At the Border

I’m not referring to the restaurant of a similar name. I’m talking about the disaster Obama has created in our border states using the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/06/article-0-1E874CDC00000578-695_634x474.jpg

Hundreds of immigrants believed to be in the country illegally from Central America and Mexico being held in crowded concrete rooms similar to a jail cell

If you have read the news on the internet, listened to FOX or read some foreign news outlets like the Daily Mail in the UK, you will have heard about Obama rounding up children entering this country illegally and dumping them in Arizonasome being dumped at Arizonan bus stations. Speculation is that his orders are retribution to AZ Governor Brewer who has opposed him in multiple ways.

All across Mexico, Central and South America, the news is being spread wide and far: if your kids can reach the United States, they will, in effect, get a free-ride, food, healthcare and education, possibly for life. It doesn’t matter whether the tales are true or not, it is what they’ve been told and believe.

Obama, with the active support and assistance of Eric Holder, has created and supported this view by blocking the enforcement of existing immigration law. What is more egregious is the Washington GOP establishment’s active contribution to this disaster.

Child Alien Crisis Obama’s Fault, But GOP Won’t Pounce

Posted 06/09/2014 06:52 PM ET

Immigration: Republicans should take the president to task for unlawfully enticing thousands of “unaccompanied illegal children” from Latin America to cross the border. Instead, a GOP leader asks for an amnesty deal.

What is at the top of the Republican wish list? A vibrant economy? An America strong and respected in the world? Capturing the Senate? A Republican elected to the White House in 2016?

Nah. The GOP wants amnesty for illegal aliens.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., made that abundantly clear in an interview with a local Virginia TV station WTVR last Friday. He said he told President Obama that “we can work on the border security bill together. We can work on something like the kids.”

And Breitbart reports that Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., is secretly gauging House GOP support for action on amnesty legislation before August.

On almost every issue, it makes more sense to wait until Republicans fulfill their current excellent chances this year of getting a Senate majority and retaining the House before considering dealing with Obama. But on immigration it makes no sense at all to make a deal.

Democrats use immigration to smear Republicans as racists. Expanding immigration will give Democrats millions of new votes in the coming decades, destroying forever the political forces that oppose big government.

The more than 90,000 children who crossed the Mexican border into the U.S. and were apprehended this year, and the more than 140,000 expected next year, could and should turn the immigration issue into a GOP weapon against Democrats.

Instead of sending them back home to their parents, Attorney General Eric Holder made it a priority to hire taxpayer-funded lawyers for them. Why don’t we hear Cantor, Ryan and other GOP leaders shout that Democrats are exploiting children to further their political agenda?

Moreover, this whole crisis is of the administration’s making. Its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program two years ago prevented minors’ deportation for two years, and now Obama has added two more years. As the immigration system becomes overloaded, disease and hygiene issues are coming into play.

Cantor himself is suffering for defying his base. A June 2 Daily Caller/Vox Populi poll found him at only 52% against GOP primary challenger Dave Brat.

Obama is equating immigration law enforcement with cruelty to children in the public’s mind. Instead of holding him responsible, Republicans are asking how they can help him.

By some estimates, over a quarter of a million illegal alien children have arrived in the US over the last two year, 90,000 since the beginning of this year according to the article above. This influx is destroying Child Services in the border states. It has reached a point that these illegals are being transported—not back home, but deeper into the interior of the US. There is a deep concern these children, who have never had childhood inoculations like their American counterparts, will be accompanied by diseases, some long thought extinct here at home.

This is not some distant crises, one that can be deferred into the future. This is a disaster occurring NOW…and neither the administration, nor the GOP are doing anything except to make it worse.

Paul Ryan and Boehner are already making noises about another immigration—make that amnesty bill that would whitewash the whole issue. Such an act would do nothing to solve the situation. It would only compound it.

I’ve spoken before about unintended consequences. That is not the situation here. Amnesty for illegals is an intended consequence that benefits no one…except those needing a dependent constituency to maintain their sponsor’s positions in government.

