Exploring what can happen when people think for themselves.
I’ll follow up on this story, but the initial report is that the driver told the police officer that he was carrying a pistol and had a permit, and the driver was then shot. Well, that’s one way to discourage legal concealed carry by law-abiding citizens.
Minn. Man Fatally Shot By Police While Inside A Car With A Woman And Child
Does this ring a bell? I think it was just last week that Republicans were blamed for blocking a gun control vote. Seems it goes both ways…
In any event, the Democrats blocked two Republican bills that would have: increased penalties for illegal aliens that repeatedly re-enter the country AND have an aggravated felony conviction; and revoked federal grants for sanctuary cities that do not honor federal requests for detaining illegal aliens.
An except from a second article on the topic quotes Democratic minority leader Harry Reid as saying, “These bills follow Trump’s lead in demonizing, criminalizing immigrant, Latino families.”
I disagree, Harry; they seem to be demonizing violent felons who also repeatedly violate our immigration laws. Families aren’t even mentioned, let alone Latinos. I just don’t see the harm in locking up violent felons who are here illegally, and I’ll bet if you ask the law-abiding, honest, hard-working immigrant families upon which they frequently prey that you might find they’re fine with it, too.
The U.S. does need some immigration reform, Harry; however, you’re going to have a hard time getting that reform while stories of illegal aliens with violent felony records killing innocent people abound. It would go a long way in winning the support of the people for immigration reform if we knew that the violent felons could be removed – from our country and consideration – without waiting for them to kill someone.
Judge orders State Dept. to release documents on corrupt contractor before election
The title isn’t surprising; our government seems to be as corrupt as its contractors, and is withholding records requested under an FOIA request. What is surprising is that the state department is letting the corrupt contractor – BAE, who pleaded guilty in 2010 to a criminal count of violating the FCPA – review the records and decide what should be redacted. Really – I kid you not! You can’t make this stuff up!
Here’s an earlier story on the same subject, with an interesting excerpt below:
“So far, after more than two years, the State Department had turned over seven pages to the AP on the subject.”
This is interesting:
For the record, I am against hate crime legislation. Such laws only serve political purposes, and highlight our differences rather than our similarities. In the end, these laws just provide fodder for hate groups.
The punishment for a specific crime is designed to both discourage the offense and punish an offender. If setting a higher punishment for crimes based on the class of victim serves to reduce the occurrence of the crime against those victims, then why should not that additional protection be available to everyone? Hate crime legislation, by providing special protections and privileges to select classes of people, only penalizes those not in one of the selected classes.
… or does this sound like the police are allowing crime to happen as a punishment for their perceived slight? Here’s a similar story from NPR. A few excerpts:
“Police in Chicago made 30 percent fewer arrests in the early part of this year compared to last year. Street stops are down more than 80 percent so far this year.”
“2016 is shaping up to be one of deadliest in Chicago since the 1990s.”
Interesting story: Some of the delegates to the GOP conference don’t want to vote for their voter-selected nominee. Instead, they want to vote their conscience.
I’ve got news for you, people – it’s not your conscience that matters, but rather the conscience of the voters you represent. Do your job and represent the voters of your state, as agreed. Right or wrong, it’s their choice, not yours. If you can’t represent the will of the people, then get out of the way.
(Note that this is not to be taken as an endorsement or rejection of any particular candidate; I would hold this position regarding a delegate’s vote this no matter who might be the candidate and regardless of political party affiliation)
In the previous three years more than 8200 criminal aliens have not been deported upon release because their countries refused to take them back. So instead of deportation they are released upon an unsuspecting American public, where some go on to commit serious crimes.
I find it hard to believe that we have no recourse against those countries who refuse to deal with their own criminal citizens. Tariffs, trade sanctions, visa and travel restrictions – can’t these be used as leverage? After all, I just don’t see “Give me … your criminal element…” anywhere in Emma Lazarus’ iconic sonnet.
I’m not saying all immigrants (or even many, for that matter) are bad, but once we identify some as criminals then why should we allow them to stay here and threaten our lives and security? Sending them home is a reasonable action under these circumstances.
I’m not sure that I agree with this decision. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter how it’s framed or how noble the purpose.
I believe that our goal is (or should be) to stir the melting pot of societal rank; to make an effort to bring those at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder up into mainstream society regardless of race, religion, national origin, et cetera. A system designed to consider only socioeconomic rank would accomplish the same task today as race-based admissions, but remain race-neutral as our societal composition changes.
My fear is that decisions like this simply shift discrimination from one group to another and, while it may (temporarily) seem like poetic justice, maintains the divide between people who should be teammates – not adversaries.