bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘ARIZONA’

AMERICANS AREN’T THE ONLY ONES WHO HATE ILLEGAL ALIENS: PART THREE (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 5, 2024 at 12:10 am

On January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom (UK) withdrew from the European Union (EU).        

The United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—had been a member state of the EU or its predecessor, the European Communities (EC), since January 1, 1973.

The vote had been a long time coming—and a major reason for it lay in the unrestricted immigration—legal and illegal—of Central and Eastern Europeans, who are allowed by EU regulations to freely live and work in any member state.

United Kingdom PDF Map

The United Kingdom

So the United Kingdom decided it would no longer be an EU member state. 

Britons believed that migrants were clogging Britain’s health-care system and schools, while also depressing wages. By leaving the EU, Britons believed they could gain more control over their borders and drastically reduce immigration.

Immigration, the economy and health care had long been the top three issues on British voters’ minds.

The number of foreign-born people living in the UK went from 2.3 million in 1993 (when Britain joined the EU) to 8.2 million in 2014.

By 2020, the non-UK-born population was 9.5 million and the non-British population was 6.1 million. Most of these came from other EU countries: Cyprus, Malta, Croatia, Africa, the Middle East and Asia.

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were the top three countries with the highest number of UK passport holders.   

Critics of Brexit have blamed xenophobia for Britain’s leaving the EU. While that may have been true, it ignores a vital truth: People feel most comfortable around others like themselves. 

In schools and prisons, it’s commonplace to see white sitting among whites, blacks sitting among blacks and Hispanics sitting among Hispanics.

In addition, people feel most comfortable among those who speak their own language. In the United States, there has been widespread resentment over having to “Push 1 for English” when calling government agencies.

Two factors are driving unprecedented levels of world migration: 

  • The world’s population at 8.1 billion, which puts unprecedented stress on available food, housing, medical care and other essential services; and 
  • The rapid escalation of climate change has brought drought/flooding to major parts of Africa, Asia and Latin and Central America.

Added to these must be an insight into human character offered by Niccolo Machiavelli, the sixteenth-century historian and political scientist, in his work, The Discourses

Quote by Machiavelli: “Necessity is what impels men to take action ...

Niccolo Machiavelli 

It was a saying of ancient writers, that men afflict themselves in evil, and become weary of the good, and that both these dispositions produce the same effects. 

For when men are no longer obliged to fight from necessity, they fight from ambition, which passion is so powerful in the hearts of men that it never leaves them, no matter to what height they may rise. 

The reason for this is that nature has created men so that they desire everything, but are unable to attain it.  Desire being thus always greater than the faculty of acquiring, discontent with what they have and dissatisfaction with themselves result from it. 

This causes the changes in their fortunes—for as some men desire to have more, while others fear to lose what they have, enmities and war are the consequences.  And this brings about the ruin of one province and the elevation of another.

In addition: Those who have spent their lives as law-abiding citizens resent it when immigrants—especially illegal aliens—gain advantage by breaking the law. 

Such a case occurred on January 1, 2024.

That was when California became the first state to offer health insurance to all illegal aliens. All of these uninvited foreigners, regardless of age, now qualify for Medi-Cal, California’s version of the federal Medicaid program for people with low incomes.

Previously, illegal aliens could receive only emergency and pregnancy-related services under Medi-Cal as long as they met eligibility requirements, including income limits and California residency in 2014.

In 2015, then-Governor Jerry Brown allowed illegal alien children to receive coverage under Medi-Cal.

The final expansion starting January 1 will give full coverage to at least 700,000 illegal aliens who have no right to be in the country.

At the same time, about 3.2 million California citizens remained uninsured in 2022. 

Meanwhile, California faces a record $68 billion budget deficit. Tax collections are off by $26 billion,  combined with the economic slowdown California has been facing since 2022.

News stories announcing this taxpayers’ giveaway don’t refer to the recipients as “illegal aliens.” That’s because “illegal alien” is—for all its accuracy—Politically Incorrect. 

Instead, those who defend the wanton violating of American immigration laws prefer the term “undocumented immigrant.”

As though these lawbreakers had valid citizenship documents but somehow lost them during their swim across the Rio Grande.   

It’s entirely natural that those living in abject poverty—as millions do in Asia, Africa and Latin/Central America—want to escape it.

It’s also entirely natural that those who have escaped poverty want to hold on to all they have worked hard to attain.

The refusal of liberal politicians—in England, Italy, France, Germany and the United States—to accept these truths has led to the rise of authoritarian, Right-wing movements in those countries.

By refusing to address rising anger over such invasions, liberal politicians throughout the world are endangering the very democracies they cherish.

AMERICANS AREN’T THE ONLY ONES WHO HATE ILLEGAL ALIENS: PART TWO (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 4, 2024 at 12:06 am

n May 20, 2010, Mexico’s then-President Felipe Calderon addressed a joint session of the United States Congress—and attacked a recently-enacted Arizona law that allowed law enforcement officials to detain anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.       

According to Calderon, the law “introduces a terrible idea: using racial profiling as a basis for law enforcement. 

“I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.”

The hypocrisy of Calderon’s words was staggering. He was condemning the United States for doing what Mexico itself has long done: Strictly enforcing control of its own borders.

Felipe Calderon 20090130 (cropped).jpg

Felipe Calderon 

World Economic ForumCopyright by World Economic Forum / Photo by Remy Steinegger 

Mexico’s immigration laws state: Any foreigner that enters the country to stay less than six months is considered a visitor. To meet immigration requirements, you must: 

  • Have enough money to pay for your stay in the country;
  • Have an invitation from a private or public interest organization.   