Where do our Central Committees stand?

I wrote last Friday that the battlelines in Washington between the libs, conservatives and the GOP establishment have been drawn. Never have those divisions been more apparent that in the battle to defund Obamacare.

The liberals in congress claim that defunding Obamacare is a hoax.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) blows the whistle on the hoax to defund Obamacare. “The CRS report notes that much of the administration’s implementation funding comes from the  Affordable Care Act (ACA) itself — not from the spending bills some  conservatives are threatening to defeat. . . . Coburn is among the Senate Republicans who have pushed back strongly against efforts to shut down the government unless a bill to keep it open defunds ObamaCare. ‘I’ve been here when we’ve done that, and it’s not a strategy that works,’  Coburn told The Washington Post. ‘This is misleading the conservative  base because it’s not achievable, and all it will do in the long run is dispirit  the base. This is a failed strategy for conservatives.’” — Washington Post.

Oh, wait! Tom Coburn is a ‘Pub!

This is a prime example of the divisions in Washington. The libs want to fund Obamacare, the establishment GOP, as represented by Tom Coburn, don’t want to defund Obamacare because it’s too much effort, and the few conservatives in Congress, do.

I heard someone say on the radio that the main problem in Washington isn’t opposing the libs. The problem is that the GOP establishment makes no effort to oppose the libs—only the conservatives like Cruz and a few others actively working against the libs and their socialist agenda. If the GOP, the party, stands by and allows the dems and libs to pass piece after piece of liberal legislation, what good are they?

It appears that only the Tea Party and associated grass-roots organizations are the only ones still fighting in Washington to oppose socialism and the lib’s plan for one-party rule.

Tea party asks its grass roots to help kill health care law

By Tom Howell Jr. – The Washington Times, Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Tea party Republicans are girding for a fight with the White House — and members of their own party — over how to block President Obama’s health care law, saying Congress must not miss the chance to use this year’s funding bills to try to starve Obamacare to death.

Speaking at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative nonprofit in Washington, freshman Sen. Ted Cruz called on “hundreds of thousands” or even millions of grass-roots critics of the Affordable Care Act to sign petitions and call their representatives on Capitol Hill before the spending debate in September.

Mr. Cruz, Texas Republican, and several party allies in the Senate — including organizer Mike Lee of Utah, and rising stars Marco Rubio of Florida and Rand Paul of Kentucky — are stoking talk of a government shutdown by vowing to reject any spending plan in September that funds “even one penny of Obamacare.”

“I believe we can win this fight,” Mr. Cruz said.

But their push is running into problems. Even some Republicans who want to end the health care law say holding the rest of government funding hostage is neither politically smart nor doable.

Republican leaders in both chambers are still grappling with a strategy. They are caught between a president insistent that his chief domestic priority be protected, and their own troops on the right who say this year’s funding bill offers leverage that they cannot afford to pass up.

Mr. Cruz said the House should pass a bill that funds every facet of the federal government except for the health care law. Then, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, and Mr. Obama will cry foul, he predicted.

“At that point, we’ve got to actually stand up and fight,” Mr. Cruz told bloggers at Heritage, calling on grass-roots conservatives to light up the phones on Capitol Hill. “If we don’t do it now, we very likely never will.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, said there have been “a lot of internal discussions” about how to handle the situation, but that no decisions have been made.

In the end, the establishment waffles, runs in circles, while the young turks, the conservatives, actually present a plan to do something.

No, we don’t know if the conservative plan will work. It has to get through the Senate. Chances are, Reid will kill it and then—the government shuts down because their will be no funding legislation to continue federal operations…except for essential services such as the military, Social Security, and a few others.

Note: If those essential services stop, it’s not because of a shutdown. No, it is because Obama and the dems WANT them shut down.

If the GOP establishment can’t or won’t oppose Obamacare, the dems and the liberal elements in Washington, we need to either give them incentives to be active in the opposition or be removed, i.e., primaried out of office.

