“…Killer Juan Lopez-Sanchez admitted to the deed, telling a local news outlet that he specifically chose to go to San Francisco because it’s a “sanctuary city” — meaning, it doesn’t enforce immigration laws.
The Department of Justice has allowed these cities to openly defy federal law, which makes me wonder whether Alabama can call itself a “sanctuary state” and refuse to recognize the legalization of gay marriage. Something tells me the Obama administration’s respect for local discretion only extends to open borders advocates.
Anyway, Sanchez says he killed the young woman while hopped up on sleeping pills he found in a trash can. Giving different versions of the story at various times, he first said he shot the gun at sea lions, and then said he accidentally discharged it three times in the direction of Ms. Steinle. Those explanations are difficult to take seriously, but whatever the case, as other countries look to assimilate only the best, brightest, and most morally upstanding into their ranks, we open our arms to convicted felons who scavenge in dumpsters for discarded prescription pills before shooting our neighbors to death…”
According to “our” government’s own statistics, 71% percent of foreign citizens in federal prisons are Mexicans!!! Columbians are a distant 2nd at 4%. Mexican criminals, i.e., citizens of Mexico illegally in the United States, represent 16% of all convicts serving time in the federal prison system!!!
Here’s the bottomline on immigration, illegal or otherwise:
Not just “11 million illegals” (or whatever the actual figure might be); 11 million illiterate, unskilled, non-English speaking burdens on America’s economy. Here’s a radical idea; before granting amnesty to any illegal Mexicans or Central Americans, prior to relocating a single additional Somali cab driver to Minneapolis, we offer every able-bodied welfare recipient a simple choice: get to fishin’ or start swimmin’…on your own!
Hells bells, we’ll even bus you to the jobs; you just have to WORK!!!
But unfortunately, as Matt Walsh so eloquently observed in our opening item:
“whatever the case, as other countries look to assimilate only the best, brightest, and most morally upstanding into their ranks, we open our arms to convicted felons who scavenge in dumpsters for discarded prescription pills before shooting our neighbors to death.“
And we’ll continue to do so as long as American Marxists continue to draw breath.
Since we’re on the subject of Manchurian Americans, they’re…or perhaps more accurately “he’s”… the subject of two must-read commentaries by the great Victor Davis Hanson; first, Hanson identifies the rotten root of the real problem:
“…The Europeans are flummoxed. Why that is so is another Obama lesson. In just six years, Obama’s defense cuts, his recessional from world leadership, and his abdication of a strong presence in the volatile Middle East — in other words, a changed foreign policy reminds our EU and NATO allies to be careful of the change you wish for. Socialist pacifism in Europe was always predicated on the presence of America’s friendly free-market military muscularity. What the Europeans wanted was not change but the continuance of an America quite unlike themselves, willing to subsidize their indulgences and to serve as a scapegoat for their fits of envious venting.Instead, they got a president who is a fellow democratic socialist who likewise believes in reducing Western military power and influence. Now they are baffled if not terrified about their wishes for change coming true.
…Obama has taught us that the government can slash defense spending, hike income taxes, and still end up with half-trillion-dollar annual deficits, in a way unthinkable under the old Gingrich–Clinton paradigm of budgetary compromise. For the next two decades, American presidents will be paying down what Obama has squandered through jacking up social spending and not addressing entitlement and tax reform. Let us pray for continued near-zero interest rates — the only thing that will have allowed Obama to reach $20 trillion in national debt by 2017 without a Greek-like implosion.Obama’s changes have managed to make the deficit-spending George W. Bush administration seem fiscally timid…”
Second, Hanson correctly characterizes the danger posed by The Dear Misleader’s greatest contribution to the dissolution of the Republic:
“…The general public wonders why some are selectively exempt from following the law, but others are not. If federal immigration law does not apply to foreign nationals, why should building codes, zoning laws or traffic statutes apply to U.S. citizens?
Consider the immigration activists’ argument that immigration authorities should focus only on known felons and not those who only broke immigration law. This is akin to arguing that the IRS shouldn’t worry about whether everyday Americans pay their income taxes and should enforce the tax laws only against those with past instances of tax avoidance.
But why single out the poor and foreign-born? Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton once pocketed a $100,000 cattle-futures profit from a $1,000 investment, with help from an insider crony.A group of economists calculated the odds of such an unlikely return at one in 31 trillion. Clinton then trumped that windfall by failing to fully pay taxes on her commodities profits, only addressing that oversight years later.
