Ramos performed poorly, despite having nearly four years to rehearse his lies. His fumbling responses to questions illustrated his low intelligence, which was also shown by his inability to discern an American father and sons from fellow foreign gangsters as murder targets.
A prosecutor questioned the credibility Tuesday of a gang member who denied at his triple-murder trial that he fired the shots in 2008 that killed a man and two of his sons on a San Francisco street.
Prosecutor Harry Dorfman prodded at Edwin Ramos’ varying accounts of what happened June 22, 2008, the day Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot and killed in their car on their way back to their Excelsior neighborhood home from a family outing.
Dorfman pointed out that Ramos, 25, began his interview with police inspectors three days after the shootings by denying he had even been in San Francisco on the Sunday afternoon when the Bolognas were killed. Ramos now says that he was driving the car from which the actual killer opened fire, and that the shootings came as a surprise to him.
The prosecutor repeatedly asked Ramos to give his definition of a lie and his reasons for telling different versions of what happened.
“You will lie if you think the truth will hurt you?” Dorfman demanded.
Ramos befuddled Ramos looked taken aback by the direction of the cross-examination and said he didn’t understand some of the questions. At times he appeared incredulous and smiled as he addressed serious subjects, something he explained Monday was a nervous habit.
Prosecutors say Ramos opened fire from a car on the Bologna family after mistaking one of the men for a rival in a gang whose members had shot and wounded a friend earlier that day.
None of the Bolognas was a gang member, and a son who survived the attack, Andrew Bologna, now 21, has testified that Ramos fired the fatal shots. Continue reading this article
The Atlantic used to be an interesting magazine, capable of engaging with challenging subjects. In 1994, it published Roy Beck’s ground-breaking investigation, The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau.
Now it has a sob story about DREAMer kids, young illegal aliens who claim innocence because they were brought as children by their parents rather than unlawfully jumping the border on their own volition. Everybody’s a victim these days.
The author of the piece, Julia Lurie, appears to be near the age of the DREAMers and is sympathetic to their situation. But would she be willing to give up a slot in grad school to an illegal alien student?
Lurie presents the DREAM Act as being reasonable and fair, even though the illegal aliens would be taking places that should go to citizen kids. Funny how the generous types don’t care who gets hurt or what the cost is.
In fact, actual DREAM legislation has been a history of bad faith, of bills stuffed with loopholes providing an array of hidden amnesty goodies for persons who are not all fresh-faced kiddies. The 2010 DREAM Act was even worse than the 2007 version of a bad idea, specifically that American students should be pushed aside to give benefits to foreigners.
They can’t open bank accounts, apply for drivers licenses, or go to public universities. But more and more of these young people are “coming out” and finding ways to thrive.
When he reaches for his earliest memories, Nico Lopez recalls clenching his small fists around his seat belt buckle and straining to listen to the smiling flight attendant’s directions for take-off. As he watched Guatemala City disappear beneath him, he pulled his feet onto the seat, wrapped his arms around his knees, and quietly began to cry. It was 2001, and Nico was seven years old.
Now a tall, quietly confident young man with dark hair and green eyes, Nico will soon graduate with honors from a public high school in Stamford, Connecticut. Despite having grown up in a neighborhood where gunfire is likened to the doorbell ringing — you hear it all the time and don’t really think much of it — he is the leader of the student government, often the only non-white member of his AP classes, and, in his spare time, an English tutor for recent immigrants.
You know how the rest of the American dream story is supposed to go: Nico receives a merit-based scholarship to college and finds a job that helps him support his mother, who has worked as a housekeeper for the past 17 years. He gets married, has second-generation kids, and serves as a shining example of how any American can succeed if he tries hard enough.
Except Nico isn’t technically American. He overstayed his tourist visa as a seven-year-old and is now one of over 2 million immigrant youth who entered the United States as minors and now live here illegally. Federal law prohibits Nico from going to college at a public university, while, somewhat counterintuitively, Connecticut state law gives Nico access to in-state tuition though not financial aid.
As a result, Nico’s choices lie along a cruel spectrum. On one end, he could adopt the tricks of the trade of living as an undocumented person in America: he could find a low-paying job that pays cash under the table, have a friend at the DMV make a license for him, go to doctors who don’t require social security numbers or insurance cards, and sweet-talk bank tellers into opening accounts. Like the vast majority of undocumented residents, Nico could squeeze into America’s shadowy corners, away from the attention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Continue reading this article
The man accused of gunning down a father and two of his sons on a San Francisco street took the stand in his murder trial Monday to describe a troubled childhood that led him to join a gang.