If you want to stay more than 180 days, you must obtain a temporary residency visa in Mexico. This requires you to:

  • Have a family relationship with a Mexican citizen.
  • Have a job offer issued by a Mexican employer.
  • Have an invitation from a private or public institution.
  • Have enough money to pay for your stay in the country.
  • Own real estate in Mexico.
  • Have investments in Mexico.

After being a temporary resident for four years, you can apply for permanent residency.  To obtain this, you must meet these requirements:

  • Be a refugee or under the condition of political asylum.
  • Have a family relationship with a Mexican citizen.
  • To have been a temporary resident for four years.
  • Be a pensioner with enough monthly income to pay for your stay in the country.
  • Be related in a straight line up to the second degree to a Mexican by birth.
  • To have been a temporary resident for two years in the case of a conjugal or concubine relationship with a Mexican citizen or permanent resident.

Eight years after Calderon demanded that Americans repeal their immigration laws, Mexicans suddenly discovered they hated illegal aliens, too.

On October 13, 2018, a caravan of at least 5,000 men, women and children from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras set out for the United States.

On October 18, President Donald Trump closed the U.S.-Mexico border to keep the caravan from entering the country.

By November 19, migrants had begun piling up in Tijuana, which borders San Diego.

Suddenly, Tijuana residents began carrying signs reading “No illegals,” “No to the invasion” and “Mexico First.” And marching in the streets wearing Mexico’s red, white and green national soccer jersey and vigorously waving Mexican flags. 

“We want the caravan to go; they are invading us,” said Patricia Reyes, a 62-year-old protester. “They should have come into Mexico correctly, legally, but they came in like animals.”  

The El Paso Times noted the resentment of many Mexicans toward the increasing numbers of Cuban illegal aliens in Juarez, which lies across from El Paso.

“They don’t get along with Mexican people,” said a burrito seller. “They get in a little group by themselves. A lot of people don’t like them here.”

And a business consultant complained, “There are people who are coming looking for a handout, who want us to help them, when they could also look for work.”

Over the weekend of October 12-13, 2019, a National Guard commander addressed his platoon before confronting the latest caravan: “No one will come to trample our country, our land!”

In the past, Mexicans comprised the largest group of illegal aliens entering the United States. But the Mexican economy has grown and developed to the point where fewer people see the need to emigrate. 

Most illegals are now mostly from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. And there are growing numbers from Haiti, Cuba, various African countries, and even the Middle East. 

During the first eight months of 2019, the number of asylum applications submitted to Mexico’s refugee agency (COMAR) more than tripled, compared to the same period in 2018. As a result, the refugee agency removed the how-to-apply video it once hosted on its website.

In the past, the Mexican Government refused to halt illegal immigration to the United States.

It remembered the bloody upheaval known as the Mexican Revolution. This lasted 10 years (1910-1920) and wiped out an estimated one to two million men, women and children. 

Massacres were common on all sides, with men shot by the hundreds in bullrings or hung by the dozen on trees.

A Mexican Revolution firing squad

All of the major leaders of the Revolution—Francisco Madero, Emiliano Zapata, Venustiano Carranza, Francisco “Pancho” Villa, Alvaro Obregon—died in a hail of bullets.

Francisco “Pancho” Villa

Emiliano Zapata

As a result, every successive Mexican Government lived in the shadow of another such wholesale bloodletting. These officials quietly decided to turn the United States border into a safety valve. 

* * * * *

No other nation has ever allowed itself to become a dumping ground for the world’s unwanteds. And no law—religious or secular—obligates the United States to do so.

Space is limited in schools, hospitals and housing, and the more people who cram into limited spaces, the more frictions they inevitably create.

As native-born Mexicans are angrily finding out. 

AMERICANS AREN’T THE ONLY ONES WHO HATE ILLEGAL ALIENS: PART ONE (OF FIVE)

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Medical, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 3, 2024 at 12:14 am

“Good fences make good neighbors.”   

Robert Frost penned those famous words in his 1914 poem, “Mending Wall.”    

For millions of Americans, illegal immigration is the issue empowering the candidacy of Donald Trump to regain the Presidency.

For them, Frost’s opening line has morphed into something different: “Something there is that truly loves a wall.” 

A September 16, 2022 article in The Daily Mail headlined:

“America’s $78B Bill for Teaching Schoolkids With Poor English is Rising by BILLIONS in Biden-era Immigration Surge, Study Says, and 76,000 New Language Instructors Are a Tall Order in a Teacher Shortage.”

Among its findings: 

  • One million public school students—ranging from kindergarten to high school—need special training in speaking and writing English.
  • It costs $78 billion each year to educate them.
  • Texas, California, Florida and New York are among the states most burdened with such students.
  • Only three percent of these students are proficient in English when they graduate from high school.
  • These costs are raised by billions owing to an unceasing tide of illegal alien children at the southern border.

These alarming statistics were produced by a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). 

The 5.1 million students lacking English language skills need help in all their classes.

As a result, it costs 15 to 20 percent more to educate them than American-born students who grow up learning English.

Illegal alien climbing over the border fence in Brownsville, Texas

With the United States facing a severe teacher shortage, some states have lowered their hiring rules to recruit teachers with only a high school diploma.

In 2020, the 5.1 million illegal alien students in public schools cost American taxpayers $78 billion—an $18.8 billion jump from the cost in 2016.

Of those students, 1.15 million were in California, costing the state $19.5 billion. One million more lived in Texas, costing that state $11.4 billion. And 278,000 lived in Florida, at a cost of $3.1 billion.

Only 370,000 teachers nationwide are trained to teach them, and 76,000 more will be needed during the next five years. 

