Thursday, September 30, 2010

Arrest John Morton

For aiding and abetting the commission of a felony by Nicky Diaz, an illegal alien.
An attorney for Nicky Diaz Santillan, the former housekeeper of California Republican Gubernatorial Candidate Meg Whitman, claimed today that Whitman was aware of Santillan's status as an illegal immigrant and fired the housekeeper when she asked for help. The attorney, Gloria Allred, said she was filing a claim for lost wages that are due to Santillan. The two women appeared at a press conference where Santillan tearfully discussed the allegations.

In a statement following the press conference, Whitman said "We consider Nicky a friend of our family and were saddened this morning to hear about her legal action.""After 9 years of faithful service, Nicky came to us in June 2009 and confessed that she was an illegal worker," she continued. "Nicky had falsified the hiring documents and personal information she provided to the employment agency that brought her to us in 2000. Nicky told me that she was admitting her deception now because she was aware that her lie might come out during the campaign. Nicky said she was concerned about hurting my family and me."

"As required by law, once we learned she was an illegal worker, I immediately terminated Nicky's employment," she continued. "It was one of the hardest things I've ever done. I considered Nicky a friend and a part of our extended family."The Whitman campaign posted documents online to back up those claims, which you can see here. The campaign says the documents show that Whitman was unaware that Santillan was not a legal resident. They include a social security card and California driver's license provided by Santillan and an eligibility form in which she claims to be a "lawful permanent resident."

Allred described the housekeeper's nine years working for Whitman as a "nightmare." She suggested Santillan was "exploited, disrespected, humiliated and emotionally and financially abused" by the Whitman family, which asked her to work longer than the 15 hours per week for which she was paid.

"She alleges that Ms. Whitman was aware of her status, and may have understood that she was vulnerable because of it," Allred said. Allred also suggested Whitman was engaged in a game of "don't ask, don't tell" to "exploit her while pretending that she didn't know the truth about her status."

It was, Allred said, "cold and heartless treatment of a hardworking Latina."
Santillan said she asked Whitman for help in finding an immigration attorney in June 2009, and explained to her that she moved from Mexico because she had "no job, no food, no place to live, and for that reason we made a decision to move here."

Whitman terminated her not long after she made the appeal, Santillan said, telling her, "don't say anything to my children, I will tell them you already have a new job and that you want to go to school and from now on, you don't know me and I don't know you. You never have seen me, and I have never seen you. Do you understand me?"

Whitman "treat me as if I was not a human being," Santillan added, suggesting the candidate was "throwing me away like a piece of garbage."

"I know there are a lot of Megs out there who are mistreating the Nickys who work so hard for them," she said.

In the press conference, Allred referenced letters that came to the Whitman house concerning the fact that the social security number on file for Santillan was not valid, though she declined to discuss whether Santillan had provided a false social security number.

Allred also denied that the announcement was politically motivated and said she is "prepared to give you a document in support of our allegations," though she did not say what that document is. She said she would release the document if necessary after Whitman responds to the specifics of her claims. She said Santillan did not leave her job despite the treatment from Whitman because Santillan did not believe she could find other employment.

"I am deeply worried about Nicky and her family," Whitman said in her statement. "I believe Nicky is being manipulated by Gloria Allred for political and financial purposes during the last few weeks of a hotly contested election. This is a shameful example of the politics of personal destruction practiced by people like Jerry Brown and Gloria Allred. The charges are without merit. I will continue to focus my campaign on the issues that the people of California want to hear about: jobs, education and fixing our broken budget system in Sacramento."

The press conference was held in Spanish as well as English, in an apparent attempt to drive coverage of Santillan's situation in the Spanish-language media. A Los Angeles Times poll yesterday found Democratic candidate Jerry Brown leading Whitman 49 percent to 44 percent in the California governor's race.

About one in five California voters are Latino. Registered voters who call themselves Latino favor Brown by 19 points over Whitman, who had made numerous direct appeals to Latino voters.
Diaz to date remains at large and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has made no effort to arrest her, though she is hiding in plain sight. Obviously the orders to leave Diaz free to continue to work illegally come from John Morton, head of ICE. For that reason, he should be charged with violation of 18 United States Code Section 3, Accessory After The Fact:
Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years.
Diaz is guilty of several crimes, 8 USC 1325, Improper Entry By An Alien, 18 USC 1028(a)(1), Aggravated Identify Theft, and 42 USC 408(a)(7)(B), False Representation of a Social Security Number
The question is do the laws of the United States apply to members of the Obama Regime, or are they above the law?
If ICE is not interested in arresting Diaz for immigration violations, perhaps the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General is interested in arresting her for the Social Security Number violations. Contact them at: 1-800-269-0271 or on the net here.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Good News And Bad

First the good: Criminals with consciences have decided to bring justice to Muslim terrorists incarcerated in the UK. A nation without the death penalty and giving only short sentences to Muslim terrorists, the patriotic criminals have decided to meet out their own sweet justice to terrorists. Terrorists have been attacked and Combat18, a white prison gang, is suspected.

The bad is that the so-called Tories in the UK are planning to establish a Sharia compliant prison especially to protect Muslims from rough justice.

A Constitutional Amendment Is Not Necessary

To restrict Muslim immigration. There has been debate on how to stop the scurge of Muslim immigration to the U.S. and the attendant problems with Muslim terrorism, disloyalty and other social problems attendant with said immigration. The trailblazing VDARE blog suggests a Constititional amendment to solve the problem once and for all. While a comprehensive and bullet-proof solution, it presents a solution that will solve the problem, but be itself near impossible to implement.
Conservative writer Lawrence Auster, a pioneering and powerful advocate of immigration sanity since at least 1990 (see his The Path to National Suicide: An Essay on Immigration and Multiculturalism in PDF or HTML), has also been thinking about Islam’s mortal threat to Western societies for more than a decade. For example, nearly a year before the savage enormity of 9/11, Auster had written about The Clintons, Abdurahman Alamoudi, and the Myth of “Moderate” Islam.

Richer has just very ably reminded us of the “Why?” of ending Muslim immigration. But three paragraphs by Auster, written in 2006, may linger in your memory longer:

We will have terrorist attacks and threats of terrorists attacks and inconvenient and humiliating security measures and the disruption of ordinary activities FOREVER, as long as Muslims are in the West in any significant numbers. The Muslim terrorists are part and parcel of the Muslim community. According to a survey reported in the Scotsman, 24 percent of Muslims in Britain (I never describe them as “British Muslims”) believe the July 2005 London bombings were justified. Imagine that. Not only do these Muslims in Britain support terrorism against Britain, they’re not afraid to say so openly to a pollster! The unchangeable fact is that wherever there is a sizable Muslim community there will be a very large number of terror supporters and therefore—inevitably—actual terrorists as well.

This is our future, FOREVER, unless we stop Muslim immigration and initiate a steady out-migration of Muslims from the West until their remaining numbers are a small fraction of what they are now and there are no true believers among the ones that remain. Travelers from Muslim countries must be tightly restricted as well. Muslims must be essentially locked up inside the Muslim lands, with only carefully screened individuals allowed into the non-Muslim world.

The enemy are among us, in America, in Britain, in the West, and will remain so until we remove them from the West and indeed from the entire non-Muslim world. As extreme as this sounds, it is a no-brainer. There is no other solution. All other responses to this problem add up to meaningless hand-wringing. The hand-wringing will go on FOREVER, along with the terrorist attacks and the threat of terrorist attacks, until we take the ONLY STEPS that can actually and permanently end the threat.[Capitalizations as in the original]

So much for the “Why?” What about the “How?” Matthew Richer’s essay suggests that it’s important for growing numbers of Westerners to come to their senses, spurred by such thumbs-in-our-eyes as the Cordoba Islamic Center intended for Ground Zero. Absolutely! But Auster has thought his way much further into the “How?” problem. In February 2009, at the Preserving Western Civilization Conference in Baltimore, he revealed the big picture he’d arrived at in a talk titled A Real Islam Policy for a Real America. The text of his talk, edited for publication, is here.

