Thursday, August 21, 2008
By Doug McIntyre
Today is the 164th day since police say an illegal-alien gangbanger named Pedro Espinosa shot and killed 17-year-old high school football star Jamiel Shaw II.
The 164th day since Jamiel Shaw Sr. heard the gunshots that took his son's life and propelled him down the block to find his boy dead in the road.
The 164th day since Sgt. Anita Shaw was sent home from Iraq to bury her son, murdered three doors down from the Shaw home while she protected other mothers' sons half a world away.
Today also marks the 164th day the city of Los Angeles has done nothing to right this dreadful wrong.
Yes, Espinosa has been arrested. Yes, he will be prosecuted and most likely convicted. But this pathetic scenario will be replayed again and again until the City Council and the mayor give up their deadly pig-headed devotion to political correctness.
Who are they kidding? Their blind devotion to Special Order 40 is killing our kids - it's killing black kids, brown kids and white kids. Political correctness has produced a diversity of death.
Sanctuary city policies can no longer be ignored.
The murder of Jamiel Shaw II should have been enough to mobilize Los Angeles to crush once and for all the plague of gangs. Instead, it mobilized a loathsome political damage-control campaign orchestrated by members of the City Council itself: Herb Wesson's pathetic attempts to keep Jamiel Shaw Sr. and Anita Shaw from speaking out; Dennis Zine's attempt to co-opt Walter Moore's proposed "Jamiel's Law" revision of Special Order 40 with a toothless do-nothing piece of fluff designed to look like action while maintaining the status quo; and finally, Jack Weiss, the man who hopes to be city attorney, the chairman of the council's Public Safety Committee, has kept even Zine's faux "Jamiel's Law" bottled up.
It does make one wonder who these people work for.
The murder of Jamiel Shaw should have been enough. Just as the murder of 23-day-old Baby Luis near MacArthur Park should have been enough, or the murder of 14-year-old Cheryl Green should have been enough, or the murder of then-LAPD Police Chief Bernard Parks' granddaughter should have been enough. Apparently we have an infinite capacity for carnage.
Those who claim a crackdown on black and Hispanic gangs is somehow "racist," or profiling, or political suicide, continue to stonewall and "study" what is obvious to everyone else - the gangs need to be crushed. This is not complicated, folks. Sanctuary city policies kill. Special Order 40 allows illegal-alien gangbangers to move about unmolested. We have enough home-grown barbarians without importing contraband killers.
Meet Danielle Bologna. Authorities say her husband of more than 20 years and both her boys were slaughtered on a sunny Sunday afternoon in San Francisco by Edwin Ramos, another illegal-alien gangbanger. Just like Jamiel's killer, Ramos was well known to the police and sheltered by Mayor Gavin Newsom's belligerent, in-your-face, open-border policies.
While Danielle Bologna buried half her family, Newsom honeymooned in Africa and was recently spotted lunching in Malibu with Gary South, presumably planning his run for governor.
And this week, Polytechnic High School in the Valley lost its second football player in four months to gang gunfire! Sixteen-year-old Edward Satterstrom was murdered in North Hollywood, police say, by 18-year-old David Aranda Hernandez.
Councilman Tony Cardenas called the murder "a random act of violence." It wasn't. Gang homicides are far too frequent in L.A. to be called random. While pimples and gawkiness, shyness and braces used to be a rite of passage, today's teens face a crucible of violence. An indifferent public allows casket after casket to be lugged to the boneyard.
Los Angeles Police Department Lt. Alan Hamilton hit the nail on the head: "The community has a responsibility to get suspects like this (Hernandez) into custody." That's right. The community also has a responsibility to elect council members who will work to ban body bags, not plastic bags.
Ask your City Council member what they're doing today that's more important - 164 days and counting.
first appeared at L.A. Daily News
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
A suspected illegal immigrant - free after being shielded from deportation by San Francisco officials despite committing two gang-related assaults as a juvenile - is now facing charges that he tried to stab a man to death in San Mateo County, authorities say.
The case of Eric Antonio Uc-Cahun, now 19, is the second in which a youth offender protected from deportation in San Francisco has gone on to be arrested for a violent crime as an adult. The San Mateo County stabbing was especially vicious, authorities said - a top prosecutor said the victim had been "gutted, like you gut a pig."
Uc-Cahun's history of youth offenses in the city was similar to that of Edwin Ramos, a 21-year-old Salvadoran native facing triple-murder charges in connection with the June slayings of a San Francisco man and two of his sons on an Excelsior district street.
"How many of these people are there who were the beneficiaries of this process?" asked Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney for Northern California, who has been critical of the city's practice of shielding of immigrants from deportation.
"This is what happens when the best intentions are misapplied," Russoniello said. "If there was any justification for this program, cases like this certainly undermine that expectation."
And... in what is now a common story here, the perp had a LOOOONG history of criminal activity - and hand-slap "punishment" - before nearly killing a man...
Uc-Cahun's criminal history as a juvenile dates at least from Aug. 13, 2006, when San Francisco police reports show that he was arrested along with two other suspected gang members in the assault on a man at Dolores Park. The victim was hit in the head and threatened with a gun after the group demanded to know whether he was a gang member, according to the reports.
Uc-Cahun did not cooperate with police, refusing even to say where he lived, authorities said. The police report on the attack says Uc-Cahun was a Sureño gang member known as "Tweety" who had "numerous prior contacts" with law enforcement.
Uc-Cahun, then 17, was taken to juvenile hall and eventually was found to have committed felony assault. A San Francisco juvenile court placed him on probation and freed him from juvenile hall.
On Oct. 18, 2006, shortly after his release, Uc-Cahun was arrested again, this time for allegedly being part of group that accosted a stranger on the street and ripped a chain from his neck.
He spent four months in juvenile hall before being found responsible for a single charge of felony assault. He turned 18 by the time he was freed in February 2007 and put on a year's probation.
Uc-Cahun was still on probation May 22, 2007, when he and several other suspected gang members allegedly jumped a man waiting for a ride on the 2700 block of Bayshore Boulevard in Daly City, said Steve Wagstaffe, chief deputy district attorney for San Mateo County.
Three men approached, accused the man of being a rival gang member and started beating him with a broomstick that eventually broke, Wagstaffe said. Other members of the group stripped the man of his jacket, and Uc-Cahun allegedly used a box cutter with a 2-inch blade to slash his abdomen open in two places.
"He basically gutted him, like you gut a pig to get to the meat," Wagstaffe said. The man survived and later identified Uc-Cahun as the man with the box cutter.
A month later, a still-jailed Uc-Cahun allegedly wrote a letter to a friend, providing the name and address of the victim and suggesting that the friend "take care of things," Wagstaffe said. San Francisco police executing a search warrant in May at a suspected gang house found the letter, he said.
Uc-Cahun was charged with witness intimidation along with attempted murder, robbery and other gang-related counts.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
...urging the city to let young immigrant offenders stay in the city. The commission advises the Board of Supervisors and mayor about issues involving immigrants.
It called on San Francisco to pay nonprofit community groups to screen juvenile offenders to determine whether they should be entitled to city-paid immigration attorneys who would help them seek asylum as victims of abandonment, trafficking or abuse.
It also urged the city to provide adequate resources for placing the youths in "culturally appropriate" community programs approved by the juvenile court system, a policy that federal prosecutors have said was akin to harboring illegal immigrants.
And it advised the city to develop and expand safe housing, jobs and other opportunities for unaccompanied immigrant youth "because these youth are extremely vulnerable to exploitation by adult criminals."
How about "No, and fuck you to hell." Is that a good answer?
According to Newsom Spokesman Nathan Ballard, the Mayor has no intention of backtracking on his directive to turn illegal alien minor felons to the Feds.
Newsom spokesman Nathan Ballard said the mayor appreciated the commission's input but "has directed the juvenile probation department in no uncertain terms" to turn over juvenile felons to federal immigration authorities.
"Ultimately, the decisions must be made by the mayor, and that is where the buck stops," Ballard said.
