American Elephants


The Obama Administration Has Quietly Revised Sanctuary City Policies. by The Elephant's Child

The Obama administration has revised its policies on “sanctuary” cities and counties. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will now have the first opportunity to take illegal aliens into custody and deport them.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, during a House budget hearing that the Bureau of Prisons would now allow ICE, rather than states and municipalities to take illegals into custody. “We have in the past deferred because…we work with local colleagues and want to make sure that they can adjudicate their cases as well” she said.

“Particularly where we’re dealing with a jurisdiction that is not prone to honoring ICE detainers…our policy is going to be that ICE will instead have the first detainer and that individual will go into ICE custody and deportation,” Lynch told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies.

Sanctuary policies have meant that when Francisco Sanchez, a Mexican national with a long felony record, shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in broad daylight on a pier in San Francisco where she was walking with her father, it was a national embarrassment for the Obama administration. The Bureau of Prisons turned Sanchez over to the San Francisco sheriff’s office which had a marijuana case from the 1990s pending against him. ICE had submitted a detainer request for Sanchez, to deport him,but the sheriff complied with San Francisco’s sanctuary policies and released Sanchez back onto the streets. He is, however, now in custody and awaiting trial.

Lynch said the new policy may mean that municipalities may have local cases that will not be prosecuted because prisoners will be turned over to ICE and deported. The Steinle case made the national news and aroused public outrage, so the Justice Department has quietly revised policies. Whether local jurisdictions will alter their “sanctuary” policies remains to be seen. They would seem to be indefensible.



Bill Whittle On the Success and Efficiency of Cities Run by Democrats by The Elephant's Child

If you wonder where to channel your anger—try focusing on the American cities driven to ruin by Democratic governance. Democrats’ goal is power. That simple. They view some degree of socialism of some sort as the pathway to that power and they hold a Utopian view of how wonderful it will all be when they arrive at a culture of equals and equality. But they don’t really intend for everyone to be equal, just the rest of you. They expect to be in charge, well, somebody has to be in charge. But trying to force equality on an unwilling public always ends up in disaster, as the cities currently run by Democrats proves. They never learn.



Donald Trump is the Ultimate Insider by The Elephant's Child

150806212843-07-fox-debate-trump-0806-super-169

Matthew Continetti, writing at the Washington Free Beacon today, said “Donald Trump has become the Republican frontrunner because GOP primary voters want an outsider who is angry at the condition of the country and the party establishment.” this really struck me — because it is just dead wrong. I don’t know whether Continetti is correct or not, but if GOP primary voters assume that Donald Trump is an outsider, they are mistaken. Mr. Trump is the ultimate insider.

He has told us so repeatedly. Trump explains that he donates to both parties because he is in business, and that’s just what you do. Of course. He donates because he is buying access. If he gives a significant sum to a politician, whether a national candidate, a state candidate or someone in city administration, they will see him when he calls. They will look with favor, if they are able, to his requests, favor at least partly, his side of the latest ‘deal.’ That is by nature — an insider. That’s how you make deals.

Forgive me, but the party “establishment,” whoever that is:  Party Chairman Reince Priebus? Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell? House Speaker Paul Ryan? Who precisely are you angry at and why? The Republican “establishment” did not pass ObamaCare, but have voted to repeal it in full six times, and in part over 50 times.

Those changes that you resent so much are a direct result of President Obama having a House and a Senate with Democrats in charge, and Republicans couldn’t do a thing about it. Even when the voters revolted and gave control of the House and the Senate to Republicans, there was little that they could do beyond putting a bill on the president’s desk, which he promptly vetoed, as he has. Shut down the government? That only frightens voters who fear that they won’t get their Social Security checks, or their welfare checks, or their food stamps, or their medical care. They depend on those payments, and shutting down the government really frightens them, and loses votes for Republicans at the polls.

The founders designed a Constitutional system that was meant to be slow, with participants thinking and arguing over potential legislation extensively to be sure that it was good legislation. They had no concept of a federal government with hundreds of agencies, departments, offices and bureaus all with the power to issue regulations. Who knew that it would take a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit which could take months and years to pry loose information that Congress needed to do their work? That many arguments about authority would go to the Supreme Court for a decision, and those can take years proceeding through the courts.

Of course there should not be hundreds of agencies, departments, offices and bureaus, and they shouldn’t be issuing regulations. Congress is supposed to be making the laws, not palming them off. It is the Democrats who are in favor of BIG government, and essentially believe that most everything should be done by government. I believe Bernie Sanders recently said that charities should be abolished and the government should take that task over. It is of course about power. And that’s why Democrat plans seldom work.

If  you are angry at the vast number of people who have dropped out of the labor market, the huge numbers on food stamps, the sluggish economy that Obama keeps claiming is growing and prospering — why aren’t you angry with Obama?

If you are distraught at open and unenforced borders, at illegals placed all over the country, and criminal illegals in sanctuary cities, blame the Democrats. If you are disturbed by President Obama’s announced numbers of “Syrian” refugees to be admitted to the country, Republicans are trying valiantly to stop some of these things.

If you worry about ISIS, then don’t fall for the Democrats’ propaganda about “Bush Lied, People Died.” Bush did not lie, every intelligence agency in the world believed that Saddam had WMD — and so he did. He had 500 tons of yellowcake, enough to make 168 nuclear weapons. He had vast warehouses full of “agricultural chemicals” which are the precursors of nerve gas and other poison gasses, and the chemicals that turned them into nerve gas were stored in Saddam’s scientists’ home refrigerators. ISIS has found vast stores of Saddam’s poison gas, which are still turning up. ISIS exists because Obama did not make any effort to make a status of forces agreement and just pulled all the troops out, leaving Iraq to fend for itself.

Republicans are doing what they can to prevent Obama’s overreach but as he has told us—he has a phone and a pen— and he is going to do as much as he possibly can to go around Congress and accomplish his ends with executive orders and signing statements and whatever other executive tricks he can think up. He has no intention of working with Congress at any time. Be as angry as you want, but at least direct your anger constructively at the source of the problems, not at those who are trying to remedy them.




%d bloggers like this: