Donald Trump Was Right

For the last week, I have intended to write about Donald Trump’s observation that some illegal immigrants are rapists–or, rather, about the crazed over-reaction to Trump’s undeniably true observation. We have written many times about outrages committed by illegals who should have been deported long before they finally committed crimes so horrific as to attract nationwide notice. Darron Wint and Francisco Sanchez are two recent instances of immigrants who would have been deported under any sane immigration system, but who, left undisturbed by the powers that be, eventually committed appalling murders. Many more such instances could be cited.

Open borders enthusiasts argue that these examples are irrelevant because illegal immigrants don’t commit more murders, rapes, or other crimes, per capita, than anyone else. But that argument misses the point: worthless bums like Wint and Sanchez are not in any respect random. They demonstrated years ago that they were incorrigible criminals. They should have been deported, but weren’t. Why? Because the Democratic Party believes it is a good thing for criminals who turned out to be cold-blooded murderers, like Wint and Sanchez, to live among us for the sake of diversity.

But let’s examine the assertion that illegal immigrants are no more prone to criminality than anyone else. Is that claim true? If we assume there are 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S.–that is a commonly cited number, but no one really knows–those illegals represent a little over 3% of our population and should commit around 3% of all crimes.

Data on convictions for federal offenses are available at the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s web site. Senate committee staff have analyzed those data, and found that “38 percent of federal convictions in FY 2013 were of illegal immigrants, and nearly 43 percent were legal or illegal immigrants.” That is more than ten times the number that would be expected if illegal immigrants were, on the average, as law-abiding as the rest of us. This is a more detailed breakdown:

Illegal immigrant convictions in FY13 represented:

* 18 percent of drug trafficking convictions
* 25 percent of kidnapping/hostage taking convictions
* 56 percent of drug possession convictions
* 15 percent of money laundering convictions
* 20 percent of national security convictions
* 7 percent of murder convictions

So illegals are overrepresented with regard to these crimes by anywhere from two to 17 times.

The Obama administration stopped enforcing our immigration laws, in violation of the president’s oath of office, because Obama believes it is a good thing for millions of illegals to flood across our borders. Even when illegals like Wint and Sanchez have demonstrated by their behavior that they are inveterate criminals, the Obama administration, aided and abetted by Democratic office-holders in “sanctuary” cities, will not lift a finger to deport them. As a result, the Obama administration and other Democrats who have supported the administration in its malfeasance are responsible for millions of crimes, including, as Donald Trump said, an unknown number of rapes. (Rape, like the overwhelming majority of murders, is a state law crime and is not reflected in the federal data.)

Immigration will be the biggest issue in the 2016 presidential race. Donald Trump won’t be the Republican candidate, but at least he understands why Americans are so angry at their government. And the Left’s effort to shut Trump up, aided by big business, should be a teachable moment.

Goodnight Vienna (6)

There are no surprises in Omri Ceren’s latest email update from Vienna, but if you have been following his reports, you will find this of interest (footnoted URLs at the bottom). Omri writes:

The parties missed another deadline this morning, and talks are now expected to go through the end of the week. Mogherini told reporters this morning: “I am not talking about extension. I am talking about taking the hours we need to try to complete our work”(?). The overwhelming consensus from press and analysts here in Vienna nonetheless hasn’t changed: the parties will indeed announce some kind of agreement before they leave, though it will almost certainly have details that will need to be sorted out in future negotiations. How that aligns with the administration’s legal obligation to provide Congress with all final details the deal is anyone’s guess at this point.

Meanwhile the Obama administration and its allies are laying the groundwork for another U.S. collapse, this time on inspections. Couple of indicators:

(1) They’re giving up on promising the most robust inspection/verification regime in history – Here’s President Obama during his April 2 speech about the Lausanne announcement: “Iran has also agreed to the most robust and intrusive inspections and transparency regime ever negotiated for any nuclear program in history” [a]. Here’s White House spokesman Josh Earnest at the beginning of May echoing the boast: “what President Obama has indicated must be part of any nuclear agreement… is the most intrusive set of inspections that have ever been imposed on a country’s nuclear program” [b].

But now here’s White House validator Daryl Kimball talking to Politico a couple days ago: “this particular agreement will establish the most extensive, multilayered system of nuclear monitoring and verification for any country not defeated in a war” [c]. Catch the caveat about wartime defeat? The talking point had already been floated at the beginning of the Vienna talks by RAND’s Alireza Nader talking the JTA: “If the goal is ‘anytime, anywhere’ access and unlimited inspections, it’s not realistic asking a sovereign country not defeated in war.” [d]. Yesterday Jofi Joseph, a former nonproliferation official in the Obama White House, told the LAT that the Iranians can’t be expected to submit to anytime/anywhere inspections for the same reason: “What is forgotten is that Iraq was militarily defeated in a humiliating rout and had little choice but to accept [anytime/anywhere inspections]” [e].