Chief Numbnuts of the Commission Jamal Dajani said, "What happened in that unfortunate murder case created a lot of political debate, but, in the end, you cannot make a blanket policy to treat all juveniles the same," he said. "We shouldn't be punishing everyone because of one case, where we had a breakdown in the system."
First of all, I find it hilarious that this bitch is whining about a blanket policy, and yet these same assholes are the ones bitching for a blanket amnesty, that gives all illegal aliens - including felons, killers, and prisoners - all the rights of a law-abiding citizen.
Secondly, as for the "breakdown in the system," this is a system designed to shield criminals. There was no breakdown. It worked like a charm. And the Bologna-family killer would probably be safe in his home country now if the system had worked to its conclusion.
Once again, the answer to the Comission's recommendations: NO, and fuck you to hell!
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The conquest of poverty (to borrow the title of Henry Hazlitt's classic) requires just two weapons: wealth and compassion. So the only real question is: Who can better provide these – civil society ("the market") or the political state?
The answer as it regards wealth has now been settled: "[C]apitalism has won," conceded left-aligned economic historian Robert Heilbroner in 1989. "Socialism," conversely, "has been a great tragedy this century."
Paul Samuelson's famous textbook a few years later deemed state production the "failed model." It is a society of free people, not coercive government, that produces wealth. And yet, most bizarrely, liberals still believe it is government, not people, that possesses the compassion necessary to redistribute some of that wealth to those who find themselves in need of aid (a percentage of any population). Society will starve the poor, but the State won't.
How did it come to that? Mostly from the premise If government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done. But if we followed that consistently, we'd wind up right back with the "failed model" of socialist state planning of production and everything else, e.g., Stalin and Ceausescu's prohibition of abortion or the Chinese Communists' imposition of (even late-term) abortion. It is a premise refuted by an insight from an American Founder. We know Madison and his politics of limited government, we know Jefferson and his morality of individual rights, but we often forget Paine and his philosophy of the primacy of society over the State:
A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all parts of a civilized community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost every thing which is ascribed to government.
We don't need state charities for the same reason we don't need state churches, state families, or state anything else, i.e., we don't need state socialism because we already have civil society. Government, organized armed force, exists only to provide governance -- basically, defense against the violent criminal element (domestic and foreign, e.g., bin Laden). Condemning limited government for not performing the functions of the charity, the church, the family, the firm, the school, and the other organs of the body politic is like condemning the skeleton for not performing the functions of the brain, the heart, the stomach, the liver, the lungs, and the other organs of the body proper. Freedom is the framework that secures all other virtues.
Ironically, the widely expressed fear that people won't voluntarily help those who can't help themselves -- the foremost objection to the free market -- is self-refuting. If everyone is concerned about the poor primarily, then what's the problem? Religionists and secularists of virtually all stripes proclaim identical sentiments when it comes to aiding the less fortunate. And yet we have this theater-of-the-absurd chorus with each member wailing that he alone cares about his fellow man.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
"American Calcutta" by Ralph Peters
August 2, 2008 --
ONE of the best ways to see a city's bones is to take a long jog in the hour before dawn. That's what I did in San Francisco this week.
The city reminded me of Calcutta.
By day, the camouflage of color and crowds makes the multitudes of homeless less apparent. At the chilly end of the night, though, they lie strewn on the sidewalks like plague victims, wrapped in filthy blankets and abandoned.
New Yorkers have no idea how bad a homeless crisis can be.
I didn't even run in the rougher sections, where old garbage fills the alleys and druggies prowl. My course ran from the slopes of Nob Hill, south of Union Square, down to the Embarcadero, up to North Beach and back. That's the better part of downtown.
My new symbol of San Francisco is a man with ulcerous calves exposed, head and torso thrust into a cardboard box in front of a Prada boutique.
What I saw as I sidestepped bodies wasn't just the failure of social policies, but a collective flight from responsibility. Shrugging our shoulders and declaiming The homeless deserve the right to make their own choices! just lets us all off the hook.
I refuse to romanticize the homeless - unlike those who live in San Francisco's multimillion-dollar Victorians and idealize the homeless from a distance, then cross the street to avoid giving a deranged beggar a quarter.