Edwin Ramos, 25, spoke quickly and quietly in San Francisco Superior Court about the years leading up to the fatal shootings in June 2008. He smiled repeatedly as he testified, in what he explained was a nervous habit.
Other family members who have testified in Ramos’ 3-month-old triple-murder trial have depicted him as a confused boy who grew up without parents in rural El Salvador. He came to the United States at age 13 to join his mother, but life here was no better than in his native country, Ramos said.
He testified that he spoke little English and that his Spanish was a “country” version that set him apart from his peers. His mother called him “gay” if he cried, and her boyfriends beat him, he said.
His mother often told him, “I wish you were never born,” Ramos testified.
He said he had run away from home several times and eventually found refuge in an offshoot of the MS-13 gang, 20th Street. Previous witnesses said Ramos later joined another MS-13 offshoot, Pasadena Locos Sureños.
It was as a member of that gang, prosecutors say, that Ramos opened fire from a car June 22, 2008, on the occupants of a Honda Civic on Maynard Street in the Excelsior neighborhood. Ramos thought at least one of the men in the car was a member of a gang that had shot a Pasadena Locos Sureños member that morning, prosecutors say.
Inside the Honda were Tony Bologna, 48, and his three sons, none of whom was in a gang. Bologna and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were killed. A third son, Andrew Bologna, now 21, was unharmed and testified earlier that Ramos was the shooter. Continue reading this article
If you were to wear a ski mask into the bank on a warm day, some odd looks would likely be forthcoming from concerned employees. But when faces are masked by burqas, political correctness precludes anyone questioning the identities of the bag wearers.
Naturally this is a useful scenario for clever thieves, particularly for men of smaller stature, who use the Islamic sack as a disguise. Scholar Daniel Pipes has collected dozens of cases of the burqa being used in criminal situations, Niqabs and Burqas As Security Threats.
In Philadelphia, the city has experienced a string of bank robberies committed by robbers in burqas. Before Muslim immigration, nobody would have thought of the burqa as an unquestionable disguise, but now America is culturally enriched by diverse outfits for crime.
The Philadelphia Police Department and the FBI are seeking the public’s help in identifying the suspects connected to a bank robbery last month.
At about 12:20 p.m., on March 20th, police say two suspects walked into the Sovereign Bank in the 8000 block of Stenton Avenue. They presented a threatening demand note to the teller, obtained an undisclosed amount of cash, and then fled the area on foot.
Authorities say these suspects are repeat offenders and are responsible for several bank robberies in Philadelphia between December 23, 2011 and April 4, 2012. Continue reading this article
The latest insult is ICE’s press release lauding their tippy-top medical care for inmates, er guests. New detainees get a medical screening within hours of arrival, and the agency “pays for off-site specialty and emergency care, consultations and case management.” Nice!
Interestingly, no dollar cost is given for this array of generous medical and dental services. So we little citizens are supposed to just accept that illegal aliens get better healthcare than veterans and not complain about how our taxes are spent.
Providing quality health care to detainees in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) custody is an important and challenging task — one that Assistant Director for ICE Health Service Corps (IHSC) Dr. Jon Krohmer takes very seriously.
The ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) ensures the safe and humane conditions of confinement for aliens detained in ICE custody. This includes the provision of reliable, consistent and appropriate health services. IHSC, which falls under ERO, is comprised of more than 900 Public Health Service-commissioned officers, federal civil servants and contract support staff. Their mission is straightforward: to serve as the medical authority for ICE on a wide range of medical issues, including the agency’s comprehensive detainee health care program.
IHSC provides direct care to approximately 15,000 detainees housed at 21 IHSC-designated facilities throughout the nation. In addition, IHSC oversees the medical care provided to an additional 17,000 detainees at non-IHSC staffed detention facilities across the country. Whenever necessary, it authorizes and pays for off-site specialty and emergency care, consultations and case management.
“A detainee’s health care begins the moment they walk through the facility’s doors,” said Dr. Krohmer. “Within the first 12 hours of their admission, all detainees undergo a preliminary health screening, which includes an evaluation of the individual’s medical, dental and mental health status and within the next 14 days, a more detailed physical examination takes place.”
Because so many of these detainees are either new arrivals in the country or haven’t had access to health care in the past, Dr. Krohmer said it is not unusual for serious health problems to be diagnosed at these screenings.
“We’re finding out about health issues that even they didn’t even know about and in most cases are able to begin treatment,” he said.
This continuity of care not only lasts during the individual’s period of detention, but also throughout their removal to their country of origin. Before any detainee boards a plane to be removed from the United States, they must first undergo an evaluation to make sure they are fit to fly. Continue reading this article
Reading the press accounts, you would think that a free ride home (courtesy of the American taxpayer) was the most horrible punishment ever for invasive foreigners.
