Tag Archives: Justice

Family of woman murdered by illegal immigrant sues sanctuary city

Is it time for justice for the victims of Democrat policies?
Is it time for justice for the victims of Democrat policies?

Investors Business Daily has some good news, something that makes me hopeful of the future.


The family of Kate Steinle, the young woman gunned down by an illegal alien in San Francisco, is suing the city and its enablers. How sad nothing’s changed since her death, and lawsuits are all citizens have left.

After enduring a round of crocodile tears and flapdoodle from city officials — and a noticeable silence from the White House — it was obvious to the family of Kathryn Steinle, the 32-year-old woman gunned down in broad daylight by a five-times-deported illegal, that the powers that be in the sanctuary city of San Francisco and in the federal government would try to ignore the death of their daughter.

After all, the San Francisco and federal governments encouraged the non-enforcement of immigration laws and were banking on the public forgetting how illegal aliens are committing heinous crimes with impunity against Americans, shielded by sanctuary city policies.

Business as usual could go on. Or so they hoped.

Except that the Steinles have decided not to let this one go. On Tuesday, they filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco, its sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and the Bureau of Land Management, whose insufficiently secured gun became the illegal’s murder weapon.

“We’re frustrated,” said Brad Steinle, the dead woman’s brother, at a news conference on the steps of City Hall on Tuesday. “Because the system failed our sister. And at this point, nobody has taken responsibility, accountability. And nothing has changed.”

“We’re here not only for Kate, we’re here for every citizen of this country who comes to San Francisco,” said her father, Jim Steinle. “If you think this can’t happen to you, think again.”

He recalled how, strolling in broad daylight on a tourist pier in San Francisco last July, he watched as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, with a long criminal career behind him, gunned his daughter down.

The illegal later admitted to investigators that he was attracted to San Francisco for its sanctuary city policies.

So far, we have not seen a lot of progress in punishing Hillary Clinton for sending and receiving classified e-mails, and storing them on a thumb drive to give to her lawyer. We have not seen a lot of progress in investigating and de-funding Planned Parenthood for alleged criminal activities. We have not seen a lot of progress at punishing the IRS for persecuting conservative groups ahead of the 2012 election, in order to suppress their influence so that Obama could be re-elected. It sometimes seems impossible to hold the Democrats accountable for the harm they do with their delusional laws and policies. And the media successfully covers up the greed, corruption and destructive incompetence.

Until now.

This time, it’s very clear that the Democrats are responsible for what happened to Kate Steinle. This criminal was released without informing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. That refusal to follow the law cost Kate Steinle her life. And it showed the world the consequences of leftist ideology. The left is soft on illegal immigrants who commit crimes and/or take unfair advantage of social programs. The left is soft on crime – they would rather favor the criminal over the victim of the criminal. They don’t like moral judgments. They don’t like when people reap what they sow. They call evil good, and good evil, and they feel compassion when they fix the problems of evil people by taking away from what good people have earned.

So often, the public is deliberately deceived by the media about the effects of leftist policies. We won’t see the consequences of Obama running up 10 trillion in new debt right away. We won’t see the consequences to the crime rate for rewarding women who choose to create fatherless children. We don’t see the consequences of redefining marriage on the next generation of taxpayers. We don’t see the consequences of legalizing no-fault divorce right away. We don’t see the effect on our social safety net when we abort the next generation of taxpayers and create a demographic crisis. Liberals seem to be impossible to hold accountable. They just keep talking and talking about how generous they are with other people’s money, and how compassionate they are to favor evildoers over innocent citizens.

But this time, the mask is off. Now we know the consequences of wanting to be generous with law-breakers. Now we realize that relaxing the rules in order to be “nice” actually does harm to innocent people. And if this lawsuit succeeds, and the Steinles get justice, maybe it will be the beginning of government becoming accountable to the people. The solution to bad government is holding the government leaders accountable for their mistakes right away. And I think the mistakes are going to become easier to spot as the money for welfare spending runs out, and people have to pay for their own poor decision-making.

Obama’s D.C. appeals court nominee equated pro-lifers with Ku Klux Klan

From Powerline blog, a look at the record of Obama’s latest judicial nominee.

She opposed the church invoking the First Amendment as a defense to government intervention in hiring decisions:

Only four Republican Senators out of eight on the Committee asked questions today. Ranking Member Grassley (and later Sen. Cruz) inquired about a statement Pillard made regarding Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC. In that case, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 9-0, found that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches under the anti-employment discrimi­nation laws, because churches and other religious groups must be free to choose their leaders without government interference.

Prior to the decision, Pillard wrote that the position of the defendant church represents “a substantial threat to the American rule of law.” This statement was the focus of questions by Grassley and Cruz.

Pillard tried to side-step the inquiry by confessing that she is an imperfect predictor of how the Supreme Court will rule (she was referring to a statement she had also made that “the big news will be if the Court decides [the case] for the Church”). This was a cynical evasion.

The problem is not Pillard’s failure to predict how the Court would rule; the problem was her radical position that the church’s invocation of its First Amendment rights substantially threatens the rule of law. Pillard was unwilling to defend this position, so she dodged the question.

