Kathryn ‘Kate’ Steinle was a 32-year old woman back on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 as she walked along Pier 14 in San Francisco. It was a gorgeous day in the City by the Bay, perfect for a leisurely stroll.
There was no way under these completely innocent circumstances, not far from her home, with her Dad and a friend alongside her, that this beautiful young woman would have given even a passing thought that this was the final moment of her life.
Jose Inez Garcia Zarate was a 45-year old (possibly older) illegal from Mexico who had already been deported from the United States on five separate occasions. Seven felony convictions on his record, he was on probation still in Texas.
That night, Zarate, who also has gone by Juan Francisco López-Sánchez or Francisco Sánchez, was back in the United States illegally. He was purported to have been simply wandering the same area of Pier 14 where Steinle and her companions were enjoying their stroll. John Woychowski was an agent for the California Bureau of Land Management. That same day, he and his family were driving to Montana when they decided to stop off for dinner in San Francisco. Woychowski, per a Fox News report:
“…parked his car in what he thought was a safe location and left a black backpack, which had his loaded weapon inside, in the back seat. He said the car was locked and had an alarm and tinted windows. When his family returned from dinner, he said his car’s windows were smashed and the backpack was gone. He said he immediately reported the theft to 9-1-1 and his employer.”
The gun was the .40-caliber Sig Sauer P239, a popular handgun. A review from James Grant back in 2012 said that the gun “not only looks the part of secret service heater, but plays it just as well.“ That night, that gun would be used to end the life of Kate Steinle. It was fired by Zarate, who claimed to have simply found it wrapped in cloth underneath a bench, and that the shooting was accidental. As Steinle innocently walked along, Zarate fired the weapon three times. One of the bullets ricocheted off the pier’s concrete decking and struck Steinle in the back. She went down immediately, with her father dropping in a panic next to her. “Help me, Dad.”
In her father’s arms, those were the final words in the life of Kate Steinle.
Just three months earlier, Zarate had been released from jail by San Francisco authorities. This was despite a request from federal immigration authorities that he be detained in order that he might again be deported. You see, San Francisco is another in a series of large American sanctuary cities where local law enforcement has been barred from cooperating with the feds in such cases. Zarate was quickly arrested and charged with first-degree murder, as well as with narcotics violations. Through his attorney, high-profile San Francisco political activist Matt Gonzalez, he entered a ‘Not Guilty’ plea. The Sheriff who ordered Zarate’s release was Ross Mirkarimi, co-founder of California’s ultra-liberal Green Party. He was soundly defeated in a November 2015 re-election bid. The case was also highlighted during Donald Trump’s 2016 U.S. Presidential campaign.
A number of pieces of legislation aimed at attacking the myriad problems involving illegal immigration were specifically introduced following this heinous crime. Texas U.S. Senator Ted Cruz and Arizona U.S. Congressman Matt Salmon introduced “Kate’s Law”, first proposed by broadcaster Bill O’Reilly, as one such measure. Each of these measures has been met with opposition, almost exclusively along party lines. Democrats consistently have fought any legislation aimed at further restricting or controlling the illegal immigration problem.
After a dozen days of testimony, and after hearing dozens of witnesses, the San Francisco jury was instructed that they could consider first-degree murder as well as second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Yesterday, after six days of deliberations, that jury made up of residents from this notoriously ultra-liberal northern California city returned its verdict: Not guilty. Tom Homan, the Deputy Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), quickly issued this statement:
“San Francisco’s policy of refusing to honor ICE detainers is a blatant threat to public safety and undermines the rule of law. This tragedy could have been prevented if San Francisco had simply turned the alien over to ICE, as we requested, instead of releasing him back onto the streets. It is unconscionable that politicians across this country continue to endanger the lives of Americans with sanctuary policies while ignoring the harm inflicted on their constituents. Following the conclusion of this case, ICE will work to take custody of Mr. Garcia Zarate and ultimately remove him from the country.”
California, where a jury released O.J. Simpson just over 22 years ago, has once again shown itself to be a place friendly to those accused under perceived social injustice. Never mind the actual justice for the truly innocent murder victims.
