California Parolees Get A Pass

In an effort to relieve prison overcrowding, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation announced it planned to begin a review of more than 9,200 outstanding arrest warrants of parole violators to determine if pursuing these convicted felons would be in the “interest of justice.” It would be in the “interest of justice” to ensure that these paroled convicted felons are arrested and returned to prison because they violated the terms of their parole. Instead, the CDC will be weeding out “older, less urgent cases and allow a focus on dangerous parolees” according to the Associated Press based on a report from the Los Angeles Times. No matter how it is spun, the bottom line is that upwards of 70 percent of these parole violators could essentially receive amnesty. This is another example of Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal to empty the state’s prisons in an effort to balance California’s bloated budget deficit, at the expense of public safety. And, make no mistake about it, the public will be paying a price for this loony decision. A parolee is someone who has been convicted of a felony and sent to state prison. For a variety of reasons, parole boards routinely grant parole to these felons under conditions that they get employment, not associate with known criminals, not take drugs or alcohol, not commit future crimes, and report their progress of assimilating into society to their parole officer. Unfortunately, almost without exception, these parolees continue where they left off in their criminal careers, and victimize many more individuals before being arrested again. Getting arrested automatically violates their parole and subjects them to completing their original sentence. The new crime must also be adjudicated exposing them to even more prison time. Parolees have been known to murder police officers and citizens, rob people, commit burglaries, sell drugs and possess dangerous weapons, to name a few crimes they characteristically commit. Rodney King is probably the best known parolee. So why would a responsible governor, concerned about public safety, allow his CDC to ever consider instituting a policy to give these parolees a pass? If the governor wants to let criminals out of prison to save money, why not release all the thousands of illegal aliens behind bars and allow the Department of Homeland Security to return them to Mexico? That would immediately ease prison overcrowding and save the state at least $106 million dollars. These prisoners can spend the balance of their time in a Mexican jail, or roam the streets of Mexican cities for all I care. Either way, they would no longer be the responsibility of the State of California. If even more money is needed to expand prison capacities to house dangerous parole violators, stop educating illegal aliens. The best cost estimate to educate illegal alien children in K – 12 grades is roughly $4 billion dollars. That alone represents a significant percentage of California’s current deficit. The money would much be better spent on public safety. Of course, that will never happen in this sanctuary state. California’s problem is that its priority of expenditures is totally skewed. It pays for things is shouldn’t, and doesn’t spend enough money on important matters such as education and public safety. Proposition 36 recently passed, placing restrictions on when prosecutors can file charges on twice convicted felons that would normally have led three strikers to a 25 year to life in prison sentence. Facing that sentence enticed the vast majority of these two strikers to plead guilty to a lesser offense to avoid severe sentences. Now, many more of them will elect to go to trial, having nothing to lose, costing even more tax money. State government’s first responsibility should be public safety. Allowing parolees to assimilate back into the general population without any strings attached will most certainly increase crime, diminish people’s quality of life, and sadly cause many people to lose their lives.

Senate has yet to vote to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act

The Senate has yet to vote to extend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act which expires at the end of this month. Last September, the house overwhelming passed the extension by a vote of 301 to 118, but the Senate, as usual, has been dragging its feet. The FISA allows the FBI and Intelligence agencies to monitor foreign intelligence agents located abroad as well as U.S. Citizens when they receive telephone calls from suspected terrorists or spies when the calls are initiated overseas. Under the original act, the FBI can, under exigent circumstances, unilaterally flick the switch to begin monitoring telephone calls of terrorists or spies; but it must present its case and receive permission from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court within 72 hours to continue. The Court consists of 11 federal judges from different circuits around the country with three residing within easy commuting distance to Washington, D.C. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court appoints the judges to the court, and none can serve more than one seven year term. The “secret court” is admittedly one-sided, in that the government makes it case to initiate or continue electronic surveillance without any knowledge of the person(s) in question. If there was, it wouldn’t exactly be a secret court proceeding. Records of court hearings are made, but they are classified, as they should be. There is also a FIS Appeals Court, but it is believed it has only heard one appeal since its inception in 1978. No matter how you examine it, the original and amended Act is designed to ensure that the government does not abuse U.S. Citizens’ rights; it merely expedites what is otherwise an arduous undertaking to secure a warrant to conduct a wiretap. This act is necessary because espionage and terrorism investigations require immediate action to uncover plots and prevent potential harm. FISA was enhanced when it was amended after 9/11 to allow the FBI to intercept e-mails and telephone calls of foreigners located overseas. Think of how many acts of domestic terrorism the news media has reported that have been averted, at least some of which were surely as a direct result of FISA intercepts. The exact number has not, and should not be disclosed. Democrats and Republicans both criticized the amended act because when foreigners call U.S. citizens, those conversations are monitored as well. Some lawmakers are demanding to know the number of U.S. citizens and residents whose communications have been collected under the law. The government has refused to release those numbers for good reason. Disclosing the number would provide clues to the effectiveness of FBI and intelligence agency operations, and possibly who it is monitoring. The ACLU, of course, hates the act, and would like to see it just disappear at the end of the year. There has yet to be one proven abuse by the FBI or other agencies participating in this program. So, why the sudden concern of abuse? If the Senate stalls and lets the FISA Amendments Act expire, ongoing investigations would be placed in jeopardy. Valuable time would be wasted, and intelligence lost, trying to make up for the short comings of not being able to monitor the electronic communications of terrorists communicating to operatives in the United States. The Senate must act soon to not jeopardize national security. Osama Bin Laden may be dead, but al-Qaeda is still around as well as the scores of spin-off terrorist groups and affiliates that are still in operation. Let’s hope the Senate does it job and passes the FISA Amendments Act extension before the end of the year.