The significance of the 9-0 vote in favor of the church is not Pillard’s failure to anticipate it. The significance lies in the fact that she took a position too radical for any of the Court’s liberals to adopt. In fact, according to Cruz, Justice Kagan described the government’s position in the case, which Pillard supported, as “amazing.”

She compared pro-lifers to the Ku Klux Klan:

Pillard did no better with a question from Senator Lee about her argument that anti-abortion protesters are comparable to the members of the Ku Klux Klan who were the subject of the anti-KKK post-civil war statute. Pillard made this argument in the context of litigation trying to use that statute against anti-abortion protesters.

Pillard testified today that the comparison is “not at all fair.” She explained that she had been forced to rely the anti-Klan law because there was nothing else on the books with which to go after militant anti-abortion protesters (Pillard hoped to use RICO, but the Supreme Court had shot theory that down). Pillard assured Sen. Lee that, because Congress has since passed legislation to deal with such protesters, there is no longer a need to use the anti-Klan law.


She opposes federalism, one of the biggest causes of American prosperity:

Finally, Sen. Flake questioned Pillard about her “transnationalism” referred to in my earlier report. He asked her about a statement in which, apparently, she indicated that international law provides a promising source of new rights for U.S. citizens, now that recognized domestic sources of such rights may be largely exhausted.

Pillard said she doesn’t agree with this view. She testified that she merely trying to explain to a Swiss audience the difference between our system and the system to which Europeans are accustomed. Specifically, she was trying to explain that we have a federal system.

I don’t have the statement that Sen. Flake was referring to, and thus cannot yet evaluate the plausibility of Pillard’s explanation of it. I can say, however, that Pillard is a less than ideal candidate to be explaining federalism to foreigners or anyone else. For she views “the federalism impulse” as a “sort of demonization of government” and an “effort to impede the ability of government to govern.”

Here’s more on her record from Life News.


Among some of her greatest hits, the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General argues that abortion is necessary to help “free women from historically routine conscription into maternity.” As if her militant feminism wasn’t apparent enough, she takes the opportunity in some of her writings to slam anyone who opposes the abortion-contraception mandate as “reinforce[ing] broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders.”

A mother of two, Nina wrote a 2011 paper, “Against the New Maternalism,” which argues that by celebrating motherhood, society is creating a “self-fulfilling cycle of discrimination.” Those ideas bleed into Pillard’s extreme pro-abortion views, which suggest that technology is somehow manipulating Americans to consider the personhood of the unborn. In one of her most jaw-dropping statements, the President’s nominee even criticizes the ultrasound. She believes it manufactures “deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”

As crazy and outrageous as her other comments are, this one is a denial of basic biology! She actually rejects modern science on human development because it conflicts with her hard-core ideology. If that doesn’t disqualify someone from the second most prestigious court in America, I’m not sure what does. Except maybe this: Pillard is so fiercely opposed to abstinence education that she has said publicly she would declare it unconstitutional. In “Our Other Reproductive Choices,” Nina argues that abstinence-only curriculum is “permeated with stereotyped messages and sex-based double standards” which, in her mind, makes it “vulnerable to an equal protection challenge.”

Wow, you can really tell a lot about Obama’s views on churches and pro-lifers from his judicial nominees, can’t you?

Women who made 11 false rape accusations is finally put in jail – for 16 months

Dina tweeted this frightening article from the UK Daily Mail.


A woman who cried rape was jailed yesterday after a court heard it was her eleventh false claim.

Compulsive liar Elizabeth Jones, 22, was exposed when CCTV footage disproved her allegation against a man she ‘did not like any more’.

She had made her first false rape claim in 2004 when she was just 13, Southampton Crown Court heard.

Between 2005 and 2007 she made another eight allegations which police investigated and dismissed, although she was not prosecuted.

In 2009 she was sentenced to a ten-month detention and training order for a similar offence.

Jones’s latest victim was a boyfriend against whom she made the allegation after the pair had an argument.

Police began an investigation after Jones, from Southampton, persuaded a friend to report she had been assaulted.

She later went to the police station for a medical examination and repeated her allegation. The man was arrested and questioned for nine hours before being released without charge.

Prosecutor Jennie Rickman said he denied rape and detectives later viewed CCTV covering part of the house in which Jones claimed to have been attacked.

The video did not support her story that the man forced himself on her.

Miss Rickman said: ‘There is a history of her making false allegations of this nature and this is the 11th incident.

‘Police had to take her allegation seriously and carried out an appropriate investigation.

‘She was later arrested and accepted she had lied about being raped. She said she did it because she did not like him.’

Jones admitted to attempting to pervert the course of justice and was jailed for 16 months.

What do you think would be a good jail sentence for someone who made 11 false accusations? Maybe if this person got a real sentence, it would deter future false accusations. Then there would be more police time and money to prosecute real rapes.

