In San Francisco

KathrynSteinle The latest outrage in our continuing saga of illegal immigration comes via San Francisco, where a five-time Mexican deportee killed a beautiful young lady (photo at left) who was out for a walk with her father. FOX News reports:

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say.

Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released.

“DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored,” ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon.

Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 — one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city.

Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred.

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico.

“His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges,” ICE said in a statement.

ICE briefly had him in their custody in March after he had served his latest sentence for “felony re-entry,” but turned him over to San Francisco Sheriff’s Department on an outstanding drug warrant. At this time, ICE issued the detainer — effectively asking that he be turned back over to ICE when San Francisco was finished with him.

But ICE was not notified. The incident is sure to renew criticism of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policies.

“Here’s a jurisdiction that’s not even honoring our detainer for someone who clearly is an egregious offender,” an ICE official told FoxNews.com.

ICE has since lodged another immigration detainer against the individual, though it’s unclear whether San Francisco will cooperate.

An attorney for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department told the Associated Press it had no authority to honor the prior immigration hold when it released the suspect.

Freya Horne said Friday that federal detention orders are not a “legal basis” to hold someone, so Francisco Sanchez was released April 15.

The San Francisco Chronicle carries a brief account of the murder here. The account of the murder is brief but heart-rending:

Kathryn Steinle had just sent her mother a quintessential San Francisco picture — a photo of her, her father and a family friend on the scenic waterfront of the Embarcadero.

But five minutes later, with her father’s arm around her shoulder, the 32-year-old Pleasanton native suddenly collapsed on Pier 14 just south of the Ferry Building. It was 6:30 p.m. Wednesday, and she had been struck in the chest by a bullet.

“There was a pop, and Kate went down,” 68-year-old Jim Steinle recalled Thursday.

He immediately began CPR before paramedics arrived and rushed his daughter into an ambulance. Two hours later, she died at San Francisco General Hospital, said her mother, 69-year-old Liz Sullivan.

“She just kept saying, ‘Dad, help me, help me,’” Sullivan said. “It’s just unbelievable. It’s surreal. I don’t think I’ve totally grasped it.”

The events here appear to follow from our porous border and from San Francisco’s status as a so-called sanctuary city, although this last point is not entirely clear from the newspaper accounts. It is a shame that Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were unavailable for comment.

And a word from Calvin Coolidge

President Calvin Coolidge rose to the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Indepence on July 4, 1926, with a speech providing a magisterial review of the history and thought underlying the Declaration. His speech on the occasion deserves to be read and studied in its entirety. In light of the destruction wrought last week by our robed masters, let us consider especially the following brilliant paragraph. Like Lincoln’s explication of the meaning of July 4, Coolidge’s words remain as relevant now as then:

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

The eternal meaning of Independence Day

On July 9, 1858, Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas gave a campaign speech to a raucous throng from the balcony of the Tremont Hotel in Chicago. Abraham Lincoln was in the audience as Douglas prepared to speak. Douglas graciously invited Lincoln to join him on the balcony to listen to the speech.

In his speech Douglas sounded the themes of the momentous campaign that Lincoln and Douglas waged that summer and fall for Douglas’s Senate seat. Douglas paid tribute to Lincoln as a “kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good citizen and an honorable opponent,” but took issue with Lincoln’s June 16 speech to the Illinois Republican convention that had named him its candidate for Douglas’s seat. In that speech Lincoln had famously asserted that the nation could not exist “half slave and half free.” According to Douglas, Lincoln’s assertion belied the “diversity” in domestic institutions that was “the great safeguard of our liberties.” Then as now, “diversity” was a shibboleth hiding an evil institution that could not be defended on its own terms.

Douglas responded to Lincoln’s condemnation of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision — a condemnation that was the centerpiece of Lincoln’s convention speech. “I am free to say to you,” Douglas said, “that in my opinion this government of ours is founded on the white basis. It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the white man, to be administered by white men, in such manner as they should determine.”

Lincoln invited Douglas’s audience to return the next evening for his reply to Douglas’s speech. Lincoln’s speech of July 10, 1858, is one of his many great speeches, but in one respect it is uniquely great. It concludes with an explanation of the meaning of this day to Americans with matchless eloquence and insight in words that remain as relevant now as then.

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometime about the 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what I suppose to be some of them.

We are now a mighty nation, we are thirty—or about thirty millions of people, and we own and inhabit about one-fifteenth part of the dry land of the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history for about eighty-two years and we discover that we were then a very small people in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with a vastly less extent of country,—with vastly less of everything we deem desirable among men,—we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happened away back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men, they fought for the principle that they were contending for; and we understood that by what they then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity that we now enjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselves of all the good done in this process of time of how it was done and who did it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go from these meetings in better humor with ourselves—we feel more attached the one to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we are better men in the age, and race, and country in which we live for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we have not yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration [loud and long continued applause], and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world. [Applause.]

