive. What transpired was a 36-second interaction followed by a 7-second pursuit that concluded with Cabillo shooting Oliver Barcenas, 28, in the back as Barcenas ran away.
Why did Barcenas run? Well, he had a gun on him, which he tried to ditch in the gutter seconds before he was shot. Also, he'd been shot by police before, back in 2012.
In 2012, current Assistant Chief Toney Chaplin shot Barcenas three times during a foot chase in the Mission District in which Barcenas carried a loaded Tec-9 semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine.
Taking on the Democrat smear machines
Trump vows to sue Clinton-associated think tank for report Guard deployment didn't lower DC crime
Neera Tanden, CAP president and CEO, called the threats a "transparent attempt to silence" the Center for American Progress, which is refusing to comply with the demand they retract the report.
Lawyers for President Donald Trump are threatening to file a $5 billion defamation lawsuit against a liberal think tank if it doesn't retract a report claiming that the White House's deployment of National Guard troops has failed to lower crime rates in D.C. The group is refusing to comply.
The Center for American Progress published a report in July that found the troop deployments failed to reduce urban crime in the way Trump had claimed, the New York Times reported.
Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito, sent a cease and desist letter to the center on Monday, warning that Trump would file the suit if the group didn't fully retract the report. Briot claims the report was full of malicious and false statements, and he gave the center until 5 p.m. on Friday to retract the report and issue an apology to Trump.
Neera Tanden, CAP president and CEO, said in a statement that the lawsuit is an "attack on facts" and its "evidence is baseless."
"A fundamental protection of the First Amendment is to allow for the publication of facts and analysis that are contrary to the arguments and claims of any administration. A lawsuit is a transparent attempt to silence us. We will neither cower nor bend in the face of it," Tanden said.
Washington, D.C.-based CAP was created in 2003 as a Democratic alternative to such conservative think tanks as The Heritage Foundationand the American Enterprise Institute.
The group's founder and chairman of the board of directors is John Podesta, who served as a senior adviser to President Joe Biden, counselor to President Barack Obama, co-chair of Obama’s presidential transition team, and White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton. He also was the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, according to the CAP website.
Tanden also worked in the Clinton administration as an associate director for domestic policy and a senior policy adviser to then-first lady Hillary Clinton. She also served as Biden White House staff secretary and as a domestic policy adviser to President Biden.
The International Criminal Court Is a Woke NGO. Shut It Down.
The International Criminal Court Is a Woke NGO. Shut It Down.
By David Hoile
The Trump administration’s recent declaration of war on the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a welcome advancement toward the rule of law. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s critique of the ICC is on target and should be shared by anyone who has monitored the activities of this court over the years.
The ICC is fruit of the poisonous tree. The “court” is a creature of both the European Union—by way of conception or adoption and funding—and of unaccountable (and largely EU-funded) international and national non-governmental organizations, which, amongst other things, vet judicial candidates for the ICC bench.
Following the money is easy. The court is inextricably tied to EU countries, which provide up to 70 percent of its funding, making it a less-than-subtle instrument of European foreign policy. He who pays the piper really does call the tune.
The reality is that the ICC, which opened its doors in 2002, has emerged as a sham court peddling ersatz international law. It is not the international court (China, Russia, the United States, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia are just some of the many countries that remain outside of the court’s jurisdiction).
It isn’t even a real court, as we will see below. Secretary Rubio is right to say it is an intolerable threat to sovereignty. It forms part of the architecture of power, together with other “international tribunals,” designed by the political left to short-circuit national sovereignty and bypass democratic domestic legislatures in pursuit of an unaccountable Woke “internationalism.”
The ICC, together with its ideological sibling, the European Court of Human Rights, is also part and parcel of the lawfare aimed at emasculating Anglosphere armed forces, most notably in Britain and Australia, peeling away America’s most trusted and enduring allies.
Federal law repudiates ICC jurisdiction over any American citizen anywhere in the world and authorizes the president to use “all means necessary” to free any citizen in court custody.
The ICC is well and truly off the reservation upon which its creators (with an exaggerated wink and a nod amongst themselves) had promised it would confine itself. Secretary Rubio’s observation that the ICC has deliberately moved from being a “narrow backstop” charged with prosecuting “only the gravest offenses … when a nation’s courts were unable” is absolutely accurate. The ICC suffers from premeditated mission creep.
The ICC is a treaty-based organization, superficially committed to prosecuting the most serious of atrocities, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes—within those states that signed the Rome Statute in 1998. President Bill Clinton signed the Rome Statute for the United States, but the Senate did not ratify it. President George W. Bush “unsigned” it in 2002. President Obama all too predictably played footsie with it.
Despite declaring itself an independent entity publicly committed to the rule of law, the ICC is political to its very core and has shown no compunction about bending and repeatedly breaking the very Statute it was meant to enforce. The reasons are political.
