Rule of Law? Obama admin releases over 36,000 criminal aliens


**Posted by Phineas

Might as well throw it away

Might as well throw it away

Well, this should make us all feel oh-so-secure:

Here’s everything you need to know about immigration reform: last year the Obama administration released 36,000 criminal aliens into the United States population. The jailbreak was deliberate and included 193 murderers.

The Center for Immigration Studies obtained the information and released a report documenting the number and nature of the crimes committed by the aliens.

If 36,000 criminal aliens walking around your community wasn’t enough, Obama’s Department of Homeland Security is aiming to make it even easier for aliens to be released from detention. That’s what the groups agitating for immigration reform are demanding. That’s what the groups are likely to get.

The 2013 jailbreak included rapists, kidnappers, arsonists, burglars, sex offenders, and car thieves. That’s merely for 2013.

The criminals that Obama administration policies set free are unlikely ever to be deported. Detained aliens facing deportation are highly unlikely to ever be deported once they are set free into the general American population. They don’t show up for their deportation hearings, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn’t have the manpower or money to hunt down tens of thousands of criminal aliens.

That’s a heaping helping of criminality the Obama administration just introduced into America.

As J. Christian Adams points out, this is just another example of how the administration, particularly its highly politicized Justice Department, sides with the law-breaker over the law-abiding. (For more good, by which I mean “infuriating,” examples, have a look at Mr. Adams’ “Injustice: exposing the racial agenda of the Obama Justice Department”)

And, far beyond merely siding with criminals and applying a racialist filter to the administration of justice, we seen more examples than I think any of us would care to remember of this administration’s cavalier lip service to even the idea of a genuine rule of law, of a law common to all: waivers and delays in the implementation of Obamacare granted with no authority; bondholders and pensioners cheated in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings; Congress’ legitimate oversight authority treated with contempt; our tax agency used to harass law-abiding citizens seeking only to exercise their rights to participate in politics, and so many others.

We have a real problem in America when one side feels the rules just don’t apply to them, so long as they think they’re in the right.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Memo to the national media: Hillary Clinton is not a delicate flower



Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

If you scroll down the front page of Newsbusters, you’ll notice that the mainstream national media has resumed its role of the protectors of all things Clinton, and in this case it’s former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton – whose name is floating around out there as a possible 2016 contender for President. Before I get to those, here’s the back-story behind the latest round of defense posturing from “unbiased” journos:

Karl Rove never explicitly said that Hillary Clinton had brain damage, the Republican strategist said Tuesday morning on Fox News.

“I never used that phrase,” Rove said when asked about a New York Post report that said he suggested the former secretary of state might have brain damage from a blood clot she suffered in 2012.

Rove defended most of his comments, though, saying that Clinton went through a “serious health episode” and that she will be forced to deal with many questions about her health and age if she chooses to run for president in 2016.

“I never used that phrase, I never used that phrase. But look, she had a serious health episode. And I don’t know about you, but if you go through a serious health episode, it causes you to look at life a little bit differently. This was a serious deal,” he said.

America’s Newsroom host Bill Hemmer challenged Rove on his timeline, saying his research showed that Clinton was in the hospital only for three days. Rove conceded the point about her hospital stay but largely stuck by his monthlong timeline. “She goes in on a Sunday, she comes out on a Wednesday. But this is a 30-day period where she’s fighting something.”

The Republican strategist said his main point was that her health invariably will come up on the campaign trail if she chooses to run for the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Now, this is a line of attack that not many would use against a candidate – unless you’re a Democrat going after a Republican, of course, but this is Karl Rove here, so it’s a safe bet to say he doesn’t really view anything as off the table – especially when it comes to the Clintons.   And considering the left (and the media) set the standard for questioning someone’s health (and age) when they went after Senator John McCain along those same lines back in 2008, why shouldn’t it be on the table? Well, because it’s Hillary Clinton – who may one day be the first female President in United States history – so the media is predictably doing their thing, just like they did for Barack Obama, in helping try to pave the way.  Here are some recent examples of them in the role of human shields for La Clinton … and not just over Rove’s comments:

Expect much more of this in the coming months as the same MSM that eventually sided with Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008 – even going so far back then as to give her AND her husband the same kind of unfair kneecapping treatment they typically do Republicans –  transitions into “Hillary 2016” mode, saying and doing … and not saying … whatever they can to not only inspire her to run but to carry her through the rough and tumble primary fight she would potentially face and onto the Presidency.  Imagine the exclusives they could get of the first lady President in American history if they treat her the “correct” way!?

While that’s all well and good, now is as good a time as any to remind people – and the media – that this is the same Hillary Clinton who, along with her husband, kept an “enemies list” of both politicos and media types alike as she presided as “co-president” alongside Bill for eight years – a habit she never dropped, as we learned from her 2008 “enemies list” activities.    I think it’s safe to assume it’s a practice she still keeps up.

Not only that, but the former SOS has shown she’s no shrinking violet, as we saw at the Benghazi hearings last year, and as we’ve seen at other public functions where she was invited as a guest to speak or testify.  She deserves the same level of scrutiny and questioning that journalists routinely give not only to male politicos but that they gave to Sarah Palin in 2008 and beyond as well – minus the hypocritical, cheap shot attacks on Mrs. Palin’s looks and family, of course.

That said, we all know Hillary Clinton won’t get anywhere close to the level of scrutiny by the press that she deserves – but fortunately we don’t have to rely solely on “old media” for in-depth reporting anymore.  Thank God.