There was no justice in California yesterday for Kate Steinle and her still grieving family. “We’re just shocked — saddened and shocked … that’s about it,” said Kate’s father Jim per the San Francisco Chronicle. “There’s no other way you can coin it. Justice was rendered, but it was not served.” No, justice was not served Mr. Steinle. It isn’t the first time here on the Left coast, and it won’t be the last. California has been sliding farther and farther away from mainstream American values for decades. Yesterday in San Francisco, that was proven once again.
They have always existed, but they have become more emboldened with the recent leftward lurch in American political direction.
I am talking today about liberal bigots, those lefties who are not only obstinately or intolerantly devoted to their own opinions and prejudices, but who also regard and treat those who disagree with them with vitriolic hatred.
You frequently hear them harping about wanting freedom of speech, the right to express their opinions and viewpoints publicly, even the right to have their alternative lifestyles accepted by the mainstream public as ‘normal’ or at least ‘acceptable’. But this freedom of speech, this right to express opinions and viewpoints, can never, ever extend to those who disagree with them.
Perfect case in point came this past weekend with the Miss USA pageant questioning incident. As I previously discussed in another recent post, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was a contestant in the pageant. She is a beauty queen, a model, and she had a simple goal, to win a beauty pageant title.
She wasn’t looking to change the world on Sunday night, and certainly when it came to the question-answer stage she did not expect a controversial question on an epic hot-button sociological and moral topic.
In any event, that is exactly what she received from pageant judge Mario Lavandeira, who goes by the professional name of ‘Perez Hilton’. Lavandeira is a gay activist and celebrity blogger, and basically asked Prejean whether she supported ‘gay marriage’, and to give the reasons behind whatever her feelings were on the issue.
Carrie Prejean simply replied from her heart, basically saying that she did not support the idea, that she believed marriage should only be between a man and a woman, and that this was how she was raised, taught, and now fundamentally believed.
In the immediate aftermath of the pageant, at which she nearly won, finishing as the first runner-up, Hilton said that Prejean was a ‘cunt’, and then took to the internet and video-blogged that Hilton lost because she was “a dumb bitch.”
So in other words, Hilton as a gay activist has a right to voice his opinion on the issue, and the mainstream American public is supposed to tolerate not only that viewpoint, but also his public expression of it.
But the same right is not extended to Carrie Prejean. Because she disagrees with Hilton on this issue, and because she had the audacity to answer his question with honesty, she is pilloried as some sort of bigot and neanderthal thinker, and then called names as well?
How far does this freedom of expression, this right to your own viewpoints go, Mr. Hilton? And it wasn’t just Perez Hilton, but also most of the ‘gay rights’ movement, and in fact most liberals as well, who ganged up on Carrie Prejean. In doing so they exposed themselves publicly for what they really are, a group of hateful bigots, everything that they claim to be against.
This is the United States of America, and we are supposed to celebrate, support, and grow from the expression of differing opinions, not denounce them with hatred, ignorance, and profanity.
It isn’t as if Carrie Prejean said that any gay who actually got married should go to hell. She didn’t say they should be arrested, tortured, or even publicly embarrassed if they tried to marry. She did not express that she didn’t like gay people in general, and didn’t call them any names.
In short, she said nothing that would incite hatred or intolerance of gays. She simply answered the question put to her regarding the issue of marriage, stating that it should be between a man and a woman, which it should.
Not an opinion, by the way, but a fact since the early days of man, and one that has only gained any public forum at all since the fringe gay element of society began imposing it’s radical views on the vast mainstream ‘straight’ majority just a few decades ago.
Carrie Prejean simply answered a direct question without lambasting or profaning anyone, but the response that she received in reply has been what we have come to typically expect from the liberal community.
We conservatives love an open debate, love ideas expressed in public, and embrace the notion of having them put to the test of a vote. That is the true spirit of American freedom and diversity and exceptionalism at work.
There are groups who have wanted that freedom of speech repressed in the past: Nazis, Communists, and brutal dictators of all stripes go this way. Add now to that group the ultra-liberal bigots who want anyone shut up and shut down who does not agree with them, from Rush Limbaugh to Sean Hannity to Ann Coulter to Carrie Prejean.