Auster’s central insight, among many key insights, is that our Constitution’s First Amendment needs qualification — via another amendment — if we are to rescue our society from ultimate submergence into Islam. (Recall that “Islam” means not “peace” but “submission.”) As Auster explains, via the device of an imagined presidential speech to the nation: [I]n order for the measures I have proposed to be truly secure and not threatened by constitutional challenge, we must go to the highest level of our political system. We must pass a Constitutional amendment that
prohibits the practice of Islam in the United States. Through such an amendment we will be saying that Islam is incompatible with our existence as a society. We will be making a fundamental statement about the kind of society America is. And that, my fellow Americans, is precisely what the Constitution is supposed to be about. After the Civil War, slavery was prohibited, not by statute or presidential proclamation, but by an amendment to the Constitution declaring that slavery has no place in the United States. The same needs to be done with regard to the slavery that is Islam.

The recognition that Islam must be strictly excluded from the United States will come as a shock to most Americans, who’ve been taught that Islam is “just another religion.” But it’s not. As historian Serge Trifkovic, who grew up in a society with a vivid collective memory of the centuries of Muslim rule in the Balkans, wrote to me, “Islam is an inherently seditious totalitarian ideology incompatible with the fundamental values of the West—and all other civilized societies, India, China and Japan included.”
A more easily implemented solution does not need a Constitutional amendment. There is a legislative solution, which not a comprehensive as a Constitutional amendement banning Islam and its practice, a case where the unobtainable perfect prevents implemintation of the obtainable, but merely, good solution.
Legislatively, Congress can for all practical purposes, end the scourge of Muslim immigration by simple changes to the Immigration and Nationality Act. Firstly, it can end most Muslim immigration in a two-fer solution. End the chain migration system where immigrants bring relatives other than their spouse and minor children. Most Muslim immigrants come based on sponsorship based on family relationships, parent, spouse, sibling, minor child, and child over age of majority. Chain migration is itself a major scourge, allowing for the immigration of less than desireable immigrants, many too old, unskilled, unwilling or unable to contribute to society. Chain migrants are welfare dependant, loyal to their originating country and unsuited to a modern industrial economy. Just what does a 60 year old rice farmer or laborer from China, El Salvador, or India contribute? Not much. Even worse is when that immigrant is a Muslim; the most disaffected among immigrants to start at. Even worse when you add someone with out skills or abilities and unmotivated to become an American in a Eurocentric Christian America. Discontent and alienation is highest among Muslims, even those with some acculturation, such as English language skills. Their religion is incompatable with a Constitutional Republic where Islam and Muslims are merely equal before the law; they thirst for more, for dominance. Ending chain migration will cut off most Muslim immigration.
Further minor reforms to the INA that would cut off Muslim immigration would be ending the Diversity Lottery immigrant visa that provides many immigrants from Turkey, Africa and the Muslim countries of Southeast Asian.
Ending the R non-immigrant visa catagory for religious workers is another minor change that would lower the number of Muslims and, more importantly, their religious leadership. Most of the crazed leaders of mosques in the U.S. come here on the allegedly non-immigrant R visa, which allows beneficiaries to adjust to legal permanent residents once here.
Another solution would be requiring all immigrants to speak English, even spouses, children and parents of sponoring U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents. Most, but not all, Muslim women have very little education, much less good English skills. This is especially true in the more radical countries such as Yemen, Pakistan and Indonesia.
A second solution would to end the eligibility of source countries of Muslim immigrants to participate in immigration at all. Just prohibit citizens, nationals or residents of Muslim countries from immigrating. Congress has plenary power in this area. Simply banning immigration from Pakistan, Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Emirates, Turkey, and the North African Muslim states of Egypt, Libya, Morrocco, Tunisia and Mauritania would similary solve the issue of Muslim immigration. It might be harder to defend before the Kennedy Supreme Court, but it is possible.
A third solution is similar to the Communist exclusion requirements implemented by Congress in the 50s. Back then, Congress prohibited Communists and those advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government from immigrating.
This could be expanded and applied in a manner to Islam. It would need to be expanded to anyone who advocated religious discrimination, the free exercise of religion, the enactment of religious based laws, advocating discrimination based on sex, or the replacement or restriction of any Constitutional rights based on the Bill of Rights currently enjoyed by Americans, all things symptomatic of Sharia Law. Islam requires and advocates discrimination based on religion and sex, religious based laws and argues against a Constitutional Republic and the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This would include but be broader than just overthrowing the government of the U.S. but inclusive of that and expanded to the overthrow of the Constitutional order now enjoyed.
However, it would be more difficult to implement, as each immigrant would have to be questioned as to their views, and they could claim that they personally did not want to impose the system of Sharia Law on the United States. Convenient lies for the intending immigrant and hard to disprove, except after they are here and started advocating such policies.
A blanket ban on Muslims like Communists and other totalitarians would also be subject to challenge in court. It would not be difficult to prove the danger of Islam, but one cannot depend on Anthony Kennedy to understand.
But because of the Kennedy Supreme Court, the best way to end Muslim immigration by ending chain migration. Which will also benefit us by raising the quality of all immigrant groups. Better to be successful with an imperfect solution than trying to obtain a perfect solution of banning Islam with a Constitutional Amendment and failing to reach that more difficult to obtain goal. Without the increasing numbers of Muslim immigrants, Islam will die on the vine, unable to replenish in enough numbers and subject to the pressures of conversion and lacity. Without a radical leadership it will also be subject to increasing moderation as its numbers decline and influence waivers. Islam before 1950 existed in the U.S., but it was moderate and subservient, subject to the servile mentality of the Arab who was powerless and frightened of the strength of American Christian civilization. They knew we suffered their presence at our pleasure and could be treated to removal just like large numbers of Communists were during the Palmer Raids. They were then at our feet, not our throats, and we can regain that position, over time, by ending chain migration.

John Morton Is Responsible For The Murder Of Alenjadro Leon-Martinez

Yes, Alenjadro Leon-Martinez, a murder victim, is dead because of John Morton's amnesty program of releasing illegal alien criminals back onto the streets to kill again. (h/t ALIPAC)
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) - Two men suspected of killing a man outside an east Charlotte complex over the weekend are in the country illegally, WBTV has learned.
Police arrested Yaair Uresti, 20, and Cruz De Espana, 19, last year in Mecklenburg County on unrelated charges. Both were identified as illegal immigrants under the Federal 287-G program.
Yet they still got out on bond, free to commit more crimes. Sheriff Chip Bailey says its frustrating problem they see again and again.

"Something needs to be fixed," he said. "We all know that. It needs to be fixed in Washington. It can't be fixed locally."

Bailey says one federal standard made impossible for them to keep these two men off the street: their age. Even though both Uresti --an admitted MS 13 gang member-- and De Espana were jailed for lesser charges they were allowed to make bail.

"The key was the age," Sheriff Bailey points out. "Under the ICE standards if you're under 19 they consider you a juvenile or minor. It doesn't matter if the parent or the guardian is in the country legally or illegally. It's just if you're here with them, you, ah, can be released to their custody."
As frustrating as this age loophole is, Bailey insist the 287-G program works. "It's identifying these people," he said. "It's telling us who they are. If they've had prior contact and any problems in the past then found out through that database."
The sheriff also told WBTV they have identified almost 14,000 illegal immigrants and
have deported nearly 9,000 those since the program started in 2005.
Even worse, John Morton considers minors to not be under 18, but under 19. So, if Morton had treated De Espana, 18 years of age at time of arrest, and Uresti, 19 years of age at the time of arrest, as the adults there were, much less the dangerous criminals they were, Leon-Martinez would be alive today. Of course, Morton is more concerned about releasing illegal aliens rather than holding them under any pretext, including the inane idea that an 18 year old is a minor. These decisions have real consequences, deadly consequences. But neither Morton, or Obama, care.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Blaming Obama For Bush's Actions

J Christian Adams and Hans Von Spaskovsky have much to say about Christopher Coates' testimony to the Civil Rights Commission about racism in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department and of the racist decisions by Obama's non-white political appointees there and at Main Justice.
While it does without saying that Obama and his appointees are openly racist and have a deep barely concealed hatred of white people and America, the problems at CRD are not his creation. In fact, they metastasized under the Bush Regime, who did nothing to discipline CRD attorneys and staff who refused to perform their duties and neutrally enforce the law. And Christopher Coates was one of the civil servants who allowed it to happen.
Take this series of events at CRD under Bush:
Coates verified that the DOJ is infested with racially motivated hostility towards equal enforcement of the law. Like me, Coates testified about the history of open and pervasive hostility inside the Voting Section to protecting the rights of white voters. This hostility first emerged in the case against Ike Brown in Noxubee County, Mississippi, going back as far as 2004:

The opposition within the Voting Section to taking actions on behalf of white voters in Noxubee County, Mississippi, … was widespread.
He testified, as I did, that Justice Department attorneys and staff flatly refused to work on cases where the wrongdoer was black:

[An attorney told Coates in] no uncertain terms that he had not come to the Voting Section to sue African American defendants. … One of the social scientists who worked in the Voting Section and whose responsibility it was to do past and present research into a local jurisdiction’s history flatly refused to participate in the investigation. On another occasion, a Voting Section career attorney informed me that he was opposed to bringing voting rights cases against African American defendants … until we reached the day when the socio-economic status of blacks in Mississippi was the same as the socio-economic status of whites living there.

