“There are in fact four very significant stumbling blocks in the way of grasping the truth, which hinder every man however learned, and scarcely allow anyone to win a clear title to wisdom, namely, the example of weak and unworthy authority, longstanding custom, the feeling of the ignorant crowd, and the hiding of our own ignorance while making a display of our apparent knowledge.” — Roger Bacon (1220-1292)
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it obtained records from the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Department revealing that violent crime in the Bay area has skyrocketed since 2011, with the number of arrests for murder up 55%, and the number of arrests for rapes up 370%. Judicial Watch uncovered the numbers through a July 9, 2015, California Public Records Act request that sought the number of arrests for violations of the following crimes between 2011 and 2015:
Penal Code 187 – first and second degree murder
Penal Code 240 – simply assault
Penal Code243 – battery
Penal Code 261 – rape
According to the data provided by the Sheriff’s Department, arrests for violations of the most violent of the crimes listed – murder and rape – have soared over the past four years:
According to the information provided by Sheriff’s Department Assistant Legal Counsel Mark Nicco, “These numbers reflect the number of charges for arrests and bookings (not just arrests).”
In response to a request for details on the U.S. citizenship status of the offenders, Nicco informed Judicial Watch: “This information is not tracked by the Jail Management System.”
Despite the increased arrests for violent crimes, the overall arrest rate has plunged by 42 percent according to Max Szabo, spokesman for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office.
In 2013, the San Francisco’s Sheriff and City Council expanded San Francisco’s infamous illegal alien sanctuary policies. The City changed policies and passed an ordinance that required San Francisco law enforcement to ignore most U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. These detainers required San Francisco authorities to hold detained illegal alien criminals until federal authorities could determine whether to take them into custody.
“Citizens understand that when San Francisco and other sanctuary cities release illegal alien criminals onto the streets, crime is going to increase,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “These new crime statistics suggest that there are more murders and an epidemic of rape linked to San Francisco’s releasing illegal alien criminals in violation of law.”
Judicial Watch is a long-time national leader in advocating for a rule-of-law approach to illegal immigration. This work includes exposing and challenging dangerous sanctuary policies in San Francisco, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Arizona, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and more.
In 2011, because of Judicial Watch’s work, San Francisco was ordered to end its sanctuary policy that protected aliens arrested for certain drug offenses from being reported to ICE. The organization is now investigating whether the city violated the law again with its sanctuary policy that led to the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal immigrant deported five times and who allegedly gunned down Kate Steinle at one of the most popular tourist spots in San Francisco.
Another lawsuit pending before the Illinois Supreme Court, challenges Chicago’s Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart’s refusal to honor ICE immigration detainers or cooperate with ICE in identifying deportable criminal aliens. Cook County jails had released well over 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the 18 months prior to the lawsuit’s filing in 2013.
Other Judicial Watch litigation forced the release of documents that show the Obama administration released 165,900 convicted criminal aliens throughout the United States, including many convicted of such violent crimes as homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.
Economy: After six-plus years of President Obama’s big-spending, tax-raising policies, middle-class families have seen their incomes decline and more families have fallen into poverty, Census data show.
The Census Bureau’s latest annual report on income and poverty in America shows that there was little to cheer about in 2014.
Median family income dropped slightly to $53,657, down from the year before. Every income group suffered losses, with the lowest fifth of households dropping close to 1%.
The overall poverty number barely budged. But it climbed by almost 600,000 among blacks in 2014, more than half of whom were under age 18.
This isn’t exactly the picture that Obama has been painting. In fact, there’s little that Obama likes to do more than brag about the economy.
A couple of months ago, he was in Wisconsin, crediting his policies for “record” job growth, tumbling deficits and big gains in the stock market.
“Step by step, America is moving forward,” he said. “Middle-class economics works. It works. Yes!”
It’s hard to see any evidence of that in the Census numbers. Indeed, the latest report shows that, despite more than six years of economic “recovery,” the middle class is, incredibly, worse off than at the end of the Great Recession.
From 2009 to 2014, real median household income dropped by more than $1,000 — or 2.3% — to $53,657. (And that decline would likely have been steeper if not for a 2013 change in the way the Census does its annual survey.)
Obama’s economy has been particularly harsh on those already at the bottom. Census data show that the bottom fifth of households saw their average income fall by 8% from 2009 to 2014.
Looked at another way, the share of households with incomes below $25,000 climbed from 22.4% to 23.6% over those years.
Among blacks, it went from 35.5% to 36.8%.
The statistics on poverty are just as unpleasant.
In Obama’s first year in office, 43.6 million people — or 14.3% of the population — lived in poverty.
By 2014, that number had climbed by more than 3 million, pushing the poverty rate up to 14.8%.
The poverty rate among blacks was 26.2% last year, up from 25.8% in 2009. Is that “moving forward,” too?
Even the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index is lower today than it was when Obama took office.
If anyone but Obama had presided over such results, his economic legacy would be in shambles and his policies in disrepute.
