Some black lawmakers supporting disruptions at campaigns by BlackLivesMatter protesters

After Black Lives Matter protesters ended the rally of Bernie Sanders supporters last Saturday, most responsible Democrats criticized the activists for interferring in the democratic process.

But several black lawmakers are taking a different view and are supporting the disruptions.

The Hill:

The activists have employed the controversial tactic of interrupting stump speeches and other public forums, which has drawn ire from many Democrats as an uncivil and misguided effort that targets allies, rather than opponents, of such reforms. 

But a number of black Democrats disagree, arguing that race-based problems have been neglected for too long, even by liberal policymakers, and the activists have tapped into a vein of frustration that justifies their methods. 

“They really are speaking to the issues, and we're really long overdue responding to those issues,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said in a phone interview. “They've been pointed, nonviolent and strong, and I'm not offended. 

“They're asking for nothing more than to lift up a system to treat them with justice.”

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) echoed that message, alluding to recent high-profile cases of young unarmed blacks killed by police officers as proof that America's racial problems persist and demand a specific response from the presidential candidates — liberal and conservative alike. The public debate that’s followed the recent protests, he suggested, merits their controversial tactics\ 

“For Black Lives Matter activists, the issue is literally a matter of life and death as evidenced by the continued killing of unarmed Black men and women by police officers across the nation,” Johnson said in an email. “When presidential candidates fail to acknowledge how the current criminal system detrimentally impacts Black lives, they [the activists] resort to disruptive tactics to force attention to the issue. 

“While disruption is uncomfortable, it does result in candidates acknowledging and addressing the issue with policy proposals,” he added. “When that happens, the need to protest is abated.”

In other words, threats and intimidation are just fine because they force candidates to change their agendas.  Is this really how we want to conduct a campaign for the next president of the United States?

This is an extremely dangerous position.  Supporting the veiled threat of violence from the protesters empowers the mob and encourages them to up the pressure on candidates.  Disrupting rallies and preventing candidates from speaking is anti-democratic and shows the activists to be little better than angry thugs.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

If a corporate CFO acted like Obama, he'd be in jail

There's an old story about Josef Stalin (who was extremely brutal), Nikita Khrushchev (who was merely very brutal), and Leonid Brezhnev (who was a corrupt pretender) that is instructive in the tale of our national debt.  One day Stalin, Khrushchev, and Brezhnev were in a limousine that suddenly stopped.  The driver told them that the engine wasn't working.  So Stalin had the driver shot and got someone to fix the car.

Then the limousine stopped a second time, and again they were told that it was broken.  Khrushchev had the driver sent to a labor camp and got someone else to fix and drive the car.

The limo stopped a third time, and do you know what Brezhnev did?  He closed the curtains and pretended the car was still moving.

Brezhnev's approach in a nutshell perfectly characterizes Obama's approach to the national debt.  For 150 days, the debt, as reported by the federal government, has not increased by one penny.

The portion of the federal debt that is subject to a legal limit set by Congress closed Monday, August 10, at $18,112,975,000,000, according to the latest Daily Treasury Statement, which was published at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday. 

That, according to the Treasury's statements, makes 150 straight days the debt subject to the limit has been frozen at $18,112,975,000,000. 

$18,112,975,000,000 is about $25 million below the current legal debt limit of $18,113,000,080,959.35. 

On July 30, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew sent a letter to the leaders of Congress informing them that he was extending a “debt issuance suspension period” through October 30. 

In practice, that means that unless Congress enacts new legislation to increase the limit on the federal debt before then, the Treasury will continue for at least the next eleven weeks to issue Daily Treasury Statements that show the federal debt subject to the limit beginning and ending each day frozen just below that limit.

In other words, if Congress won't lift the debt limit, Obama will keep spending anyway and report phony numbers.  In essence, Congress's right and responsibility to lift the debt ceiling has been taken away from Obama.  And do you know how many Republicans in Congress are complaining about this?  Zero.

I have argued in past columns that congressmen have violated their oath of office by giving up legislative powers they have sworn to protect to Obama.  Republicans don't say a word either because they are afraid of Obama, or they agree with this level of spending.  I suspect some of the former but more of the latter.

And that is the most troubling part.  A person can jump off a building and close his eyes and tell himself he is not falling.  For a time, it will work.  But eventually, it will be a fact that can no longer be denied.  There are laws of physics that we are aware of, but there are also laws of economics.  You cannot forever spend money you do not have.  Eventually there will be a collapse.