All of the employees Coates discusses here are still employed by the Civil Rights Division.
Coates provided even more detail about a disgusting case of racially motivated harassment that occurred in the Voting Section:

A young African American who worked in the Voting Section as a paralegal volunteered to work on the Ike Brown case, and he later volunteered to work on the NBPP case. Because of his participation in the Ike Brown case, he and his mother, who was an employee in another Section of the Civil Rights Division, were harassed by an attorney in that other Section and by an administrative employee and a paralegal in the Voting Section.
The worst excesses of the CRD occurred under Bush. And it gets worse. Fanatic leftists were allowed to violate the law, sabotage case work and defraud the government, but were rewarded with buyouts, not termination and prosecution:
The Attempted Sabotage of the Noxubee County Lawsuit

It didn’t take long before Rich engaged in more underhanded and unprofessional behavior. This incident has become nationally known, and it involved outright dishonesty.

The Division’s Voting Section conducted an investigation of election improprieties by the now infamous Ike Brown, a two-time felon and current chairman of the Democratic Executive Committee in Noxubee County, Mississippi. Brown had been engaging in discrimination against white voters as part of his drive to ensure complete African American domination of politics in the county. It was some of the most flagrant discrimination that the Voting Section had seen in decades, and the trial attorney assigned to the investigation — Christopher Coates — recognized that Brown had to be stopped.

After multiple visits to Mississippi, Coates prepared a lengthy memorandum to Rich in which he recommended that the Division bring suit against Brown and the local Democratic Executive Committee in Noxubee County for violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The case was open and shut based on the evidence uncovered in the investigation.

But incredibly, when Rich forwarded the memorandum to me a few days later, the recommendation to bring suit had been deleted.
But more interesting, Adams himself refused to file criminal charges in the New Black Panthers case. Only civil charges were filed. If a white man had been outside a polling place shouting racial epitaphs, the FBI would have arrested him in a manner of minutes, while the Republican "civil rights attorney" Adams only considered a toothless civil complaint. No wonder the NBPs did not fight their charges, there were no real consequences in a civil hearing.
So before we get all agitated about Obama, don't forget that hating whitey was de rigour under Bush as well, which might explain his infatuation with family values from south of the border.

Friday, September 24, 2010

He Would Have Got The Obama Amnesty

Tokunbo Okuwoga an illegal alien from Africa killed two other apparent illegal aliens in an apparent robbery of an marijuana growing operation.

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- Police found a young couple shot to death in their Bakersfield home after the woman's 5-year-old daughter called her grandmother to say her mommy was shot.

The county coroner identified the couple killed early Wednesday as Felipe Bravo Jr. and Daina Caraveo.

Also critically injured was Bravo's father, 43-year-old Felipe Palacio Bravo.

21-Tokunbo Okuwoga was arrested in connection with the shootings Thursday afternoon at the downtown Amtrak station, according to Sgt. Mary DeGeare.

He was booked on suspicion of murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, attempted robbery and burglary.

Neither the 5-year old nor her 3-year-old sister were hurt.

Both are in protective custody.

Police believe the suspect knew the victims and planned to rob them.

There was an indoor marijuana grow in the garage of the home near Valley Plaza.

The young couple had a couple of misdemeanor convictions each including alcohol related offenses, burglary possession of stolen property convictions.

But take a look at this last little tidbit from the report:

The elder Bravo had 21 misdemeanors over 10 years.

Well, that would have qualified him for the Obama Administrative Amnesty. As reported, the Obama Regime is amnestying illegal aliens with no felony convictions. Misdemeanor convictions, much less arrests, count for nothing and this professional criminal and now felon, would have qualified for the Obama Regime amnesty.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Is The FBI Changing Its Name?

Is the former Federal Bureau of Investigation now the Federal Bureau of Sharia Enforcement? Apparenlty so. (h/t Weasel Zippers) The FBI is now investigating violations of Sharia Law.
A Lansing-area man is behind the Quran burning near Michigan State University that sparked international outrage and a mob attack on a church in India, police said today.
The man allegedly burned a Quran and left it outside an East Lansing mosque on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. He surrendered Wednesday to authorities and has been identified as the culprit, Capt. Kim Johnson of East Lansing police said today.

Johnson said the suspect voluntarily turned himself in to police after they announced a $10,000 reward leading to capture. No reward money will be paid out, Johnson said.

The man “continues to cooperate with police and FBI officials,” police said in a release.

The East Lansing burning of the Quran, a holy book for Muslims, led to an attack on a church in Punjab, India, where a mob of angry Muslims tried to burn it Sunday night, according to the Times of India and other media outlets. Stories about the burning of the Quran in Michigan circulated among the Muslim community in India through text messages.

The burning of the Quran in Michigan came at a time of intense discussion about Islam and the Quran, which a Florida pastor planned to burn on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks as a protest against Islamic extremism. The pastor didn’t go through with the planned burning, but there have been copy cat incidents across the U.S. in recent days.

The suspect’s name was not released. Johnson said the police investigation is ongoing and will continue. The case is to be forwarded to prosecutors in Ingham County for further review.

Note that the reporter, a one Niraj Warikoo,, did not mention anything about the First Amendment and blames the burning for the rampage of Muslims in India, as if it were justified.

But more importantly, why is the FBI investigating Koran burning? They don't investigate flag burning. But the perp made a major error by surrendering and cooperating. A major error on his part. He committed no crime and the investigation itself is a crime, a violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 242, Violation of Rights Under Color of Authority. Perhaps the FBI agents involved missed their Constitution Day mandatory training. Call their Special Agent in Charge, Detroit, MI, Andrew G. Arena, at (313) 965-2323, and ask about their training on the First Amendment. Of course, he will blather some nonsense about intimidation, which is rich, given that gangs and corrupt politicians control Detroit. But unless there is a specific threat, burning a Koran is no more illegal than burning a flag, which SAC Arena does not investigate.

Sharia Police

It appears that the City of East Lansing is in the business of enforcing Shari law. (h/t Jihad Watch)

The East Lansing Police Department is seeking the publics help to find who is responsible for burning and desecrating a Koran. The incident happened on September 11. It was found at the front door of the Islamic Center of East Lansing.

The department is offering $10,000 for any information that would lead to the identification and prosecution of those responsible for this act.

Those with information are asked to call Det. Sherief Fadly at 517-319-6814.

Perhaps one should call Detective Fadly's supervisor, Lt. William Mitchell, (517) 319-6948, or email: and ask him what crime was committed? Or call Chief Thomas Wilbert, (517) 319-6909, or email:

Perhaps they could review various Supreme Court decisions on flag burning and their protection by the First Amendment to the Constitution. I doubt Detective Fadly knows much about that given his Islamist leanings and loyalties. Since burning is protected speech, perhaps the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice would prosecute Detective Fadly for civil rights violations of 18 USC 242 Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.