Source: Investor’s Business Daily:
Barack Obama has never made a secret of his determination to reach a deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Very early in his run for the White House, he announced that he was prepared to meet, without preconditions, with the rulers of Iran and other hostile regimes. “I think it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them,” he said during a 2007 debate with Hillary Clinton. As president, Obama’s outreach to Tehran began on Day 1. “We will extend a hand,” he promised in his inaugural address, “if you are willing to unclench your fist.” By 2011, he had dispatched then-Senator John Kerry to open a secret dialogue with Iran.
It has long been clear that Obama envisions a grand nuclear bargain with Iran as a cornerstone of his presidential legacy. “It’s my name on this,” he says. “I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
But the terms of that bargain haven’t been so clear. Far from being “locked down,” the goals and guarantees of the Iran nuclear deal have been a moving target. In one critical area after another, the nuclear accord so enticingly advertised doesn’t resemble the nuclear accord actually on the table. When unscrupulous merchants do that, it’s called bait-and-switch. The seller may clinch the sale, but customers resent being conned.
Similarly, while Obama’s nuclear deal will almost certainly survive a congressional vote of disapproval, public skepticism runs deep. A Pew Research poll released Tuesday found just 21 percent support for the agreement. Gallup reports only one in three Americans approve Obama’s handling of US policy toward Iran. That’s not typical — the public usually backs presidents on arms-control agreements. But voters don’t like being conned any more than shoppers do.
How has the administration engaged in bait-and-switch on the Iran deal? Here are five ways.
Inspections. The White House claimed any agreement with Iran would supply international weapons inspectors with the ultimate all-access pass — round-the-clock authority to enter any suspected nuclear site. In a CNN interview in April, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, confirmed that “under this deal, you will have anywhere/anytime, 24/7 access as it relates to the nuclear facilities that Iran has.” When a leading Iranian general scoffed at the suggestion that foreigners would be permitted to investigate possible nuclear activity at Iranian military sites, the Obama administration pushed back. “We expect to have anywhere/anytime access,” Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz reiterated bluntly.
But in the final accord, “anywhere/anytime” is nowhere to be found. The administration claimed it had never existed. (Switch!) “We never sought in this negotiation the capacity for so-called anytime/anywhere,” Rhodes told CNN’s Erin Burnett. Secretary of State Kerry went even further. “There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime/anywhere,” he insisted. “This is a term that, honestly, I never heard.”
Sanctions snap back. The administration acknowledged that stiff economic sanctions had brought the Iranians to the negotiating table. It repeatedly assured skeptics that sanctions would automatically “snap back” into effect if Iran violated any terms of the nuclear accord. “The UN sanctions that initially brought Iran to the table can and will snap right back into place,” Kerry told reporters in Vienna. That echoed what his boss had been saying all along. “We can crank that dial back up,” Obama told an interviewer in 2013. “We don’t have to trust them.”
Yet now they sell the deal as a last chance to salvage some Iranian compliance from a sanctions regime that is crumbling anyway. (Switch!) Our allies “certainly are not going to agree to enforce existing sanctions for another 5, 10, 15 years,” Obama said in his American University speech last month. And in any case, “sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure.” Snap back? That was merely bait.
Right to enrich. A deal with Iran absolutely would not invest the Islamic Republic with a right to enrich uranium, the administration firmly asserted. “No — there is no right to enrich,” Kerry declared. “In the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it’s very, very clear that there is no right to enrich.” This was a key point, since Iran insisted not only that it did have a right to enrich uranium, but that the West must acknowledge that right, or there would be no deal.
Before long, however, Kerry had changed his tune. “The NPT is silent on the issue,” he conceded in testimony before a House committee. The final deal authorizes Iran to operate 6,000 centrifuges and to continue enriching uranium. “We understood that any final deal was going to involve some domestic enrichment capability,” a senior administration official told The Wall Street Journal in April. “We always anticipated that.” (Switch!)
Only 21% of Americans support the Iran nuclear accord negotiated by the Obama administration.
Military option. Over and over and over, Obama proclaimed that he meant to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and that all options — including military attack — were “on the table.” But that assurance has gone down the memory hole. (Switch!) As he lobbied for the nuclear deal that was signed in Vienna, his message was reversed. A military option is not on the table and will not eliminate an Iranian nuclear threat, Obama told Israeli TV. “A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it.”
Deal or no deal. But perhaps the most egregious bait-and-switch of all involves the standard by which any accord with a deadly regime like Tehran’s should be assessed. From President Obama on down, administration officials used to affirm constantly that “no deal is better than a bad deal.”
They were right. And the deal they produced is indeed a bad deal. It does not dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, nor constrain its murderous ambitions, nor lessen its influence. It will not enhance the security of America and its allies, nor make the world more peaceful.
Yet the president and his allies have abandoned their old standard. Their case for this bad agreement comes down to: It could be worse. It may be flawed and far from what was promised, but any deal with Iran is better than no deal. Most Americans, and most members of Congress, don’t agree. And the bait-and-switch that was used to clinch this sale is going to leave a bad taste in a lot of mouths for a long time to come.
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.
Source: Patriot Post