AOC Plays Hide 'N Seek With the Facts

Her biggest problem so far is learning to count to 100...

Exploiting Dead Cops for Political Gain Ought to be a Crime...

...so says Ruben Navarrett Jr. in my local dead tree paper yesterday morning. My first instinct was to move it right along to the recycling bin where it would do the most good. But since this goes well beyond the Left's typical hypocrisy, I thought it should have a reply. Mr. Navarett states:

It is grotesque that anyone would ever seize on the killing of a police officer for political purposes. Alas, the practice is bipartisan.

"Grotesque" Noted.

On the right, when the alleged assailant is an illegal immigrant, we often see a cheap and shrill attempt to turn the grief of families and communities over a fallen guardian into outrage over illegal immigration and "open borders."

A "cheap and shrill attempt to turn the grief of families and communities... into outrage" Got it.

You see, for me, the concept of dead policemen is personal and painful. It's not just another issue du jour to be played with. Still, mercenary politicians use it as a chew toy. May they choke on it.

May I suggest that Mr. Navarrett either didn't go far enough, didn't think it through or couldn't see past his own biases?

Maybe the outrage should be when people seize on any killing for political purposes? Recently, on the border, two children died because of medical problems related to their long trek across Mexico. How many on the Left immediately made a "cheap and shrill attempt" to turn the grief of families and communities over these children into outrage over Trump's immigration and borders policies, or against ICE and the Border Patrol?

After Sandy Hook, the "ghouls of gun control" seized on the killing of children for political purposes, proposing numerous gun control methods, none of which would have prevented the shootings. Or at Parkland, where laws already on the books, had they been properly enforced, would have taken the shooter off the street, long before the fateful shooting. "Grotesque", as Mr. Navarrett would say.

In Ferguson, Missouri, there were those who seized on the killing by a police officer for political purposes, giving birth to the bogus "Hands up, don't shoot" movement.

The practice is bipartisan, but alas, it seems to primarily find its home on the Left. If Mr. Navarrett wants to criminalize or at best stigmatize the killing of a police officer for political purposes, may I suggest that he expand his horizons to include the deaths of those shot by the police until such time as they can be thoroughly investigated? The deaths of illegal immigrants who tragically may be sick or dying before they ever enter the country is also not "another issue du jour to be played with", not a "chew toy".

Time for Mr. Navarrett to step up and not be choked by his own chew toys of deaths that he approves of politicizing, not just the ones he disapproves.

Now, it's ready for the recycling!

There's a Lesson in There Somewhere...

Well, They DO Have the Same Voting Rights as Illegal Aliens!

" The Military Can Secure the Border and Build the Wall"

"...the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.

Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue. But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.

-Daniel Greenfield

More here

All The News That Fits...Our Agenda

Are you old enough to remember when the news and reporting was impartial? Okay, me neither. But are you old enough to remember when at least you thought the press was impartial? I point you to a story from the venerable AP:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — About 800 “criminals” avoided immigration arrests because Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf alerted the public to the surprise operation, an extraordinarily high number of missed targets, according to a federal official.

Notice the "scare quotes" around "criminals"? University of Sussex has this to say abut that:

Quotation marks used in this way are informally called scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotation marks placed around a word or phrase from which you, the writer, wish to distance yourself because you consider that word or phrase to be odd or inappropriate for some reason.

According to the feds, via the AP, half the people they've arrested in the Bay Area, in addition to immigrations violations, had criminal convictions for "assault, weapons offenses and driving under the influence." In personalizing the story for my local dead tree paper, there was this:

ICE said agents detained at least one Stockton man, from Mexico, who had been convicted for lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 years old.

Let's recap... the AP puts "scare quotes" around the word criminal, in describing illegal aliens, who are prima facie criminals, but in addition have been, not accused, but convicted of various criminal acts, including assault, weapons offenses, DUI and lewd lascivious acts with a minor, and yet the AP doesn't want to call them criminals without some sort of wiggle room?

The use of scare quotes in describing illegal aliens as criminals is editorializing, which belongs on the editorial page, not the lede of what in the olden days, was envisioned to be impartial reporting. This is what you get when you have students at journalism schools telling you they want to change the world.

Chuck Schumer in 2009: Illegal Immigration is wrong, Plain and Simple

...and using the term "undocumented workers" shows the government is not serious about the problem.

Quote du jour

"When we use phrases like 'undocumented workers,' we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration"

-Chuck Schumer

There are Lies, Damned Lies and Juan Williams

If Mr. Williams' inability to tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants is caused by a brain tumor, please rush him to the nearest hospital. If he is merely parroting the same Leftist talking points that conflate legal and illegal aliens, then he should be ashamed of himself.