Ending Death Penalty in California Will Create Other Willie Hortons

Next week, California voters must decide Proposition 34 that repeals the death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Passage will apply retroactively to the many people currently on death row. Proponents claim that passage will save about $130 million dollars, which the state spends annually to fight the many appeals these murderers are currently entitled to, and for the first year, earmark $100 million of it for law enforcement grants. Instead, why not have a proposition to reduce the many number of appeals convicted murders are entitled to? (California’s current method of administering capital punishment is death by old age.) I’m convinced there will never be such a thing as “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” in California as long as there is a substantial Democratic majority in the legislature and left wing Gov. Jerry Brown (D) in charge. Just a month ago, Gov. Brown couldn’t wait to sign a bill that gave convicted vicious juvenile killers the opportunity to have their “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” sentences reduced to 25 years. What makes anyone believe Gov. Brown wouldn’t sign another piece of legislature to mandate that these convicted killers receive furloughs, like another liberal loony Gov. Michael Dukakis (D- MA) did in 1987? That decision allowed convicted first degree murderer Willie Horton to walk out of prison for a furlough. This gave him the opportunity to break into a Maryland home, tie up the man, stab him 22-times, and rape and slash his wife during a twelve hour period. When the husband finally freed himself, he called police and Horton fled in the couple’s family vehicle. When the police caught up with Horton, he exchanged gunfire with them before he was eventually arrested. The trial judge in Maryland refused to return Horton to Massachusetts fearing Dukakis would release him again. Instead, he sentenced Horton to two life sentences. California has the potential for a perfect storm of crime with screwy liberals in charge, coupled with Proposition 34 and Proposition 36. The latter substantially waters down the State’s highly successful three-strikes law and would apply to already convicted three strikers. It seems soft-on-crime liberals are offended that career criminals are deprived of the opportunity of victimizing others in their old age. Again citing costs, the proposition would allegedly save $70 million annually in reduced prison costs. As far as I am concerned, this is money well spent. Proponents of Proposition 36 say that the current law has sent third time convicted persons to prison for 25 years to life for non-violent, non-serious felony convictions. So? Currently, the pursuit of a third strike conviction rests with prosecutors who have used their discretion wisely. Passage of this proposition would take that discretion away from them and give these career criminals an opportunity to victimize people over and over again. Who is to say what a non-violent or non-serious felony is? By definition, all felonies are serious. If a street gangster shoots at me and misses, is that considered non-violent because I wasn’t hit by the bullet? I can just see a defense attorney arguing to a court that his client shouldn’t be sentenced under the three strikes law because, “he didn’t kill anybody.” Pure bred liberals like Michael Dukakis and Jerry Brown will always pull out their ACLU cards to trump the will of the people in favor of their ideologies. Dukakis was so anti-punishment that during the debates with George H.W. Bush, he refused to hypothetically sentence to death someone that would rape and murder his wife. Propositions 34 and 36 are just the beginning of the dismantlement of time-tested ways of reducing crime by making criminals accountable for their actions. I fear that first degree murderers will eventually be released despite mandated “life imprisonment without the possibility of parole” sentences. That’s because current California leadership believes that criminals aren’t responsible for their actions, you are.

