Feds released hundreds of immigrant murderers, drunk drivers, sex-crimes convicts
Immigration officials knowingly released dozens of murderers and thousands of drunken drivers back into the U.S. in 2013, according to Obama administration statistics that could undercut the president’s argument that he is trying to focus on the most serious criminals in his immigration enforcement.
Among the 36,000 immigrants whom U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released from custody last year there were 116 with convictions for homicide, 43 for negligent manslaughter, 14 for voluntary manslaughter and one with a conviction classified by ICE as “homicide-willful kill-public official-gun.”
PHOTOS: The ugliest political figures in modern history
The immigrants were in deportation proceedings, meaning ICE was trying to remove them from the country and could have held them in detention but released them anyway, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, which published the numbers Monday. The Washington Times also obtained the data.
“This would be considered the worst prison break in American history, except it was sanctioned by the president and perpetrated by our own immigration officials,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The administration’s actions are outrageous. They willfully and knowingly put the interests of criminal immigrants before the safety and security of the American people.”
The data raised thorny questions about how the government decides which immigrants to detain and which it will release as they await court hearings and final action on deportation.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/12/feds-released-hundreds-immigrant-murderers-drunken/#ixzz32BvtnBeQ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
By Thomas Sowell – September 20, 2012
The recently discovered tape on which Barack Obama said back in 1998 that he believes in redistribution is not really news. He said the same thing to Joe the Plumber four years ago. But the surfacing of this tape may serve a useful purpose if it gets people to thinking about what the consequences of redistribution are.
Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely assume that government policies will have the effect intended.
The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty. The communist nations were a classic example, but by no means the only example.
In theory, confiscating the wealth of the more successful people ought to make the rest of the society more prosperous. But when the Soviet Union confiscated the wealth of successful farmers, food became scarce. As many people died of starvation under Stalin in the 1930s as died in Hitler’s Holocaust in the 1940s.
How can that be? It is not complicated. You can only confiscate the wealth that exists at a given moment. You cannot confiscate future wealth — and that future wealth is less likely to be produced when people see that it is going to be confiscated. Farmers in the Soviet Union cut back on how much time and effort they invested in growing their crops, when they realized that the government was going to take a big part of the harvest. They slaughtered and ate young farm animals that they would normally keep tending and feeding while raising them to maturity.
People in industry are not inert objects either. Moreover, unlike farmers, industrialists are not tied to the land in a particular country.
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/09/20/the_fallacy_of_redistribution_115502.html#ixzz2yJMldVUz
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS WE HAVE NEEDLESSLY
LOST IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL SECURITY
Through the enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act and subsequent
executive directives and regulations, essential rights and freedoms
that were once guaranteed to all individuals have been substantially
degraded. Many Americans still do not realize the significance of
what we have lost. The resulting expansion of government powers,
and the erosion of 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendment
rights and freedoms have transformed the United States.
CONTINUE READING AT: http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf
The radical left is once again trying to gut the Second Amendment. As things look right now they will not get most of their wish list passed. The American people are too smart to believe that banning semiautomatic firearms and/or certain popular magazines will do anything to reduce crime.
One lie the radical left has so far had success in getting people to believe is that there is a “gun show loophole” and that “loophole” needs to be closed by mandating universal background checks on all sales or transfers of firearms. Unless civil rights groups like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, and civil rights activists mount a huge effort to expose this lie and the consequences of universal background checks this could pass Congress.
To start, there is NO gun show loophole. Gun dealers have to do a background check no matter where they sell a firearm. It doesn’t matter whether they sell a firearm in their store, at a gun show, or in a back ally, they have to do a background check. Anyone who says differently is lying. To be fair, most of the so called reporters in the old media probably have no idea that this is a lie. They are told there is a loophole by a political hack or a radical anti-Second Amendment group and never bother to check whether it is true or not.
There is exclusion for private citizens to give, sell, or trade guns they own without the expense and hassle of doing a background check. When Sarah Brady bought her son a powerful rifle for Christmas in 2000, she didn’t have to do a background check on her son before giving it to him. When my father left the .22 rifle his father gave him to my son, the executor of his estate didn’t have to do a background check on my son. When my neighbor sold her late husband’s collection of World War I era guns she didn’t have to do a background check on the collectors who bought the collection.
This exclusion is what the radicals want to eliminate. Had there been a universal background check law when the previously mentioned transfers occurred, the three of us would have had to pay a licensed firearms dealer to do the background check before transferring the firearms. But a criminal would not bother doing the background check and without universal registration there would be no way of knowing the transfer took place.
Continue reading at: http://www.etherzone.com/2013/bend041513.shtml