The particular deportees in this case are the ones who have spawned anchor babies, possilby to assure future US citizenship when the kiddies arrive at maturity and can sponsor mom & dad as legal immigrants. Illegal alien job thieves like to complain that having jackpot kids entitles them to stay, as if procreation trumped law and sovereignty.
(The rat-sign in the photo below should read, “WHOM would Jesus deport?”)
And illegals do purposefully enter the U.S. in order to plop out an anchor kid, as the video below illustrates.
During the first six months of last year, the federal government deported more than 46,000 parents who claimed their children are U.S. citizens, according to a new report that has raised concerns about what happens to children after their parents are expelled.
An additional 21,860 parents of U.S.-citizen children were ordered out of the country but may not have left, according to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement report to Congress last week.
The report, which reflects statistics from January through June 2011, is the first time the government has released detailed information on the number of parents of U.S.-citizen children who have been deported. The agency was directed by Congress in 2010 to begin collecting the data.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was concerned about U.S.-citizen children whose parents have been deported. But she said the government has increased its emphasis on deporting immigrants with criminal convictions, and the majority of the parents’ deportations fell into that category.
“The No. 1 concern all of us should have is, ‘Where are the children? What’s going on with the children?’ “Napolitano said during a meeting with reporters and editors at The Arizona Republic. “But the plain fact of the matter is having a child in and of itself does not bestow citizenship.”
A 2009 report by the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General estimated that more than 100,000 parents of U.S.-born children had been deported between 1998 and 2007. Continue reading this article
Michael Barone has written a nice article about the assault on higher education by the diversity bureaucrats, as if “inclusion” were the job of the university rather than education.
But the piece would have been improved by the inclusion of some dollar signs showing what all this diversity really costs.
Following is a jaw-dropper that I’ve been saving, where the taxpayer cost of a deluxe diversity office at UC Berkeley is mentioned in the fine print in a bio paragraph about a professional diversocrat:
My 30 years as a professor in the Department of Astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, has given me a comprehensive perspective about the needs and desires of the students, faculty, and staff on this campus. With shifts in state policies and economic challenges over the past few decades, I have shared mounting concerns about the ability of this university to continue to reflect the rich diversity of California and the nation. In 2007, Chancellor Robert J. Birgeneau, with the support of campus leadership, launched an entirely new division—the Division of Equity & Inclusion—to address these concerns as never before.
[. . .]
Dr. Gibor Basri is the vice chancellor for equity and inclusion at the University of California, Berkeley, overseeing a staff of approximately 150 and a $17-million budget. His responsibilities include working with faculty, staff, and students on strategic planning and fundraising for UC Berkeley’s Initiative for Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity and to carry out other key programs. An expert in “brown dwarves,” stars that cool down to planetary temperatures, Basri is an astrophysicist, who has taught at Berkeley for 25 years.
Here in California, the chronic budget problems have caused a chainsaw to be taken to the state’s once excellent university system.
How many times have you heard Barack Obama talk about “investing” in education? Quite a few, if you’ve been listening to the president at all.
In fact Americans have been investing more and more in education over the years, led by presidents Democratic and Republican. But it’s become glaringly clear that we’re getting pretty lousy return on these investments.
That’s been evident at the K-12 level for a long time. Teacher unions and education-school types have had custody of most of our public schools for more than three decades, during which test results and high school graduation rates have been mostly stagnant.
It has come to the point that Democratic politicians like former New York City superintendent Joel Klein, past and current Chicago Mayors Richard M. Daley and Rahm Emanuel, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and Newark Mayor Cory Booker have taken on the teacher unions.
Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, deserves credit for doing a bit of this as well. All this, despite the fact that teacher unions funnel millions of taxpayer-funded dollars into Democratic campaigns. Continue reading this article
The new Pew study of identity among the 50 million hispanics in America is quite revealing, perhaps more than was intended.
The takeaway point is that hispanics come for the money and don’t identify as Americans but with their tribe of national origin (see graph).
Hispanics believe that they should “learn English in order to succeed in the U.S.” (as Newt Gingrich promotes) but not as a way to become part of the American national community.
A majority admit they came for the money, specifically, “When asked why they came to this country, more than half (55%) of immigrant Hispanics say it was for economic reasons, while 24% say it was for family reasons.” The “better life” mantra we hear from “immigrants” doesn’t mean they desire more freedom or educational opportunity — the purpose is acquiring the Yankee dollar, period.