Immigration remains a highly divisive issue among Americans. “Red” Republican states want to close borders. “Blue” Democratic states are more open to newcomers.

Yet even famously liberal enclaves of support for illegal aliens like New York are beginning to have second thoughts about taking in unlimited numbers of uninvited foreigners. 

On October 7, 2022, New York City Mayor Eric Adams declared a state of emergency in response to the city’s migrant crisis, which he said would cost the city $1 billion that

fiscal year. 

Nancy Pelosi and Eric Adams at the Speaker's Balcony (cropped).jpg

Eric Adams

“We now have a situation where more people are arriving in New York City than we can immediately accommodate, including families with babies and young children,” Adams said.

“Once the asylum seekers from today’s buses are provided shelter, we would surpass the highest number of people in recorded history in our city’s shelter system.”

Behind this unwanted influx lies Texas Governor Greg Abbott.

By the first week of October, 2022, Texas had spent more than $18 million busing illegal aliens found in Texas to famously liberal supporters of illegal immigration: Washington D.C., New York City and Chicago. 

Abbott announced the program in April as his response to the Biden administration’s immigration policies. 

Abbott, 2015

Greg Abbott

In October, 2023, New York City had 90,578 people in its shelter system. Thousands of these are American citizens who are homeless. They are competing for assistance with illegal aliens who were bused to New York City from the southern border since April, 2022.

Three Communist-ruled countries—Venezuela, Nicaragua and Cuba—are responsible for this huge surge in illegal aliens and their continuing drain on America’s schools, housing and hospitals (among other facilities).

Rising levels of repression, food shortages and economic stability are motivating Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans to enter the United States. And assisting them is the longtime policy of the United States government to automatically accept those leaving Communist countries as refugees.

At some point, the United States must face the economic and social absurdity of allowing some cities and states to provide sanctuary to every illegal alien who appears.

Even Eric Adams, emphasizing that New York City remains a sanctuary city, warns it cannot cope with such an overwhelming influx of migrants:

“We are not telling anyone that New York can accommodate every migrant in the city. We’re not encouraging people to send eight, nine buses a day….We’re saying that as a sanctuary city with right to shelter, we’re going to fulfill that obligation. That’s what we’re doing.”

Abbott clearly believes he has the right to inflict thousands of illegal aliens on other states. And illegal aliens clearly believe they have the right to demand unlimited access to the United States.

At some point, America must stop allowing itself to be a dumping-ground for other countries’ unwanteds. 

* * * * *

An “open door” policy proved essential 200 years ago, when most of America was unsettled and largely unpopulated.

But the United States is no longer a largely unpopulated, agricultural country. Most of its population lives in coastal cities—which is where most illegal aliens tend to settle as well.

Space is limited in schools, hospitals and housing, and the more people who cram into limited spaces, the more frictions they inevitably create.

REPUBLICANS: “EVIDENCE BE DAMNED, WE WANT TRUMP!”–PART FOUR (END)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 24, 2023 at 12:40 am

On December 8 and 10, 2020, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear two cases brought by supporters of President Donald Trump to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election.  

In the first case, Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), a Trump ally, argued that Pennsylvania’s 2.5 million mail-in ballots were unconstitutional—and should be invalidated.

In the second case, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sought to overturn the results in four battleground states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

Even worse: Seventeen Republican state Attorney Generals—and 126 Republican members of Congress—rushed to support the case.

The reason: They feared Trump’s fanatical base would turn them out of office if they didn’t.

U.S. Supreme Court building-m.jpg

The Supreme Court

Had the Court acted on either request, the results for democracy would have been catastrophic.

For the first time in American history, a President who falsely accused his victorious rival of fraud would have invalidated the votes of 80 million Americans.

Then, on December 30,  Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley announced that, on January 6, 2021, he would object to the certification of some states’ Electoral College results. As many as 139 House Republicans and eight from the Senate joined him. 

Nebraska Republican Senator Ben Sasse bluntly offered the reason for this effort: ‘”We have a bunch of ambitious politicians who think there’s a quick way to tap into the president’s populist base without doing any real, long-term damage. But they’re wrong—and this issue is bigger than anyone’s personal ambitions.” 

Having lost in 59 court cases to overturn the election results, Trump opted for some old-fashioned arm-twisting.

On January 2, 2021, he called the office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. The reason: To pressure him to “find” enough votes to overturn former Vice President Joe Biden’s win in the state’s presidential election.

“All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state,” Trump lied.

He even threatened Raffensperger with criminal prosecuted if he did not change the vote count in Trump’s favor: “That’s a criminal offense. And you can’t let that happen.”  

Raffensperger insisted there hadn’t been any voter fraud—and refused to change the official results.

By January 6, 2021, President Donald J. Trump had almost run out of options for illegally staying in power for the next four years.

On January 6, the United States Senate, with Vice President Mike Pence presiding, would certify states’ Electoral College results of that election. 

That morning, Trump urged Pence to flip the results of the election to give him a win.

Pence replied that he lacked the power to overturn those results.

But as Pence went off to the Capitol Building housing the Senate and House of Representatives, Trump had one last card to play.

Mike Pence - Wikipedia

Mike Pence

For weeks Trump had ordered his legions of Right-wing Stormtrumpers to descend on Washington, D.C. on January 6. 

On December 20, he had tweeted: Statistically impossible to have lost the 2020 Election. Big protest in DC on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!” 

On January 6, Trump appeared at the Ellipse, a 52-acre park south of the White House fence. A stage had been set up for him to address tens of thousands of his supporters, who eagerly awaited him.  