Let the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section know: (202) 514-3204
(202) 514-8336 - fax

The Perils Of Commenting On Police Shootings

The gun nuts are on a roll on the shooting in Las Vegas of Eric Scott at a Costco in Las Vegas. The conspiracy stories are claiming that Costco employees and the Las Vegas police conspired to shoot a paying customer! As if Costco wants its customers shot down like dogs on a routine basis. Even more important to the gun nuts and some drug addled libertarian types in this shooting case was that the victim was a graduate of West Point, was awarded an Masters in Business Administration and was professionally employed. And had a license to carry a concealed weapon. Add those facts up and he is the innocent victim of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department and their trigger happy officers.
Let's look at the evidence that proves the officers involved are guilty:
Interesting, but hardly relevant. You don't get character witnesses at a coroners inquest. Why, because that is not relevant information as to what happened on the day Scott was shot. Has any West Point graduate committed a crime? Has any Army officer committed a crime? Has any MBA committed a crime? Has any sales representative ever committed a crime? Of course, yes is the response to all those questions. So we can dismiss the mendacious use of Scott's resume to exonerate him. Especially mendacious is the repeated mention of West Point. It is a clear appeal to sympathy when the use of facts by themselves should be the only emphasis.
Next, the gun nuts and their friends either minimize or don't mention the drug issue. Vin Suprynowicz is especially disingenuous in his failures to mention the drug issue. Mainly because he either doesn't want the public to know about the issue or he just like drugs.

Late at night on June 11, Las Vegas police Detective Bryan Yant led five other armed officers in beating down the door of a Las Vegas apartment to arrest a suspected minor marijuana dealer named Trevon Cole.

Finding Cole in the darkened bathroom, where police assert he was flushing the dried medicinal plant down the toilet, Yant, whose flashlight wasn't working and who neglected to bring along a partner, shot the young black suspect dead.

Noticed how marijuana became a dried medicinal plant and the suspected minor marijuana dealer became young black suspect. He later admits the truth:
Selling an ounce or two of pot.
Here Suprynowicz attempts to join the gun rights battle with libertarian wet dream of drug legalization under the pretense of medical use and join with Al Sharpton and Barak Hussein Obama's war on white Americans. Smooth segway there, but not convincing, either in the Scott shooting case in the Cole case.
Both Suprynowicz and other commentators have also decided to become amateur coroners, much like the nut jobs who babble on about how Kennedy could not have been shot because of some magic bullet.
Despite contradictory statements by nearly everyone who testified -- and forensic evidence that the fatal AR-15 rifle bullet penetrated down through the cheek into the deceased's neck, meaning he had to be squatting or kneeling on the floor -- Detective Yant stood by his story that he fired the fatal shot only after Cole stood up, turned and thrust his hands toward him as if he had a gun.

No gun was found in the apartment. Oddly, a yellow tube of lip balm was found in the dead man's left hand.

In the estimation of the medical examiner and homicide detective who investigated the case, Cole turned in Yant's direction while crouched over the toilet. But based on how Cole's body was found, the medical examiner said it was highly unlikely that Cole took a step toward Yant, as the detective claimed.
Two experts hired by Scott’s family examined his body. They claim that of the seven .45 ACP hollowpoint bullets fired into Scott’s body, one was fired through his armpit, suggesting his arm was raised at the time. Four remaining shots were fired into his back. There were no exit wounds, making it all but impossible for police to claim that investigators misread through-and-through wounds.
Of course, those "experts" probably aren't as the family has decided not to cremate the body and will have an independent autopsy done if the official one does not agree with their conclusions.
Bill Scott, Erik's Scott's father, said in a telephone interview that although he is skeptical of the inquest system, he is holding out hope.

"We're willing to give the process a chance to provide the truth and to ensure justice is done by holding those responsible for his killing accountable."
Goodman said the body has been preserved so an independent autopsy can be done if the family finds fault with the autopsy conducted by the Clark County coroner's office. The results are expected to be released at the inquest.
If the fix is in, why not have one done now? Obviously they are not entirely convinced that the story they are telling is the truth.
Suprynowicz takes the cake though. The press, the Las Vegas Review Journal, Suprynowicz' own newspaper, reported that Costco employees called regarding an armed man acting erratically:
Police said they were called to the store because they received reports from store workers about an armed man acting erratically.
However Suprynowicz says that Costco was killing its customers:
Apparently Mr. Scott, who was shopping with his girlfriend, broke the plastic wrap on a carton of bottled water so he could check to see if the bottles would fit in his backpack. He shouldn’t have done that. But is it a capital crime?

If I go to Costco with a perfectly legal gun in a holster, either concealed or open, even though I never present my weapon or threaten anyone with it, will employees there call the police, report a “crazy man with a gun,” and have me killed?

Talk about “customer relations”! How many front-door ambushes (complete with fake bomb scares to beat the game under the hunters’ guns) do you have to set up to win “employee of the month”?
Well if Suprynowicz doesn't like Costco policies, don't shop there. Costco certainly has the right to exercise their property rights. Or has Suprynowicz not heard of those rights? Of course this appears to be a single incident. How many other innocent Costco shoppers with CCWs have been shot down like dogs? Not many.
This leads us though to the real reason that Scott was shot: an apparent long history of drug abuse.
Las Vegas police have not released toxicology reports that would confirm or disprove Gorzoch's allegation of Scott's drug use. Bill Scott said he knew nothing of steroid use but confirmed his son was being treated with legal human growth hormones at a Las Vegas-area clinic.

And the younger Scott's medical records include a statement from a doctor who said that he suspected Erik Scott was addicted to painkillers, Bill Scott said.

But Erik Scott was being treated by a back specialist for compressed disks, likely from an old injury aggravated by a more recent car accident, Bill Scott said.

His son was taking about three pills a day for severe pain, he said, and might have had an enzyme deficiency that prevented him from easily processing pain medication.

"From the time he was a little kid and would complain of a headache, one aspirin didn't do the trick," Bill Scott said. "The standard dosage never touched him."
Holy Smokes, drugs and guns. Great combination. That will certainly work out well for someone. I am a firm believer that even a drunk or drug addict has a right to defend themselves from aggression, but mixing alcohol and guns or drugs and guns is not going to work out. It will end badly, as it did with Scott, and, for that matter, with Cole. Pherhaps Suprynowicz forgot his basic firearms safety training. Clearly both were so under the influence they either put themselves in harms way deliberately by carrying a gun under the influence or being so under the influence they could not respond coherently to police commands. And in the case of Cole, just how do you respond when the police announce "Search Warrant! Police!?" Yeah, my first reaction as a "medical" marijuana user is to run to the toilet to flush the drugs. Certainly the wrong answer. The correct answer is that you raise your hands in abject surrender, not run for the toilet to flush your stash, especially if it is only legal "medical" marijuana that so many oppressed black men use because of the stress of not being able to find a real job due to discrimination by the white man.
This might be the reason that Bob Owens was only vaguely refering to drugs:
He was gunned down by three Las Vegas police officers after they responded to a 911 call by Costco store employees reporting a man with a gun, possibly on narcotics, behaving erratically.
Scott was 38 years old, shopping with his girlfriend for items they needed as they moved in together. Unfortunately, those are the only details of the story on which anyone agrees.To hear the side of the story presented by Scott’s family, friends, and some eyewitnesses, Erik Scott’s death was the result of ignorance and embellishment on the part of the Costco staff, and a combative, deterministic mindset from responding officers.
Other witnesses and the police claim that Eric Scott was armed and acting irrationally, and that his own actions led to his shooting.
Interstingly enough, such irrational behavior is also symptomatic of steroid abuse:
Those issues continued in his second marriage, to Lydia Gorzoch. When contacted by the Review-Journal after his death in July, she e-mailed a curt response: "I divorced Erik Scott because he was an angry and violent man with erratic behavior who abused steroids and acquired a serious addiction to pain killers. I'm not the least bit surprised about what happened; He was on an extremely destructive path when I left him and I never expected Erik to live to see 40..."
Lang described Erik Scott as a "genetic freak" who easily developed a body builder's physique and never took steroids.

"We would both bench the same weight, but my chest never looked like his did," Lang said.

Lang said that Scott worked hard to stay in top shape and was a workout junkie since his freshman year in high school. He often ate protein drinks and similar health products."He ate more of that than he did real food," Bill Scott said.
An ex-wife's word cannot always be trusted, but drugs and steroid use certainly explain his "genetic freak" status and his irrational behavior in Costco.
Apparently Mr. Scott, who was shopping with his girlfriend, broke the plastic wrap on a carton of bottled water so he could check to see if the bottles would fit in his backpack.
Who takes items out of the plastic in a store? Except to steal them or because you acting irrationally.
It appears that irrational behavior is common among those killed by LVMPD:
How about if we count people like Ivan Carrillo, an apparent drunk driver killed then his car was rammed by a Metro police cruiser on May 20?
Perhaps you will live longer if you don't drive drunk and run from the police. Or take narcotics and carry a gun.
The libertarians and the gun nuts just don't want to face facts. Drugs and guns don't mix. Why, because mixing the two is stupid, dangerous, and illegal, but also bring you to the attention of the police.
If Syprynowicz doesn't want to get shot down by the fuzz, then don't mix guns with drugs. Oh, and if the police annouce "Search Warrant!", don't run for the toilet. Or better yet, lay off the herb, or best, stop selling it.

