Month: November 2018

Self-identified MS-13 gang member arrested by Border Patrol agents says he came to US with caravan: CBP

A self-identified MS-13 gang member arrested over the weekend told Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that he was part of the caravan of immigrants trying to enter the U.S. Agents working the El Centro Sector crossed paths with the man eastward of the Calexico Port of Entry in California on Saturday around 6 p.m., the agency said in a news release. Border Patrol agents questioned the man, who they “suspected of being in the United States illegally,” upon which he revealed he was a Honduran citizen and part of MS-13, CBP said. “The man also told agents he traveled to the United States border with a large group of people from Central America intending on filing for asylum in the United States,” the news release said. The individual was later identified as Jose Villalobos-Jobel, 29, who will be held until he’s ultimately sent back to Honduras, CBP said. “As President Trump and Secretary Nielsen warned, over the last few weeks we have identified over 600 known criminals and gang members in the caravan,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement. “We are now predictably seeing members of the caravan – which includes criminals – show up at the border and claim asylum. These threats are only going to increase in light of illegitimate judicial injunctions and loopholes created by Congress.”

President Trump was criticized by Dems and the dominantly liberal mainstream media when he said MS-13 and other bad actors were in this so-called “caravan of migrants.”  Apparently he was exactly right.  Of course this story isn’t being reported by those liberal news agencies, as it undermines their narrative.  Typical..

Supreme Court likely to say states can’t levy excessive fines

The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroin. A decision in favor of 37-year-old Tyson Timbs, of Marion, Indiana, also could buttress efforts to limit the confiscation by local law enforcement of property belonging to someone suspected of a crime. Police and prosecutors often keep the proceeds. Timbs was on hand at the high court for arguments that were largely a one-sided affair in which the main question appeared to be how broadly the state would lose. The court has formally held that most of the Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government, but it has not done so on the Eighth Amendment’s excessive-fines ban. Justice Neil Gorsuch was incredulous that Indiana Solicitor General Thomas Fisher was urging the justices to rule that states should not be held to the same standard. “Here we are in 2018 still litigating incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Really? Come on, general,” Gorsuch said to Fisher, using the term for holding that constitutional provisions apply to the states. Justice Stephen Breyer said under Fisher’s reading police could take the car of a driver caught going 5 mph (8 kph) above the speed limit. “Anyone who speeds has to forfeit the Bugatti, Mercedes or special Ferrari, or even jalopy,” Breyer said. Fisher agreed. It was unclear whether the justices also would rule to give Timbs his Land Rover back or allow Indiana courts to decide that issue. Some justices seemed willing to take that additional step. “If we look at these forfeitures that are occurring today … many of them are grossly disproportionate to the crimes being charged,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. But Chief Justice John Roberts said the question of whether what happened to Timbs was excessive might be a closer call. Timbs drove his car to the place where he twice sold small amounts of heroin to undercover officers, and he carried the drugs in the car, Roberts said. Police have long been allowed to seize property in such situations. “You will lose assets you used in the crime,” Roberts said. “You can see how that makes a lot of sense.” Lawyer Wesley Hottot, representing Timbs, told the justices that in rural areas people drive places. He said the use of the Land Rover was incidental to the sale of the drugs. The case has drawn interest from liberal groups concerned about police abuses and conservative organizations opposed to excessive regulation. A decision in Tyson Timbs and a 2012 Land Rover LR2 v. Indiana, 17-1091, is expected by June.