For anyone out there who agreed with Perez Hilton’s response to Carrie Prejean, not his view on the topic of gay marriage, but with his response to Sunday night’s question-answer session, then you can count yourself in that group of liberal bigots. NOTE: As with every entry at this Blog, there is a ‘Comments’ button below. You can do so anonymously, but it would be appreciated if you had the courage of your convictions to add at least a real name.
“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept, and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh thereof; And the rib, which the Lord had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” – Genesis 2:21-24
Let’s face it, no matter what the radicals, the profane, and the borderline insane will try to tell you, there are two sexes. They are male and female, just as Adam and Eve in the Genesis creation story.
The main differences are their physical and sexual characteristics. Man was created with a penis and sperm. Woman was created with a vagina and eggs. For anyone who thinks normally and rationally, the ramifications are obvious.
Genesis explains in clear terms how God created man, and then created woman for a purpose. That clear purpose is that the two different sexes will unite together as one. This is the origin of the concepts of marriage, the very concept of family itself.
Throughout the history of mankind it has always been understood that the natural order called on men and women to join, have children, nurture those children in family, and propagate their genes to help foster the growth of mankind.
There have always been those among us who were deviant, and rather than become attracted to those of the opposite sex, they were instead attracted to those of the same sex. But this was always, in every culture in man’s history, considered a deviance, a negative to be avoided. It was considered an extremely unnatural act, the joining of two people of the same sex in a sexual union.
For the vast majority of the history of the United States of America, almost 200 of our 232 years as a nation, this ‘homosexuality’ was seen as a form of mental illness. In the past three decades, this deviance has ‘come out of the closet’ and attempted to shove its way into mainstream society.
Those who practice homosexuality have used a liberal tilt in American media and the court system to gain perceived ‘Rights’ that were never enumerated into the Constitution. In some states, they have even fought to gain a right to marry.
In every corner of the world, marriage has always been recognized as the institution whereby a man and woman formally come together as one family. The homosexuals, or ‘gays’, and other liberal elements have attempted to make marriage, now legal only between men and women as it is naturally and morally correct, extend to these gay couples.
This past week, tens of millions of Americans voted in three states on this issue, and once again sanity won the day.
Florida, Arizona, and most interestingly and importantly California joined what is now a list of 30 states across the nation by installing specific constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. This past week in California, ‘Proposition 8’ created that same ban in what is considered the most progressive state in the union. The majority in even this normally ultra-liberal state recognized and voted to constitutionalize this vital institution.
Back in 2000, the people of California had already spoken, and had created a law to ban gay marriages. However, the most liberal and radical U.S. district court in the land ruled the law itself illegal, and opened the way for legalized gay marriages, hundreds of which took place in recent months.
The people of California, outraged that a court over-ruled their will, went back to the drawing board and took the matter out of the courts hands. The new law is now a basic element in the state constitution, which the court cannot alter. The people of California have thus clearly spoken twice in the past decade on this issue, as has the American population in every instance in which it has come before them.
You can argue the sanity of the minute percentage of the population who practice homosexuality. You can argue about the merits of accepting this deviance rather than shunning it. You can argue the validity of trying to find some ‘cure’ through the increased research possibilities with today’s genetic advances.
But one thing that you cannot argue is the natural order in the man-woman relationship, and its historical, cultural, and moral expression in the institution of marriage. Allow a misguided gay man to simply do what he wants and marry another man, just because he thinks that he should be allowed to, is ludicrous on its face.
Tell me you have a ‘right’ to do this, and I will ask you why I cannot have the ‘right’ to marry a 14-year old girl, or my good dog ‘Petey’, or my refrigerator. Think that is ridiculous? That is just how ridiculous the large majority of Americans view the idea of gay marriage.
In an election that saw progressives come to political power, Californians and others once again showed sanity this past week in supporting the tradition of marriage.
This not about any ‘hate’ towards these people, as they would try to sell it. I speak for millions in saying that far from hating gays, we feel sorry for them, recognize that their ‘problem’ is biological and possibly genetic, and hope that one day they will overcome these deviant desires.
What this is about is defending a Sacrament from becoming defiled by deviance. The Church teaches that Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, one of its Sacraments, the most important and fundamental building blocks of the faith and mankind’s morality.