*Your President May Vary

Illegal Aliens

Loose Screws

"You May Say I'm a Dreamer..."

Si Se Puede!

"Is San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy a License to Kill?"

The headline of this post, "Is San Francisco's Sanctuary Policy a License to Kill?", and the dead tree editorial I took it from, might seem to be a bit hyperbolic, or extreme. Until you consider when it was published: December 5, 2012.

Debra Saunders wrote a piece on the appalling regularity that illegal aliens* are involved in fatal car crashes, highlighting the death of a motorcyclist, Drew Rosenberg, who was hit by an illegal alien, driving without a license, who then proceeded to back over the victim's body.

Saunders notes:

This sanctuary city has been so eager to protect illegal immigrants who cannot obtain California drivers' licenses (written in 2012) that in 2009, then Mayor Gavin Newsom announced that the city would no longer impound the cars of unlicensed drivers automatically.

The law** was written that unlicensed drivers, all of them, without exception, as a deterrent, should forfeit their vehicles as a result of their lawlessness. However, in their magnanimousness, San Francisco decided that while confiscation of cars from pallid people without licenses was perfectly just, some accommodation needed to be made for those among us without the proper documentation, thus, a "Get out of Jail & Keep Your Car" card for those unable to obtain Green cards.

But, hey! In for a penny, in for a pound. SF was already in violation of federal law in shielding illegal aliens, why not violate state law as well, to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

Saunders then went on to detail the various organizations rallying to the defense of illegals - all the usual suspects-, but then, in her naivete, she suggests that illegal aliens who use vehicles to kill somebody should be deported.

I say naivete, because we now know, from the example of Francisco Sanchez, that deportation is not a deterrent, not when we have a revolving door on the border. The most pressing issue we have with illegal immigration is not the status of those who are already here, but slowing and deterring as much as humanly possible, the entry and reentry of undesirable persons of every race and color.



*non citizens who enter the country illegally, for those of you who have trouble grasping the concept of "illegal"
**law: that thing which is supposed to be binding upon everyone without exception when it comes to, say, Obamacare and gay marriage, but is totally optional for discriminating liberal municipalities who, to quote Ms. Saunders once again,

"...care more about people who break the law than the law abiding public."

Straight Talk from Judge Jeanine on Sanctuary Cities

Mr. President: There is No 'Shot Clock' in the Constitution

President Obama and his sycophantic supporters have made the argument ad nauseum, that since the House failed to pass a certain Senate bill, within a certain amount of time, that President Obama was free to act on his own to unilaterally "fix" the immigration problem. Conservatives, however, keep bringing this "Constitution" thingy into the argument.

Where in the Constitution does it say that any particular piece of legislation passed in the Senate must be voted on in the House within a certain amount of time, or the President gets a free pass to write his own legislation? Moreover, all the faux indignation and self righteous intonation of "two whole years", "seventeen months*", or "514 days", since the Senate passed an immigration bill, completely overlooks the fact that the House did pass a number of immigration reform bills which Senator Harry Reid (Dimbulb- Searchlight) refused to bring up for a vote in the US Senate. The fact that your opponents will not necessarily vote on a bill they disagree with,  also does not give you carte blanche to do whatever you please.

Even though there is no "shot clock", "pass them or else" time limit on Senate bills, you'd think that sooner or later, the US Senate might get around to actually passing a budget. The Senate hasn't passed a budget since 2009. (That's 1851 days for all you anally retentive, math impaired Democrats). Where was the indignation over this?  Beuller?   Beuller??

And yet, and yet...mirabile dictu! I have not heard a single Republican leader tell us that because the Senate has failed to pass a budget in over five years, that they get a free pass to impose their will upon the nation!

We now return you to the relentless coverage of rioting in Ferguson by those protestors who believe that nothing says 'I want to see justice done' like burning down someone else's business and stealing someone else's stuff.


* We'll forgive math impaired Democrats for not knowing that "two years" and "seventeen months" are not the same!

Update: (Of sorts) Through some glitch in Disqus (?) some of your comments come to me as

Proof Positive: Herr Präsident: Es gibt keine 'Schuss Clock "in der Verfassung

Just in case you were wondering how my headline translates into German...

Original art by John Cox. More at John Cox Art

Remember the Words of Jeb Bush...

...if he ever runs for president.

Fits Right In...

Most Transparent Administration...Evah!

Michael Ramirez on The Influx of Illegal Immigrant Children

This seems to dovetail nicely with the John Cox cartoon this AM.


From the incomparable Michael Ramirez. I actually stumbled across this 'toon while looking for a different great, Ramirez cartoon!