In either case, if the GOP is to continue to exist as a viable party, the local and state central committees must act. The state central committees are most important for this effort because they make up most of the national GOP central committee.

Those central committees must make a definitive move, not just an effort, a commitment, to force the establishment to get in line or to get out. Not one of those in the Washington establishment can exist without the support of the national and state central committees. Those committees are the true force in the party.

It is time for those committees to act. A first step would be to have each Congressman, Senator and Representative, pledge to defund Obamacare, to kill the Democrat Voter Recruitment bill, AKA Immigration Reform, in the house, to actively oppose Obama and the dem and make that pledge in WRITING! They must commit to that pledge or run the risk of being removed from office via primary opponents.

The Central Committees can no longer sit on the sidelines, kowtowing to the state and national committees. They must act. Now.

Monday’s Moments for July 1, 2013

A collection of miscellany for today. Today is the date a series of new state laws take affect across the country. The Senate, the dems and fifteen ‘pubs, passed their Illegal Alien Amnesty bill. The House rejected the Food Stamp and Pork bill with the help of democrats and Heritage Action for America had a presentation at a local Tea Party gathering.

Starting with the last item, last Friday night, Mrs. Crucis and I were invited to attend a Tea Party meeting where the regional Hertiage Action representative Ben Evans would be speaking. It was an interesting session. The HA representative was accompanied by the MOGOP Political Director, Steve Michael.

That, by itself, was an interesting connection. The Heritage Foundation and Heritage Action purport themselves to be non-establishment. The Missouri GOP is the establishment…at least at the state level. The question is, is Heritage Action supporting the establishment or is the MO GOP establishment distancing themselves from Washington?

The actual presentation was about what I expected. I did have my opinion confirmed that sending emails to our elected US Representatives and Senators was useless. At best, they are just counted. Some officials may tally by subject. A few, a very few apparently, may note the number of pros and cons on a subject. For the most part, emails, unless addressed to a specific staffer, go into the bit bucket. Unfortunately, the same applies for phone calls. Unless you connect to the specific staffer working the issue, your call is ignored.

Signing online petitions is worth even less. There are a few exceptions when the petitions are conducted by some lobbyists. They use the petitions to brow-beat pols into believing whatever position the lobbyist represents.

What does work? Personal visits and actual snail-mail letters according to Heritage Action. I have my doubts on the former. I’ve spoken several times with my local US representative on a number of issues. Regardless, she votes the Washington establishment line.

What did I take away from this meeting? Personal meetings and letters work for some but I’m not convinced it will be all that effective.

A woman at the meeting, in the Q&A session, asked if our ‘Pub representatives really understand how angry people are becoming. The answer? “No, they’re not.” Apparently, once in office, our representatives become isolated behind their hired staffers—staffers whose job it is to formulate policy and to isolate their boss from the public.

Many of these hired staffers are long-time members of the establishment. When a Congressman leaves office, they migrate to another Congressman. In their view, contrary positions from constituents are ignored and public trends are modified to support political positions of the Washington establishment. Establishment staffers insure inexperienced Congressmen toe the establishment line.

Not only do our officials not understand how angry people are, neither, I believe, do the Heritage Action rep and the MOGOP political director. My impression is that these two heard what they expected to hear.

I have been a Heritage Action member since it was created over a year ago. I will continue to be a member. Unfortunately, I’m coming to believe the Heritage Action leadership and by extension, the Heritage Foundation are behind the curve. Both the HA and HF believe in action by lobbying ‘Pub politicians. I no longer believe that tactic works.

***

One aspect of the HA meeting was the Heritage Foundation scorecard of Missouri’s U.S. elected officials. I was surprised to hear that Billy Long, Congressman from Missouri’s 7th District had a score above 90%. The score reflected how consistent Billy Long voted on issues—conservative vs. non-conservative, as judged by the Heritage Foundation.

During the last primary, I heard a lot of criticism about Billy Long. I had no real basis to judge, I’m not in his district. In retrospect, if Billy Long was so bad, how did he acquire such a high score? I have some opinions why but those aren’t the subject of this post.