Israel is a case in point. It was never an ICC signatory state. Yet the Court has ignored its own Statute to shoehorn in indictments of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant following the Israeli military operation to destroy Hamas in Gaza after the terrorists’ October 2023 attack that killed about 1,200 people.
The ICC’s current prosecution of former Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte provides another prime example of this behavior. At the heart of the ICC Statute is the principle of “complementarity” alluded to by Secretary Rubio. If a signatory state is unable or unwilling to prosecute its own citizens for serious crimes, then the Court can step in to do so.
Despite the Philippines’ robust legal system with which to try Duterte (two Filipino judges have served on the ICC bench), incumbent President Bongbong Marcos and the ICC illegally colluded to offshore Marcos’ political rival to The Hague on questionable charges—and this despite (or because of) Duterte having taken his country out of the ICC in 2019.
The ICC had its own political reasons for detaining Duterte. It needed to divert attention from a sorry record. Rightly accused for years of a racist, Africa-only focus (more later), the Court was only too willing to accept Marcos’ offer to sideline his rival. There is little doubt that both the Israeli and Filipino indictments were forced through by the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan in a desperate bid to offset the scandal, which he knew was about to break, concerning allegations of his sexual misconduct. The ICC finally removed Khan over a sex scandal last month.
Secretary Rubio’s critique does not go far enough. The bait-and-switch merchants behind the ICC rely on the essential decency of many law-abiding observers who accept at face value the ICC’s claim to be a court. This claim is simply untrue. In their attempt to replace accountable institutions with the rule of judges, they haven’t even been able to maintain the façade of a real court or real judges.
Why should anyone accept being judged by a court some of whose judges have never even been lawyers, let alone judges, before they were appointed to the bench to rule on incredibly complex matters of law? Unsurprisingly, what has ensued has been described even by sympathizers as “slapstick comedy.”
ICC judges are politically vetted by NGOs and elected by corrupt FIFA-esque vote-trading. This game elevates Woke-compliant mediocrities over legal competence. A vice president of the Court candidly even admitted that interns draft key legal documents. ICC prosecutors appear to override the presumption of innocence and show a willingness to hide exculpatory evidence from both judges and the defense in trials. Even the pro-ICC Economist termed these trials “bumbling,” “chaotic,” and “near-farcical.”
The ICC has wrecked peace processes in Africa, artificially prolonging and extending devastating civil wars. If allowed to proceed, the ICC will hinder peace in Ukraine.
Secretary Rubio’s pledge to dismantle the ICC brick by brick will be easier to execute than many may think.
The ICC is rotten to the core, irretrievably damaged by its racism, blatant double standards, hypocrisy, corruption, and serious judicial irregularities.
Even friends of the ICC admit the Court is politicized, broken, and dysfunctional. Amnesty International has noted the ICC’s “questionable credibility,” warning that “the court’s legitimacy risks being eroded by an increasingly selective approach to justice.” Human Rights Watch has observed deepening “perceptions of politicization in the court’s work” and warned that “The ICC’s legitimacy . . . is at risk.”
Similarly, ICC-friendly international law experts have said the following of key ICC decisions: “spectacular failures,” a “fiasco,” “obvious shortcomings,” “deeply misguided … very dangerous and unwise,” “confusing,” a “mess,” the “worst possible solution,” and a “spiral of absurdity,” with ICC prosecutors said to be “poorly prepared,” “angry, threatening” and “autocratic” with a “coercive or dictatorial management style” and a “recurring pattern of evidentiary problems.”
The ICC’s focus on Africa is a matter of record. African leaders call it racist. They are right. It is quite simply racial profiling. The Court has only ever convicted black Africans. An ICC judge summed up the problem neatly: European countries paid “the bills for the ICC,” and Africa provided “the suspects and the accused” for the Court. Between 2002 and 2020, the Court had only indicted Africans—indictments that clearly served European foreign-policy interests.
African Union leaders have accused the Court of “racist hypocrisy” and “double standards.” Rwandan President Paul Kagame stated that the ICC reflected “colonialism, slavery, and imperialism.” An Ethiopian prime minister accused the ICC of “hunting Africans” because of their race. African discontent culminated at the January 2017 annual African Union heads of state summit in Addis Ababa when the African Union called for the mass withdrawal of its member states from the court.
Most African countries did not withdraw because of unsubtle EU blackmail: No ICC membership, no EU trade deals, and no economic assistance or aid. The Kenyan parliament, for example, has twice voted to leave the ICC only for Europe to yank Kenya’s financial chain.
The Emperor is truly naked. The sharpest critiques just scratch the surface. The ICC should now be seen for what it is: an EU-funded NGO masquerading as a court. There were serious questions about its longevity long before the very welcome attention of the Trump administration. Time to finish it off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