Trump ordered them to march on the Capitol building to express their anger at the voting process and to intimidate their elected officials to reject the results. 

Melania Trump 'disappointed' by Trump supporters' Capitol riot - ABC7 Chicago

Donald Trump addresses his Stormtrumpers 

The Stormtrumpers marched to the United States Capitol—and quickly brushed aside Capitol Police, who made little effort to arrest or shoot them.

  • Members of the mob attacked police with chemical agents or lead pipes.
  • A Capitol Hill police officer was knocked off his feet, dragged into the mob surging toward the building, and beaten with the pole of an American flag.
  • One attacker was shot as she forced her way toward the House Chamber where members of Congress were sheltering in place.

How the attack on the U.S. Capitol unfolded | PBS NewsThese are some of the high-profile figures who were seen storming the US Capitol

Stormtrumpers attacking the Capitol Building

  • Several rioters carried plastic handcuffs, possibly intending to take hostages.
  • Others carried treasonous Confederate flags.
  • Shouts of “Hang Pence!” often rang out.
  • Improvised explosive devices were found in several locations in Washington, D.C.
  • Many of the lawmakers’ office buildings were occupied and vandalized—including that of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a favorite Right-wing target.

More than three hours passed before police—using riot gear, shields and batons—retook control of the Capitol. 

And Trump? After giving his inflammatory speech, he returned to the White House—to watch his handiwork on television. He initially rebuffed requests to mobilize the National Guard. 

This required intervention by Pat A. Cipollone, the White House Counsel, among other officials. 

While the rioting was still erupting, Trump posted a video on Twitter: “I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us….But you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order….So go home. We love you. You’re very special.” 

“It was the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life,” the Duke of Wellington said about the battle of Waterloo. 

The same could be said for America’s escaping Donald Trump’s attempt to make himself “President-for-Life.”  

REPUBLICANS: “EVIDENCE BE DAMNED, WE WANT TRUMP!”–PART THREE (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 23, 2023 at 1:05 am

On November 3, 2020, Joe Biden became President-elect of the United States by winning 81,283,495 votes, or 51.4% of the vote, compared to 74,223,755 votes, or 46.9% of the vote cast for President Donald Trump.

In the Electoral College—which actually determines the winner—the results were even more stunning: 306 votes for Biden, compared with 232 for Trump.

It takes 270 votes to be declared the victor.

From the moment Biden was declared the winner, Trump set out to overturn that verdict.

Joe Biden's Next Big Decision: Choosing A Running Mate | Voice of America - English

Joe Biden

Speaking from the White House in the early hours of November 4, Trump sounded like a petulant child whose planned outing has been suddenly called off:

“We were getting ready for a big celebration, we were winning everything and all of a sudden it was just called off. The results tonight have been phenomenal…I mean literally we were just all set to get outside and just celebrate something that was so beautiful, so good, such a vote, such a success.” 

For the first time in American history, a President demanded a halt to the counting of votes while the outcome of an election hung in doubt. 

States ignored his demand and kept counting.

Next, Trump ordered his attorneys to file lawsuits to overturn the election results, charging electoral fraud. Specifically:

  • Illegal aliens had been allowed to vote.
  • Trump ballots were systematically destroyed.
  • A sinister computer program turned Trump votes into Biden ones.

Throughout November and December, cases were filed in Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota and Georgia challenging the election results. None were supported by evidence of fraud—as even Trump’s lawyers admitted when questioned by judges.

On November 13, nine cases meant to attack President-Elect Joe Biden’s win in key states were denied or dropped. A law firm challenging the vote count in Pennsylvania withdrew from the effort.

In Michigan, Trump’s attorneys dropped their federal suit to block the certification of Detroit-area ballots. 

By November 21, more than 30 cases were withdrawn by Trump’s attorneys or dismissed by Federal judges—some of them appointed by Trump himself.

Ultimately, from November 3 to December 14, 2020, Trump and his allies lost 59 times in court, either withdrawing cases or having them dismissed by Federal and state judges.

Related image

Donald Trump

On November 19, losing in the courts, Trump invited two Republican legislative leaders from Michigan to the White House. The reason: To persuade them to stop the state from certifying the vote.

The Michigan legislators said they would follow the law.

On December 5, Trump called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and asked him to call a special legislative session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, thus overturning Biden’s win.

Kemp refused, saying he lacked the authority to do so.

On December 8, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s bid to reverse Pennsylvania’s certification of Biden’s victory. Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), a Trump ally, argued that the state’s 2.5 million mail-in votes were unconstitutional.

The Court’s order read, “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”

Although Trump had appointed three of the Court’s Justices, not one of them dissented.

On December 10, the Supreme Court refused to let a Texas lawsuit overturn the results in four battleground states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. 

The majority of their votes—cast for Biden—were critical to Trump’s defeat.

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,” the court said without further comment. It dismissed all other related claims as moot.

The request for their overturning came in a lawsuit brought by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. A Trump ally, Paxton has been indicted on felony securities fraud charges. He might have been seeking a Presidential pardon as reward for his effort.

Seventeen Republican state Attorney Generals—and 126 Republican members of Congress—supported the lawsuit. They feared Trump’s fanatical base would “primary” them if they didn’t publicly declare their loyalty—to a man they knew was slated to leave office within two months.

Had the Court acted on Paxton’s request, the results for democracy would have been catastrophic. 

“Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices in legal papers. “Its request for this court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.”

Meanwhile, top Republicans—such as Vice President Mike Pence, Missouri United States Senator Roy Blunt and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—refused to congratulate Biden as the winner. 