Thankfully Americans still agree that a man shall leave his parents and cling to his wife, and not his husband or his child or his pet.
For two hundred and thirty years now, the United States of America has been a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. As we have grown up as a nation, that reputation has only grown greater, has only become more solidified.
When people in other countries dream of a better life for them and their families, it is America to which their dreams turn.
There are no hordes of protesters marching in the streets of Moscow, Beijing, Paris, Tokyo or Mexico City hoping to ease their process of becoming citizens in Russia, China, France, Japan or Mexico.
As Neil Diamond famously sang: “They’re comin’ to America!”
For all the negative blather you hear about America from our own liberal press, the foreign press, and the many citizens of foreign nations interviewed on those broadcasts and in their articles, it is America to which they come to escape oppression and infuse hope into their lives.
In our past, we have been an immigration nation. We were born and nurtured through our earliest years as a nation as immigrants from England to a new set of colonies and then a new free country, on what is now the American east coast.
We grew and thrived, spreading across the land from east to west, thanks in large part to massive immigration from other European nations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
We are an immigration nation at our very core. That is our heart and soul, the accumulated values and experiences of our individual forefathers and our families’ ethnic and racial heritage, combined with the melding into American customs, laws and values that have formed over the centuries.
As America has a heart and soul formed from its people, those many home-born and immigrant citizens, it also has a body. A very real and distinguishable body.
Setting aside Alaska and Hawaii, which pose their own individual circumstances, the recognized body of America is the contiguous forty-eight states, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and sharing a common border to the north with Canada and the south with Mexico.
For the better part of America’s life as a nation, we have done little of substance to control our intake of immigrants in number, little to ensure the continued quality of immigrants in maintaining basic assimilation qualifications, and little to control and secure those two massive borders.
The America of today has become fat and bloated due to laziness and a general lack of will power.
America has become the fat, balding, middle-aged man who wakes up in the morning, looks in the mirror, doesn’t like what he sees and says “Houston, we have a problem.”
Truth is, we have had this problem, or at least the root causes of the current problems, for the entirety of our existence. We have never properly organized American immigration policy, and we have never properly secured our borders. Not under Republican administration, or Democratic administrations. Not even under Whig administrations.
In times of war and in times of peace, in times of prosperity or times of despair. In all our combined national life, we have not addressed these issues, putting them off for another day.
That “another day” is upon us. The time to make real change is here, now. We are at a critical turning point in American history, and the decisions that we make in the next few months and years on the issues of border security and immigration reform will affect America’s very continued existence as a nation, certainly as an identifiable society.
There are many sides to the immigration issue. First, there are literally hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants living and working in the United States today. Right now, as I type out this article, right now as you read it. It is reality, and it is a massive number that has become uncontrollable. And the problem gets larger and worse for every day that we do nothing to change.
There are many sides to the border issue. Thousands stream across the border with Mexico every single day. Some are Mexican citizens, and citizens of other South American countries, coming to seek a better life for their family. Some are simply seeking to milk our system for handouts.
Some, frankly, are terrorists seeking an easy way into our country, and then plotting to attack us from the inside when the time is right. That is reality as well, and the problem gets larger and worse for every day that we do nothing to change.
My proposals are many, large-scale, and expensive. They require construction, security, manpower, enforcement, follow-up and most of all willpower. They would require full documentation of every single illegal currently in the country, full control and security of our borders, and the ability to easily track and follow-up on every non-citizen that enters those borders.
First, I propose that we undertake two programs simultaneously, addressing each particular issue. Quick planning and construction of a full 2,000 mile barrier along our southern border with Mexico, and the immediate amnesty to all illegals currently in the country combined with their documentation and adherence to new procedures.
Let’s start with the border, because the failure of any nation to properly secure its borders is simply bordering on the insane.
Plans are already available that are feasible. Educated folks who have lived with the border issues in California, Arizona and Texas have already been down this road. Perhaps the best is a proposal for a full wall in many places, enhanced with fencing, ditches, security cameras, increased numbers of border patrol agents, and unmanned surveillance vehicles.
This plan, or one like it, should be approved in the next few months, adopted as necessary by serious leaders of both parties, and then fully constructed within the next few years. This is a goal that can easily be met with a full government commitment. It already has the support of a large majority of American citizens.