For 20 months the administration promised Congress that Iran had been sufficiently coerced by sanctions that Tehran would accept anytime/anywhere inspections. Many in Congress disagreed and urged the administration to boost American leverage by working with the Hill to pass time-triggered sanctions. The administration responded with two different media wars that included accusations – including some by the President – describing lawmakers as warmongers beholden to “donor” money. Congress was right and the administration was wrong. Why would lawmakers now accept a weaker inspection regime than what the administration said it could secure, and what administration officials smeared lawmakers for doubting?

(2) A new talking point is that the IAEA’s technology makes up for the P5+1 collapsing on inspections – This appeared in two articles yesterday (the NYT [f] and the Daily Beast [g]). The two stories are fantastically geeky reads about the IAEA’s toys, but that’s not what the administration officials and validators wanted to focus on. Instead you had Energy Secretary Moniz telling the NYT that the technology “lowers the requirement for human inspectors going in” and Kimball telling the Daily Beast that the technology meant that the IAEA would be able to “detect [nuclear activities] without going directly into certain areas.”

This argument is terrible and scientists should be embarrassed they’re making it. In its story the NYT quoted Olli Heinonen – a 27-year veteran of the IAEA who sat atop the agency’s verification shop – all but rolling his eyes:

Mr. Heinonen, the onetime inspection chief, sounded a note of caution, saying it would be naïve to expect that the wave of technology could ensure Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal. In the past, he said, Tehran has often promised much but delivered little. “Iran is not going to accept it easily,” he said, referring to the advanced surveillance. “We tried it for 10 years.” Even if Tehran agrees to high-tech sleuthing, Mr. Heinonen added, that step will be “important but minor” compared with the intense monitoring that Western intelligence agencies must mount to see if Iran is racing ahead in covert facilities to build an atomic bomb.

The most fundamental problem is that IAEA procedures require physical environmental samples to confirm violations. They can use futuristic lasers and satellites to *detect* that Iran is cheating. But to *confirm* the cheating they need environmental samples, and usually multiple rounds of samples. Without that level of proof – which requires access – the agency simply wouldn’t tell the international community that it was certain Iran is violation. If you need a paragraph on the procedure click on this link and ctrl-f to “Yet if Iran tries to conceal what it is doing…” [h]. If inspectors can’t get into a facility, it’s highly unlikely they’d ever be comfortable declaring that Iran was violating its obligations.

That’s before even beginning the discussion about why technology can’t make up for access to people, facilities, and documents – without which the IAEA won’t even know where to point its lasers and satellites.

But is what the administration has left: the Iranians can’t be expected to grant anytime/anywhere access but that’s OK because the IAEA has cool toys.


Another Day, Another Leftist Fraud [With Comments by John on the Democrats' "One Drop" Rule]

In what could be practically a daily feature, another case of Liberal Ethnic Identity Theft (LEIT-skinned??) has been uncovered. The Daily Caller has the story:

Andrea Smith, a professor of media and cultural studies at the University of California at Riverside, has started to draw attention in the wake of the Dolezal incident from those who say she has for years falsely claimed to have Cherokee blood. The case is arguably much more significant, though, because while Dolezal was a relatively undistinguished academic at Eastern Washington University, Smith is recognized as a significant scholar in her field. She routinely appears as a featured scholar at major events and has written books that were well-received by her colleagues (though others may question the broader worth of works like Conquest: Sexual Violence And American Indian Genocide).

Her career has largely been defined by her supposed American Indian identity. Besides her academic work, she also helped create the organization INCITE!, which describes itself as a collection of “radical feminists of color.” She’s also been active in the Indian group Women of All Red Nations (WARN).

There’s more, but you know the rest: the dissembling, the claim that it really doesn’t matter, etc. How long before we get the new cliché that Smith “presents” as native American? Three, two. . .

Meanwhile, I had missed the news from Retraction Watch a couple weeks ago of another major retraction by Nature magazine, once again for faked data:

A team of Columbia University biologists has retracted a 2013 Nature paper on the molecular pathways underlying Alzheimer’s disease, the second retraction from the group after a postdoc faked data.