Mitch McConnell portrait 2016.jpg

Mitch McConnell

In fact, the vast majority of House and Senate Republicans refused to publicly acknowledge Biden as President-Elect of the United States. The reason: They were still in thrall to Trump’s fanatical base. 

They feared that if they broke with the soon-to-be-ex-President, they would be voted out of office at the next election—and lose their cozy positions and the power and perks that come with them.

REPUBLICANS: “EVIDENCE BE DAMNED, WE WANT TRUMP!”–PART TWO (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 22, 2023 at 12:12 am

On August 14, for the fourth time this year, Donald Trump found himself the first ex-President to be indicted for crimes committed during his four-year administration: 2017-2021.

He faces  91 criminal charges across four jurisdictions: Georgia, Florida, New York and the District of Columbia. 

Two of those cases have already been mentioned. Here is a breakdown of the remaining two:

(3) Federal documents indictment (Florida)

Filed on June 9, 2023, it charges Trump with 40 felony counts for:

  • 32 counts of willful retention of national defense information;
  • 1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice;
  • 1 count of withholding a document or record from an official proceeding;
  • 1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record from an official proceeding;
  • 1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation;
  • 1 count of scheming to conceal information the government is seeking;
  • 1 count of making false statements;
  • 2 counts of altering, destroying or concealing information the government is seeking.

Before leaving office, Trump endangered the country’s national security by taking and haphazardly storing highly classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.

He then refused to return them when asked by the Justice Department—forcing the agency to send in an FBI force to retrieve them.

File:Scales Of Justice.svg - Wikipedia

(4) Georgia election indictment 

Filed on August 14, 2023, it charges Trump with 13 felony counts for:

  • 1 count of violating the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations)  Act (conspiring to overturn the vote count of the 2020 Presidential election);
  • 3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer;
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer;
  • 2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery;
  • 2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings;
  • 1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents;
  • 1 count of filing false documents;
  • 2 counts of making false statements and writings.

This is on a par with the importance of the Federal 2020 election indictment. Trump was trying to illegally remain in office by coercing Georgia public officials to “find” Electoral College votes which did not exist.

Which, in this case, meant creating Electoral College votes which did not exist.

Meanwhile, the vast majority of Republicans have abandoned their traditional “law and order” mantra to attack those investigators and prosecutors who are trying to hold Trump accountable for his litany of crimes. 

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy: “Justice should be blind, but Biden has weaponized government against his leading political opponent to interfere in the 2024 election.” 

Referring to Fanni Willis, the district attorney of Fulton County, Georgia, who indicted Trump for election interference, McCarthy said: “Now a radical [district attorney] in Georgia is following Biden’s lead by attacking President Trump and using it to fundraise her political career. Americans see through this desperate sham.”   

Republicans have proven themselves masters of projecting their own planned or attempted crimes onto their opponents.

Since it was Trump who weaponized the Justice Department during his Presidency, Republicans now accuse—without evidence—President Joe Biden of doing the same. 

Kevin McCarthy

New York Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik: “[Donald Trump] had every legal right to challenge the results of the election. This blatant election interference by the far left will not work, President Trump will defeat these bogus charges and win back the White House in 2024.” 

Trump did in fact have “every right to challenge the results of the election.” What he did not have was the right to try to illegally overturn its verdict.

South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham: “The American people can decide whether they want [Trump] to be president or not.

“This should be decided at the ballot box and not in a bunch of liberal jurisdictions trying to put the man in jail. They’re weaponizing the law in this country. They’re trying to take Donald Trump down.”

Biotech entrepreneur and Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy: “I’d volunteer to write the amicus brief to the court myself. Prosecutors should not be deciding US presidential elections, and if they’re so overzealous that they commit constitutional violations, then the cases should be thrown out and they should be held accountable.” 

During the 2016 Presidential race between Trump and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Trump repeatedly called for her to be “locked up” for using a private email server for official public communications.

She was accused of endangering national security by not using official State Department email accounts maintained on federal servers. A years-long FBI investigation determined that Clinton’s server did not contain any information or emails that were clearly marked classified.

Clinton speaking at an event in Des Moines, Iowa, during her 2016 presidential campaign

Hillary Clinton

Now, faced with overwhelming evidence that Trump’s behavior had posed threats to American democracy, Republicans are adhering to a double-standard to ignore his multiple crimes. 

Among Republican voters, Trump remains the odds-on favorite for the 2024 Republican nomination for President.  

A major reason for this: Since Trump lost the 2020 Presidential election, he has repeatedly lied that he was actually the winner—and was cheated of victory. 

He began repeating what CNN and other news sources have termed “The Big Lie” on the night of November 3, 2020.

Joe Biden had become President-elect of the United States by winning 81,283,495 votes, or 51.4% of the vote, compared to 74,223,755 votes, or 46.9% of the vote cast for President Donald Trump.

In the Electoral College—which actually determines the winner—the results were even more stunning: 306 votes for Biden, compared with 232 for Trump.