In the meantime, Obama commits fraud, openly and brazenly – the kind of fraud that would send a CFO of a publicly traded company to jail.  Imagine if the CFO of Google did this, purposely lying about financial statements.  There would be calls for criminal investigations, stockholder suits, and more.  When Obama does it in a way that affects everyone in the country, it's barely reported, and there is never any criticism of our 18-hole president.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Why Liberals are Dangerous

The Left (liberal mainstream media) practically had a ticker tape parade for Ohio Gov. John Kasich for answers he gave on two issues during the GOP debate. Liberals' praise of Kasich shows they have chosen emotion over logical, reasoned thinking. This makes liberals irresponsible and dangerous. These people must never be in charge.

The Left praised Kasich for his entitlement program that is $1.4 billion in the red, thus far -- in only 18 months. Kasich defended his program saying it was the Christian thing to do.

First of all, the Bible does not support stupid business practices and irresponsible spending of other people's money. Proverbs 22:29 “Have you seen a man who is expert in his business? He will take his place before kings; his place will not be among low persons.”

In 1972, Hurricane Agnes flooded our small black Baltimore suburban community. Dad and my brother rescued residents from the roofs of their homes in a rowboat. As a community leader, my dad, Rev. Marcus, assisted residents in acquiring relief checks from the Red Cross. My parents were among those who lost everything in the flood. What if Dad took his family's relief check and distributed it among needy neighbors? Liberals would praise Dad for his compassion for the poor. The reality is Dad's behavior, though well-intended, would be irresponsible to my mom and younger siblings living at home. Such common-sense adult thinking seems to escape liberals.

Gov. Kasich is furthering an entitlement program that is void of economic sense is irresponsible to taxpayers, no matter how well-intended. Feelings trump common sense these days in America. Liberals will call me a mean Republican who does not care about people for suggesting that politicians spend responsibly. Most liberals are brain-dead emotion-driven fools.

Kasich's answer regarding gay marriage was the second issue that won him great praise from liberals. Kasich said while he is a traditional guy, the courts made gay marriage law and he will comply. Kasich added that he attended a friend's gay wedding because we must love people. I am sorry, Gov. Kasich and Leftists, but it is absurd to suggest that loving someone means embracing everything they do. Once again, more brain-dead emotion-driven liberal reasoning. Sometimes, love means rejecting a friend or family member's behavior.

My daughter married a woman. I explained to my daughter why as a Christian, I could not support their union. She understood. We still have a great loving relationship, though we differ when the Patriots play the Broncos. Go Manning!

Here is an interesting observation. Like many youths, a handful of Dad's adult grandkids have gone through a rebellious stage; straying from their Christian upbringing like the prodigal son. Each of them hid their sinful behaviors from my dad. They hold Dad's opinion in high regard with a desire to make him proud. Even my daughter seems to care more about my dad's opinion of her than mine.

I asked myself, why? Dad is not a tyrant in any way. He is loving and easygoing. So why do the millennials in our family care so much about their granddad's opinion of them?

The answer is all of their lives, they have witnessed the consistency in Dad's Christian walk and his commitment to biblical standards. The grandkids know Dad loves each of them dearly, but is faithful to his commitment to Christ. My daughter and the other grandkids love Dad greatly and give him their utmost respect.

Perhaps, millennials are looking for trustworthy leaders/politicians who stand for something. GOP presidential contender Sen. Ted Cruz comes to mind. Too many wimpy baby-boomers embrace every Leftist anti-Christian and anti-American socialist/progressive agenda item; desiring to be thought of as modern and enlightened.

People in positions of power who place feelings above common sense, responsibility and reasoned thinking are dangerous. They (liberals) must never be in charge.

Take sanctuary cities. These are liberal-governed U.S. cities that have officially decided to disobey federal law by sheltering illegal aliens.

Liberalism has been described as a “mental disease.” For whatever reasons, liberals who run sanctuary cities feel it is unfair that we in America have so much. Consequently, they roll out the red carpet to illegals; gifting them welfare, college tuition, and benefits unavailable to legal American citizens.

