Even so, some big name businesses are touting their foreign-language-speaking clerks — so diversity-friendly! No companies admit to passing over American English speakers to hire, but you have to assume that is happening. “Bilingual” preference means home-grown Americans are screened out. The few available jobs are for those who fit into the newly created multicultural society, where English speakers are at a disadvantage.
In a hypercompetitive retail environment, more national stores and some local chains are emphasizing that many of their employees are bilingual and can help customers whose first language is not English.
“A lot of retailers are very much focused on providing a diverse workforce for diverse customers that are coming into their stores. They recognize that a lot of people that come into their stores don’t always speak the language,” said Jackie Fernandez, retail partner with Deloitte’s Los Angeles practice.
Such efforts, which also include signs and advertising in non-English languages, are more prominent in states like California that have diverse populations compared with other parts of the country, she said. More than one-third of California’s population is of Hispanic or Latino origin, according to 2010 census figures. An additional 13 percent are Asian. Statewide, 43 percent of residents speak a language other than English in the home, compared with 20 percent nationally.
Home Depot, Sears, Kmart, Pleasanton-based Safeway and local chains like Hayward-based Airport Home Appliance, are among stores that recruit bilingual employees. Continue reading this article
An analysis of the voting patterns that barrelled François Hollande to victory on May 6 as the first Socialist president of France since 1995 shows that this overthrow was due in large measure to Muslims, who voted for him in overwhelming numbers.
The French vote marks the first time that Muslims have determined the outcome of a presidential election in a major western European country; it is a preview of things to come.
As the politically active Muslim population in France continues to swell, and as most Muslims vote for Socialist and leftwing parties, conservative parties will find it increasingly difficult to win future elections in France.
According to a survey of 10,000 French voters conducted by the polling firm OpinionWay for the Paris-based newspaper Le Figaro, an extaordinary 93% of French Muslims voted for Hollande on May 6. By contrast, the poll shows that only 7% of French Muslims voted for the incumbent, Nicolas Sarkozy.
An estimated 2 million Muslims participated in the 2012 election, meaning that roughly 1.7 million Muslim votes went to Hollande rather than to Sarkozy. In the election as a whole, however, Hollande won over Sarkozy by only 1.1 million votes. This figure implies that Muslims cast the deciding votes that thrust Hollande into the Élysée Palace. Continue reading this article
Over at the squirrelly Fox News Latino, Arizona Senator John McCain was interviewed recently to advise Republicans that the party should cozy up to hispanics on the issue of illegal immigration, and “treat it in a humane fashion” (aka enact mass amnesty) as the raza-tarians keep demanding.
[. . .] The poll findings indicate that Republicans are likely to have a hard time replicating Bush’s 2004 performance among Latino voters. According to 2004 exit polls, Bush received the backing of 40 percent of Hispanic voters, up from 34 percent in 2000. Other studies have put the 2004 figure somewhat lower, although there is general agreement that Bush made statistically significant gains from 2000 to 2004.
As usual, McCain doesn’t object to illegal immigration and is still fine with rewarding the lawbreaking with work permits, which is all the foreign intruders care about — more access to jobs and therefore money.
When Juan Williams accused Arizona of being “now known as the anti-immigrant state” the Senator didn’t disagree or characterize his state’s residents as the defenders of national sovereignty.
McCain avoided the term amnesty (except in one historical reference) and framed his imagined giveaway in kindly language: e.g. “an issue of being humane, of being understanding, of having compassion.”
Nobody ever reminds these characters that only in the immigration sphere is lawbreaking rewarded by the federal government, an action which turns our image of a “nation of laws” into a bad joke.
You can watch the cringe-inducing 16-minute interview or read the transcript below:
JUAN WILLIAMS: Senator John McCain thanks for coming in for this Fox News Latino exclusive.
SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ):Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Senator, why do you keep saying that the Hispanic vote is up for grabs, when polls consistently show that President Obama has close to seventy percent support in the Latino community?
McCAIN: And he had very strong, strong support in 2008 as well. Because I think that there are many values, and things that we share, we Republicans: lower taxes, pro military, small business, you know how Hispanic or Latinos are small business people, Pro-life. There are many areas there that they would, in my view, would be naturally attracted to the Republican banner. And they in fact… George Bush, Bush II did well in his elections, with Hispanic voters. And, we all know what the answer is, and what the problem is. It’s the issue of immigration. And we have to treat it in a humane fashion, and we have to understand that with any new wave of immigrants that comes to our country, whether it be Irish, or Italian, Poles, whoever it is, Hispanics in America, or Latinos, have an allegiance to the people who are coming and that are still in the country they came from.