Another fascinating item is hispanics’ high opinion of themselves (as noted in Pew’s Executive Summary):
Hispanics say their group has been at least as successful as other minority groups in the U.S. Most Hispanics (55%) say their group is about as successful as other racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S. More than one-in-five (22%) say they have been less successful, while 17% say they have been more successful.
Nearly four decades after the United States government mandated the use of the terms “Hispanic” or “Latino” to categorize Americans who trace their roots to Spanish-speaking countries, a new nationwide survey of Hispanic adults finds that these terms still haven’t been fully embraced by Hispanics themselves. A majority (51%) say they most often identify themselves by their family’s country of origin; just 24% say they prefer a pan-ethnic label.
Moreover, by a ratio of more than two-to-one (69% versus 29%), survey respondents say that the more than 50 million Latinos in the U.S. have many different cultures rather than a common culture. Respondents do, however, express a strong, shared connection to the Spanish language. More than eight-in-ten (82%) Latino adults say they speak Spanish, and nearly all (95%) say it is important for future generations to continue to do so.
Hispanics are also divided over how much of a common identity they share with other Americans. About half (47%) say they consider themselves to be very different from the typical American. And just one-in-five (21%) say they use the term “American” most often to describe their identity. On these two measures, U.S.-born Hispanics (who now make up 48% of Hispanic adults in the country) express a stronger sense of affinity with other Americans and America than do immigrant Hispanics.
The survey finds that, regardless of where they were born, large majorities of Latinos say that life in the U.S. is better than in their family’s country of origin. Also, nearly nine-in-ten (87%) say it is important for immigrant Hispanics to learn English in order to succeed in the U.S.
This report explores Latinos’ attitudes about their identity; their language usage patterns; their core values; and their views about the U.S. and their families’ country of origin. It is based on findings from a national bilingual survey of 1,220 Hispanic adults conducted Nov. 9 through Dec. 7, 2011, by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. For a full description of the survey methodology, see Appendix A. (In this report, as in all Center reports, the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” are used interchangeably).
As someone fascinated by the psychology of why the multicultural society envisioned by diversity utopians is a failed idea (hint: human nature is tribal), I find this interview of a fearless Danish psychologist to be a fine read. Nicolai Sennels has worked among young Muslims in prison, and as a result he has well informed observations of their beliefs and behaviors.
Spencer: Nicolai, people know you mainly for your articles on the psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners (please see here and here). You have also contributed your professional insights in the case against the Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr. You wrote several articles, as well as a book on your conclusions. Could you give us a brief account of your findings?
Sennels: There are many differences between people brought up as Muslims and those who are brought up as Westerners. I identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called “locus of control” and identity.
Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control. “Big dogs don’t have to bark,” as we say in Denmark. In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is in itself an argument and a way of gaining respect. But we should not be impressed when we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down, shouting like animals and shooting in the air. We should take it for what it is: the local madhouse passing by.
In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature. In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw, even if this results in a prison sentence or even death. They see non-aggressive responses to such threats and violence as a sign of a vulnerability that is to be exploited. They do not interpret a peaceful response as an invitation to enter into a dialogue, diplomacy, intellectual debate, compromise or peaceful coexistence.
“Locus of control” is a term used in psychology, and relates to the way in which people feel that their lives are controlled. In Western culture, we are brought up to have an “inner locus of control,” meaning that we see our own inner emotions, reactions, decisions and views as the main deciding factor in our lives. There may be outer circumstances that influence our situation, but in the end, it is our own perception of a situation and the way we handle it that decides our future and our state of mind. The “inner locus of control” leads to increased self-responsibility and motivates people to become able to solve their own problems. Muslims are brought up to have an “outer locus of control.” Their constant use of the term inshallah (“Allah willing”) when talking about the future, as well as the fact that most aspects of their lives are decided by outer traditions and authorities, leaves very little space for individual freedom. Independent initiatives are often severely punished. This shapes their way of thinking, and means that when things go wrong, it is always the fault of others or the situation. Unfortunately, many Westerners go overboard with their self-responsibility and start to take responsibility for others’ behavior as well. The mix of many Westerners being overly forgiving, their flexible attitude, and Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to Islamization. Our overly protective welfare system shields immigrants from noticing the consequences of their own misbehavior and thereby learning from their mistakes and motivating them to improve.
Finally, identity plays a big role when it comes to psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners. Westerners are taught to be open and tolerant toward other cultures, races, religions, etc. This makes us less critical, impairs our ability to discriminate, and makes our societies open to the influence of other cultural trends and values that may not always be constructive. Muslims, on the other hand, are taught again and again that they are superior, and that all others are so bad that Allah will throw them in hell when they die. While most Westerners find national and cultural pride embarrassing, Muslim culture’s self-glorification, massive use of inbreeding, the rule that only Muslims can marry Muslims and their all-pervading social control function as self-protecting mechanisms on the levels of culture and identity.