 

White liberals ‘patronize’ minorities: study

White liberals present themselves as less competent when addressing minorities, while conservatives use the same vocabulary no matter what the race of their audience, according to a newly released study. Yale and Princeton researchers found that both white Democratic presidential candidates and self-identified liberals played down their competence when speaking to minorities, using fewer words that conveyed accomplishment and more words that expressed warmth. On the other hand, there were no significant differences in how white conservatives, including Republican presidential candidates, spoke to white versus minority audiences. “White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent,” according to the study’s abstract. Cydney Dupree, Yale School of Management assistant professor of organizational behavior, said she was surprised by the findings of the study, which sought to discover how “well-intentioned whites” interact with minorities. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Ms. Dupree said. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” The study flies in the face of a standard talking point of the political left—that white conservatives are racist—while raising questions about whether liberals are perpetuating racial stereotypes about blacks being less competent than whites. The paper, which is slated for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, first examined speeches by Republican and Democratic presidential candidates to mostly white and mostly minority audiences dating back 25 years. Ms. Dupree and Princeton’s Susan Fiske analyzed the text for “words related to competence,” such as “assertive” and “competitive,” and “words related to warmth,” such as “supportive” and “compassionate.” “The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences,” said the Yale press release. “The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates.”

Just pause and let that all sink in..  We have a bunch of liberal professors from 2 spectacularly liberal elitist institutions of higher learning do a study, and their saddened to learn through their arduous research something the rest of America has known for years; that white liberals patronize minorities.  Imagine that!     🙂

PHOTOS: Melania Trump Shines Bright Assembling Red Cross Care Packages for American Troops

First Lady Melania Trump shined bright on Tuesday as she assembled care packages with the Red Cross for American troops and service members stationed overseas. Mrs. Trump embraced the families of American troops in a patriotic ensemble of entirely red, white, and blue — how appropriate! Mrs. Trump’s striped cashmere sweater is by Madeleine Thompson, matching the red stripe of the garment with her red skinny jeans and flats. In a speech at the Red Cross event, Mrs. Trump thanked the U.S. military for their service and their families for the sacrifices they have made. “I’m very thankful for the men and women in uniform who sacrifice daily to protect not only the American people, but our freedoms and way of life,” Mrs. Trump said. “Our prayers remain with all those serving overseas and the families who wait for them to come home.”

Please click on the text above to see photos and videos from yesterday’s event.  Major kudos to our First Lady for her efforts here.  She gets it!  Outstanding!!!      🙂

Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy scandal that left a young woman dead chronicled in new doc

Sen. Ted Kennedy’s political career was tarnished on July 18, 1969, when his car crashed off a bridge on the tiny Massachusetts island of Chappaquiddick, plunging into the dark waters of the tide-swept Poucha Pond and killing 28-year-old passenger Mary Jo Kopechne — a mystery that continues to haunt “America’s Royal Family.” The shocking events leading up to the political aide’s demise are the subject of Fox Nation’s new documentary titled “Scandalous: Chappaquiddick,” which aims to investigate how the youngest Kennedy narrowly escaped from drowning and returned back to his hotel room unharmed. The Fox Nation special features never-before-seen interviews and retellings of the events that night, cracking down on the truth, pieces of evidence and errors that were apparent. That fateful night, Kennedy offered Kopechne a ride from a party at Chappaquiddick — and less than 10 hours later her dead body was being pulled from the soaked vehicle. At the time of the accident, Kennedy told police he was “unfamiliar with the road,” and that he came up to a narrow bridge at which point the car “went off the side of the bridge.” According to a description from a 1969 New York Times article, the road approaching the bridge is “narrow” with “no warning side on the approach.” Kennedy also claimed he had “no recollection” of how he got out of the car but added he “came to the surface and repeatedly dove down to the car in an attempt to see if the passenger was still in the car,” noting he was “unsuccessful in the attempt.” The accident was not reported by Kennedy, but rather by a mother of a little boy who saw the overturned car in the pond when he was fishing. Kennedy later described his failure to report the incident to police as “indefensible.” At the time members of the media swarmed Chappaquiddick, right off the east coast of Martha’s Vineyard, and unraveled Kennedy’s multiple mistakes during the evening — derailing Kennedy’s presidential ambitions for certain. Kennedy would go on to become one of the longest-serving U.S. senators, despite previously speaking of a “Kennedy curse” following the incident, questioning whether “some awful curse did actually hang over all the Kennedys.” The circumstances surrounding Kopechne’s drowning remain muddled nearly 10 years after the senator’s death in 2009 at age 77.