The Perils Of Commenting On Immigration

The usually squared-away and hard charging blog Atlas Shrugs and its webmistress Pamela Geller has shown the perils of commenting on immigration issues without knowledge of immigration issues.
In her justifiable war against Chuckie Schumer, Geller mistakenly takes the side of Indian IT contracting companies who outsource American jobs and replace American workers with Indian and Pakistani workers.

We are cursed in New York. Racketeering Rangel and this political hack and
useful idiot, Chuckie Schumer. Dump Schumer does it again -- this time he
slams Indians in today's Washington Post. (hat tip Clark)

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) inflamed Indian media outlets in debate in the Senate on Thursday when he called Infosys, the IT outsourcing giant, a "chop shop"--the term often used for the place where stolen cars are dismantled for resale. He said such companies outsource high-paying American tech jobs to immigrants willing to take less pay. He said he did not want the bill to affect companies that employ Americans and "play by the rules." This is so crazy. His party is bending over backwards to defend the Muslims, and in almost the same breath they single out Indians, who have been perfect guest workers, for punishment.This so-called immigration reform, like all the other reforms, is going to penalize people who work hard, pay taxes and obey the law. Illegal immigrants who routinely break the law (and who vote Democratic when given the right to vote) will benefit, while those who work and pay will suffer.(And yes, chuck the snake is still MIA on the Ground Zero mosque, but he stopped the NRA from opening a fabulous themed restaurant and
sporting game zone in
Times Square.)

Anyone and everyone who helped this enemy of free speech and Obot get to where he is should be actively working to unseat him. You owe it to your country.

Of course, Schumer is an idiot; the term of art used in immigration law is job shop, not chop shop. I doubt if Chuckie is smart enough to know the difference, but I know that Geller could do better. Obviously she does not pay deep attention to the minutia of the immigration debate. I doubt if there are 10,000 Americans who know the difference between a job shop and a chop shop.
But what really should concern America is that Geller does not even know the slightest about the issue of Indian job shops and their impact on American workers. They use the H-1B and L-1 visas to replace American workers, force them to train their replacements, and then fire the Americans. I know that Geller is a patriot; I am certain she does not know what is going on, but one of the responsibilities of patriotism and blogging is to know something. Uninformed comment is useless if you don't have the factual background. And misleading Americans about H-1B and L-1 visa abuse by Indian job shops is dangerous to this country. She should know that the Times Square Bomber Faisel Shahzad started out as an H-1B.
2002 – Issued H-1B visa. Shahzad was sponsored by Elizabeth Arden to work in a low level accounting job under the H-1B visa program. This would seem to support the argument that the visa program brings in primarily ordinary workers, not the best and the brightest as its defenders claim.
I hope Geller brushes up on the issue.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

The FBI Doesn't Care

If Muslims want to murder you. They might tell you to run and hide, but they won't do anything for you.

Seattle, Washington (CNN) -- A Seattle cartoonist who drew a cartoon about the Prophet Mohammed has been warned by the FBI about death threats made against her by a radical cleric with ties to al Qaeda, an FBI agent said Tuesday.

"She should be taken as a prime target of assassination," terror suspect Anwar al-Awlaki purportedly wrote about cartoonist Molly Norris in an English-language magazine called Inspire that claimed to be a publication of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
"This campaign is not a practice of freedom of speech, but is a nationwide mass movement of Americans" who are "going out of their way to offend Muslims worldwide," the article signed by al-Awlaki continued. Al-Awlaki is himself being sought in Yemen for his alleged role as a planner of the failed bombing of a Detroit-bound passenger plane on Christmas Day last year.

Norris has been advised to take precautions to ensure her safety, said FBI Special Agent Marty Prewett.

"The FBI is always reviewing and assessing information it receives," Prewett said. "Whenever the FBI comes into possession of information of a threatening nature to an individual, we let that person know so they can take appropriate security measures. That is the case here."

Prewitt declined to comment on where Norris is and whether she is receiving protection from law enforcement. Al-Awlaki also threatened eight other cartoonists, journalists and writers from Britain, Sweden and Holland.
Norris kicked off a controversy in April with a cartoon published online about an imaginary group called "Citizens Against Citizens Against Humor" that proposed an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" on May 20.

Norris said in media interviews at the time that she was inspired by the furor created from an episode of the show "South Park" that depicted the Propeht Mohammed dressed in a bear suit.
Comedy Central, which airs "South Park," aired an edited version of the episode after the show's creators received threats.

Norris' cartoon inspired a campaign to create pictures of the Islamic prophet across the internet with over 100,000 people signing up on a Facebook page. A Pakistani court ordered access to Facebook there cut off for two weeks. Competing sites blasted the campaign also drew tens of thousands of followers.

Many Muslims find drawings and other depitcions of the Prophet Mohammed to be deeply offensive.

Norris said the consequences of the drawing were unintended. "I wasn't savvy," the cartoonist said in an interview last month with City Arts Magazine, where many of her cartoons were published. "I didn't mean for my satirical poster to be taken seriously. It became kind of an excuse for people to hate or be mean-spirited. I'm not-mean spirited," Norris said.

An editor at City Arts said neither the magazine nor Norris had any comment on the death threats against her.

Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamic terror groups online communications, said al-Awlaki's threats constituted a continued effort to reach a wider audience and should not be taken lightly.

"The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad [for al-Awlaki and his followers]," he said. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan."

In February an ax-wielding man broke into the home of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard who has been targeted by extremists for his drawing of Mohammed. He and his grandaughter hid in a fortified "panic room" during the attack.

The FBI might even tell you to change your name:

SEATTLE —A Seattle cartoonist who became the target of a death threat with a satirical piece called "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" has gone into hiding on the advice of the FBI.

Seattle Weekly editor-in-chief Mark D. Fefer announced in Wednesday's issue that Molly Norris' comic would no longer appear in the paper.

Fefer wrote that the FBI advised Norris to move, change her name and wipe away her identity because of a religious edict issued this summer that threatened her life.

"She is, in effect, being put in a witness-protection program - except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," Fefer wrote. He told The Associated Press on Thursday that he had nothing further to say because it's a sensitive situation.

Compare this to the FBI and U.S. Marshals Service's (USMS) reaction to an isolated crime in the Midwest with no connection to organized international religiously motivated terrorism. While the FBI is doing nothing to protect Molly Norris from an openly declared conspiracy to murder her, the FBI and USMS dropped everything on numerous occasions to respond as the personal security guards for abortionists and abortion clinics. Special Agents with the FBI and Deputy U.S. Marshals stood guard 24/7 to protect abortionists and their personal property, but all the FBI will do for Norris is some advice to run and hide.

And Hugh Hewitt says that Obama is not a Muslim. If he isn't a Muslim, why isn't he ordering the FBI and USMS to protect Norris just like he ordered the FBI and USMS to protect abortionists?

Thursday, September 16, 2010

Appeasement Does Not Work

The Japanese have tried it with the Chinese recently, but it only emboldened the Chinese. The ChiComs and liberals in the U.S. were enraged by visits of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine.
Outgoing Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi commemorated the anniversary of the end of World War II in the Pacific on Tuesday with a provocative visit to a Tokyo war shrine, a move seen as a parting shot at his critics in Asia who have decried his visits there as a glorification of Japan's militarist past.

Koizumi's annual trips to Yasukuni Shrine -- which is said to harbor the souls of 2.5 million fallen warriors, among them war criminals including Gen. Hideki Tojo -- have sharply heightened tensions with China and South Korea, both countries where memories of imperial Japanese aggression still run deep. However, until Tuesday, Koizumi had carefully avoided fulfilling an earlier campaign pledge to worship at the shrine on the sensitive anniversary of the end of World War II.