Related: Twitchy Team – ‘Got hypocrisy?’: Jedediah Bila slams media’s coddling of Hillary Clinton

Potential 2016 contender Rand Paul “clarifies” voter ID remarks

Senator Rand Paul

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

The Politico reports that the junior Senator from Kentucky, considered a possible presidential contender in 2016, yesterday “clarified” remarks he made to the New York Times on voter ID which have been cause for concern among conservatives:

Sen. Rand Paul is clarifying his recent comments that Republicans should lay off voter ID laws, saying now that there’s nothing wrong with tackling the issue.

“There’s nothing wrong with it. … I don’t really object to having some rules with how we vote,” Paul said on the Sean Hannity radio show on Tuesday.

The Kentucky Republican said his earlier comments “kind of got overblown in the wrong way.”

Last week, Paul was quoted in The New York Times as critical of Republicans pursuing voter ID laws. “Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter ID thing,” he told the paper at the time. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

On Hannity’s show, Paul, who has often talked about the need to develop a more inclusive and racially diverse Republican Party, said the GOP should should focus on its efforts to help minorities vote.

“I know about voter fraud and that there have to be rules and states have the ability to do it,” Paul said. “But I’ve also said Republicans should be emphasizing the good things we’re trying to do to try to help minorities vote instead of the things many minorities feel is directed at them, rightly or wrongly. … So I do object to overemphasizing something that is turning people off.”

His interview with the New York Times follows remarks the Senator made on April 22nd at a forum alongside Obama’s longtime adviser David Axelrod at the University of Chicago Institute of Politics in which he suggested Republicans “may have over-emphasized” voter fraud:

From the transcript:

PAUL: Dead people do still vote in some elections. There still is some fraud. And so we should stop that, and one way of doing it is (driver’s licenses).

AXELROD: Although the incidence of fraud is relatively small.

PAUL: It probably is, and I think Republicans may have over-emphasized this. I don’t know.

Paul did say that he supports voter ID efforts as a minimal standard and noted that you have to present an ID to enter government offices.

But he had a different view of calls by Republicans in some states to curtail early voting, which tends to favor Democrats more than Republicans.

“I don’t think early voting is biased one way or the other,” Paul said. “So I think eliminating it is a mistake for the — Republicans who want to make their whole thing eliminating early voting, I think that’s a mistake.”

Understandably, Paul’s comments – “poorly worded” or not – caused some friction among those of us who strongly support Voter ID laws who think the common sense measures enacted by states like North Carolina greatly cut back on the risk that voter fraud will happen.  I viewed what he said as a leg sweep, to be frank, because Paul  – to my knowledge – never really publicly delved much into the voter ID issue while states like mine and Texas were pushing to strengthen election laws already on the books and gaining national attention in the process.  Why start now?  In the spirit of “getting along” with the other side since Axelrod was sitting next to him in Chicago, one of the most notorious institutions of liberalism in the United States?

I have long said that I appreciated Paul’s efforts at trying to appeal to voters that the GOP has seemingly either given up on or don’t make as much effort at appealing to.  Paul has spoken to black pastors, traveled to Berkeley, has addressed Howard University students – all in an effort to find common ground and to try and break the bizarre stranglehold the left has on the youth vote and the black community. These efforts should be applauded, but just because you’re in front of people who you want to win over doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice principle in the process.  As I said on Twitter yesterday:

One of my biggest issues with high-profile GOP politicos is their penchant for doing this. I had believed Paul to be different but he’s stumbled a bit on this in the last month, both with what he said about Voter ID and the abortion issue. Paul rose to prominence on being a “different” kind of politician, taking unconventional approaches and stances (all without tossing principle to the side) in order to try and appeal to a cross-section of voters. If he continues to do what he’s done over the last month, he risks alienating people who support him and just becoming another rank and file politician who says and does whatever it takes to get their names in the headlines and, ultimately, re-elected. I hope that doesn’t happen.

Related: The Hill – Paul: Look for 2016 decision early next year

Congressional veteran John Conyers (D-MI) fails to qualify for primary ballot

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)

Congressman John Conyers (D-MI)
Image via Getty Images.

An update to this story. Via The Hill:

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) won’t appear on the Democratic primary ballot after failing to submit enough valid signatures, Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett said on Tuesday.

“It is my determination that in accordance with the current laws and statutes of the State of Michigan, the nominating petitions filed by Congressman John Conyers, Jr. are insufficient to allow his name to appear on the August 5, 2014 Primary Ballot,” Garrett said in a statement. 

The decision means Conyers may have to run as a write-in candidate if he wants to keep a seat he’s held for five decades.

If Conyers wins reelection, the 84 year old civil rights leader and House Judiciary Committee ranking member would become the Dean of the House, having served longer than any other current member. His former boss, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), is retiring this year.

Conyers’s Democratic primary opponent, pastor Horace Sheffield III, challenged the validity of the incumbent’s signatures. The clerk ruled that since two of his petition-gatherers weren’t registered voters in Michigan, as required under state law, the signatures he obtained didn’t count.

Conyers submitted 2,000 signatures, needing 1,000 valid ones. After the challenges, he had 592.

Legal challenges to the petition-gathering rule are likely, though. The American Civil Liberties Union has already challenged that law in federal court, saying it’s unconstitutional to require signature-gatherers to be registered voters.

Michigan state Sen. Bert Johnson (D), Conyers’s campaign chairman, told the Detroit Newson Monday that the campaign will continue to prepare its own potential legal challenge and write-in campaign.

“If they should be victorious, it has great implications for our campaign, he said. “It’s always better to be on the ballot than be a write-in.”

The DCCC says they will stand by Conyers, no matter what happens as a result of his and the ACLU’s respective challenges to the law/ruling. My thought is even if he doesn’t get on the ballot officially, his write-in campaign would probably be successful.  Detroit voters have this unfortunate habit of continuing to vote the same people in office over and over again and expecting different results.

Stay tuned.

(Hat tip: Memeorandum)