REPUBLICANS: “EVIDENCE BE DAMNED, WE WANT TRUMP!”–PART ONE (OF FOUR)

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on August 21, 2023 at 1:02 am

As President of the United States, Donald Trump was guilty of the following offenses, if not actual crimes:

  • Repeatedly and viciously attacking the nation’s free press for daring to report his growing list of crimes and disasters, calling it “the enemy of the American people”—a phrase popularized by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin.
  • Publicly siding with Russian dictator Vladimir Putin against American Intelligence agencies—such as the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency—which unanimously agreed that Russia had interfered with the 2016 Presidential election.
  • Praising Nazis and Ku Klux Klansmen.
  • Repeatedly and enthusiastically defending Vladimir Putin, the dictator of Russia, America’s mortal enemy.
  • Praising Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un.

politicsTOO trump putin xi Memes & GIFs - Imgflip

  • Using his position as President to further enrich himself, in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.
  • Attacking and alienating America’s oldest allies, such as Canada and Great Britain.
  • Firing FBI Director James Comey for refusing to pledge his personal loyalty to Trump—and continuing to investigate Russian subversion of the 2016 election.
  • Repeatedly attacking his own Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, for not “protecting” him from agents pursuing the Russia investigation—and firing him on November 7, 2018, the day after Democrats won a majority of House seats.
  • Shutting down the Federal Government on December 22, 2018, because Democrats refused to fund his “border wall” between the United States and Mexico. An estimated 380,000 government employees were furloughed and another 420,000 were ordered to work without pay.
  • Attempting to fire Independent Counsel Robert Mueller III—but was talked out of it because he feared impeachment.

Related image

Donald Trump 

  • Giving highly classified CIA Intelligence to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Specifically: How Islamic State terrorists planned to turn laptops into concealable bombs.
  • Repeatedly attacking Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer—after she had been targeted for kidnapping and execution by Trump’s Right-wing followers.
  • Paying—on December 10, 2019–$2 million to eight charities as part of a settlement where he admitted to misusing funds raised by the Donald J. Trump Foundation. These had been used to promote his presidential bid and pay off business debts. (It’s illegal for charitable foundations to advance the self-interests of their executives.)
  • Allowing a deadly virus to ravage the country, infecting (to date) 9.2 million Americans and killing more than 400,000.
  • Attacking medical experts and governors who urged Americans to wear masks and socially distance to protect themselves from COVID-19.
  • Urging his followers to illegally vote twice for him in the 2020 Presidential election.
  • Firing Chris Krebs, the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, for rejecting Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election.

Chris Krebs official photo.jpg

Chris Krebs 

  • Refusing to accept the will of 80,117,438 voters who made former Vice President Joe Biden President-elect of the United States.
  • Illegally trying to pressure state legislatures and governors to stop the certification of the vote that had made Biden the President-elect.
  • Inciting his followers to attack the Capitol Building where Senators and Representatives were meeting on January 6, 2021, to count the Electoral Votes won by himself and Joe Biden. His objective: Stop the count, which he knew would prove him the loser.

One might think that record of infamy would deter most men from seeking a second term in any office—let alone the most revered office in the country: The Presidency.

Yet, as Trump himself has warned: “I’m a different kind of person.”

And he most definitely is.

On August 14, for the fourth time this year, he found himself the first ex-President to be indicted for crimes committed during his four-year administration: 2017-2021.

Trump faces 91 criminal charges across four jurisdictions: Georgia, Florida, New York and the District of Columbia. 

Here is a breakdown of the cases:

(1) Federal 2020 Election indictment (District of Columbia)

Filed on August 1, 2023, it charges Trump with four felony counts for:

  • Conspiracy to defraud the United States (trying to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election);
  • Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding (plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification);
  • Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding (blocking the certification of the 2020 election results; and
  • Conspiracy against rights (plotting to deprive voters of the constitutional right to vote).

This is by far the most important case facing him, because Trump sought to deny American voters the right to vote for the Presidential candidate of their choice.

If he beats the rap, it will alert every future would-be dictator: “Trump got away with it; you can, too.”

(2) New York State indictment

Filed on April 4, 2023, it charges Trump with 34 felony counts for:

  • Falsifying business records to cover up the hush money payments to porn “actress” Stormy Daniels.

The reason: To buy her silence during the 2016 Presidential race so she wouldn’t go public about their 2006 affair.

Of the four indictments he faces, this is by far the least important, with no comparison to the cases he faces in Florida, Georgia and the District of Columbia.

MEXICO: A PAST VICTIM–AND NOW AN EXPORTER–OF UNCHECKED IMMIGRATION

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Military, Politics, Social commentary on April 7, 2023 at 12:23 am

On May 8, 2018, one year after Donald Trump became President, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that a “zero-tolerance” policy toward people illegally entering the United States might separate families while parents are prosecuted.         

“We don’t want to separate families, but we don’t want families to come to the border illegally and attempt to enter into this country improperly,” Sessions said. “The parents are subject to prosecution while children may not be. So, if we do our duty and prosecute those cases, then children inevitably for a period of time might be in different conditions.” 

Actually, the policy of family separations began a year before its public announcement.

Children who are separated from their parents would be put under supervision of the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, Sessions said.

Jeff Sessions, official portrait.jpg

Jeff Sessions

Thomas Homan, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s acting director, backed up Sessions’ “get tough” policy change: “Every law enforcement agency in this country separates parents from children when they’re arrested for a crime. There is no new policy. This has always been the policy.”

So that policy went into effect. And it has generated widespread outrage from:

  1. Civil liberties organizations; and
  2. Those who believe the United States should not have—or enforce—its immigration laws.

“Criminalizing and stigmatizing parents who are only trying to keep their children from harm and give them a safe upbringing will cause untold damage to thousands of traumatized families who have already given up everything to flee terrible circumstances in their home countries,” said Erika Guevara-Rosas, Amnesty International’s Americas director.

In fact, alien-smugglers have increasingly used children as a wedge against American immigration laws. Their strategy: “Surely, Americans won’t arrest innocent children—or the adults who bring children with them.

The Trump administration proved them wrong.

This is typical behavior for law enforcement agencies: When criminals devise new ways to defeat existing police measures, the police devise new ways to counter those methods.