Newly elected Jason Smith (R-MO-8) who was recently replaced Jo Ann Emerson, had a very low score. Jason Smith had only voted once when the last scoreboard scores were calculated. He voted, “Yes,” on the Food Stamp bill, in contradiction of his campaign rhetoric. He campaigned that he’d vote, “No.” Jason, you disappoint me. In office a week and already you’ve already reneged on meeting your campaign promises to your constituents.

But, Jason Smith wasn’t alone. Every Representative in Missouri voted for that monstrous welfare bill—as did all the ‘Pubs from Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, and other midwestern states. It lost because 71 ‘Pubs, and the House dems (who wanted MORE welfare,) voted against the bill.

It’s a sad tale when we have to rely on dems to kill a wasteful bill. Yes, Jason Smith, disappointed me. I’d hoped you’d be more than just an establishment rubber-stamp.

***

The Senate, with the help of 15 ‘Pub Senators, passed the Illegal Alien Amnesty bill—a bill masquerading as an immigration ‘reform’ bill. The primary spokesman for the ‘Gang of Eight’, Marco Rubio staked his political career on the vote and will likely now bear the consequences. Rubio used the Tea Party to get elected. I doubt the Tea Party members in Florida will repeat their mistake.

***

Today is July 1st and across the country new laws take effect. Here’s a summary.

Around the nation, July 1 marks the start of new fiscal years and the date recently passed legislation goes into effect, although states often mark their independence by enacting new regulations on their own calendars.

The laws and effective dates vary somewhat from state to state, but an overview of legislation set to hit the books July 1st shows that state lawmakers took positions on the following five topics of national debate:

– GUNS: State legislatures across the U.S. discussed gun laws in the wake of mass shootings that shocked the nation in 2012. Most efforts to pass restrictions faded amid fierce opposition. Only a handful of states enacted new limits, some of which go into effect Monday. Among them Colorado is notable for requiring background checks for private and online gun sales and outlawing high-capacity ammunition magazines. At least 18 states, however, have gone the other way and loosened gun laws. Kansas laws set to take effect will allow schools to arm employees with concealed handguns and ensure that weapons can be carried into more public buildings.

– TECH: Dozens of states examined technology laws. Recently passed legislation in eight states will prevent businesses from demanding passwords to social media sites as a condition of employment. The law in Washington state also stops employers from compelling workers to add managers as “friends” so their profile can be viewed. Four states updated tech laws to allow drivers to show proof of car insurance on an electronic device, such as a smartphone.

– CARS: A handful of states have restricted cellphone use while driving. Starting Monday in Hawaii and West Virginia motorists will have to put down handheld devices. Meanwhile, in South Dakota beginning drivers will face similar restrictions. Utah also enacted limits for newbies with a law that has already taken effect. A few states have banned texting while driving. Other state laws affecting drivers will make it illegal to smoke in a car with a child, raise highway speed limits, crackdown on drunken drivers and raise gas taxes. NOTE: in Kansas, texting in an automobile is illegal even when the auto is stopped or not moving.

– ABORTION: Nationally, state lawmakers proposed more than 300 bills that would have restricted abortions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. At least 13 state legislatures passed new limits, though two are waiting for governors to sign off. Notably, a bill that would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas was defeated by a Democratic filibuster and a restless crowd in late June. The Texas governor, however, has ordered another special legislative session to push the bill through. North Dakota has passed the nation’s strictest abortion law, which takes effect in August, banning abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.

-DRONES: An Idaho law taking effect Monday forbids anyone from using an unmanned aircraft for spying on another. Virginia has passed a ban preventing authorities from using drones for the next two years, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Four other states approved anti-drone regulations, though legislation aimed at law enforcement in Texas isn’t effective until fall.