Years ago, a businessman friend moved to California. He made more money than ever. And yet, he had to move back to the east coast because the cost of living was too high. Amazingly, my friend said if he had been an illegal alien, he and his family could have survived just fine in California. Does that make sense? Of course not. I wrote a satirical song about his experience titled, “Can't Afford the Sunshine.”

Talk about crazy brain-dead thinking – even with epidemic high numbers of murders, rapes, and assaults on Americans by repeat criminal illegals, nothing seems to soften sanctuary cities' commitment to welcome and protect illegals. Wacko liberals in charge are dangerous, folks.

Liberals wrongfully get high marks for compassion. The truth is real compassionate leadership makes wise responsible decisions. Liberals define a compassionate nation as how long that line is of people showing up for their daily allotment of free fish. In America today, 94 million Americans are unemployed. And yet, they have all the necessities and many of the luxuries of working Americans. Forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps. Millions of capable Americans are receiving disability. 

Conservatives define compassion as liberating citizens from government. Government handouts are always accompanied with government dictates and controls. There ain't no free lunch.

Conservative government says, we will gladly give you fish for the short term. However, our greater goal is to help you experience the dignity, pride, and independence of catching your own fish. We will get rid of the overreaching government controls on catching fish and help you acquire a fishing rod.

Who do you want running the show (your county) folks -- brain-dead emotion-driven liberals or adult conservatives?

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

The Debt Deception

The national and global discourse makes this association: Debt is to good financial practice as cancer is to good health. We’re now seeing the cancerous results of debt-centered financial practice worldwide, as countries are being eaten alive by debt, with some on the brink of collapse. We’ve been saying for decades that this day would come, and our reaping must follow our sowing.  But there’s a very personal aspect of this I have only recently realized.

We’ve all heard stories of a well-off married couple, man and wife (using an outdated definition of marriage, but sufficient for our purposes), where the man dies unexpectedly. Turns out that he had no life insurance. Turns out he had $50K in credit card debt. Turns out he mortgaged the house and wasted it all in Vegas. Turns out, after all the figures come in, the wife is now hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. We shake our heads and murmur a tsk tsk. How could he?

After all, they were living pretty well. House on the lake. Vacation home in the mountains. Beautiful children. Pretty well indeed. Tsk tsk.

This story, is, of course, an illustration of what’s happening to us as a nation, and to other peoples of other nations. Our partner, government, is doing us wrong.  We lived our lives not completely ignorant of what was going on, but lazy enough not to stop it. We heard the warnings, but were not very motivated to heed them.  We heard about the fiscal cliff a few years ago, not realizing that we sailed off the cliff in the 1950s or 1960s, maybe before, and now we are in free fall. They say it’s not the fall that kills you, but the sudden stop at the bottom, and our partner cares nary a bit.

As I look back over my fifty-plus year life in America, growing up in a medium-sized city, attending average public schools, going to public college, and working regular jobs as a regular guy, I’m realizing that a large proportion of my America was bought with borrowed money. Think about all the things that massive debt spending has, in part, purchased.

• Interstate and most other highways
• Public utilities
• Public schools
• Moonwalks and space exploration
• Agricultural advances
• Basic scientific research
• The Internet
• All things retirement

Tax revenues and borrowed money have been mixed to pay for these items, the proportions being muddled, but we can get an idea by looking at the Federal deficit over the years. Since 1930, the government has run deficits in 74 of the 87 years.  (See historical figures published by OMB.) From 2006 to 2015, the average of deficits has been 770 billion dollars, per year.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

DNC accidentally declares a winner in yesterday's debates

I rarely agree with the Democratic National Committee, but yesterday they told us who they thought won the debates, albeit indirectly, and they were spot-on.  The only debater their Twitter feed attacked during the debates was Carly Fiorina, and this tells us whom they fear the most, and whom they saw gaining the most traction.

And true to the colors of the left, who project onto conservatives their own bigotries, they attacked Carly Fiorina in highly sexist terms, using an animated GIF file of a little girl dressed in pink.

 

The DemocratsVerified account‏@TheDemocrats

Fiorina says her business experience prepared her to be president. But under her “leadership," HP stock fell 53%.

• RETWEETS456
• FAVORITES417
• 

3:18 PM - 6 Aug 2015

Imagine if the RNC had attacked Hillary using a little girl looking clueless.  This would be taken as evidence of a war on women.