WILLIAMS: Well, let’s look at the likely GOP nominee stance. Mitt Romney, on immigration reform, opposes the Dream Act, opposes Pathways to Citizenship. In fact, he’s calling for self-deportation. He opposes guest worker programs, opposes tuition breaks for undocumented kids who are in the United States. Why would Hispanics vote for that candidate?
McCAIN: Well, first of all, as you described Mitt Romney is not the case in all due respect. He is solidly in favor of immigration reform. He knows that there are twelve million people who are in this country illegally. He knows you have to address it. He has also stated, recently, and I’m happy to say, that we have to address it in a humane fashion. The issue of self-deportation, there are some Hispanics who have come back, but he doesn’t—gone back to the country that they, mainly ‘cause the economic conditions here. So he, he doesn’t—but he doesn’t think that’s the, the entire answer to the issue. As you know Marco Rubio and some others are working on a version of the Dream Act. And by the way also he does not oppose guest worker programs either, either for high tech, or for agricultural workers.
Look, Mitt Romney understands that we have a challenge with the Hispanic voter. I believe, as this campaign moves on, that you will see him addressing this issue of the need for immigration reform. We all know what we need to happen. Let me just, I have one more small point, I’m sorry for the long answer, but you are touching on one of the key issues of the 2012 Presidential campaign. We still do have a huge problem with drugs coming across our border. There are a hundred guides sitting on mountaintops right now in Arizona, guiding the drug cartels as they bring the drugs across the Arizona/Mexico border, up to Phoenix, where they are distributed throughout the nation. And the price of cocaine, by the way, on the street, has not gone up one penny, despite all of our drug efforts. That’s the best indicator as to how we’re doing on the, quote, war on drugs. So there’s a bigger problem than just illegal immigrants coming across our border. There are still drugs, and we’re creating a demand, and that’s, you know, a big part of the issue. And that, that can’t go on, Juan. It can’t. Continue reading this article
The recent media reports of illegal immigration decreasing to net zero always seemed a little convenient for Obama. Once the border had been “secured” then Obama could advance his comprehensive amnesty scheme in order to keep his illegal alien base happy.
So if the illegals aren’t coming any more, it isn’t because of anything Washington has done.
Actually, they are still coming.
Reporter Sara Carter (who covers borders and national security) has plenty of contacts among Border Patrol and ICE officers, and they are telling her that illegal aliens continue to cross the Mexican border for their usual reasons of job stealing, drug smuggling etc. The enforcement experts say that the influx may be somewhat diminished, but is certainly nowhere near zero.
The Pew Hispanic survey (Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero), cited by many as evidence of a secure border, is based upon DHS numbers. And border agents are being told by superiors to arrest fewer illegals overall to concentrate on criminals (aren’t they all?) and avoid areas of high traffic.
Another measure is the money transfers going south, and Carter reports remittances to Mexico are up over last year.
The Obama administration prefers the illegal immigration issue to be off the viewscreen for the election. Their propaganda strategy is to spin that the problem is over, because Romney’s pro-enforcement stance is popular among voters and Obama’s raza-tarian leanings are not.
The once red-hot issue of illegal immigration has cooled considerably in recent months, in large part because of studies like one from the Pew Hispanic Center that said the flood of people entering the U.S. from across the Mexican border has slowed, and that the number actually returning to Mexico from the U.S. has increased, reversing a decades-long trend.
But federal law enforcement agents on the border are skeptical that the illegal immigrant tide is slowing. And new information from the U.S. financial sector shows that more money is flowing from American cities to Mexico in the form of remittances from immigrants than last year.
Federal law enforcement officials interviewed by The Washington Examiner say security is being compromised as the government seeks to keep a lid on the border as a campaign issue during the presidential election cycle. Department of Homeland Security’s Border Patrol agents and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are being told not to make arrests of noncriminal illegal immigrants, and not to patrol areas of high traffic along the roughly 2,000-mile Southwest border.
A Border Patrol official working along the Texas border said administration officials are deliberately failing to document what is actually happening on the border. “In many cases my supervisors make it clear that they don’t want increased apprehension numbers, which means no arrests,” he said.