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of “don’t care if slavery is voted up or voted down” [Douglas's "popular sovereignty" position on the extension of slavery to the territories], for sustaining the Dred Scott decision [A voice---"Hit him again"], for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what the Declaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that the people of America are equal to the people of England. According to his construction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now I ask you in all soberness, if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmed and endorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform this Government into a government of some other form. Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices---"me" "no one," &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of "no, no,"] let us stick to it then [cheers], let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

Thank you, Mr. Lincoln. Let us stick to it then. Let us stand firmly by it then. (Posted annually on July 4 since 2004.)

The Week in Pictures: Human Events Edition

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to explain to a candid world how Independence Day became Dependence Day, well. . . it’s a long story. There’s only one thing to do: as Churchill said, “Keep buggering on.” (Question: Can we still say “buggering”? I’m badly confused about this. Either “buggering” is now wholly approved, or banned as an archaic macroaggression.) Happy 4th everybody. Go light a firecracker and annoy a nanny-state liberal.

Court as Lawmaker copy

Roberts copy

Toams Takei copy

Thatcher Che copy

Greek Check copy

Greece Sanders copy

Flag Sins copy

Flags copy

A flag to offend everyone.

A flag to offend everyone.

Lowet that flag copy

Confed Skittles copy

Comply copy

JV Team 2 copy

Oren copy

Candidates2 copy

TSA Medicine copy

Gay Agenda copy

Soccer copy

Drink and Derive copy

Jenner's Cat copyFrom a real live harassment training program:

Start by shaving off that mustache, which is harassing all by itself.

Start by shaving off that mustache, which is harassing all by itself.

Keep Scrolling copy OCDC copy DHMO water copy

Power Strip copy

About darn time.

About darn time.

The 1st and 2nd Amendment in one pic.

The 1st and 2nd Amendment in one pic.

And finally. . .

Hot 339 copy

 

Zarif on getting to yes

In the annals of murderous deceit and provocative audacity, the video of Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif takes the cake. The video aims at Zarif’s American counterparts and a wider American audience. It is posted on YouTube here with the full text of Zarif’s message.

Zarif advises: “Getting to yes requires the courage to compromise, the self-confidence to be flexible, the maturity to be reasonable, the wisdom to set aside illusions, and the audacity to break old habits.” Do check out the whole sickening production. It virtually defies belief. Mr. Zarif, where can I get the musical soundtrack?

Zarif, of course, speaks with a forked tongue about the qualities conducive to this particular agreement. He must be in some doubt on this point, but I’m confident that our own Supreme Leader has all the qualities necessary to enter into the deal in process with Iran.

Via Daniel Halper/Weekly Standard.

Extending Alinsky Rule 6

One of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals must support tactical lying, or lying on principle. Perhaps it is a variant of Alinsky Rule 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” I infer that the left loves it. Lying is one of their greatest hits.

I will formulate Alinsky Rule 6(a): “Lie when you have to, the worse the better. Your supporters will enjoy it, while others will be fooled by it and be reluctant to conclude that they were hoodwinked. Still others will remain sufficiently inattentive to suit your purposes.”

Think of Obamacare, peddled to the American people by the president of the United States without the utterance of a true word over a period of years. Alinksy would be proud.

Or think of the Iran agreement in process. Charles Krauthammer measures it against its professed objective and judges it to be founded entirely on the things which are not (to borrow the Houyhnhnms’ expression in Gulliver’s Travels). Krauthammer calls it “The worst agreement in diplomatic history.”

I may disagree slightly. I’d say it’s the worst agreement in the history of the world. It’s enough to make you doubt that Obama’s avowed objective is the one intended (a subject for another day, but consistent with the lying in support of the agreement).

Then we have Madam Hillary and the outrageous lies about her email as Secretary of State. Kim Strassel unpacks the lies in the Wall Street Journal column “Hillary’s email story unravels” (accessible here via Google).

Back to the Obama administration, let us not overlook the revelation of the destroyed IRS backup email tapes that were under subpoena at the time of their destruction. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George professes to have no evidence that the improper destruction was done out of a desire to conceal information, but good grief, man, can you use your common sense?

Churchill on “A Peculiar Type of Brainy People”

As with so many other things, Churchill was on to the problem of the administrative state and today’s presumptuous liberal cosmopolitanism from early on.  A 1933 speech offers a perfect description of our Beltway mentality today:

The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage-earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our county, who, if they add something to its culture, take much from its strength.

Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible Utopias?

This quotation, and much more, appear in Larry Arnn’s forthcoming book, Churchill’s Trial: Winston Churchill and the Salvation of Free Government, which will be released in October. But you can pre-order now!

Churchills Trial Big copy