Not all of the measures set to take effect were matters dominating national political discussion. The following five examples of recently approved legislation show state-level updates can cover a variety of topics:

– SEXIST LANGUAGE: Washington lawmakers are completing work to strip the state’s books of sexist language. References to “his” will be changed to “his or her,” college “freshmen” will become “first-year students” and “penmanship” will be called “handwriting.”

– JACKPOT: Wyoming residents might soon consider 7, 1 and 13 as lucky numbers. A Cowboy State law kicking in Monday calls for the state to establish a lottery for the first time, leaving a dwindling list of only a handful of states without such a prize drawing.

– ELECTION DAY DRINKING: Kentucky has lifted a ban on election day drinking. It was one of the last states with Prohibition-era restrictions on the sale of alcohol while polls are open.

– EDIBLE LANDSCAPING: Maine lawmakers this session have directed officials to plant edible landscaping, such as fruit trees or berry shrubs, around the Statehouse.

– TANNING: Dozens of states this year considered keeping minors out of tanning beds. New Jersey and Nevada restrictions kick in July 1, and an Oregon limit takes effect in January.

Revolt!

..or, perhaps, “Bye-bye Boehner.” I’ll take either one. Following the GOP sell-out to the Gang of Eight, John Boehner was on the path to sell-out the country as well—until 80 Representatives gave him a slap upside his head and a reality check.

Boehner had said after the meeting with conservative Representatives the immigration would be presented to the House only if a majority of the GOP agrees. At this moment, that won’t happen.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

John Boehner gets a wakeup call.

 

Boehner tells GOP caucus: I won’t bring an immigration bill to the floor unless a majority of you support it

posted at 1:11 pm on June 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Not for a moment do I think he’s following the Hastert Rule here on principle, but that’s okay. As long as the House GOP gets a veto, I don’t care what his motive is. Fear works just fine.

“I don’t see any way of bringing an immigration bill to the floor that doesn’t have a majority support of Republicans,” Boehner told reporters following a closed-door House GOP conference meeting…

According to a member who attended the meeting, Boehner argued against the Hastert Rule, but assured his colleagues that he would adhere to it on immigration.

On Monday, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher warned that Boehner should lose his gavel if he moved forward on immigration without majority support, saying it would be a “betrayal” of the party…

Asked by reporters if he agreed with Rohrabacher’s assessment, the Speaker considered the question and replied “maybe.”

GOP Rep. Tom Cotton told Guy Benson last night that he doubts even a small number of Republicans would support a bill like the Gang of Eight’s where amnesty comes before border security. That depends, I suppose, on what he means by “amnesty.” Democrats will insist on probationary legalization first, although they’re willing to let the path to eventual citizenship start later. If Cotton means that security will have to come before even legalization, then immigration reform’s probably dead. A note of caution, though: Boehner also told reporters yesterday that he’s “increasingly concerned” that Democrats would “rather have this as an issue in the 2014 election rather than a result.” That’s the ol’ “sabotage” theory that’s constantly being used to convince conservative amnesty skeptics that the way to really stick it to Obama and Schumer is to pass reform and deny them a wedge issue next year. It’s the purest nonsense, and the fact that Boehner is pushing it even now shows how eager he is to make something happen here. Promising to follow the Hastert Rule is encouraging, but don’t rule out a last-minute betrayal if he thinks he has 218 with Democratic support.

In fact, per National Journal, Boehner and the House leadership have been leaning on conservatives quietly to play ball:

Republicans on and off the Hill say Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy all want to do something on immigration. Boehner “really wants to get that done but he has to be real quiet about it because if he puts his name on it and his brand on it, like he did with the big (fiscal-cliff) deal, then it’s probably going to die under its own weight,” a former GOP leadership aide said…

“What will have to happen, and is happening in private discussions, is that we have to convince these guys if we’re going to go to conference, we’re not going to cave on our principles,” a senior House GOP aide said. “That is the sales job you have to make to those guys.”…

“This is one of those issues where they may only get 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it on the House floor, but there won’t be the huge internal backlash,” the former aide said. “And that gives (leadership) some room to maneuver and they have some conservative cover. They have (Sen. Marco) Rubio and (Rep. Raul) Labrador,” who are two key conservative Republicans pushing reform.