The government is also failing to patrol hundreds of miles of federal wildlife reserves that fall under the jurisdiction of the Interior Department. That has given smugglers and illegal immigrants a clear corridor to enter the county and has skewed national arrest figures, an official said. The U.S. is allowing “drug and human smugglers in without a fight” in parts of the Southwest, he said.
T.J. Bonner, former president of the National Border Patrol Council, said recent reports stating that immigration has declined are not substantiated by the facts. He said Border Patrol agents are being hampered by numerous restrictions.
“For every illegal crosser who is arrested, two get away,” Bonner said.
Bonner said the Pew report, which uses statistics provided by DHS, is “surprising, considering remittances to Mexico are up despite a bad economy.”
Maria, an illegal immigrant who spoke with The Examiner on condition that her last name not be used, said few, if any, of her Baltimore neighbors in a community consisting largely of illegal immigrants have fled back to their homeland.
Statistics from the Bank of Mexico, that country’s largest bank, showed that remittances totaled $3.29 billion in January and February, up 7.9 percent over the same period last year. Remittances to Mexico are on a pace to total about $19.7 billion this year, according to the recent reports.
An ICE official who spoke on background said, “The guys in my office were laughing when we heard the Pew report and when we see DHS flat-out lie. We are in a constant battle with higher-ups to do our job. The problem is if we did it right, the numbers wouldn’t add up” — that is, they wouldn’t support the administration’s desire to keep the immigration issue off voters’ minds in 2012, he said. Continue reading this article
In Los Angeles, the illegal alien killer of high-school football star Jamiel Shaw (pictured at right) was found guilty of first-degree murder last Wednesday. This week the court has entered the penalty phase to determine whether Mexican gangster Pedro Espinoza will get the death penalty.
Information about the killer is now being revealed that was kept from jurors during the trial, and we learn that Espinoza was a particularly violent character in jail where he acted as a gang enforcer. News reports say he was the aggressor in eight incidents while he was incarcerated, including attacks on other inmates. Plus he was similarly berserk in juvenile detention.
Espinoza’s vicious jail behavior makes authorities’ release of him even more difficult to understand. He was clearly a very dangerous man, yet he was not deported out of America but was allowed to walk free on Los Angeles streets. It was only 28 hours between release and the murder of Jamiel Shaw. Given his previous behavior, that fact is not surprising.
Clearly public safety means nothing in the sanctuary city of Los Angeles if it interferes with the lifestyles of illegal alien criminals.
A prosecutor urged jurors Tuesday to recommend a death sentence for a gang member who gunned down a standout Los Angeles High School football player he mistook for a gang rival, citing a history of violence dating back to the defendant’s teen years while he was in juvenile camp.
Defense attorney M. David Houchin countered that his 23-year-old client, Pedro Espinoza, did not get any of the accolades that the 17-year-old victim, Jamiel Shaw Jr., received throughout his life.
“The mirror image is an opposite image when you look at Mr. Shaw,” Houchin told the Los Angeles Superior Court jury, which is being asked to recommend whether the admitted gang member should be sentenced to death or life in prison without the possibility of parole for Shaw’s March 2, 2008, shooting death.
The panel deliberated about four hours before convicting Espinoza May 9 of first-degree murder and finding true the special circumstance allegation that Shaw’s slaying was carried out to further the activities of a criminal street gang.
The victim was shot twice — once in the abdomen and once in the head — only yards from his home in Arlington Heights. Prosecutors said the teen had been walking home carrying a red Spider-Man backpack that made Espinoza perceive him as a gang rival.
In her opening statement in the trial’s penalty phase, Deputy District Attorney Allyson Ostrowski told jurors that they will hear about Shaw’s “promise as a football player,” including being named most valuable player and being looked at by universities such as Stanford and Rutgers.
Jurors will also hear about who Espinoza is, including gang-related incidents in which he was the aggressor while in juvenile camps, along with eight incidents in the Men’s Central Jail that included attacks on other inmates and possession of jailmade weapons after he was arrested in connection with Shaw’s killing, Ostrowski said.
She said the prosecution will ask jurors to recommend “the maximum sentence … because his crimes and his history require it.”
Espinoza’s attorney countered, “Any, any reason, any individual juror may have, be it compassion, be it mercy, anything … can tell you in your heart that the appropriate penalty is life in prison without the possibility of parole.”