Rumors of General Ham Being Relieved Could be True

Rumors have been swirling about General Carter Ham, commander of Africa Command located in Stuttgart, Germany, ever since Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that President Obama has nominated General David Rodriguez to replace him. Those rumors have been adamantly denied by the Pentagon. While on active duty as an army reservist during 2011 at the Special Operations Command Europe, also headquartered in Stuttgart, I met newly arrived General Ham at the annual Army Ball. He had just arrived in country and took over Africom the day NATO initiated military air operations in Libya. Most command tours of duty are at least three years unless the commander elects to retire. I haven’t read anything about Gen. Ham intending to do so. He has only been the commander of Africa Command less than 18 months. I was forwarded an email from someone associated with the U.S. military in Stuttgart. The email claims that when Gen. Ham was notified of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, he took immediate action to send operational forces there, only to be told by the Pentagon to “stand down.” As commander of Africom, he would have been receiving the same information the CIA, Pentagon, White House and National Security Council did from the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. One of Africom’s missions is to conduct NEO’s (non-combatant evacuation operations) in its area of responsibility. He rightfully voiced his objections to the stand down and gave orders to deploy U.S. forces there anyway. When he did, his deputy commander “apprehended” him and then relieved him of his command. When I read the email description of this, I thought this was a scene from a bad war movie. Apprehending someone in the military is the equivalent of a civilian arrest. Disobeying a lawful order is punishable by two-years of confinement and reduction of rank, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It would be highly, highly, extraordinary for anyone to relieve a four-star general, let alone “apprehend” him. A week ago, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, Commander of an aircraft carrier strike group positioned in the Middle East, was sent home to Washington State pending the outcome of an undisclosed investigation. Coincidence? I hardly think so. The admiral was most probably reading the same message traffic and voiced his objections to “standing down.” Why else send him home for a tune up by his superiors? If the rumors are true, either Secretary Panetta gave the order to “stand down” or he was told by the president to have General Ham do so. Whoever it was obviously was above a four-star general’s pay grade. Regardless, what happened in Benghazi is exactly why the army has various military commands around the world. If this administration won’t use the assets it has to protect U.S. personnel and one of its own ambassadors from harm’s way, then why even have them? If my sources of information are correct about the chain of events leading to Gen. Ham’s departure, it further illustrates why liberals should never be allowed to be in charge of national security. They simply do not have the stomach for it. The President and Secretary of State Clinton wanted to put a nice face on the country’s relationship with the newly established fledgling Libyan government. They portrayed the attack on the consulate as a spontaneous outburst by protestors that got out of hand stemming from an obscure video defaming the Prophet Mohammad. In reality, it was a preplanned terrorist attack on the anniversary of the September 11, 2001. The word “terrorism” has essentially been erased from the vocabulary of this administration, especially after the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Having an attack by al-Qaeda factions on a consulate in a country the administration took credit for liberating does not fit the template of a foreign policy success. A cover up was launched, putting a lid on information until after next week’s election. Don’t count on the media asking hard questions about why Gen. Ham left his command early and Rear Admiral Gaouette was sent home on “temporary duty.” The answer to those questions would only amplify this administration’s limp-wristed reaction to terrorist events and foreign policy failures. It would also further demonstrate that President Obama has managed to severely deteriorate relations in the Middle East.