Boehner, of course, claims he won’t bring it to the floor in the first place if there are only 80 to 100 Republicans to vote for it. Here’s a scenario that seems plausible to me: What if he rounds up, say, 60-75 Republicans to vote yes, which wouldn’t be close to a majority of the caucus but might impress people as a sizable enough minority that it makes the bill “bipartisan” for rhetorical purposes? And what if, on top of that, the RNC and the House leadership start rolling out lots of prominent Republicans to endorse passing the bill with those 60-75 GOP votes, even if it means violating the Hastert Rule? Rubio, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, maybe Jindal, maybe Chris Christie, maybe even Rand Paul — imagine all of them in a full-court media press declaring the bill a triumph, a gift to Republicans, and something that should be passed even if Democrats provide most of the votes. Passionate grassroots righties who follow this stuff day to day would bristle, but all the low-information Republicans out there would probably be impressed by it. The calculus for the party is deciding which is more dangerous to its future, taking the rap for killing immigration reform by having it implode in the House or alienating some conservatives by passing it with most of the Republican caucus opposed. I honestly don’t know which way they’d come down on that. Their eternal trump card, which they’d play again in 2014, is that RINOs are the lesser of two evils vis-a-vis Democrats and therefore most of the righties who declare “I’m staying home!” after amnesty passes will suck it up and vote GOP in the midterms anyway. One thing that would help head off that possibility is having more anti-amnesty conservatives speak up, to sway the low-information voters the other way. Where’s Ted Cruz? Are there no major young Republican governors willing to answer the bell?

By the way, Harry Reid’s suddenly very, very eager to keep immigration reform moving in the Senate. I think Byron York’s right as to why. Keep hope alive.

Let’s hope Boehner and the rest of the House GOP establishment heeds this call.

What’s Really in the Immigration Surrender Bill?

The Senate ‘Pub leadership sided with the dems and didn’t fight cloture on the Gang of Eight’s bill. McConnell and others thought it would be too much work to fight this monstrosity and caved—as usual.

The bill contains all the worst that could be imagined. Amnesty for 30 million illegals and their families and much, much more. It also has some surprises.

  • grants immigration benefits to American citizens’ gay partners
  • secure the border before any of the bill’s provisions could be utilized.
  • illegal immigrants have to wait until the borders are deemed secure before they can get any legal status
  • allows DHS, Janet Napolitano, to decide when the border is secure (yeah, right,) and when the other provisions of the bill become effective (citizenship.) This negates the previous bullet item.
  • guest-workers would be allowed into the country to compete for jobs with American citizens and be given preferential treatment
  • make English the official language.
  • allow businesses to declare English-only policies in their workplaces

…and, more. The problem with these provisions is that they are all amendments and each amendment must be voted before the Senate and receive at least 60 votes. Given Harry Reid’s ham-fisted treatment of amendments on other bills, I doubt any contrary amendments, if any, will be presented for votes. Our best hope is that this entire bill dies on the Senate floor.

On top of it, Marko Rubio has destroyed his reputation as a conservative and any chance for higher office—or, perhaps, his re-election. He sold out to La Raza, hook, line and sinker. For all of his claims to conservatism and limited government, Rubio has proven that he will sell out those principles. He has lost our trust.

Rubio still claims that stiffer border security is in the bill. Obama has proved, many times, that he can ignore law at will and his lib syncopates in Congress will turn a blind eye on any such actions.

I don’t know if Rubio is a dupe or a willing accomplice. Either way, he cannot be trusted on any conservative issue—he’s proven that he, like McConnell, McCain, Graham, and Boehner, will sell us out on any issue.

The Return of the Vigilantes

California has a history matched by few states. It has a history of dealing justice when the “official” law enforcement organs can’t or won’t meet their obligations. The Vigilantes of San Francisco first appeared in 1851 and a few years later in 1856.