Deputy Probation Officer Carl Patton testified that Espinoza jumped into a fight involving a rival gang member who was outnumbered and that he kicked the other teen in the face after being handcuffed during an April 12, 2006, earthquake drill at a juvenile camp. Continue reading this article
Hanson’s latest thoughts concern what might be done, considering recent reports of the $16 billion hole in the budget. Gov Jerry Brown has been making a lot of noise that the terrible state finances mean that voters should pass his tax-raising initiative coming up in November. (Despite promises of reform, Brown has done nothing about bloated salaries and pensions of public employees and other objectionable spending, like taxpayer-subsidized college educations for illegal aliens.)
Sadly, California is now a one-party state, where far-left crazies run the government and the Republican party is deceased. It’s hard to imagine that Hanson’s sensible fix-it list will be considered by those in power, much less implemented.
Recently, I was driving down pot-holed, two-lane, non-freeway 101 near Monterey (unchanged since the 1960s) when the radio blared that on a recent science test administered to public schools, California scored 47th in the nation. As I looked at the congested traffic on the decrepit highway and digested the idea that our public schools are competitive only with Mississippi and Alabama, I wondered — is that what we get for a more than 10 percent income tax, 10 percent state and local sales taxes, and the highest gas taxes in the nation?
To sum up why California has yet another deficit — this time a $16 billion whopper — is pretty easy: The number of demonized one-percenters who pay over 10 percent in their salary to the state has been shrinking, as thousands flee with their ideas, energy, business, and capital to nearby no-tax states, and others make less money due to more and more costs and regulations — while the number of those receiving all sorts of state housing, food, medical, education, and legal support is soaring. (In crude parlance, California increasingly is seen by some as a very bad deal, in terms of the sort of schools, safety, transportation, and housing per taxes paid in comparison to Reno, Tahoe, or Austin, but by far more people as a very good deal in comparison to the costs versus benefits in, for example, Oaxaca or El Salvador.)
In the last two decades, the number added to the prison rolls (ca. 115,000) was not that much smaller than the number of new tax-filers (150,000). And of the last 10 million added to the state’s population, 7 million are on Medicaid.
But California being California, such reductionist thinking is taboo, and we are not allowed to make any suggestion that there is a connection between fleeing entrepreneurs, massive and illegal influxes of undocumented foreign nationals in recent years, and record public salaries and unfunded pensions.
So that said, are there any out-of-the-box things California might do to save or make a few billion dollars, other than the obvious measures of slashing spending and dismantling burdensome regulations?
1. Slap a user tax on the some $10–15 billion that is estimated to leave the state in remittances to foreign countries, or at least through executive action make foreign cash remittances grounds for disqualification from state public assistance.
2. Cancel high speed-rail asap.
3. Open up immediately the estimated now off-limits 35 billion barrels of oil off the central California coast, the vast majority of which can be safely and cleanly exploited by on-shore horizontal drilling.
4. Cap the amount one can receive from a California public pension, or multiple pensions at $100,000.
5. Eliminate three-quarters of the thousands of public California board members, who stymie commerce and are mostly costly and unproductive term-limited insider politicians.
6. Mandate one official language for state publications and office business.
7. Cut by 75 percent the number of administrators at the UC and CSU systems (their numbers from 1993 have grown by 212 percent), and pay them at the commensurate twelve-month faculty rate.
8. Clamp down on the vast underground and untaxed cash economy that has exploded to the point that one can buy tax-free almost anything needed, from a new lawn mower to a four-course meal, at roadside emporia and canteens.
9. Deport the 20,000 plus illegal-alien felons now in California state prisons to their countries of origin.
10. Have George Clooney do another $40,000 per head Hollywood fundraiser, but with Sacramento, not Barack Obama, as the beneficiary.
The only item with which I disagree is #9 the idea of deporting criminals to their home countries from American prison cells. There’s no reason to think that Mexico and other riff-raff nations would imprison their citizens at their cost for crimes committed in the United States. Some countries refuse to accept any of their deported criminals even after the bad guys have served their time in prison, so we see international responsibility is a rare commodity.
One of the great things about the Tea Party movement has been its rekindling of popular interest in the Constitution. Pocket copies of the document are handed out at gatherings, and people read them to understand what limits are supposed to exist on government in this country.
Reading the Constitution is a reminder of the wisdom of the founders, and how fortunate we are to have a blueprint of laws that is simple, yet protects individual rights like freedom of speech and religion.
