Wednesday, April 30, 2014
In keeping with his Liberal ideology that criminals are not responsible for their criminal activities, President Barack Obama is preparing to make a far-reaching use of his power to grant commutations to federal "non-violent" drug convicts who have served "long" sentences. According to a Politico article, Attorney General Eric Holder said on April 21, 2014, "The White House has indicated it wants to consider additional clemency applications, to restore a degree of justice, fairness, and proportionality for deserving individuals who do not pose a threat to public safety. The Justice Department is committed to recommending as many qualified applicants as possible for reduced sentences." This is the same Justice Department that put these well-deserving people in prison. In a video AG Holder released, he said, "There's still too many people in federal prisons who were sentenced under the old regime, and who as a result will have to spend far more time in prison then if they would if sentenced today for exactly the same crime." AG Holder is referring to the federal Sentencing Guidelines enacted by Congress in 1987. The guidelines were a game-changer that substantially upped the ante for those people inclined to smuggle, distribute, or sell drugs. The guidelines required judges to look at each convicted defendant individually, taking in to account his past criminal history, the role he played in the drug crime, the type and amount of drugs involved, and if he used any special skills to accomplish the goal of the conspiracy. The guidelines, coupled with mandatory minimum sentences, and the abolishment of federal parole, resulted in drug dealers receiving in some cases, life sentences instead of only a five year maximum sentence in which the convict was eligible for parole within 18 months. The only way to get out from underneath the guidelines was for the defendant to cooperate with investigators to identify other members of their drug conspiracies; and many did, resulting in a steady rise in federal prison populations. Substantially increasing prison terms for persons who possessed a firearm in conjunction with a drug crime resulted in an immediate reduction of the use of firearms. In the 1980s, many drug dealers in the era of "Miami Vice" and "Scarface," emulated the shootings and violence they saw on television and the movies. Yet, AG Holder probably believes that a drug dealer who possessed a gun at the time of his arrest is a "non-violent" drug offender because he didn't kill anyone. Liberals have continuously attacked the guidelines, and have successfully watered them down over the years. Now, the President and the Attorney General want to release drug dealers for time already served. Thus, they are going around Congress once again, whose role it is to set sentences, in order to get what they want. The president has made it known that he thinks marijuana is no worse than smoking cigarettes, and he refuses to enforce federal drug laws where states, like Colorado and Washington, have made it legal to smoke the drug "recreationally." AG Holder has already directed his 92 United States Attorneys to no longer file charges against defendants facing mandatory minimum sentences. President Obama and AG Holder are the best friends a drug dealer ever had. Make no mistake about it, persons convicted of a federal drug crimes are the most prolific drug traffickers in the world. There should be no expectation that they will not return to the life of crime. The mass release of convicted federal drug traffickers will pose a significant threat to "public safety." These same Liberals who want to open prison cells to release drug dealers also want to restore their right to vote. What better way is there to pick up political supporters? Instead of releasing so-called "non-violent" drug dealers from federal prisons, why not send all the illegal aliens locked up back to their home countries? Deporting illegal aliens in California State prisons and county jails would immediately relieve overcrowding.