When it comes to the capable-but-unwilling homeless, John Stuart Mill's rule applies: The individual is entitled to the maximum individual freedom compatible with the freedom and well being of others. As long as he or she poses no criminal, health or aggravated-nuisance threats, the rest of us just have to suck it up.
My problem lies in our moral cowardice regarding those who aren't capable of making sane decisions. When we write off a man or woman who is clearly disturbed, incapable of basic sanitary practices and living at a level below that we accord our pets, we shouldn't pat ourselves on the back for giving him or her a handout now and then.
We're avoiding the hard moral choices, the questions whose best answers still leave us uneasy: We worry more about stray dogs and cats than we do about stray humans.
God may help those who help themselves - but it's left to the rest of us to help those who can't help themselves. Abandoning the incompetent to the streets helps no one.
Can't we have the moral integrity to admit that deinstitutionalization of the "nondangerous" mentally ill has been a disaster? Why is it more humane to let a badly disturbed individual sink into disease and squalor than to provide him or her with a structured existence?
For the left, it's all about the cruel fantasy of the cuddly homeless (as long as they don't actually have to cuddle them). For the right, abandoning the incompetent to the streets trimmed state and county budgets. Everybody wins - except the helpless.
I didn't just compare San Francisco to Calcutta for effect. My pre-dawn runs through the City by the Bay really did conjure morning jogs past huddled families and the occasional corpse in India.
But the comparison's unfair - to Calcutta. Bengali economic refugees staking a claim to a bit of crumbling sidewalk are seeking jobs; they have hope. San Francisco's homeless have no future beyond platitudes and handouts.
There are other similarities between the two cities: Left-wing traditions and governments; splendid cuisine and an artsy scene for the fortunate; quirky bookstores and a coffee-house culture for poets and musicians. But Calcutta's underrated, while San Francisco's overrated (and dirtier each time I visit).
The greatest difference between the two isn't the greater wealth of San Francisco, but the sense of the homeless as fellow human beings in Calcutta. From its asylum policies for violent illegal immigrants to its dog-biscuit "generosity" to the homeless, San Francisco's a city of ethically oblivious hypocrites: 6,377 homeless, 776,733 heartless.
As I walked the streets in the light of day, foreign tourists dodged the meandering, muttering homeless. I was ashamed of the image those visitors would take home.
I wished those tourists had chosen Manhattan instead. Or even, God help us, Washington, DC. The only thing San Francisco ever gave this country was bubonic plague.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Reconquista, alleged American, corrupt Chicago politician, race-baiter, and all-around pusbag Luis Gutierrez sank to a new low by calling ICE "Gestapo Agents" and once again demanded amnesty for criminals.
Congressman Gutierrez has been a long-time proponent of amnesty and opponent of immigration enforcement. He even went so far recently as to openly call for a suspension of all such immigration enforcement actions until Congress passes "comprehensive" immigration reform. However, in an article appearing in the online publication The Politico on Aug. 6, Gutierrez lowered himself to using inflammatory rhetoric simply unacceptable for a member of Congress. "You know who is in charge now? The Gestapo agents at Homeland Security. They are in charge," Gutierrez told The Politico.
"Every American should be offended and outraged by comparisons between our dedicated public servants risking their lives every day to enforce our immigration laws and the Nazi secret police, no matter who is making the comparison. That such a vile statement was made by a member of Congress is truly reprehensible and irresponsible," said Dan Stein, president of FAIR.
Fortunately, DHS Assistant Secretary Julie Myers is not taking the little weasel's words lying down, and has called for Gutierrez' censure by the House of Representatives.
Let's state the obvious here: Here we have a member of the United States Congress, who has sworn to uphold the laws of the USA and protect it from all enemies foreign and domestic, calling the enforcers of his country's immigration laws "Gestapo agents."
What to make of it? Simple... the United States is clearly not "his" country: Mexico is. His allegiance is to his illegal alien brethren, and not to the country he seeks to invade and conquer.
Gutierrez is a little fucking punk, and a danger to this country. He should be censured... and then deported.