With proper respect in mind, why would the United States of America need another system of law, particularly one that is the enforcement strategy of a religiously framed totalitarian system, namely Islam?
Sometimes Muslims use the cultural defense to defend their crimes, particularly against women, where the argument is that in the home country, women must obey men or face physical punishment including honor killing. But Muslims’ culture has been constructed by centuries of living under sharia. Islam is an all-encompassing system for society, more political than spiritual.
Interestingly, David Yerushalmi, one of the pro-Constitution lawyers involved in the Kansas legislation, reports that the ACLU in on the side of barbaric sharia law that regards women as subhuman and non-Muslims as enemies:
It is not known whether Governor Brownback will sign the bill into law.
Kansas lawmakers have passed legislation intended to prevent the state courts or agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws in making decisions, a measure critics have blasted as an embarrassment to the state.
The legislation, which passed 33-3 in the state Senate on Friday and 120-0 previously in the House, is widely known in Kansas as the “Sharia bill,” because the perceived goal of supporters is to keep Islamic code from being recognized in Kansas.
The bill was sent to Republican Governor Sam Brownback, who has not indicated whether he will sign it.
In interviews on Saturday, a supporter of the bill said it reassured foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution will protect them. But an opponent said the bill’s real purpose is to hold Islam out for ridicule.
Kansas Representative Peggy Mast, a lead sponsor of the bill for the past two years, said the goal was to make sure there was no confusion that American laws prevailed on American soil.
Mast said research showed more than 50 cases around the United States where courts or government agencies took laws from Sharia or other legal systems into account in decision-making.
Commonly, they involved divorce, child custody, property division or other cases where the woman was treated unfairly, Mast said.
“I want people of other cultures, when they come to the United States, to know the freedoms they have in regard to women’s and children’s rights,” said Mast, a Republican. “An important part of this bill would be to educate them.”
State Senator Tim Owens, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said there was no need for legislation reaffirming American laws that already exist. All the proposed legislation does, he said, was target one particular group – Muslims – for discrimination.
In a recent radio interview with conservative Laura Ingraham, he argued that hispanics favor border enforcement and oppose illegal immigration, a view that does not line up with polling. He stated, “Hispanics support everything that the general population supports. Hispanics support border security.” Not so, at least according to mainstream surveys cited below.
Interestingly, about four in five of the current illegal alien population of 11+ million are hispanic, so the the issue affects many.
The point is that Sen Rubio is selling hispanics as being just like traditional Americans, which is true in some areas, like the concern about jobs and the economy. After all, 55 percent admit they came for “economic reasons” aka the money, not for American freedom or anything like that.
Furthermore, the majority of hispanics identify with the family’s country of origin, not the nation in which they chose to live. Patriotic assimilation to American values does not appear to be happening in this tribe.
On the other side, the leftist hispanic demander cadre won’t be happy until illegals get the Whole Enchilada of citizenship. Plus their DREAM Acts have always been bad-faith documents crammed with loopholes, so a legislative compromise could be disastrous.
Senator Marco Rubio: “On the immigration issue one of the great injustices that’s happening in the American debate today is the idea that somehow Hispanics are in favor of illegal immigration. The enormous majority, the overwhelming majority, of Hispanics in this country are here legally. I think sixty percent of the Hispanics in this country were born here and so that’s number one. Number two is Hispanics support everything that the general population supports. Hispanics support border security. Hispanics support employment security. Hispanics support enforcing our immigration laws. These are facts. This notion that’s been created that somehow Hispanics are in favor of illegal immigration and that the way to win Hispanic votes is to support illegal immigration is not just wrong, I think it’s offensive and so I want to begin by that.
“Now, I believe that the most important thing we need to do in the illegal immigration issue that our country faces is a combination of enforce our laws and modernize our legal immigration system. We are not the anti-immigration party. We are not the anti-illegal immigration party. We are the pro-legal immigration party. We, meaning Republicans. And we need a legal immigration system that works, that honors our heritage both as a nation of immigrants and also as a nation of laws. That’s the way I think we should approach this issue.