With only a few weeks left in his five-year tenure, Koizumi completed that promise on a drizzly Tuesday morning. Dressed in a formal morning coat and greeted by groups of enthusiastic Japanese nationalists, he made a solemn and deep bow at Yasukuni that was broadcast nationwide. It brought a fresh wave of anger in South Korea and China, whose relations with Tokyo have already reached their lowest point in decades in part because of the shrine visits.

South Korea and China immediately denounced the visit in the strongest terms. Even some officials in Koizumi's ruling alliance said they "regretted" his decision.

"We strongly protest against an action that has greatly hurt the feelings of the victims of Japanese military aggression and destroyed the political foundation of the China-Japan relationship," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said on its Web site.
Of course, the new Japanese government under the Democratic Party and Prime Ministers Hatoyama Kuiko and Kan Naoto capitulated to the Reds and refused to visit Yasukuni Shrine.
August 15 marked the 65th anniversary of Japan's World War II surrender. Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan and all of his cabinet members reportedly did not visit Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine; vice-ministers and administrative officials of the incumbent Japanese government also did not visit the war shrine on Sunday.This situation, which made Japan's ultraright forces depress or dishearten, has been rare or unprecedented for years, is by no means strange.First of all, both social and political trends in Japan and overseas today are being "de-ultraright". Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi made six pilgrimages to the Yasukuni Shrine during his tenure of office from 2001 to 2006, and seriously impaired Japan's relations with Asian neighbors and its global image. This led the whole Japanese society to remorse or introspect, and Japan's political ultraright tendency going to extremes has been resisted. Since Prime Minister Shinzo Abe came to power in September 2006, it has become a conventional practice for Japanese leaders not to pay respects to Yasukuni
Jinjya and, since the cabinet of Yukio Hatoyama was formed in Sept. 2009, all of his cabinet members have not paid any homage to the war shrine.Besides, principal members of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) were in firm opposition to Junichiro Koizumi's visit to the war shrine even when their party was a party in opposition. After former Prime Minister Koizumi paid homage to Yasujkuni Jinjya on August 15, 2006, Yukio Hatoyama, then as the secretary of DPJ, reprimanded his visit sternly from the perspective of facing up to the historical and national interests. Subsequently, the DPJ became the ruling party in late August that year instead of losing the ballot.
It was promised that better relations would follow, but encouraging the crocodile does not change the nature of the crocodile. As a result, the ChiComs have become more aggressive the Pacific.
With each passing day, China's reaction over last week's incident between a Chinese trawler and Japan Coast Guard vessels in the East China Sea appears to be escalating.

Diplomatic tension has increased with the cancellation of a senior legislator's visit to Japan this week as well as postponing bilateral talks aimed at signing a treaty over joint gas field development in the East China Sea.

And now, the situation has reached a point where it looks like Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao will not be holding a bilateral meeting in New York, where both leaders are expected to attend the United Nations General Assembly, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku said Thursday.

Critics doubt this issue will be drawn out for long but warn that Japan needs to be careful about how it deals with the situation so as not to inflame Chinese sentiment any more than it is to avoid serious damage to bilateral ties.

Akio Takahara, a professor of modern Chinese politics at the University of Tokyo, said both China and Japan know that the more important focus is to proceed with developing the "mutually beneficial relationship based on common strategic interests," a bilateral agreement made in 2008.

"China and Japan understand the basics that they need to find a good way to deal with the incident and focus on cooperating in areas of common interests," Takahara said. "I don't think this incident is something that will cause long-term and serious damage to bilateral ties."
Compared with several years ago when the bilateral relationship was severely strained by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Yasukuni Shrine, the current situation is not as bad, Takahara pointed out.

During Koizumi's time in power, there was strong anti-Japan sentiment in China and bilateral ties were seriously damaged. Koizumi did not visit China for five years, and summits weren't held for a year and a half.

For China, however, the clash in the East China Sea is about a deep-rooted territorial dispute and it can't back down against Japan easily, Takahara added.

"A territorial dispute is something that China definitely cannot give up because the country's existence depends on it," Takahara said. "Nationalism is much stronger there than in Japan and most of the Chinese people think their country should not compromise."
However, whether it was visiting Yasukuni Shrine or daring to resist Red Chinese encroachment on Japanese territory, the result was the same, an enraged Red China. Appeasing expansionary dictatorships results in more expansionary behavior. You might as well do both, as consilatory gestures did not work. And China seems perfectly willing to risk common strategic interests on both irrelevant issues like visits to the Yasukuni Shrine and in important self defense issues like protecting Japanese territory. Certainly lessons to learn over appeasing Muslims. Riots continue despite the fact that Pastor Jones did not burn any Korans. If the Korans had been burned, Muslims would have been alot more respectful because we stood up to them.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Aux Armes!

The Republique Francais stands up to the Eurpean Union bureaucrats and deports another 160 Gypsies. (h/t NRO!)
14 septembre. La Commission européenne annonce son intention de poursuivre la France en justice pour non-respect de la législation de l'UE et juge que sa circulaire visant les Roms est "une honte". Le même jour, 160 Roms sont expulses vers la Roumanie.
Courage et nationalisme! And the burqua and niquab went down as well. Will the hijab be next? One hopes and prays.
PARIS - The French Senate on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to ban the wearing of the Islamic all-body veil, or burqa, in all public places.

Following the passage of the bill in the National Assembly in July, the ban is now scheduled to become law early next year, after six months of mediation and briefings on what the law entails.
The law will impose a fine of about $190 or a lesson in citizenship on any woman caught wearing the burqa outside her home.

A man convicted of forcing a woman to wear the garment, meanwhile, would be liable to a fine of up to about $39,000 and a one-year prison sentence.

The approval of the bill, by a vote of 246 to 1, was widely expected, since the ruling UMP party has a sizable majority in the body and the opposition Socialists said they would not oppose it.
The law declares that "no one may wear a garment aimed at concealing his face in a public area." It does not, therefore, target the burqa specifically, but can also be applied to a demonstrator or anyone else who conceals his face with a hood and bandanna.

The bill was intentionally worded in a vague manner to avoid charges that it specifically targeted the Islamic community.
Of course the Reds and the ruling class are not going down without a fight:
However, Socialists as well as France's highest administrative body, the Council of State, have warned that a total ban on full-body Islamic veils in public risks being found unconstitutional. The Council of State warned earlier this year that even a limited ban would be difficult to enforce, since it risks violating the constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.

During the brief debate on the bill, Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie addressed this criticism, arguing that living in France with an uncovered face was "a question of dignity and equality."

She maintained that the ban as proposed by the government "is based on a constitutional foundation, public social order."

"Concealing one's face under the all-body veil is contrary to the public social order," Alliot-Marie said.

To test the constitutionality of the law, the speakers of both houses of parliament brought it before the French Constitutional Council, the highest court in the land.

Another Stupid LAPDog Flatfoot

Add Charlie Beck to the list of failed bureaucrats in blue. Like his amnesty whorshiping former collegue George Gascon, Beck and his ilk are causing William H. Parker to roll over in his grave. Parker created the legend and the reality of the modern professional police force, helped of course by Jack Webb (Dragnet, Adam-12). Beck, however, like most of his predecesors, is destroying the City of Angels and a moron to boot:
LAPD Chief Charlie Back said he was surprised by the protests and unrest that erupted in the Westlake district after an officer-involved shooting.

Beck believes the shooting of the man, a day laborer like many others in the neighborhood, quickly became a flashpoint that brought to the surface larger issues facing the impoverished community of immigrants from Guatamala and Central America west of downtown L.A., one of the most densely populated areas of the country.
"This community feels disconnected from the city," he said in an interview with The Times' Joel Rubin. "They feel like they don't have a voice. I think they feel a lot of pressure because of the anti-immigrant sentiment that runs through a very common conversation in America right now." Beck noted that Westlake has a highly transitory population, with immigrants from Latin America settling there when they arrive in L.A. only to move into other parts of the city as soon as they can. The eruption of anger and hostility laid bare for Beck the fact that the LAPD has fallen short in maintaining a level of trust and close ties with an ever-evolving population whose community leaders are often hard to find.