Why did Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, snub government protocols by using a private email account and a private server, and then permanently deleting any emails she felt were not government-related? Clinton long ago concluded that laws inhercase were to be negotiated, not obeyed.
President Obama called for higher taxes on the wealthy. But before doing so, could he at least have asked his frequent advisor on racial matters, Al Sharpton, to pay millions in back taxes and penalties? Might the government ask that its own employees pay the more than $3 billion in collective federal back taxes that they owe, since they expect other taxpayers to keep paying their salaries?
Civilizations unwind insidiously not with a loud, explosive bang, but with a lawless whimper.“
Oh,…and as Judicial Watch informs us, the illegal persecution of Conservative groups in support of The Obamao’s reelection wasn’t limited to Lois Lerner and the IRS:
Does anyone seriously believe Hillary’s will smell any better?!?
As James Taranto confirms, no,…SERIOUSLY?!?
“Hillary Clinton drew Republican fire Wednesday after falsely claiming she had never been subpoenaed for emails from her time as secretary of state,” CNN reports:
When CNN’s Brianna Keilar asked Clinton in an exclusive interview on Tuesday about the decision to delete 33,000 emails while under investigation by a House panel, Clinton said other secretaries of state had done the “same thing.”
Keilar asked if her predecessors had also been subpoenaed, to which Clinton responded, “You’re starting with so many assumptions . . . I’ve never had a subpoena. Again, let’s take a deep breath here.”
In response, Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, produced the subpoena. The Clinton camp’s response was that “never” doesn’t mean “never”:
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told CNN that [Mrs.] Clinton understood the question to be if she was under subpoena when the emails were deleted, this past December.
“The suggestion was made that a subpoena was pending at the time. That was not accurate,” he said on Wednesday.
“In fact, Trey Gowdy did not issue a subpoena until March, months after . . . she’d done that review. Further, the subpoena was specifically asking for documents pertaining to Libya and the attacks on our facility in Benghazi, documents which, along with tens of thousands of others, she had already given to the Department of State,” Merrill said.
So by “I’ve never had a subpoena,” she meant “I had not yet had a subpoena when I destroyed the evidence.” Usually when the Clintons twist words like this, they’re careful to frame their statements in a way that is technically true, consistent with dictionary definitions.She’s slipping.
Next up, writing at Townhall.com, Thomas Sowell recounts Dimocrats’…
“…Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race.Even the leading moral and religious thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life.
No one wanted to be a slave. But their rejection of slavery as a fate for themselves in no way meant that they were unwilling to enslave others. It was just not an issue — until the 18th century, and then it became an issue only in Western civilization. Neither Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British and American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.
What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage.That was not yet a majority view among Americans in the 18th century, but it was not even a serious minority view in non-Western societies at that time.
…Turning back to the “legacy of slavery” as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth — as distinguished from talking points — would want to check out the facts.
Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s? As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present.
What about ghetto riots, crimes in general and murder in particular? What about low levels of labor force participation and high levels of welfare dependency? Noneof those things was as bad in the first 100 years after slavery as they became in the wake of the policies and notions of the 1960s.
To many on the left, the 1960s were the glory days of their movements, and for some the days of their youth as well.They have a heavy emotional investment and ego investment in the ideas, aspirations and policies of the 1960s.It might never occur to many of them to check their beliefs against some hard facts about what actually happened after their ideas and policies were put into effect.It certainly would not be pleasant to admit, even to yourself, that after promising progress toward “social justice,” what you actually delivered was a retrogression toward barbarism.
The principal victims of these retrogressions are the decent, law-abiding members of black communities across the country who are prey to hoodlums and criminals…”
Turning now to International News of Note, NRO‘s Kevin Williamson offers what we term an “Ode on Grecian Urine”:
“…The Greek people spent part of the weekend in the streets celebrating their status as international deadbeat. They spent the rest of the weekend hoarding food, fuel, and medicine in preparation for the manmade disaster they have inflicted upon themselves.