The San Francisco Committee of Vigilance was a popular ad hoc organization formed in 1851 and revived in 1856 in response to rampant crime and corruption in the municipal government of San Francisco, California. It was one of the most successful organizations in the vigilante tradition of the American Old West.

These militias hanged eight people and forced several elected officials to resign. Each Committee of Vigilance formally relinquished power after three months. — Wiki

Now, move forward 157 years. The Vigilantes have returned for the same reasons, unconstrained criminality and the refusal of law enforcement to perform their function.

Oakland Neighbors Policing Their Own Streets As They Lose Faith In Cops

February 26, 2013 11:22 AM
This surveillance image shows three men preparing to break into an Arcadia Park neighborhood home in Oakland. (CBS)

This surveillance image shows three men preparing to break into an Arcadia Park neighborhood home in Oakland. (CBS)

OAKLAND (KPIX 5) – Oakland’s crime problems have gotten so bad that some people aren’t even bothering to call the cops anymore; instead, they’re trying to solve and prevent crimes themselves.

KPIX 5 cameras caught up with a half dozen neighbors in East Oakland’s Arcadia Park neighborhood Monday as they walked the streets on the lookout for crime. The vigilance has never seemed more necessary than now; 25 homes in the neighborhood have been burglarized over the last two months alone.

In a neighborhood that has started to feel like the wild west, people have even started posting “wanted” signs.

“You have to walk around in your house with a gun to feel safe here,” said Alaska Tarvins of the Arcadia Park Board of Directors.

Over the weekend, one home was burglarized twice in a 24 hour period, once while a resident’s nephew was inside.

“He was on with 911 when those men tried to kick into his room. That was very frightening,” said the woman, identified only as Inca.

Now, Arcadia park neighbors are taking the detective work into their own hands.

KPIX 5 found a woman who identified herself as L.E. patrolling her neighborhood by car. She said she recently chased down a couple of robbers herself.

“There was an armed robbery in progress and the owner yelled ‘help me’ and I ended up going after them,” L.E. recalled.

The people who live in the area are nothing if not gutsy, but they need help. A plan to gate their community has been stalled. With the police force stretched painfully thin, they may be forced to follow other Oakland neighborhoods and hire private guards.

“We don’t have a choice. Either die or we hire some security ourselves, because we can’t depend on the police department,” said Tarvins.

Remember the adage loved by 2nd Amendment supporters, “When seconds count, the cops are minutes away.” In Oakland, they just don’t come at all.

Some lefties like to boast that California leads the nation. I surely hope not. I don’t want anarchy to come to Missouri like it is, increasingly, in California. Decades of overspending, higher unsupported debt, massive influx of unrestrained illegal immigration and infiltration of gangs and the drug cartels, all the failed and frankly unworkable liberal policies are coming home.

The cities in California pay their elected officials multi-hundreds of dollars salary all while cutting the budgets of their police and fire departments. This is leading to some innovative solutions by Californians—by individuals, not the municipalities. The article below leads with events in New Jersey and continues with similar activities in California.

Alana Semuels,  February 21, 2013

Roles once held by police are now becoming commonplace for private detectives and security firms.

CAMDEN, N.J. — In an office in a sleepy town in southern New Jersey, Harry Glemser’s phone rang. With no buxom secretary to take a message, he answered it himself.

It was a dame, looking to hire a private eye.

But this was no scene from a noir novel. The woman was calling because someone in a car kept lurking in her driveway, the engine running, when her husband wasn’t home. She’d called the police, but they couldn’t help. She hoped Glemser could.

Detectives like Glemser across cash-strapped states have been getting more calls like these as cities and towns cut their police forces to contend with deep budget cuts. New Jersey alone lost 4,200 officers from 2008 to 2011, according to the Policemen’s Benevolent Assn., which tracks the state’s most recent data. As police focus more on responding to crime rather than preventing it, private detectives and security firms are often taking on the roles that police once did, investigating robberies, checking out alibis, looking into threats.