How Ted ever got elected to the Senate, and was re-elected over and over, speaks to the mindset of the folks in MA during that time.  Had any one of us done the same thing, we would have been charged (and yes, convicted) of at least involuntary manslaughter and fleeing the scene of the crime.  But, he was a Kennedy.  So, he literally got away with murder, and became a U.S. Senator.  Typical..  For more on this story, click on the text above.

‘Charlie Brown Thanksgiving’ criticized as racist

You’re a racist man, Charlie Brown! Critics are slamming ABC’s “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” for seating its only black character, Franklin, alone on one side of the holiday table — in a rickety old lawn chair. Meanwhile, white friends — including Peppermint Patty, Charlie Brown, Sally and even Snoopy — were all seated across from him in real chairs as they feasted, Twitter users pointed out. The special, which debuted Nov. 20, 1973, aired again on Wednesday — prompting social media outrage over the gang’s highly unwoke picnic table arrangement. “Why is Franklin in Charlie Brown Thanksgiving sitting all by himself at the table. Man. Things that I did not notice as a child,” @Asharp52 blasted on Twitter. Others said good grief over a seating chart that would have thrilled George Wallace. “Not watching Charlie Brown Thanksgiving anymore, until they sit some people on the same side of the table as Franklin,” another critic tweeted, along with two black power-style fist emojis. The scene in question centers on an impromptu holiday feast — of toast, jelly beans and ice cream — in Charlie Brown’s backyard. At one point, poor lonesome Franklin topples over in his half-broken chair. “They give our friend the busted chair and won’t even sit on the same side of the table, more proof that Charlie Brown and his cohorts are RACIST,” slammed Twitter user @mwizzy128. But others defended the classic special, pointing out its creator Charles Schulz fought to add Franklin to the cast to stand up against racism in 1968. “Seriously please get some historical context. Charles M. Schultz was a trailblazer and bucked racism in those days by adding Franklin to reflect the issue… and challenging what was then going on in society,” tweeted California radio show host Mark Larson.

Exactly!!!  Well said Mark.  No, you’re not a racist, Charlie Brown.   🙂

Analysis: Trump is right about biased judges; Schumer acknowledges ‘highly political’ rulings