In general, Westerners are taught to be kind, self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant, while Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant. Continue reading this article
Goh owed creditors all over the country and had been evicted from an apartment for non-payment of rent. His brother, a sergeant in the army, was killed in a car crash last year. Goh had been thrown out of Oikos University, designed to be a comfortable transition place for Korean immigrants. His fellow students teased him for poor English skills. Life wasn’t going well, and he was no longer a hopeful young man at 43. He wasn’t celebrating diversity when he bought a gun to punish people he thought were mean to him.
It’s also curious that six out of seven victims were women. Perhaps Goh barged into a nursing class that was mostly women, and that was the reason for the preponderance of female victims. Or maybe there was sexual resentment as well. The victim photos released so far show vibrant young women who probably weren’t very interested in a 43-year-old overweight man with poor communications skills.
Below left to right, Grace Eunhae Kim, 23, One L. Goh and Lydia Sim, 21.
OAKLAND, Calif. — One Goh’s life was on the skids even before he became the suspect in the nation’s biggest mass school shooting since Virginia Tech.
He was chased by creditors. He grieved the death of his brother. In January, he was expelled from Oikos University, a small Christian school where he studied nursing. And, police say, he was angry.
Goh, who was born in South Korea, told them he felt disrespected by teasing about his poor English skills at the Oakland school – a college founded as a safe place where Korean immigrants could adjust to a new country and build new careers.
So, he bought a gun and a few weeks later took his revenge, opening fire at the college on Monday in a rampage that left six students and a receptionist dead and wounded three more, authorities said.
“It’s very, very sad,” police Chief Howard Jordan said. “We have seven people who didn’t deserve to die and three others wounded because someone who couldn’t deal with the pressures of life.”
Police have released little background information about Goh, other than to say he had become a U.S. citizen.
A nursing professor who taught him said Goh would often tell a story about beating someone up who tried to mug him in San Francisco. Romie John Delariman said Goh would say that he picked fights at a park when he was bored.
“Sometimes he would brag that he was capable of hurting people,” Delariman told The Associated Press. “He said he was too old to go school with all the young people, and he said all his classmates were mean to him.”
Note the mention of Virginia Tech and another Korean mass murderer (hence the blog title), Seung-Hui Cho, whose severe anti-social behavior was ignored by university authorities because of political correctness until it was too late.
The Obama gang has extended his administrative amnesty by granting “unlawful presence waivers” to anyone who has a relative residing in the United States, so Uncle Onyango doesn’t have anything to worry about.
Just a week after he copped a plea in a drunken-driving rap, President Obama’s illegal-alien uncle has landed a hardship driver’s license from the Registry of Motor Vehicles, making it perfectly legal for him to drive in Massachusetts — even though the feds say he doesn’t belong here.
Onyango Obama, 67, who lost his regular license for 45 days last week, scored his limited license yesterday from the Registry’s Wilmington branch, after convincing a hearing officer that life without wheels would have posed an undue hardship on his livelihood as a liquor-store manager. Obama bolstered his case with a letter from his employer, Conti Liquors, as well as proof that he’d enrolled in an alcohol-treatment program.
“He met all of the criteria,” RMV spokeswoman Sara Lavoie said.
Of the state’s decision to award Obama a license even though the federal government considers him an illegal alien, Lavoie would only say, “Registry business is based on Registry records.”
The license allows Obama to drive from noon to midnight.
The license award drew fire from one advocate of tough enforcement on illegals, Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson.
“Our democracy is predicated on law,” Hodgson said. “When we start to interpret these laws differently and manipulate them the way we want them to work for certain people, we start to send a mixed message to people that the law doesn’t really matter. Its subject to interpretation. You don’t have to follow the law. They find ways to justify it. We need the laws to be very clear. We need ‘no’ to mean ‘no’ again.”
Hodgson, along with sheriffs in Plymouth and Worcester counties, stood up for Secure Communities, a program that feeds local police fingerprint checks into federal databases to check the citizenship status of accused criminals. Gov. Deval Patrick has refused to enroll the state in the program.
Obama, a Kenyan national, lost his license last week after admitting in court that Framingham cops had sufficient evidence to convict him in an August OUI bust. His lawyer, P. Scott Bratton, said Obama has an immigration hearing next month.
A judge continued Obama’s OUI case without a finding for one year, meaning he’ll face no further punishment if he stays out of trouble. Obama is the half-brother of President Obama’s late father, and the older brother of Zeituni Onyango, who was granted asylum in 2010.
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.