There is something else that is quite self-contradictory in the attack.  Carly Fiorina is criticized for not paying attention to short-term earnings, which caused HP stock to decline in the short run.  Instead, under her leadership, HP made hard choices that caused earnings to fall in the short run but which ensured its survival in a competitive and dynamic industry full of examples of once-prominent, now-vanished names like Digital Equipment Corporation.

Yet a principal plank in Hillary Clinton’s campaign is the need to de-emphasize the short run, profit- and stock price-maximizing behavior of management, something Carly Fiorina can rightly claim to have done at HP.

 I imagine that if DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz were questioned about this sexist ad, she would answer with her usual incoherence.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Obama Administration Modifies U.S. Oath of Allegiance to Accommodate Muslims

The Obama administration recently made changes to the Oath of Allegiance to the United States in a manner very conducive to Sharia, or Islamic law.

On July 21, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced some “modifications” to the Oath of Allegiance that immigrants must take before becoming naturalized.

The original oath required incoming citizens to declare that they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States” when required by the law.

Now the USCIS says, “A candidate [to U.S. citizenship] may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new changes further add that new candidates “May be eligible for [additional?] modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.”

These changes serve incoming Islamic supremacists especially well.  For, while Islamic law allows Muslims to feign loyalty to non-Muslim “infidel” authorities, it bans Muslims from living up to the pretense by actually fighting or killing fellow Muslims on behalf of a non-Muslim entity, such as the United States.

The perfectly fitting story of Nidal Hassan -- the U.S. army major and “observant Muslim who prayed daily” but then turned murderer -- comes to mind and is illustrative.

A pious Muslim, Hasan seemed a “regular American,” even if he was leading a double life -- American Army major and psychiatrist by day, financial supporter of jihadi groups and associate of terrorists by night.  However, when time came for this American soldier to “bear arms on behalf of the United States” -- to quote the original Oath of Allegiance -- against fellow Muslims, things got ugly: he went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood, killing thirteen Americans, including one pregnant woman in 2009.

Much of Hasan’s behavior is grounded in the Islamic doctrine of Loyalty and Enmity.  According to this essential teaching, Muslims must always be loyal to Islam and fellow Muslims while having enmity for all non-Islamic things and persons. 

However, whenever Muslims find themselves under the authority of non-Islamic institutions and persons, they are permitted to feign loyalty -- even to the point of cursing Islam and pretending to have abandoned it -- with one caveat: Muslims must never take up arms on behalf of “infidels” against fellow Muslims.  In other words, their loyalty to non-Muslims must be skin deep.

Many are the verses in the Koran that support this divisive doctrine (3:28, 4:89, 4:144, 9:23, and 58:22; the last simply states that true Muslims do not befriend non-Muslims -- “even if they be their fathers, sons, brothers, or kin”).

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Hard Truth for the GOP from its Base

The failure of the Republican presidential field (with one notable exception) to stand with its own voters on the burning issue of our time -- mass uncontrolled and unresisted illegal immigration to America -- is one of the most infuriating examples of electoral incompetence in living memory. Not only is this issue central to the concerns of an overwhelming majority of regular Republican and conservative voters, but it is the issue most likely to carve off substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters.  In short, vigorously opposing the ongoing, unprecedented, presidentially invited and abetted invasion of America across its southern border is not only obviously the right policy for the country on its merits, but very possibly the only issue with the potential to carry the Republican nominee not merely to victory but to decisive victory.

In America as in Europe, electoral necessity has placed the Left on the wrong side of illegal immigration for a perilously significant number of its own voters. In America many of those voters are there for the taking -- in Iowa, in Ohio, in Virginia, in Colorado, in Florida, to name but a few not insignificant places -- but the question, as always since Reagan, is whether the Republican Party wants to win the presidency or to lose politely.

In unmistakably blunt language, all the Republican candidates should be declaring the following:

1. That our border to the south must be secured, whatever it takes, as an absolute, non-negotiable prerequisite to discussing how to deal with the tens of millions who are already here illegally.  The idea that real border security is unachievable is facially absurd to the American people, as is the morally spurious argument that any nation needs to apologize for defending its own borders or establishing its own immigration criteria.
2. That, after election, the new Republican president will not, under any circumstances, grant any form of blanket amnesty to those who have entered the country in violation of our laws, and that he will work to achieve a complete reversal of the illegal and unconstitutional executive amnesty already granted by President Obama (which Hillary Clinton promises to uphold and enforce).
3. That our immigration laws do indeed need comprehensive reform, but not the kind of “reform” the Democrats want, where millions of impoverished uneducated future government dependents are taken in and distributed among key states until the country becomes a dependable one party nation -- the 1965 Immigration Act has indeed done its work. We need a new immigration law that will favor assimilable immigrants, possessing skills and education that improve the competitiveness of the American economy and meet real needs.