Obama Administration Again Denies Terrorism Exists

Once again, last week’s attacks on our embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi have the Obama administration denying that Islamic terrorism exists. It would rather have you believe that an obscure Indy film produced by a right-wing religious nut in Southern California was responsible for the “spontaneous protests” that led to the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others. This latest “man-made disaster,” as the administration likes to call terrorist events, was in fact a pre-planned attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. This wasn’t an act of “workplace violence,” as the administration described the Ft. Hood, Texas murders committed by Jihad Major Nidal Hasan. According to Libyan President Mohamed Yousef El-Magariaf, "everyone is determined" to catch the heavily armed militants who launched the assault. Too bad President Obama isn’t as determined as he is. He also said that the U.S. embassy was warned of the pending attack three days prior. This revelation, of course, does not fit into the template of our beloved president who is supposed to be admired by the world, especially Muslims. The fact the attack occurred on the anniversary of 9/11 is being ignored, but this is what FBI agents call a “clue.” According to a Libyan security guard at the consulate, protests were not going on at the Benghazi consulate that day. It wasn’t until about 9:30 p.m. local time that the assault occurred. Obviously it was a pre-planned attack on a poorly fortified building, absent of any marine guards, in which the attackers had to have known the ambassador would be inside to attend a scheduled event the next day. Speaking of marines, the word is that marines were forbidden to carry loaded weapons while guarding the U.S. embassy in Tripoli. I wouldn’t doubt it. The ambassador at any U.S. embassy is the direct representative of the President of the United States in the foreign country. What he says goes, and there is rarely discussion about his decisions. If Ambassador Stevens told the marines to carry unloaded weapons, then it’s the same as if President Obama himself is giving the order. If true, the marines had no option but to be disarmed. I wouldn’t doubt that in the mind of a diplomat, the appearance of an armed marine sends the wrong signal to the host country nationals. In 2000, this same flawed logic took place in Yemen, leading to the almost sinking of the USS Cole. Bill Clinton’s ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine, instructed the captain of the USS Cole to dock at the port of Aden to refuel instead of using the off-shore pipeline built specifically to protect U.S. shipping from terrorists. Ambassador Bodine later said she didn’t want the USS Cole to give the appearance the crew was afraid of the Yemeni people or a terrorist attack. The rest is history. Seventeen sailors died in this event that could have been prevented if she had used common sense instead of putting on a diplomatic face. To compound the problem, Ambassador Bodine did everything within her power to thwart the FBI’s investigation of al-Qaeda and its role in the Cole bombing, denying necessary resources, weapons, manpower and equipment that lead supervisory special agent, John P. O’Neill, required for his investigation. She later denied his Yemeni country clearance to keep him away from the embassy. When ambassadors like that are in charge, bad things always seem to happen. Mr. O’Neill retired from the FBI out of frustration with his negative encounters with Ambassador Bodine. He took the position as the head of security of the World Trade Center and was killed during 9/11; yet another attack by al-Qaeda, that many experts believe the planning may have been discovered if O’Neill’s agents had been allowed to properly conduct their investigation. In an effort to divert attention away from the president’s failed Middle East policies, President Jimmy Carter’s grandson suddenly releases a secretly recorded video tape of Mitt Romney back in May talking about the “47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay income taxes. President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and all other diplomats can spin the Libyan attacks all they want, but it won’t bring back Ambassador Stevens and the three staffers killed that day by, dare I say, terrorists.

Who's Crazier, James Holmes or Gun Control Advocates?

The killing of at least 12 people and the wounding of upwards of 50 others in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater during the midnight opening of the latest Batman film was a horrific event perpetrated by mass murderer, James Holmes. Right on cue, liberal politicians called for even stronger gun control, suggesting reinstituting the ban on “assault weapons,” and limiting ammunition magazines to no more than 10-rounds would prevent another tragic event. Between federal and state governments, there are approximately 10,000 laws regulating the possession, sale, and use of firearms. Is another gun law going to prevent a repeat of what happened inside that movie theater in Aurora? Not likely. Einstein’s definition of insanity was someone repeating the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That’s what happens every time politicians pass a new gun law. What liberal politicians don’t understand is that these laws only “infringe” law abiding citizens from exercising their personal Second Amendment rights to “keep and bear arms.” When Philadelphia Police Commissioner, Charles Ramsey, was asked if things would have been different if an armed citizen with a concealed weapons permit were in the theater, he scoffed at the notion and said: “The debate goes beyond just this one incident, but this guy had body armor from head to toe,” he explained. “You had tear gas in there, and unfortunately, many states, and I don’t know about Colorado, but many states that authorize concealed carry have no provisions at all for people to receive training, marksmanship, proper handling of firearms, or whatever. So now you got two people randomly shooting in a movie theater. I don’t know how that helps.” It would have helped a lot. Holmes meekly surrendered when he was confronted outside the theater by armed police officers, despite being covered with “body armor from head to toe.” The same thing would have probably happened if he was confronted before hand by an armed citizen inside the theater, potentially saving numerous lives. And, by the way, Colorado requires a resident to “demonstrate competency” before a concealed weapons permit is issued. It is unfortunate that a legally armed citizen or off-duty or retired police officer was not in attendance at the theater at the time Holmes made his entry. Would anti-gun advocates feel better if instead of using an “assault weapon” Holmes used explosives to blow up the entirely sold out 16 theaters and leveled the building? How about if he swung two machetes at his helpless victims? The bottom line is that it really doesn’t matter what weapons are used when the perpetrator is hell-bent on killing as many people as physically possible. Somehow, evil people like Holmes will find a way. It’s obvious to me that Holmes wanted to survive the event. That’s why he immediately told arresting officers that he had booby trapped his apartment. In the event of his arrest, he wanted to show everyone just how smart he is. If the police, or an armed citizen had killed him, the booby traps would have killed other people as his method of extracting revenge. He wants to glow in the media spotlight, and is now faking his mental illness, as evidenced by his sending a notebook to a psychiatrist to cover himself should he survive the event. Keep in mind, this guy was a PhD student who thought he was smarter than anyone else on the planet. It couldn’t be that the Hollywood movie violence Holmes has been subjected to over his entire lifetime, such as Batman movies, might have influenced him to perpetrate this violence and to gain his 15-minutes of fame? Several mentally deranged copy-cats have already been charged with plotting similar events across the country. In light of the number of crazed people hiding somewhere who would do us harm, this latest episode demonstrates why responsible, crime-free citizens should have the right to defend themselves, and others, from nut-jobs like Holmes. To suggest that firearms caused the mass murder in Colorado is like saying matches cause lung cancer. All firearms are inanimate objects; it takes an evil-doer like James Holmes to put them into action.

Look Who's Calling Who A Felon

When Stephanie Cutter, the deputy campaign manager for President Obama’s reelection, alleged that Gov. Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by providing false information in Securities and Exchange Commission filings, she revealed how desperate the president is to gain political support. Ms. Cutter’s unjustified and completely unfounded assertion reminds me of the many admitted felony crimes our president has committed. President Obama has written in his two autobiographies about smoking van loads of marijuana and using cocaine. Both the possession, use and transfer of marijuana and cocaine are felonies, but Cutter gives her man a pass. By contrast, instead of ingesting illegal drugs, visiting Pakistan for unstated reasons after high school, associating with the likes of convicted felon and former Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers and attending church services by America hater Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Romney spent two and a half years of his youth on a religious mission to France. Because of his religious beliefs, Mr. Romney does not drink, cuss, smoke or womanize, let alone do illegal drugs. Mr. Romney never received a sweet loan deal from convicted felon Antoin “Tony” Rezko, who in 2011 was convicted for bribery and receiving kickbacks in Chicago. While governor, Mr. Romney never fired an Inspector General for uncovering alleged felony crimes committed by one of his political boosters, thus obstructing justice – a felony. Gov. Romney never evoked “executive privilege” to run cover for his attorney general to shield him from contempt of Congress, a felony. Gov. Romney never appointed “czars” to circumvent the Massachusetts State Legislature in order to place political cronies in positions of power. Unlike President Obama, Gov. Romney never mismanaged the Massachusetts budget so badly that Standard and Poor’s downgraded the state’s bond credit rating for the first time in U.S. history. Instead, Gov. Romney eliminated $1.5 billion in state debt and established a rainy day fund. Gov. Romney didn’t order the Massachusetts State Police not to alert the Immigration and Naturalization Service about illegal aliens who were arrested in his state, eliminating any resemblance of backdoor amnesty. Ms. Cutter also questions why Mr. Romney won’t release more of his tax returns, implying he has something to hide. She was echoing the message of Democratic National Committee chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Ms. Schultz implied that Mr. Romney was hiding assets from taxes, when in reality, knowledge of the foreign accounts came from Romney himself when he released his latest tax return. When a reporter asked Ms. Schultz about the foreign investments in her 401(k) she refused to discuss it. She also steadfastly refused to release her own tax return for public scrutiny. In contrast, President Obama refuses to release his college transcripts or medical records and took about three years before finally releasing his birth certificate to satisfy so-called “birthers.” What does he have to hide in those documents? Mr. Romney’s foreign investments, made by investment counselors from his blind trust, made those investments for him. Declaring foreign accounts on your tax return is obviously not an attempt to conceal illegal activity. President Obama’s minions suggesting Mr. Romney is a felon is like suggesting former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-IL), a convicted felon, only had his state’s best interest at heart when he tried to sell President Obama’s senate seat to the highest bidder. Obviously the Obama campaign strategy is to divert attention away from the president’s dismal economic record by attacking his opponent; the same strategy he said Republicans were trying with him in 2008, and something he would never do. He has reached into the Democrat’s moldy bag of tricks and pulled out the tired old strategy that dictates when you have nothing going for you, slam your opponent. Slime him and make him so radioactive that no one will vote for him. He used this exact strategy on his opponent when he ran for the U.S. Senate. If you were hiring a CEO to run your failing business, would you select someone who has integrity and a proven record of saving and expanding companies, or someone who claims that your success is a result of somebody else’s hard work, not yours.