While the American Southern Border Project is underway, every resource possible should be in place to support the security of the border and of the construction project itself. Large increases in border patrol agents, modernization of the equipment they use, public and spirited support for entities such as the volunteer Minuteman Project. We can do a great deal more as the Southern Border is being constructed than we are today.
With the border better secured, we are at the same time getting our illegal immigration situation under control. Let’s not kid ourselves, or allow the liberal press to deflect our sensibilities away from the reality that there are two words involved here. Not just the word immigration, but also the word “illegal”.
It is a fact, the United States of America has laws regarding immigration, and these people have purposely and willfully broken those laws.
It is also a fact that the massive arrest, or deportation, or some combination involving hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants is an impossible situation to enforce effectively. What is needed is a system of amnesty, combined with penalties and enforcement measures.
In my proposal, amnesty does not mean outright forgiveness, citizenship, and a hearty “welcome to America”. I propose that we set a time limit, possibly by the end of calendar year 2006 for example. By the end of this time, every single individual in this country who is not a citizen and is not here by some other legal immigration measure must register with an agency to establish their legalization status.
This proposal would mean either creation of an agency to handle this registration, or the expansion of existing immigration personnel and systems. Individuals who register, supply valid proof of their identities, and agree to fully conform with American law into the future would be granted temporary guest worker status, and could get into line for full American citizenship, if that is what they ultimately wish to accomplish.
Any individual who can not properly document their identity to the satisfaction of immigration authorities would be deported, as would, of course, any individual who did not wish to conform to American laws.
Any individual after the cutoff date who is found to be illegal would be deported. Any repeat violators into the future would be charged and imprisoned here in America.
In family situations, the law needs to be changed to reflect that individuals born here to at least one American citizen parent are considered citizens, but that individuals born into a situation where neither parent is a legal American citizen are not granted citizenship.
In family situations, if the parents cannot or will not fulfill the requirements of the new amnesty program, then the entire family will be deported.
The United States of America did not create the problems of the world, and did not create the problems of every individual family, whether citizen or illegal immigrant. The United States government, and thus its tax-paying citizens, cannot be expected to support the bad, improper, illegal or irresponsible decisions of individuals and families within its borders and around the world.
What America does need to do is establish to the best extent possible an example of responsibility, and to setup a framework under which the exercise of that responsible citizenship can be affected.
Into the future, America also needs to educate the business community that the hiring of illegal workers will not be tolerated, and will result in massive fines and penalties against offending employers. This can be accomplished through spot checks and audits by government agencies already in existence.
In 1986, during the conservative Reagan administration, the country passed immigration reform laws that included amnesty programs, as well as sanctions against businesses that continued to employ and support illegals.
These measures proved to be of no value, as business owners then accepted flimsy, incomplete or outright fraudulent paperwork from their employers as proof of citizenship status and identification. There must be simple guidelines this time around that are easy to follow for any business owner, accompanied by strict penalties for non-compliance.
The bottom line is that we must identify every individual currently in the country illegally, give them an opportunity to come clean and get with the program, give business an opportunity to come clean and get on the right track, and effect harsh measures against any individual or business who then disregards these controls into the future.
As we move forward, America needs to make some real changes in our educational system. We need to finally establish, once and for all, that English is the official language of the United States of America, and must see to it that it is effectively taught to every school child across the country. The learning of practical, effective English should be one of the requirements for every single applicant for American citizenship.
Also, we need to more effectively and aggressively teach American history, civics, and law in our public school classrooms. The cultural rainbow that has been taught over the past few decades is fine, on an elective basis, and as a general minor part of any curriculum. But the support through the educational system of a solid American culture, formed over the century’s right here on our shores, needs to be first and foremost.
The failure over our nation’s history to properly secure our borders and the failure to come up with a workable, sustainable immigration policy go hand-in-hand in undermining long-term American values and society. They also contribute to violations of our national security in a time of war, when any number of enemies of our way of life has directly threatened us with annihilation.
America needs to move immediately to fully secure our borders, to fully document every non-citizen, and to require those who wish to join our American family to do so in an orderly and legal fashion. Only in this way can we secure the very benefits that these illegals come to America to obtain: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