Meanwhile, those who believe the United States should throw open its doors to everyone who wants to enter are missing—or ignoring—a vital historical lesson learned by Mexico.

Mexico knows even better than the United States the perils of unchecked illegal immigration. 

In 1821, Moses Austin sought a grant from Mexico to settle Texas. After he died in 1821, his son, Stephen, won recognition of the grant by Mexico.

The Mexican government had been unable to persuade large numbers of its own citizens to move to Texas, owing largely to raiding by such fierce Indian tribes as the Comanches.

The government saw the Anglo settlement of Texas as its best hope to tame an otherwise untamable frontier.

Stephen f austin.jpg

Stephen Austin

Austin convinced numerous American settlers to move to Texas, and by 1825 he had brought the first 300 American families into the territory.   

Throughout the 1820s, Austin helped ensure the introduction of slavery into Texas, even though, under Mexican law, this was illegal. Tensions developed between unchecked numbers of Anglo settlers flooding into Texas and the Mexican authorities in charge there.

(“GTT”—“Gone to Texas”—was often carved on cabin doors by debt-ridden settlers who decided to seek their fortune in Texas. And some of the most notorious criminals on the frontier—such as land swindler and knife-fighter James Bowie—joined them.)

Three-quarter portrait of a young clean-shaven man with long sideburns and a widow's peak hairline. His arms are crossed.

James Bowie

Eventually, the irresistible force of unlimited Anglo illegal immigration rebelled against the immovable object of Mexican legal/military authority.

The result:

  • The battle of the Alamo: From February 23 to March 6, 1836, about 200 rebellious Texans withstood a 13-day siege in a former San Antonio mission, only to be slaughtered to the last man by an army of 2,000 Mexican soldiers commanded by President (actually, dictator) Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. Among the victims: James Bowie and former Congressman David Crockett.  
  • The massacre at Goliad:  On March 27, 1836, 425-445 Texans captured after the battle of Coleto were shot en masse by Mexican soldiers.
  • The battle of San Jacinto:  On April 21, 1836, Texans led by General Sam Houston won a surprise Texas victory over Mexican forces who were caught in a mid-afternoon siesta. Santa Anna—who had fled—was captured the next day. 

Mexico was forced to give up all rights to Texas—which, 10 years after winning its independence, became a state.

But ongoing conflicts between Mexico and the United States over Texas led to the Mexican war in 1846.

This, in turn, led to a series of devastating American victories over the Mexican army, and the capture of Mexico City itself.

Territory (in white) that Mexico lost after the Mexican War

Mexico suffered the humiliation of both military defeat and the loss of its land holdings within the American Southwest—which, up to 1848, it had controlled.

This territory later became the states of California, New Mexico, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, and western Colorado. 

And the United States finally spread “from sea to shining sea.”

So Mexico knows what it’s doing when it unloads millions of its own citizens—and those of other Latin and Central American countries—on the United States.

Mexico, in short, is a textbook case of what happens to a country that is unable to enforce its own immigration laws.

TREASON–PEOPLE WHO NEED TREASON

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on August 12, 2022 at 12:12 am

On November 3, 2020, 81,255,933 Democratic voters elected former Vice President Joseph Biden the 46th President of the United States.

President Donald J. Trump, running for a second term, got 74,196,153 votes. Biden also won decisively in the Electoral College: 306 votes to 232 for Trump.

Yet more than two months after the election, Trump refused to concede, insisting that he won—and repeatedly claiming falsely that he was the victim of massive vote fraud.

Immediately after the election, Trump ordered his attorneys to file lawsuits to overturn the election results.

Throughout November and December, cases were filed in Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota and Georgia challenging the election results. None were supported by evidence of fraud—as even Trump’s lawyers admitted when questioned by judges.

On November 13, nine cases attacking President-Elect Joe Biden’s win in key states were denied or dropped. A law firm challenging the vote count in Pennsylvania withdrew from the effort.

By November 21, more than 30 cases were withdrawn by Trump’s attorneys or dismissed by Federal judges—some of them appointed by Trump himself.

Ultimately, from November 3 to December 14, Trump and his allies lost 59 times in court, either withdrawing cases or having them dismissed by Federal and state judges.

Related image

Donald Trump

On November 19, losing in the courts, Trump invited two Republican legislative leaders from Michigan to the White House. The reason: To persuade them to stop the state from certifying the vote.

The Michigan legislators said they would follow the law.

On December 5, Trump called Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and asked him to call a special legislative session and convince state legislators to select their own electors that would support him, thus overturning Biden’s win.

Kemp refused, saying he lacked the authority to do so.

David Perdue and Brian Kemp (cropped).jpg

Brian Kemp

On December 8, the Supreme Court refused to hear Trump’s bid to reverse Pennsylvania’s certification of Biden’s victory.

Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA), a Trump ally, argued that the state’s 2.5 million mail-in votes were unconstitutional.

The Court’s order read, “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”

Although Trump had appointed three of the Court’s Justices, not one of them dissented. 

On December 8, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed his own lawsuit at the Supreme Court. A Trump ally, Paxton has been indicted on felony securities fraud charges. 

In Texas v. Pennsylvania, he alleged that Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin violated the United States Constitution by changing election procedures through non-legislative means.

On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. 

“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections,” the court said without further comment. It dismissed all other related claims as moot.

Seventeen Republican state Attorney Generals—and 126 Republican members of Congress—supported the lawsuit. They did so in an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief. 

They feared Trump’s fanatical base would “primary” them if they didn’t publicly declare their loyalty—to a man they knew was slated to leave office within two months.

U.S. Supreme Court building-m.jpg

The Supreme Court

Had the Court acted on Paxton’s request, the results for democracy would have been catastrophic. 

“Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees,” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro told the justices in legal papers. 

“Its request for this court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for president is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy. 

“The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” 

The outcome of the 2020 Presidential election marked the first time a losing candidate tried to overturn the will of millions of American voters.

It also marked the first time that state Attorney Generals and members of Congress tried to overturn the results of a Presidential election.

The signers represented nearly two-thirds of the House GOP.

Among them: The House’s top two Republicans: Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.),

Only 70 Republican House members refused to sign the brief.

By December 11, 2020, only 23 Republicans in Congress—14 Representatives and nine Senators—had acknowledged Biden’s victory.

On January 6, Trump instigated an attack on the Capitol Building to stop the counting of Electoral College votes, which was certain to prove Biden the winner.

Despite this, Republican members of Congress continued trying to throw the election Trump’s way.  

Six Republicans in the Senate and 121 in the House backed objections to certifying Arizona’s electoral outcome. Seven Republicans in the Senate and 138 in the House supported an objection to certifying Pennsylvania’s electoral outcome.

Not since the American Civil War (1861-1865) has the United States seen a more blatant—and deadly—case of sedition.

In 1861, 11 Senators and three Representatives were expelled from Congress for refusing to recognize Abraham Lincoln’s election—and supporting insurrection. 

Democrats need to summon the same courage and ruthlessness against their sworn enemies.

Trump’s refusal to admit that he lost fuels the danger of another attack on Congress and/or President Biden.

He—and his Republican accomplices—must be forcibly taught there are penalties for treason.

TIME TO REFORM THE DEATH PENALTY

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Law Enforcement, Politics, Social commentary on June 20, 2022 at 12:10 am

On June 8, justice finally caught up with Frank Atwood.

On September 17, 1984, eight-year-old Vicki Lynne Hoskinson was riding her bike home when Atwood kidnapped and murdered her. Then he left her body in an Arizona desert.  A hiker found the child’s remains about seven months later.   

Making Vicki’s murder even worse: Atwood had previously been convicted of “lewd and lascivious acts and kidnapping” two young children in California.

Ten days after Vicki’s disappearance, eyewitness testimony and physical evidence led to Atwood’s arrest. He was charged with one count of kidnapping. 

Atwood’s trial began in January, 1987. He was found guilty of first degree murder on March 26, and sentenced to death on May 8, 1987. But it took until 2020 for all of his appeals to be exhausted. 

Finally, at just after 10:15 a.m. local time, on June 8, Atwood met his own death by lethal injection at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Florence, Arizona. 

Arizona Supreme Court issues execution warrant for Frank J. Atwood - The Gila Herald

Frank Atwood

While Atwood had no concern for the pain of others, he had plenty of it for himself. He tried to halt the execution by claiming the procedure would violate his constitutional rights. 

How? 

In an appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Atwood’s lawyers claimed that lying flat on the execution table would cause him excruciating pain due to a spinal condition he developed while in prison.

The appeals court agreed with a federal judge in Phoenix, who noted that the table can be raised to an inclined position.

A district court dismissed Atwood’s “poor, pity me” excuse and on June 7, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the decision to execute him.

A typical execution room

The next day, the United States Supreme Court dashed Atwood’s last hope to escape justice and denied his petition to halt the execution.

About 111 inmates remain on Arizona’s Death Row.

The Atwood case offers serious reasons for a complete overhaul of how the death penalty is administered. 

First: There is genuine wisdom in the saying: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”  

Imagine how the parents and relatives of Vicki Hoskinson have felt for 36 years:

  • Knowing that she died violently, probably after being sexually abused.
  • Knowing that she wasn’t given even the dignity of a funeral—that her body had been left in the desert, with her remains scattered by animals.
  • Knowing that the man responsible for her death was not only still alive but had far more rights conferred on him by the State than he had provided Vicki.
  • With every appeal they had to relive the horror of their loved one’s brutal murder.

63 Love the Fog ideas | eerie, cemeteries, old cemeteries

Second: The life of a murderer should not be considered as sacred—if not more so—than the lives of those he has murdered.

People don’t get sent to Death Row by stealing food or picking pockets, as they did in England during the 19th century. They don’t even get there by killing someone accidentally or in the heat of passion.

According to 18 U.S. Code § 1111: “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed for the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated assault abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery, or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child, or children….is murder in the first degree.”

They get there, in short, by deliberately choosing to take the life of someone—and then doing so.

Third: The insanity defense should be abolished. 

Too many perfectly sane murderers use this as a defense to escape justice for the human carnage they have left in their wake. Even if they are ruled criminally insane—on a “Hannibal the Cannibal” level—they should not be allowed to avoid the death penalty.

Consider this: A beloved dog gets rabies. It isn’t his fault. But from now on he presents “a clear and present danger” to everyone he meets. The same is true with someone who has demonstrated a taste for cold-blooded murder.

Fourth: The number of appeals should be severely limited—to three or four, at most.

This would ensure that the accused had his sentence carefully reviewed, and yet allow a fair time for justice—acquittal or execution—to occur.   

Fifth: Violent offenders should not be released, even if they’re not given the death penalty.

The rate of recidivism in the United States is 70%. Within three years of their release, two out of three former inmates are rearrested and more than 50% are reincarcerated. 

Atwood had previously been convicted of “lewd and lascivious acts and kidnapping” two young children in California. Had Atwood not been released, he could not have murdered Vicki.  

It’s true that some inmates have radically turned their lives around in prison and spent the rest of their lives as model citizens. But this happens so rarely and unpredictably that taking this chance is not worth jeopardizing the safety of the public at large.