“The public is frustrated by the police,” said Glemser, a retired cop of 63 whose gold chains, white hair and bulky body might make a stranger worry he’s on the wrong side of the law. “The citizenry is quick to say that the police don’t do anything for them. They should be saying the police can’t do anything for them because of this budgetary issue, this manpower problem, this directive we have that came down from the chief.”

In California, where many cash-strapped cities cut police budgets during the recession, residents are turning to detectives, security firms and even the Internet.

After police cuts in Oakland, resident Dabney Lawless encouraged 400 neighbors to sign up on a website so they could send alerts to one another when they noticed suspicious people around; she also pays extra to an alarm company to drive through the neighborhood. Ron Cancio, the manager of a Stockton security firm, said that since the city’s budget battles, residents often have called his firm for minor complaints, because they know he’ll respond more quickly than the police.

Roger Arrella, the owner of TSInvestigations in Corona, said he’s getting a lot more calls from people who say police won’t help them in investigating burglaries, suspicious suicides or identity theft. But once they hear his rates, which are around $150 an hour, they usually balk.

“We get the phone calls — people are upset that someone broke into their house, or stole their car, and the police aren’t doing what they should be doing,” he said. “But then you tell them the price, and they say, well, maybe it’s not worth it to me.”

It’s another facet of how income inequality is playing out in America — as cities are forced to cut their budgets, even police protection is more accessible to those with cash.

“Wealthy neighborhoods are buying themselves more police protection than poor neighborhoods,” said Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and the author of 13 books on policing.

Those who can afford it use private police—retired officers, detectives and security firms. Those who cannot afford that price are left with themselves to prevent crimes…and dispense justice. We call them Vigilantes.

We, here in Cass County, are fortunate to have a Sheriff who understands duty and commitment. It’s too bad, Californian elected officials aren’t like him.

Welcome to the Progressives’ world.

After Action Reports

To say, for most of us, that yesterday was not a good day, is a large understatement.  I cannot describe how I felt. I listened to the usual pundits, Rush, Hannity, Levin, FOX, and never really got a good feel about Robert’s motivation. From some reports, Kennedy’s dissent had been the majority opinion until recently. some time in the last couple of weeks, Roberts changed his position.  I don’t know the validity of those reports and we probably won’t for a long time. If ever.

Roberts had a solid conservative record until this week. He upheld the 2nd Amendment and appeared to be an Originalist like Scalia, Alito and Thomas.  Kennedy frequently sided with the Originalists, too. On Monday, in the Arizona Immigration suit, he dealt a blow to state sovereignty. Yesterday, Thursday, June 28, 2012, he appeared to side with the liberals on the Court.

Or, did he?

The Independent Journal Review has a different opinion on Robert’s thinking and motives. The IJ Review believes that Roberts dealt a death-blow to several controversial issues.

  • Limited the “Commerce Claus.” He ruled that the mandate, under the Commerce Clause was unconstitutional.
  • That contrary to Obama’s claims, the penalty for failure to acquire healthcare is not a penalty but is, in fact, a tax. Obama and the libs must now defend that fact.
  • The Federal government cannot penalize states, by blocking other federal funding, who do not choose to comply.  This was the Medicaid component. Yes, the feds can block Medicaid funding but no other federal funding.

The article below is interesting. I am not a lawyer, just a curious citizen who reads a lot. The opinion in this article does bear some consideration.  And, we must remember, we can still repeal Obamacare—if we have a filibuster and VETO proof majority in the Senate.

June 28, 2012 3:59 pm

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

The article above does have some appeal among all the doom ‘n gloom being spread by others. But it all depends if the dems will observe—and follow the law. Their record so far is poor and gives no assurance they will in the future.

If all of the positives in the above article is true, why do I feel like I’ve been raped? I can see no good coming from this.  Roberts could have nailed the Commerce Clause by ruling that the Mandate was unconstitutional under the Clause and therefore the entire law was unconstitutional.

There is one solid result of the Court’s decision. We can no longer rely on the Court for redress to our grievances.