None of the foregoing should be even remotely controversial in a well run, first world republic that wants to continue being one. None of it would be controversial to about 75% of the electorate.  All of it would be music to the ears, not only of virtually the entire voter base of the Republican Party but to substantial numbers of regular Democratic voters, both of whom see the connection between mass low skilled illegal immigration, on the one hand, and low wages, declining schools and neighborhoods, and increased crime on the other.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Psychopathy in the White House

It’s clear that Barack Obama is a narcissist, so I wasn’t surprised when he paraded around the White House making faces to his selfie stick then stopping to admire his gaunt profile in the mirror the way an insecure teenager might.  Selfie obsession, however, can be a symptom of something more sinister – the Dark Triad of personality traits

The Dark Triad consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy, and it turns out Obama is riddled with all three, especially the darkest category -- psychopathy.  Narcissists generally cause themselves harm, and one could easily argue that to become president one must be a bit self-absorbed, if not cocky.  But psychopathy is particularly pernicious as the perpetrator appears normal, and often quite charming, which even Obama’s detractors admit he occasionally exudes.

Personality psychologists have constructed a “Dirty Dozen” scale to identify the Dark Triad.  Let’s take a look, focusing especially on the behaviors associated with psychopathy, behaviors that Obama exhibits in abundance.

M = Machiavellianism, N = Narcissism, P = Psychopathy.

1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way.  (M)
2. I tend to lack remorse. (P)
3. I tend to want others to admire me. (N)
4. I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions. (P)
5. I have used deceit or lied to get my way. (M)
6. I tend to be callous or insensitive. (P)
7. I have used flattery to get my way. (M)
8. I tend to seek prestige or status. (N)
9. I tend to be cynical. (P)
10. I tend to exploit others toward my own end. (M)
11. I tend to expect special favors from others. (N)
12. I want others to pay attention to me. (N) (…continued below)

Obama would score highly in each measure. For example, for number 5, the Washington Post awarded him the Lie of the Year “award” for “If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it."    Similarly, his real-time obsession with his legacy supersedes most presidents’ conceit -- who heretofore mostly focused on policy first then later massaged it for posterity.

But it is Obama’s proclivity for P which is particularly disconcerting; whereas most politicians have N, and a more devious minority exhibit some M, far fewer wallow in P.  Furthermore, whereas N infects the victim with self-destructive, perhaps supercilious visions of grandeur, P envelops those under his influence in the dark side.

Consider number 2 in the scale:  “I tend to lack remorse.”  Well, politicians at various points along the ideological spectrum may disagree wholeheartedly, but still have remorse should something untoward befall an opponent.

But there is evidence that Obama is remorseless.  Charles Woods, father of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was only looking for some emotional support from the Commander in Chief.  Instead, here’s how he described his meeting with Obama at Andrews Air Force base:  “His face was pointed towards me but he would not look me in the eye," Woods says of meeting Obama. "I could tell he was not sorry. He had no remorse." 

Want more recent evidence of Obama’s lack of remorse?   On 21 July, 2015, he had the impudence to deny that there was anything wrong with the IRS targeting conservative groups.    His lack of remorse that the IRS caused turmoil to American citizens’ lives is pathological because when it seemed politically expedient he condemned the IRS abuses and found the inspector general’s findings “inexcusable.”

Now consider number 4 on the scale:  “I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions.” 

That pretty well captures Obama’s un-American grounding in morality.  Perhaps his umbrage at American exceptionalism was instilled while he was a child in Indonesia, or from lurking on the periphery of American society in Hawaii or in Chicago’s Saul Alinsky-inspired radical community organizations.  Something definitely warped his confused soul to apply this bizarre moral equivalence: Obama compares medieval Christian actions to present-day Islamic barbarism.

Obama’s actions, or lack thereof, in deploying resources to combat radical Islamic jihadists are ultimately immoral.   Another AT author did an exemplary job of exposing his immorality.