…Tsipras assured the Greeks they were voting themselves better bailout terms. They are getting the opposite — if, indeed, they get anything. More than a few well-informed observers believe that the Germans have simply abandoned hope that the Greeks are capable of real reform or willing to engage in it, and that the Greek “No” vote was welcomed with a quiet sigh of relief, providing Angela Merkel et al. with a plausible excuse to scuttle further bailout efforts. The Greeks may have burned their bridge to Europe, but the Germans are roasting marshmallows over the flames…”
In a related example of Progressive psychosis, Mike Adams answers the question why we can’t just…
“…The list of emotional damages in the lesbian couple’s civil complaint against Sweet Cakes is entertaining. Among the damages claimed are the following: Experiencing “acute loss of confidence,” “doubt,” “excessive sleep,” feeling “mentally raped, dirty and shameful,” having “high blood pressure,” “impaired digestion,” “loss of appetite,” “migraine headaches,” looking “pale and sick at home after work,” resuming a “smoking habit,” going through “shock, “surprise,” “uncertainty,” and “worry” all culminating in (drum roll) “weight gain.”
A careful reader can see that the couple is simply lying. In other words, they really aren’t poor lesbians. They’re just really bad thespians.Obviously, no one can experience loss of appetite, worry, and resumption of smoking followed by “weight gain.” Those are all things that make you lose weight. Duh! So why did the judge award them $135,000 instead of accusing them of perjury?
The answer is simple. None of the facts of the case are relevant. The judge already believed that this couple has an absolute constitutional right to be affirmed, not just tolerated.And that has been the goal of the LGBT movement all along. That is why all the rainbow stickers you see demand that we “Celebrate Diversity,” not just “Tolerate Diversity.”
So where is all of this going? Well, it’s going exactly where I have said it was going for over a decade. Demanding that businesses celebrate so-called gay weddings is not the end game. Next, celebration of homosexuality will become a condition of public employment…”
Quickly followed by a condition of employment period! And then…
…come the armbands!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch with The Gang Who Still Can’t Shoot Straight, though we know a number of you disagree with this assessment, Jonah Goldberg explains why…
“…Many of my colleagues on the right have taken pains to logic-chop Trump’s remarks. And it is true that some number of rapists and drug dealers are illegally crossing the border. Others have defended Trump by noting that what people like about this Lonesome Rhodes in a $10,000 suit is his fearlessness, bluntly tackling issues that other politicians fear to touch. That is a fine point in an indictment of the professional political class, but it is not a defense of Trump.
His goal was to wave the rhetorical bloody shirt. It worked only too well, damaging a party he expresses contempt for daily.
Indeed, Trump’s commitment to the GOP has often been situational.Sure, he has put his money where his mouth is, but he’s as promiscuous with his mouth as he is with the Trump brand. He’s given money to Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Andrew Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer and the Clinton Foundation.
Asked to explain why, he said, “You’re gonna need things from everybody.” (One does wonder what Trump hoped to get from the Clinton Foundation.) This attitude helps explain why Trump is such a fan of eminent domain. The man seeking the tea party’s support loves to use the government to seize private land he can’t — or doesn’t want to — buy fairly…”
He may…or may not…be right; we just happen to agree with him. More importantly, we find Trump utterly devoid of character, morals or principles; indeed, he lacks any redeeming social value whatsoever. The Donald’s in it for one reason and one reason only:
“…it’s not just Democrats or independents who don’t like Trump! Here’s Harry Enten last month:
Trump is the first candidate in modern presidential primary history to begin the campaign with a majority of his own party disliking him. A whopping 57 percent of Republicans have an unfavorable view of Trump, according to an average of the three most recent polls. That beats former record holder Pat Buchanan, who had a 43 percent unfavorable rating at this point in the 2000 election cycle
Taking into account name recognition, Trump’s net favorability rating (favorable minus unfavorable) of -32 percentage points stands out for its pure terribleness at this point in the campaign. Like his unfavorable rating, it is by far the worst of the 106 presidential candidates since 1980 who are in our database.“
And in the Environmental Moment, courtesy of George Lawlor, another genius in league with the fossil fuel industry states the obvious:
“In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming. “I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month.
Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming. “I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong.Dead wrong,”Giaever said…”
With all due respect to his knowledge of physics, having backed Barry in ’08, Giaever remains an incredibly poor judge of character. Der Obafuhrer isn’t getting bad advice; The One doesn’t TAKE advice…from anyone!
C’mon, this is a man who, absent any practical experience at anything, willingly stated…
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.“
On the Lighter Side…
Finally, there’s this depiction of the MSM’s concept of unbiased “journalism”, courtesy of Chris “The Tingler” Matthews:
Loading ...
You must be logged in to post a comment.