"When there is no identified leadership, no relationship established with the community's leaders, then the police department is ill-prepared or ill-equipped to handle controversial issues. There is nobody who can take our message and who can deliver their message," he said.
At least he is backing his officer in a rightous shoot, but blaming whitey just doesn't cut it. Like a moron he was "surprised" by the reaction of illegal aliens and minorities. Anyone with any experience in LA knows that minorities riot almost every time a cop shoots a skell...a minority skell. If Beck had been a good chief he would have had every single motor cop in LA deployed in Westlake as soon as the shooting hit the airwaves. An ounce of prevention would have been better than the many pounds of cure that he later deployed after the riots started.
Even better would have been repeal of Special Order 40 and an LAPD and ICE coordinated sweep of Westlake and other illegal alien areas.

Teh Ghey

Or cheese eating surrender-monkeys over at the Center for Security Policy. Generally, Frank Gaffney and crew there are on point over the threats to America, including that from Islam. However Gaffney has surrendered an important issue central to Christendom, or is called by some neo-cons, Western Civilization. I prefer the more accurate Christendom. An important part of our Christian civilization is morality. That murder is both immoral and illegal, just as theft is. One cannot have freedom if one is subject to murder and robbery on the streets. Of course it is Christianity that tells us both are immoral and illegal. Of course, most men know both are immoral, but the natural moral consience is not just a product of the natural law, but of our creation by our Creator. So is said for the issue of homosexuality. And let us deal honestly with homosexuality; its be all and end all is anal intercourse between two men. That is all it is. It, of course, has other aspects, usually drug use, treason, and other bad behavior, but, many do dress well. However, that is not enough to surrender to it in the fight against radical Islam.

And that is what Gaffney has done:

c. freedom of conscience; individual liberty (including in matters of personal privacy
and sexual preference);

Apparently anal intercourse has been accepted as a Constitutional right by the CSP despite the fact that we were not informed of this right until recently. Gaffney should know that homosexuality was illegal when this continent was first discovered by Christians, it was illegal under the laws of all of the Christian powers who settled this continent; French, Spanish, Portuguese, and English. It was illegal under the laws and traditions of the other Christians who came and settled under the authority of those Christian powers. These Christian powers displaced some of the most Satanic barbarians this world has ever known. Even Rome understood the barbarity of human sacrifice and canabilism and they crushed Carthage for her sins. So we crushed the barbarians, small and large, in the Americas. And so, under the Common Law and Christianity, homosexuality was illegal under the our British forebearers. So it was illegal in all the States who made up this Union. So it was punished until the influence of the enemies of Christendom slow started to roll back laws against homosexuality, sodomy and anal intercourse.

Does Gaffney and company, with so many Jews, forget the instructions in the Old Testament? Is there no memory of the punishments from God imposed on Sodom and Gomorrah? Do we need homosexuals in this coalition against Islam?

First, one must realize that homosexuals in the U.S. openly support the radical wing of the Demoncrat Party and have no problem with Islam. There is no divide on the left; homosexuality, Islam, abortion, gun control, no borders, and high taxes. They all go together. Homosexuals contribute nothing to opposition to any of those.

Second, will you sell out the natural law, God's revealed Law, and 200 years of tradition, for the illusion of a support from homosexuals? You surrender it for nothing.

Now this is not to say that we may not ridicule and stigmatize Muslims for executing homosexuals. The proper response is prayer, treatment, prison and social stimatism, not execution. But if you are a homosexual who supports no borders, gun control, criminalization of anti-homosexual speech, diversity, and the rest of the failed program of the left, do you think that they will vote to oppose Islam? They already accept that the First Amendment may be violated to prohibit criticism of homosexuality, blacks and other favored groups; why would they act to protect the First Amendment of critics of Islam? They have already surrendered the principle. Homosexuals who overwhelmingly vote for the Demoncrats who also oppose the Second Amendment. How do they figure in any coalition to protect the Constitution from the depradations of Islam? I think the gun nuts are more in line with opposing Sharia than the homosexuals.

More importantly though Gaffney and company are MIA on the immigration issue. Nothing at CSP or in Gaffney's public statements support any meaningful restrictions on the immigration of Muslims to the U.S. CSP and Gaffney refuse to support repeal of chain migration, the way in which most Muslims come to the U.S. The refuse to make the practice of Islam an excludeable offense, much like the practice of Communism once was. What is the point of opposing the imposition of Sharia on the U.S. if you refuse to keep the practitioners of Sharia out of the U.S.? Gaffney needs to look at the impact of immigration on the U.S. or all his concern about Sharia and terrorism will be for naught.

Friday, September 10, 2010

ICE: Missing In Action II

Just like the old saying there is never a cop around when you need one, Immigration and Customs Enforcement never is available even when their priorities say they will be. In this case, like its more famous predecessor case, Hawaiian Gardens, ICE is missing in action, again. (h/t Vdare)
ICE has repeatedly stated that its priorities are criminal aliens, terrorists and alien smuggling conspiracies. However, like the Hawaiian Gardens issue, ICE has allowed the FBI to take the lead in serious alien smuggling cases.
HONOLULU — Six recruiters were accused Thursday of luring 400 laborers from Thailand to the United States and forcing them to work, according to a federal indictment that the FBI called the largest human-trafficking case ever charged in U.S. history.

The indictment alleges that the scheme was orchestrated by four employees of labor recruiting company Global Horizons Manpower Inc. and two Thailand-based recruiters. It said the recruiters lured the workers with false promises of lucrative jobs, then confiscated their passports, failed to honor their employment contracts and threatened to deport them.

Once the Thai laborers arrived in the United States starting in May 2004, they were put to work and have since been sent to sites in states including Hawaii, Washington, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah, according to attorneys and advocates.

Many laborers were initially taken to farms in Hawaii and Washington, where work conditions were the worst, said Chancee Martorell, executive director for the Los Angeles-based Thai Community Development Center, which represents 263 Thai workers who were brought to the U.S. by Global Horizons.

A woman who answered the phone at Global Horizons' Los Angeles office refused to take a message seeking comment Thursday.

The six defendants include Global Horizons President and CEO Mordechai Orian, 45; Director of International Relations Pranee Tubchumpol, 44; Hawaii regional supervisor Shane Germann, 41; and onsite field supervisor Sam Wongsesanit, 39. The Thailand recruiters were identified as Ratawan Chunharutai and Podjanee Sinchai.

They face maximum sentences ranging from five years to 70 years in prison, according to the Department of Justice.

Orian wasn't home when the FBI attempted to arrest him in Los Angeles on Thursday, but his surrender is being negotiated, said FBI Special Agent Tom Simon. Orian's attorney, Alan Diamante, didn't return a phone message seeking comment.

Two were arrested Thursday morning in Los Angeles and Fargo, N.D., said Simon. Another Global Horizons employee was expected to turn himself in, and the United States will work with Thailand's government to apprehend the remaining two suspects.

"In the old days, they used to keep slaves in their places with whips and chains. Today it's done with economic threats and intimidation," Simon said.
It appears that even when a case meets its alleged priorities, ICE is too busy doing nothing, and, by inaction, or sometimes deliberate action, facilitating alien smuggling and slavery. Nice work if you can get it... I mean ICE work, not field work.

EDL Leader Denied Entry To US

Various websites are reporting that Tommy Robinson, leader of the English Defense League, has been refused entry into the United States by Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The most detailed is from Vladtepesblog which describes rather unusual and illegal proceedure by which Robinson was refused.
English Defence League leader Tommy Robinson flew in to John F. Kennedy airport in New York tonight. He planned to attend the demonstration against the Ground Zero mosque on September 11th, along with fellow members of the EDL and other European sympathizers who have come to the USA for the occasion.

According to EDL members who accompanied Mr. Robinson to New York, he was met by two policemen (or possibly two TSA officers) as soon as he stepped off the plane. They took him into custody and almost immediately put him on a plane back to London.

It’s like when Geert Wilders was sent back to the Netherlands from Heathrow, only a much longer flight. My sympathies go out to Tommy Robinson over the Atlantic right now, sitting through seventeen grueling hours of plane travel at one go.

The ostensible reason why he was deported was that he had filled out his entry form improperly, but it’s obvious that the British authorities had informed their DHS counterparts that he was coming, and advised them to send him back using any available pretext.