An April report from the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) found the a first author, former Columbia postdoc Ryousuke Fujita, responsible for “knowingly and intentionally fabricating and falsifying research in seventy-four (74) panels” in three papers: a 2011 Cell paper retracted in 2014, an unpublished manuscript, and this now-retracted Nature paper, “Integrative genomics identifies APOE e4 effectors in Alzheimer’s disease.”

I also skipped noting the growing case that sociologist Alice Goffman, author of a widely acclaimed book On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, may well have fabricated much of her story—or worse: she may have been complicit in the commission of some felonies. The New Republic is on this one:

A careful reading of On the Run, however, leaves me with vexing questions about the author’s accuracy and reliability. There are just too many incidents that seem unlikely to have occurred as she describes them. One must try to keep an open mind about such things—especially regarding someone as obviously gifted and dedicated as Goffman—so readers may disagree with me about the extent of her embellishments. In any event, there is a bigger problem. As I will explain below, Goffman appears to have participated in a serious felony in the course of her field work—a circumstance that seems to have escaped the notice of her teachers, her mentors, her publishers, her admirers, and even her critics.

The New Rambler offers addition problems with Hoffman’s book.

Oh, and more trouble for Michael LaCour. (The underlying paper this story is based on is here—PDF file).

The intellectual left: fakes and frauds all the way down.

JOHN adds: One might think that if you are going to make a career out of being an Indian, you would have to look like an Indian. Not so. Andrea Smith looks considerably whiter than Rachel Dolezal:


In this respect, Smith resembles the Left’s darling, Elizabeth Warren, who claimed, apparently falsely, to be 1/32 Indian. The real question is, why on Earth should anyone care whether one of Warren’s great-great-great-grandparents was a Native American? What significance could that claim have to Harvard, whether true of false, so as to justify counting her as one of its “professors of color”? And, since the term is obviously meaningless, why should anyone care how many “professors of color” Harvard has?

The same goes for Andrea Smith. How does having, ostensibly, a remote Indian ancestor make her an authority on all things Native American? Why should anyone take her more seriously than another scholar, because one great-great-grandparent (or whatever) allegedly was a Cherokee? The concept is frankly disgusting.

In the 19th century, the Democratic Party adhered to the “one drop” rule–one drop of African blood was enough to contaminate a person. Apparently the Democrats never changed their racist minds, it’s just that now the one drop is a ticket puncher. Could this party get any sicker?

Higher education is intellectually bankrupt in a number of ways, but this must be one of the worst.

In Portland, the mania of Bernie

Reader Dave Begley reported for us on the mania of (and for) Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Now we can go to the tape to check out the mania for Bernie in Portland, Maine (video below, too long at about an hour).

Times are tough in Obama’s America! A revolution in political consciousness! Fight for Social Security! Fight for Social Security taxes! Raise the minimum wage! Transform America (again)! Brothers and sisters, we are going to end “wealth inequality”! It is “grotesque”! We are going to send a message to the billionaire class! Children are going hungry! Your greed has got to end, and we are going to end it for you! Real unemployment is 10.5 percent! The real tragedy is youth unemployment!

We have more people in jail than the Commies! Rethink the war on drugs! Free the people! Women control their bodies! Contraceptives (Republicans are opposed)! He’s been married for 27 years! Twelve weeks of paid family and medical leave are decreed! Two weeks of paid vacation are decreed! It’s the least we can do! He’s got a message for Wall Street! Koch brothers! Oligarchy! Free tuition at every public college and university is decreed! And so endlessly on.

Merle Haggard puts it somewhat more concisely: “We’ll all be drinking that free Bubble Up/And eating that rainbow stew.”

The man is feeling it, a relentless demagogue taking a trip down memory lane. He takes the trip with kernels of truth scattered like pebbles to help him find his way home. He returns to the ’30s, but it is the ’30s overlaid with C. Wright Mills and the higher wisdom of the ’60s.

Via Ed Driscoll/InstaPundit.

The deep meaning of San Francisco

KathrynSteinle In one phase the modern novel takes up the idea of expressive form. James Joyce took it about as far as possible in Ulysses, with the style of each chapter varying to mirror the content. In the “Aeolus” chapter placed inside a newspaper office, for example, Joyce exhausted the variety of rhetorical devices available in English to capture windbaggery in action.