Like a basketball player who mistakenly shoots into his own basket and scores points for the opposing team, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has inadvertently backed President Trump’s accurate contention that there are liberal judges appointed by Democrats and conservative judges appointed by Republicans who rule differently on cases. After President Trump criticized U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of San Francisco on Tuesday for issuing an order to stop Trump’s new emergency restrictions on asylum claims by immigrants from taking effect – calling Tigar “an Obama judge” – Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts issued a rare public statement rebuking the president. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said Wednesday. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.” Schumer piled on, criticizing President Trump in a Friday tweet: “I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political …. But I am thankful today that he – almost alone among Republicans – stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.” OK, stop and think about that tweet. If Schumer calls Roberts a Republican and believes the chief justice issues “partisan decisions which seem highly political” he is corroborating President Trump. The New York Democratic senator sank one for the president. President Trump was stating a fact when he noted that district and appellate court judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit – which exercises jurisdiction over nine Western states and two U.S. island territories – tend to support liberal and Democratic positons in their rulings. Roberts was right to say an independent judiciary is essential and an ideal that judges should strive for. But we live in the real world, not an ideal world. In the real world, judges are not computers, all coming to identical conclusions on cases. Judges are individuals who come to the bench with different life experiences, different judicial philosophies, and – yes – different political views. That’s why they don’t always reach the same conclusions on the same cases. President Trump’s observation about the 9th Circuit undercuts respect for rulings from that circuit, but the truth hurts. As the old saying goes, “facts are stubborn things.” Here, the facts are with President Trump, if you look at the numbers. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – where I served as a law clerk many years ago – has swung incontrovertibly to the left over the past 30 years. The president correctly stated that lawyers opposing his policies forum shop to bring their cases before federal judges appointed by Democrats, because they know such judges are more likely to rule in their favor. An increasing number of these judges seem enamored of the media attention their anti-Trump rulings garner. Media adulation encourages “judicial dicta” – court rulings that go beyond facts presented in a case and the application of law to those facts. District judges in the 9th Circuit are issuing imperious rulings, particularly on immigration cases. In some cases, they have claimed their rulings apply to every federal court in the nation. But that is not how the law works. Not surprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently overturned hard-left decisions coming out of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The nation’s highest court accepts cases for review when four members believe circumstances warrant. Typically, a case must be of significance, involve conflicting rulings by appellate courts, or deal with a major contested question. While only a fraction of appeals to the Supreme Court receive review, the American Bar Association reports that 80 percent of the 9th Circuit rulings reviewed by the Supreme Court are overturned. Only one circuit has a higher percentage of overturned cases – the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. They are overruled 83 percent of the time. Notably, that court has 17 Democratic appointees and nine Republican appointees at the district level, and seven Democratic appointees and three Republican appointees active at the appellate level. Altogether, there are 24 Democratic appointees and only 12 Republican appointees. Similarly, in the 9th U.S. Circuit, Democratic appointees outnumber Republican appointees 116 to 33 at the district court level. At the appellate level, Democratic appointees number 16, Republicans just seven. Moreover, of the 132 active Democratic-appointed federal judges within the 9th Circuit, 66 – including Judge Tigar, who was criticized by President Trump – were appointed by President Obama. In other words, 57 percent of Democratic appointees to the 9th Circuit are “Obama judges.” And yes, these are the ones who have made headlines ruling against this President Trump. In effect, what these numbers suggest is exactly what President Trump asserts – that Democratic-appointed judges in the 9th Circuit are out of sync with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, consistently leaning too far left, and with a majority Democrat appointees, most of whom are Obama appointees. Run a counterproof. What is the least-reversed circuit – the one most in sync with the Supreme Court? The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which was reversed only 55 percent of the time. What is that circuit’s composition? Republican appointees outnumber Democrats nine to two. Bottom line: An independent judiciary, in the best tradition of Chief Justice John Marshall, is vitally important. Judges should decide cases in a nonpartisan way. They should review facts impartially, then apply law without personal prejudice or political preference, resolve disputes on narrow legal grounds, construe the Constitution strictly, defer to other branches as constitutionally appropriate, and avoid legislating from the bench. To this extent, Justice Roberts is correct – and in sync with what President Trump and traditional constitutionalists say: America needs a credible, nonpolitical, and independent judiciary. That is and should be a shared goal. However, absent a conscious effort to avoid politics – and in the case of Democratic-appointees, to avoid legislating from the bench – judges who first rose from politics to their judicial appointments seem to drift backward toward their political leanings. President Thomas Jefferson worried about this exact problem. In 1801, he foresaw judicial overreach and warned – even then – that leaders of the political opposition “have retreated into the judiciary as a stronghold, the tenure of which renders it difficult to dislodge them.” In 1807 Jefferson wrote to a friend: “The original error … (was) establishing a judiciary independent of the nation and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will.” So while we all wish for an independent judiciary – judges who apply the law strictly and on a nonpartisan basis – the 9th U.S. Circuit stands out like a sore thumb. The judges have progressively drifted from the ideal. Accordingly, the facts are with President Trump on this one.

Agreed 100%!!  Thanks to Robert Charles for that spot-on legal op-ed. Robert Charles is a former assistant secretary of state for President George W. Bush, former naval intelligence officer and litigator. He served in the Reagan and Bush 41 White Houses.