Number 6 on the scale is the next measure of psychopathy:  “I tend to be callous or insensitive”

It was truly unbecoming as well as insensitive when Obama, during his 2010 State of the Union address, criticized SCOTUS for their Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.  The justices were sitting ducks in this unprecedented presidential petulance that sullied an event in which members from all three branches of government are under one roof.  Magnanimity is clearly not in his makeup.

Obama seems to relish the callous and insensitive tactic of attacking others who are constrained from immediate rebuttal.  He also invited Paul Ryan to a budget speech (though Obama later lied about that) then proceeded to criticize his budget plans severely, knowing Ryan couldn’t respond.  At least not until after, when Ryan said this:

“I’m very disappointed in the president. I was excited when we got invited to attend his speech today. I thought the president’s invitation… was an olive branch. Instead what we got was a speech that was excessively partisan, dramatically inaccurate and hopelessly inadequate in addressing our country’s fiscal challenges… Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells.”

Obama also demonstrated a callous indifference to the family of Kate Steinle who was shot dead by an illegal immigrant given sanctuary in San Francisco.  Ironically, unlike other personal tragedies where he promptly intruded for political gain, this one actually had some federal policy overtones.

Number 9 on the scale is another measure of psychopathy: “I tend to be cynical.”  Unlike the first three, where Obama occupies rarified territory, this is a bit more common amongst politicians.  Nevertheless, he out-cynics most. 

This headline says it all:  President Obama lied about gay marriage, Axelrod says. This is why we’re cynical

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Local and federal law enforcement can't get their stories straight about illegal alien murderer

Why wasn't Juan Emmanuel Razo-Ramirez, a Mexican national in the U.S. illegally, detained by Lake County sheriff's deputies during a July 7 "suspicious person" traffic stop and turned over to federal authorities for deportation?

If Ramirez had been detained, one woman would be alive, another wouldn't have been shot in the shoulder, and a young girl wouldn't have been terrified by an attempted rape by her uncle.

The finger-pointing between local law enforcement and DHS regarding who's to blame for not holding Ramirez is sickening, and it shows the Department of Homeland Security more interested in PR than actually enforcing the law.

Daily Caller:

On Wednesday, a spokeswoman for DHS told The Daily Caller that Lake County sheriff’s deputies had declined an offer to personally interview the illegal alien, 35-year-old Juan Emmanuel Razo-Ramirez, during a suspicious person stop on July 7. 

But the federal agency’s claim comes a day after Lake County sheriff Daniel Dunlap said in a press conference that Border Patrol told his deputies during that stop three weeks ago not to take Razo-Ramirez, a Mexican national, into custody.The competing claims offered by the two agencies is reminiscent of the discordance between U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) and the San Francisco sheriff’s department over the detainment of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kate Steinle in San Francisco on July 1. Lopez-Sanchez was released by the sheriff’s department despite ICE’s detainer request because San Francisco is a sanctuary city.

Razo-Ramirez reportedly admitted to shooting Margaret Kostelnik in her home on Monday. The killing came hours after Razo-Ramirez allegedly tried to rape his niece, a 14-year-old girl, and then shot a 40-year-old woman in the shoulder in a park near Kostelnik’s house. After killing Kostelnik, who worked for 27 years as the assistant to the mayor of nearby Willoughby, Razo-Ramirez was apprehended following a brief standoff with police. 

In a press conference Tuesday, Sheriff Dunlap said that Razo-Ramirez was stopped July 7 by deputies because he was acting suspicious. According to a police report from the encounter, Razo-Ramirez admitted to the deputies that he was in the U.S. illegally. But Razo-Ramirez was eventually let go after a brief phone interview with a Border Patrol agent. According to the deputies’ report, Border Patrol “decided not to respond to take Emmanuel Razo into custody." 

But DHS provided a statement to The Daily Caller on Wednesday that seemed to dispute the Lake County sheriff’s department’s version of events.

The deputies insist that Ramirez said he was in the country illegally.  DHS says he was "uncooperative" in discussing his immigration status.  I believe the deputies, if only because they have less reason to lie.  They did their jobs – stopping a potential criminal and calling ICE when they found out he was here illegally.  It's not surprising that Ramirez would tell the deputies he was an illegal alien and not ICE, but why didn't the feds believe the locals and have them turn Ramirez over to them? 

Another preventable tragedy brought to you by our immigration enforcement officials.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....