The city of San Francisco now presents as a real life study in expressive form. San Francisco is the expressive form of the Democratic Party.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders documents the city’s descent into an urban outhouse in the column “Summer of muck.” Saunders writes: “Downtown San Francisco feels like a large public toilet without enough janitors. More than once this year, I’ve seen men drop their pants in public places — including at Fifth and Market — in order to leave a smelly mess on the sidewalk. You can walk for blocks and never escape the stench of stale urine.” (Saunders warmed up for this column last month in the post “Warning: San Francisco smells like a toilet.”)

Saunders concludes her column with an observation and a dainty question: “San Francisco is such a beautiful city. Why do we let people poop all over it?”

How to turn a beautiful city into a shithole? (Pardon my language. No synonym suffices here.) Turn the city to over to progressive Democrats who form the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Saunders is a working stiff walking the streets of San Francisco. You can see where the limousine has become the indispensable handmaiden of the city’s limousine liberals. It helps insulate them from the stench as they travel to and from the office.

San Francisco now gives us the case of Francisco Sanchez. Sanchez is the seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee who murdered Kate Steinle (photo above) last week at Pier 14 in the course of his most recent stay in the United States.

He left his heart in San Francisco. Why? Sanchez loved San Francisco because it was a so-called sanctuary city, proudly declining to cooperate with the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Sanchez is himself the Democrats’ ideal love object. He kept coming back to San Francisco because he knew he could avoid deportation there. See this ABC News report. (More here.)

Why did federal officers at ICE turn Sanchez over to local authorities under an immigration detainer when the local authorities follow a sanctuary city policy? I haven’t seen an answer to that question, but we can look up to the Democratic president who has exercised authority beyond the limits of the law to undermine immigration policy. Debra Saunders herself explores the question in “Whose sanctuary?”

What does President Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security have to say about San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy? He isn’t saying. “In my view, this type of situation highlights the importance of the direction where we are headed,” Johnson said when asked about the California murder.

From the city of San Francisco to the president of the United States, it’s Democrats all the way up.

Obama’s uncertain trumpet, cont’d

As President Obama works to complete our surrender to the Islamic Republic — the crowning glory of his legacy — he also seeks to reform our character with deep thoughts such as those he enunciated at the Pentagon with military officers standing dutifully behind him (video below):

Th[e] broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas and more attractive and more compelling vision. So the United States will continue to do our part by continuing to counter ISIL’s hateful propaganda, especially online. We’ll constantly reaffirm through words and deeds that we will never be at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists who distort islam and its victims are mostly Muslims.

We’re also going to partner with Muslim communities as they seek the prosperity and dignity they observe. And we’re going to expect those communities to step up in terms of pushing back as hard as they can in conjunction with other people of good will against these hateful ideologies, particularly when it comes to what we’re teaching young people.

It’s not exactly “We shall fight on the beaches.” To the annals of idiocy Obama has made monumental contributions. As for us, we shall, apparently, yammer on the beaches.

Via RealClearPolitics.

Peter the Great for Our Time

Last night over 700 people gathered in Ashland, Ohio, to honor Peter Schramm, the long-time director of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University, and one of the great classroom teachers of our time. Peter has fought off cancer for the last several years, but a few weeks ago his doctor delivered a very grim diagnosis. His many friends didn’t want to wait passively on the sidelines.

Born American copyWith a New Orleans jazz band providing the musical backdrop for the festivities, Ashbrook Center director Roger Beckett conducted a “conversation” (Peter’s favorite term) about Peter with Larry Arnn, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Jeff Sikkenga, Lucas Morel, and David Tucker. A new scholarship and library in Peter’s name were announced.  Then Peter came out and spoke for about 10 minutes in one of the most extraordinary things I’ve ever seen a human being do anywhere, at any time. (Among other things, he declared “I couldn’t possibly be any happier than I am.”)  I may have some of the video at a later time, but for people familiar with the phenomenal “last lecture” of Randy Pausch a few years ago, this was every bit as excellent and profound. If you want to get a small flavor of it, and if you never read anything else by Peter, see “Born American, But in the Wrong Place.” Or, as the mockup National Review cover nearby captures it: “The Amazing Story of the Cigar-Chomping Hungarian Who Explained America to Americans.”

Peter’s body may be giving out, but he is not. He’s still in the classroom every day this summer.  Two years ago I sat down and interviewed Peter for about 90 minutes, and posted a couple of short excerpts here at the time.  I thought it appropriate to repost both of these excerpts today. Meanwhile, I’ll be going back through the other hour-plus of material for more in the coming days and weeks. Jonah Goldberg said Peter was the definition of a mensch. I’ll just go with Peter the Great.

Chris Flannery and Peter, best friends of 50 years.

Chris Flannery and Peter, best friends of 50 years.