New study: domestic violence is twice as likely for two-income couples

From Psych Central. (H/T Stuart Schneiderman)


Intimate partner violence is two times more likely to occur in two income households, compared to those where only one partner works, according to a new study.

Conducted by Sam Houston State University researchers Cortney A. Franklin, Ph.D., and doctoral student Tasha A. Menaker and supported by the Crime Victims’ Institute, the study looked at the impact of education levels and employment among heterosexual partners as it relates to domestic violence.

While the researchers found that differences in education levels appeared to have little influence, when both partners were working, intimate partner violence increased.

“When both male and females were employed, the odds of victimization were more than two times higher than when the male was the only breadwinner in the partnership, lending support to the idea that female employment may challenge male authority and power in a relationship,” said the researchers.

The study was based on telephone interviews with 303 women who identified themselves as either currently or recently in a serious romantic relationship.

[…]The study found that more than 60 percent of women in two-income couples reported victimization, while only 30 percent of women reported victimization in cases when only the male partner was employed.

[…]The study is scheduled to be published in the journal Violence Against Women.

Dr. Schneiderman comments:

To the best of my knowledge the research does not show whether the wives in question were  using their income as a way to diminish and disrespect their husbands.

Feminism has long been claiming that the male role of provider or breadwinner is a social construct designed to oppress women. If, however, the role is instinctive, and if it is intrinsic to male pride, then the feminist derogation of it is a losing fight.

In my own case, I would never, ever ever marry a woman who expected to work at all if there were children under 5 in the home. What a woman does in marriage is care for her husband and her children. If she is dismissive of the needs of men and children, then marriage is not for her. That’s why it is so important to talk to women about what they believe marriage is, why they want to get married, and why they want to have children. Ask them what the needs of men are in a marriage. Ask them what the needs of children are through their development. What is her plan for her husband and children? How does she intend to achieve those plans? What decisions has she made to prepare? What actions has she performed to show where her priorities lie?

Marriage is not just whatever people decide marriage is. It’s the joining together of two opposite sexual natures, and there are rules and guidelines about how to do that. It is a tense, close-quarters situation that requires that both parties understand that the sexes are different and have different needs. A man has to make certain choices and perform certain actions to fuel his wife and keep her engaged. And a woman has to make certain choices and perform certain actions to fuel her husband and keep him engaged. You can’t have a real marriage with a feminist who repudiates sex differences and the obligations that natural marriage imposes on each partner. It’s fine if a woman says things like “I want to keep working after I get married” or “I will put my children in day care a few weeks after they are born”. All that means is that she isn’t qualified for marriage. Cohabitation is a better option, or maybe just hook-up sex, divorce, single motherhood and spinsterhood. Those are the options – either marriage or feminism.

By the way, please note that research shows that women are as likely to commit domestic violence as men. That’s not my opinion, that’s what studies by the Canadian and UK governments show.

Does abortion really reduce crime? A look at the evidence from published studies

From Life Site News.


Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to seven percent. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single‑parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11 percent to 32 percent, and the percentage of out‑of‑wedlock births has nearly quadrupled, from 11 percent to 43 percent of all children.7 Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime.

There are many other fundamental problems with the conclusion that legalized abortion leads to a decrease in crime.

Statistician David Murray confirmed that young males between the ages of 17 and 25 commit the majority of crimes. However, if abortion had reduced crime, the crime rates in the United States would have dropped first among young people. They did not. Instead, the number of crimes committed by older people dropped first. Nearly 60% of the decline in murder since 1990 involved killers aged 25 and older — who were born before Roe v. Wade.8

Murray also found that other nations with high abortion rates showed a large increase in crime about eighteen years after they legalized abortion. For example, in Great Britain, which legalized abortion in 1968, violent crime has been rising steeply since about 1985 ― exactly when it should have been declining, according to the Donohue‑Levitt thesis. Additionally, Russia, with the highest abortion rate on earth, has experienced a tidal wave of every kind of violent crime following the breakup of the Soviet Union.9

FBI statistics showed that the murder rate in 1993 for 14‑ to 17‑year‑olds in the USA (born in the years 1975‑1979, which had very high abortion rates) was 3.6 times higher than that of kids who were the same age in 1984 (who were born in the pre‑legalization years of 1966‑1970). Additionally, since Black women were having abortions at a much higher rate than White women, we should have expected the murder rate among Black youth to have declined beginning in about 1991. Instead, it increased more than five hundred percent from 1984 to 1993.10

Finally, the huge increase in violent crime that peaked in 1991 and then began to decline is more closely related to the crack epidemic, not abortion. The Donohue‑Levitt study confirms that the crime rate rose and fell exactly where crack cocaine was most easily available ― in the large cities and among young Black males.11 This is also confirmed by the rise in crime during the time period 1984 to 1991, after a decline from 1980 to 1984. If abortion were the primary cause of a decline in violent crime, the crime rate would have been relatively stable during the time period 1980 to 1991.

This might be a good post to store away, because I get the abortion reduces crime argument thrown at me about once a month. It has to be responded to with evidence. A good to buy on this is John Lott’s “Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t“. One third of the book covers this topic.