One of my EDL contacts says he was shadowed by British police at Heathrow right up until the moment he got on the plane. It’s even possible that plainclothes officers were on board with him during the flight.
First, he was not met by two policemen, as the police have no authority over persons seeking admission to the United States, and neither does the TSA. Only CBP has the authority over said persons and it has sole authority over arriving aliens as well.
It is very unlikely that he was lawfully refused entry, as the report describes him being met by CBP officers. One must know that arriving aliens who are removeable are very unusual now, as with the Electronic System For Travel Authorization (ESTA), makes surprise arrivals most unlikely. All arriving aliens using the visa waiver program register with this program before they arrive and they are notified if they are eligible to apply to enter the U.S. This is of course not a guarentee to entry, but it does ensure those on lookout lists, terrorists and criminals are not able to board an aircraft, much less arrive on one. In this case Robinson would have registered with ESTA and recieved permission to board. The report implies that he was being closely watched by Special Branch or MI-5 when departing. So they knew he was coming. Generally, someone on a terrorist watch list or a person with a criminal conviction, should not have recieved ESTA clearance to board the aircraft.

The report next says that Robinson filled out his entry form improperly. Of course we don't know if this is the Form 6059B, Customs Declaration, or the Form I-94W Arrival/Departure Record. However, he generally would not be completing the Form I-94W because that is completed in ESTA. If the alien completing ESTA answers a disqualifying question accurately, he is not allowed to board. If he anwsers incorrectly, such as denying he has a criminal conviction, then that will be addressed upon arrival. And if he had lied on his Customs Declaration, what did he lie about? The amount of money he was brining in?
But, as we know, they knew he was coming, and if he had lied on ESTA, such as about a criminal conviction, then why was he allowed to board, as again, the government knew he was coming.
Then there is the quick turn around. Refusing entry to an alien on the Visa Waiver Program requires alot of paperwork, including an indepth written series of questions several pages long. Add to that several different forms, fingerprinting and photographing, and we know that it is unlikely that he was on the return plane so quickly. It can be done, but it is difficult.
But, since CBP officers met him at the plane, they knew he was coming. Why was he allowed to then allowed to board?
More interesting is that CBP receives and reviews passenger manifests before flights leave the ground. Why wasn't the airline informed to remove him from the flight before it left?
I don't know if Robinson has a criminal conviction that prohibits entry to the U.S. I then don't know if he lied about it on his ESTA application. But it is all very fishy. Too bad he did not claim asylum, then they would have left him stay, but, unlike Muslims and others, he would have been held in custody. Usually asylum applicants are released. Except white ones.
So here we have it, strange doings at CBP.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Dead Horse Post

Two recent stories in the press have confirmed the new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy of not enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Concurrent to that, ICE has decided that the merger between the U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service is a failure.

First, the news on non-enforcement of the immigration laws of the United States where ICE has decided to not arrest aliens detained at traffic stops:
TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) - Letting illegal immigrants go free? Hard to believe but that could be the new federal mandate if a proposed ICE policy change is approved.

Here's the idea: If authorities pull someone over for traffic stop and discover they are in the country illegally, authorities would be forced to let the illegal immigrant go without calling federal agents unless the individual is a convicted felon.

Even officers opposed to SB 1070 say this would set a bad precedent.

Sheriff Tony Estrada of Santa Cruz County says nothing in southern Arizona would change if the detention policy changed. He says that's because his deputies turn these kinds of cases over to Border Patrol anyway.Just as some of the debate swirling around Arizona's new immigration law began to cool off, a possible new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy has some mad hot.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is very upset about possible policy changes to ICE that read in part, "Immigration officers should not issue detainers against an alien charged only with a traffic-related misdemeanor unless or until the alien is convicted."

Babeu said "now it appears what they have in some draft policies and their proposal is to water down any strength in the federal law whatsoever and this is clearly in direct opposition of what the people really want."

Even Santa Cruz County Sheriff Tony Estrada, who leaned strongly against SB 1070, thinks this sort of federal policy change is suspect. "It is surprising they would make that decision. I would suspect once an individual is identified as being here illegally, some process would kick in...that would deport that person," he said.

Ariz. Sen. Jon Kyl weighed in, along with Texas Sen. John Cornyn, writing this to Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano: "Based on our review of these memos, we are concerned that these new policies would circumvent, rather than promote the enforcement of, immigration laws pertaining to illegal aliens."
I, of course, informed you of this new policy some time ago.

And now ICE has decided to cave to the Sheriff of San Francisco City and County who does not want illegal alien criminals arrested:
U.S. immigration officials said Wednesday they will consider San Francisco's request to opt out of the controversial Secure Communities program that makes it easier for federal authorities to track down and deport undocumented immigrants.

Until now, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, has rebuffed San Francisco's contention that participation in the program is voluntary. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, a vocal opponent of the program, has said repeatedly that as head of the city's jail system he does not want to participate.

He fired off his latest letter to the head of the Secure Communities program Wednesday - a repeat of the same request he made Tuesday.

Federal authorities agreed Wednesday to review Hennessey's request and convene a meeting with involved agencies, including the California Department of Justice that under Attorney General Jerry Brown has been supportive of Secure Communities and opposed to Hennessey's requested exemption.

"Based upon those discussions, ICE and its partners will examine the options and seek a feasible resolution, which may include changing the jurisdiction's activation status," said ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice.
Feasible here means not arresting illegal aliens.

The connection here is that ICE, the unholy amalgamation of the investigative arms of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service has totally failed at its mandate to enforce both customs and immigration laws. It was a conflict of cultures and motivations. Like most shotgun marriages, it could not and did not work out.

Now the plan is to separate customs investigations into Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement and Removal Operations. The legacy INS personnel will be segregated to ERO and the legacy USCS employees to HSI. We will then have remade what we had before 9/11, a separate Customs Service and Immigration Service. Add to that the separate Customs and Border Protection, which is itself deeply divided between the old Inspections section, now the Office of Field Operations, and the Border Patrol. And, of course, there is the separate U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, USCIS, which hands out the benies. So, after 9/11, we will have five separate agencies dealing with immigration and two separate agencies dealing with customs laws. And we were told that before 9/11 two agencies were too many and there should be one face protecting the country. Now we will have five or seven, depending on how you count it. And one of those agencies will be entirely unmotivated in its job. But at least he Border Patrol is picking up the pace in the interior, replacing ICE's non-feasance.
Based on informants and tips, agents determined that smugglers had begun using tourist buses traveling into and out of Las Vegas to transport drugs and people.

"The only other way around that part of the country is to go through Las Vegas," Van Wagenen said.

U.S. Border Patrol officials spent months planning an "intelligence-based operation" and on July 29 sent agents from the Blythe station to conduct raids at several valley bus stations. They arrested 31 people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

Van Wagenen said 12 of those arrested had prior criminal histories, including charges of theft, prostitution and burglary, or immigration-related offenses. Some of the 31 were taken for processing at the Border Patrol station in Blythe. Others were released pending upcoming immigration hearing dates or have already been deported.

The raids began at the same time immigration rights groups had gathered at a local church to celebrate a judge's decision to block the most controversial sections of a new Arizona immigration law, including a section that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
Compare that to the 500,000 absondees from ICE: – The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) says that as of Sunday, Sept. 5, it had caught-and-released 506,232 illegal aliens who are now fugtives. That is more than the population of Sacramento, California, which currently numbers 486,189. Fugitive illegal aliens are individuals who were apprehended ICE for being in the United States illegally and then were released ahead of their court proceedings and deemed fugitive when they failed to appear in court.
The good news is that impeachment is starting to go mainstream:

I have little doubt that critics (and perhaps even fans) of these columns are tiring of my weekly harangue over the sorry performance of Barack Obama. And just when I think I can spend a week actually thinking about something else on which to comment, he renders such fancy impossible by proposing yet another inane scheme for spending our great, great, great grandchildren's hard earned tax dollars. This week is no exception...

So, the question arises, is it time to start using the "I" word? I pose this question without recommendation, with all due deference to the U.S. Constitution, which defines the criteria for such action vaguely as "high crimes and misdemeanors." Looking at the two presidential impeachments in U.S. history (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), neither of which resulted in expulsion from office, it is easy to dismiss both as political vendettas...

In Obama's case, virtually everything he proposes is at odds with the Constitution. Is that an impeachable offense? You make the call. In any case, right after the first of the year the GOP should be calling the shots in Congress.
All journey's start with a single step...circa January 2009.