“The Democrats have said that they’re going to make a push on the DREAM Act again this year, something that I do not support. And so I said well, if you’re going to make a push on the DREAM Act and they control the Senate, then we Republicans should figure out an alternative to your flawed approach to the DREAM Act. An alternative that tries to help kids who find themselves as victims. These are young people that came into America through no fault of their own. But how can we help them without rewarding those who have broken the law and not encouraging people to break the law in the future? Continue reading this article
Secure Communities is a common-sense federal program where the fingerprints of persons already in jail are sent to a national database to determine immigration status. Yet the open-borders Raza-tarians condemn the policy as an affront of the self-designated right of illegal aliens to break any American laws they want.
To the bitter end the Patrick administration wanted it made clear that deploying the federal Secure Communities program in Massachusetts was absolutely not its idea. It simply defies logic that a team largely responsible for the safety of 6 million citizens would so vigorously resist a program that targets a small number of illegal aliens who have committed a crime.
Finally, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has gotten around to including Massachusetts on the list of states where sharing information on local arrests with federal immigration authorities will now be automatic and mandatory.
Local law enforcement agencies have of course always run fingerprints on suspects through FBI criminal databases. But that information now will be shared automatically with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which will determine how to proceed if a suspect is not a legal resident.
It’s not as if there has been a lack of evidence that action is needed. Just ask the family of Matthew Denice. Nicolas Guaman, an illegal immigrant from Ecuador with a record of prior arrests, stands accused of being behind the wheel of a pickup truck that struck and killed Denice last year. Had Secure Communities been in place when Guaman was arrested back in 2008 for assaulting a cop, it is no exaggeration to say Denice might still be alive. Continue reading this article
Well into the 21st century, Washington continues its failure to protect our sovereign borders after decades of broken promises. The feds have spent billions of dollars on failed schemes, and now the result is a miniscule 13 percent operational control.
A score of 13 percent is a failing grade even for government work.
It’s relevant to remember that in 1996, ICE Commissioner Doris Meissner declared that controlling the border “would be a three- to five-year effort,” putting success at 2001 at the latest.
Meissner said that controlling the border is going to be a long- term, step-by-step process. “We’ve always said this would be a three- to five-year effort to build up to what would be needed,” she said.
Judicial Watch has the latest failure of border security. It almost makes one think that Washington isn’t serious about protecting America’s perimeter.
In a chilling revelation, the agency created after 9/11 to protect the United States from another terrorist attack claims it achieved its “goal” by gaining “operational control” over a mere 13% of the nation’s borders.
It gets better. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) took six years to accomplish this great feat that, as simple math indicates, leaves an overwhelming portion of the nation’s foreign borders out of “operational control.” The term is used to describe areas where the DHS agency on the front lines, the U.S. Border Patrol, has the ability to detect and interdict illegal activity.
The operational control goal was set by DHS in 2004 and mission accomplished was reported—and internally celebrated—in the fall of 2010. The American public is only hearing about this now because the information is included in a new federal report that largely focuses on implementation challenges facing the Border Patrol.
With 20,000 officers, the agency is responsible for securing nearly 6,000 miles of Mexican and Canadian international land borders and more than 2,000 miles of coastal waters surrounding Florida and Puerto Rico. The priority mission of the Border Patrol, according to its own website, is preventing terrorists and their weapons—including weapons of mass destruction—from entering the United States.
That makes the celebrated 13% figure even scarier because it means the feds only had the ability to detect and interdict illegal activity in a snippet—1,107-mile range—of the nation’s foreign borders. Previous audits have also documented the serious vulnerabilities that plague the nation’s borders. For instance, a few years ago undercover federal investigators easily smuggled radioactive material and other contraband into the U.S. through Canada. Continue reading this article
One of the worst cases ever of a preventable crime by a previously arrested but not deported illegal alien gangster came to a near-conclusion today in San Francisco. Edwin Ramos was convicted of murdering Tony Bologna and his two sons (pictured below) in a mistaken-identity gang hit nearly four years ago.
There could have been no mistake that Ramos was a dangerous criminal. He was a member of MS-13, known to be one of the most violent gangs, and was an illegal alien. He had been found guilty as a juvenile of two felonies: a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman. But San Francisco coddled rather than deported a very dangerous man, and the Bologna family was the victim of government malfeasance. The city sanctuary policy dictated that the legal system would not concern itself with Ramos’ immigration status, so he has allowed to remain in America and kill.
Uber-liberal San Francisco doesn’t do death penalties even in the most brutal cases, so Ramos will likely be sentenced to life in state prison, where he will be have plenty of fellow hispanic gangsters for company.