After former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's brainchild, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, fell apart when a number of the mayor-members were arrested for a variety of felonies and misdemeanors, or some of the membership realized that Bloomberg's true agenda was total gun confiscation, he decided to fold the organization into a new one he now calls "Everytown for Gun Safety." He says he will pour $50 million of his own money into the new venture. "This new organization will bring more people into the fight against gun violence, which affects every town in America," Bloomberg said in a statement printed in a recent article by the AP. This is the same guy who banned trans fats, smoking in public, and attempted to deny NY City residents the ability to purchase more than 16-ounces of a sugary drink. Uncle Mike knows what's good for you, because you're too stupid to make correct choices. Just do as he says. What Bloomberg doesn't yet realize is that people are catching on that his version of "gun safety" is in fact, gun confiscation. Gun violence and gun safety are two entirely different things. He won't be happy or feel fulfilled until every gun in America is taken away from law abiding, Second Amendment protected citizens. Second Amendment? What's that? He also doesn't realize, or doesn't seem to care, is taking law abiding citizens guns away from them will not make them safer; just the opposite. Guns are used over a million times a year to protect life and property from violent criminals. I'm all for gun safety, unless it deprives you of your ability to protect yourself or your family. His new organization's website has a video depicting two children playing hide and seek in a home. A little girl hides in a closet and finds a handgun and begins to play with it. When she is startled by her playmate, a gunshot it heard and her mother begins to scream. It is never suggested that a properly secured firearm would have prevented a tragedy. Instead, the indelible message is that not owning a gun is the best alternative. Locking up handguns in the home where small children reside or visit is essential in keeping them safe. But, so is the presence of a gun when seconds count and the police are minutes away. A variety of combination lock boxes are on the market that will keep kids safe, yet still gives adults quick access to a firearm if needed. A quality lock box costs around $100.00. If you own a gun and have children around, I strongly suggest you invest in one. Although he would rather you not have a gun, Bloomberg does not offer any common sense ways to promote gun safety. That's because his agenda is gun confiscation. No guns, no problems. Why can't Liberals ever seek a middle ground solution to problems that can easily be solved, such as gun safety? Bloomberg doesn't like guns, sugary drinks, trans fats, standard capacity magazines, or smoking. So, they must be banned so you don't have access to them. After all, Uncle Mike knows what's best for you. No doubt, Bloomberg intends to donate more money to liberal, like-minded anti-gun candidates. He says he will target candidates in many pro-gun states like Texas. Good luck with that. If Bloomberg was truly interested in gun safety instead of gun confiscation, he could buy 500,000 gun lock boxes with his $50 million and distribute them to gun owners with children. Or, if he really wanted to end gun violence, donate the money to mental health facilities to keep crazy people from stealing guns and using them at schools, theaters, military bases and shopping malls.
The capture of Mexican National Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, considered the world's most prolific drug trafficker, in the coastal resort city of Mazatlán, was a result of actionable intelligence and a significant partnership between Mexican and U.S. law enforcement. Now what? The United States is formally asking for Guzman's extradition to the United States where he has been indicted in seven judicial districts. Members of Congress have called for his extradition and trial here because of his daring escape from a Mexican prison and his responsibility for approximately one third of all drugs smuggled into the U.S. While a special agent for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) assigned to the U.S. embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, I was charged with the responsibility of coordinating all drug related extradition proceedings involving Pakistani Nationals. To its credit, Pakistan is one of the few countries in the world to extradite its own nationals to another country to stand trial. Because extraditing a nation's own nationals is controversial and sometimes embarrassing to the host nation, extradition is always a protracted, arduous process. Mexico is no exception. Mexico has a long tradition of not extraditing its nationals to another country. However, if an American wanted in the U.S. is captured there, the process will almost always result in a successful extradition. If the U.S. requests a captured third-country national in Mexico, such as a Guatemalan, Mexico would have to weigh damaging relations with Guatemala against honoring the U.S. request for extradition. Mexico has national pride. It considers all persons born in Mexico to be Mexicans. Even if they later become citizens of other countries, they will always remain Mexicans, as far as the government is concerned. This complicates the extradition process even more. Many countries around the world do not have extradition treaties with the United States. There is one in Mexico, but many of these treaties have restrictions such as not extraditing someone who might face capital punishment if convicted. Where no extradition treaty exists, capturing and returning even U.S. nationals to face justice can be challenging. In a perfect world, Mexico would extradite Guzman. Since he is responsible for numerous murders and drug violations in Mexico, the U.S. should not hold its breath waiting for his arrival for trial in Chicago where he was declared by its crime commission, "public enemy No. 1," a moniker not issued since the days of Al Capone. If nothing else, the capture of DEA's most wanted fugitive makes it clear that the U.S. and Mexico will continue to work in partnership to capture drug lords who have been responsible for much death and misery in both countries. Despite some high profile examples of corruption, I'm told by those who know, that the honesty and professionalism of Mexican law enforcement and its military has improved substantially in the past decade. This is in contrast to in 1985 when DEA Special Agent Enrique "Kiki" Camarena, while on diplomatic assignment in Mexico, was kidnapped and murdered by members of Rafael Caro-Quintero's drug trafficking organization. Mexico refused to extradite Caro-Quintero to the U.S., and after decades in a Mexican prison, he finally found the right judge last year to declare he was wrongly convicted. He was immediately released and his current whereabouts are unknown. Mexico was embarrassed by Guzman's 2001 escape because "Gringos" assumed correctly that Guzman paid off the right people to facilitate his escape. This embarrassment alone, and an opportunity to try Guzman for new crimes he committed after his escape, could be reason enough for Mexico to deny any extradition request.