Alleged gang member Edwin Ramos was convicted Wednesday of the slayings of a San Francisco father and his two sons, the culmination of one of the most notorious crimes in the city in recent years.
The San Francisco Superior Court jury returned guilty verdicts to three first-degree murder counts in the killings of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, who were shot to death while driving home in the Excelsior neighborhood on a bright Sunday afternoon June 22, 2008.
The jury heard three months of testimony in the case before beginning deliberations last Wednesday on the 25-year-old Ramos’ fate.
The case first drew widespread attention for its random brutality. It became a national story when The Chronicle reported that city juvenile-justice officials relying on San Francisco’s sanctuary-city policy had twice shielded Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, from possible deportation after he committed gang-related crimes as a minor.
Assistant District Attorney Harry Dorfman, the lead prosecutor on the case, portrayed Ramos as a seemingly charming but cold-blooded killer who shot the Bolognas in a misguided attempt to avenge a compatriot in the MS-13 gang who had been shot and wounded earlier that day.
“You are looking at a murderer, a gang murderer,” Dorfman told the jury in his closing argument, pointing to Ramos. “Hold him responsible for all the sorrow and grief he caused that day.”
With no murder weapon or ballistics tests to link Ramos to the shootings, the prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Tony Bologna’s son Andrew Bologna, 21, the only survivor of the attack.
He testified that the family had been returning from a gathering in Fairfield when Ramos blocked their car at Congdon and Maynard streets in his Chrysler 300, then rolled alongside and opened fire. Continue reading this article
According to a survey of 10,000 voters conducted by Opinionway for Le Figaro (not online), 93 percent of French Muslims voted for Francois Hollande in the second round of the French election, La Vie reports.
Another poll put Muslim support for Hollande at 85 percent.
A prior Opinionway survey showed that 59 percent of Muslim voters (numbering about two million in total) voted for Hollande in the first round of the French elections, with Sarkozy only managing four percent. [. . .]
And why wouldn’t Muslim immigrants vote for the Socialist? Hollande targeted them in his campaign by using a rap song that celebrated their presence:
Could a song by Jay-Z and Kanye West help improve the image of French presidential candidate Francois Hollande?
Jay-Z and Kanye West’s recent hit “Niggas in Paris” is about them. They rap about being so phenomenally rich, about how they “ball so hard,” buy Rolexes and cars, pop gold bottles with models in Paris nightclubs, that the rest of us slobs couldn’t fathom their lives.
It may seem like an odd choice for a campaign song for a politician trying to appeal to oppressed racial and ethnic minorities.
But it’s apparently working for — or at least not hurting — Francois Hollande. The French Socialist eked out a win last Sunday in the first round of presidential voting to decide who will run France for the next five years. He will face President Nicolas Sarkozy in a run-off May 6.
This month, Hollande appeared in a slickly edited online video featuring West and Jay-Z’s stadium anthem. In the video, Hollande — who has been roundly criticized for his lack of charisma — strides like a rock star amongst his black, Arab and multiethnic supporters in the working-class suburb of Creil.
“Got my niggas in Paris, and they going gorillas,” West raps as Hollande is shown leading discussions between men in suits and then talking to voters of multiple races and ages. Crowds in the street and the subway smile excitedly as Hollande approaches them.
Supporters raise their voter cards to the camera. A man shouts, “To hell with Sarko!” – a common shorthand reference to Sarkozy.
A black woman holds the French flag and exclaims, “François, president! Inshallah, Inshallah!” — Arabic for “God willing.” [. . .]
Galliawatch also concurs that the Muslim vote was decisive:
As a reader has pointed out, the French did not put Hollande in office, the Muslims did. With the final tally showing that 1,131,067 votes separated the two candidates, and that 93% of the 2 – 3 million Muslim votes went to Hollande, it is fair to say – in a manner of speaking – that Nicolas Sarkozy won. He would have won had there been no Muslims, but since he was one of the major promoters of the Islamization of France, he not only reaped what he sowed, but the whole country will now be forced to pay an incalculable, never-payable price for his stubborn resistance to reality.
The majority of the French people have been fruitlessly voting for what they thought was the “Right”, ever since Jacque Chirac’s first election in 1995. For almost twenty years, concerned French citizens have been trying to elect a government that would steer the country into safer waters, only to find that they put into office a group of impostors. [. . .]
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.