Patterico's Pontifications

7/4/2015

PUS Barack Obama

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 3:40 pm

Kevin Gutzman on Facebook:

The federation’s official name is “The United States of America.” How do we abbreviate it? “USA.” Not “TUSOA,” just “USA.” We omit “T” and “O.” For many generations, it has been so.

So why do we use a “T” and an “O” when abbreviating “Supreme Court of the United States” or “President of the United States?” Let’s be consistent. Rather than “SCOTUS” and “POTUS,” I think they should be “SCUS” and “PUS.”

“PUS Barack Obama” has a nice ring to it. I think I’ll start using that. I’ll link back to this post when I do, so you remember what it means.

Thanks for Using My Amazon Widget or Link!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:21 pm

Happy Independence Day, and thanks to everyone who remembers to use the Amazon widget, or accesses the site through this link:

http://is.gd/AmazonPatterico

I have added that link to the sidebar, under the widget, for anyone whose Ad Blocker prevents them from seeing the widget — or who is having problems with the widget. (Is anyone?)

Right now, while you’re thinking about it, click that link, and bookmark it as your Amazon page. That way, whenever you go to your Amazon bookmark and then buy something, you’ll be making a contribution to help keep the site going.

I appreciate it. Thanks again, and have a great Independence Day.

Greece Plans Cyprus-Style Raid on Bank Deposits

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:44 pm

The Financial Times has reported that Greece plans to raid Greek bank deposits to deal with its financial crisis:

Greek banks are preparing contingency plans for a possible “bail-in” of depositors amid fears the country is heading for financial collapse, bankers and businesspeople with knowledge of the measures said on Friday.

The plans, which call for a “haircut” of at least 30 per cent on deposits above €8,000, sketch out an increasingly likely scenario for at least one bank, the sources said.

A Greek bail-in could resemble the rescue plan agreed by Cyprus in 2013, when customers’ funds were seized to shore up the banks, with a haircut imposed on uninsured deposits over €100,000.

But relax, silly depositors in Greek banks! Greek officials have told Reuters that any such reports are “baseless”:

The head of Greece’s Bank Association on Friday dismissed as “completely baseless” a report by the Financial Times that contingency plans were being made for a possible bail-in on bank deposits.

Louka Katseli, who also chairs the National Bank of Greece , told Skai TV that suggestions authorities were planning a raid on deposits belonged “only in the sphere of fantasy.”

“There are no such scenarios at any Greek bank, not even as an exercise on paper,” Katseli said.

Are you having a sense of deja vu? If so, here’s why:

On March 1, 2013, Cyprus officials told Reuters they ruled out seizing bank deposits:

Cyprus’s new finance minister on Friday ruled out a haircut, or imposed losses, on bank deposits to ease a financial bailout from international lenders, now stalled amid worries about debt sustainability.

Really and categorically – and this doesn’t only apply in the case of Cyprus but for the world over and the euro zone – there really couldn’t be a more stupid idea,” Michael Sarris, who took over his post on Friday, told reporters.

By the end of that same month, Cyprus had stolen 60% of bank deposits over 100,000 Euros.

Governments will steal your money if they want to.

But it could never happen here.

Caption Contest

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:15 am

Screen Shot 2015-07-04 at 11.14.06 AM

Thanks to Kevin Gutzman.

San Francisco “Sanctuary City” Policy Leads to Young Woman’s Murder

Filed under: Deport the Criminals First,General — Patterico @ 10:40 am

The murder of 31-year-old Kate Steinle at Pier 14 in San Francisco could have been prevented. Before the murder, authorities had the confessed killer in custody, and knew he was an illegal alien. ICE had told them. But, thanks to San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy, police knowingly let him go.

Screen Shot 2015-07-04 at 9.43.32 AM
Above: Kate Steinle, whose murder resulted from San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policy

Police were required to let the illegal alien go — under San Francisco’s glorious and progressive “sanctuary city” policy:

The man accused of gunning down a 32-year-old Pleasanton woman while she was out strolling San Francisco’s Embarcadero with her father was in a Bay Area jail less than four months ago and should have been turned over to federal immigration officials upon his release, instead of being set free, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

But that’s not the way the San Francisco County Sheriff’s Legal Counsel Freya Horne sees it. In an interview Friday with NBC Bay Area, she said the city and county of San Francisco are sanctuaries for immigrants, and they do not turn over undocumented people – if they don’t have active warrants out for them – simply because immigration officials want them to.

. . . .

San Francisco Police Officer Grace Gatpandan Gatpandan added that San Francisco is a “sanctuary city, so we do not hand over people to ICE.” She also said that the police are “not responsible” for Sanchez once he is booked into county jail, “meaning we do not have control over his release.”

The suspect, Francisco Sanchez, has confessed to the murder.

The policy that caused Sanchez to be released, Ordinance 130764, was passed by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors and signed by San Francisco’s mayor in the fall of 2013. Its sponsors were San Francisco Supervisors John Avalos; London Breed, David Campos, David Chiu (now a former supervisor), Malia Cohen, Jane Kim, Eric Mar, and Norman Yee. It was signed by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee.

Everybody in this story is pointing the finger at someone else, but everyone is complicit. The police complain that they were required to release Sanchez. But ICE notes that, actually, police could simply have notified ICE that they were going to release him: “The federal law enforcement source told CNN the sheriff’s department ‘didn’t even need to hold him. They simply could have notified that they were going to release him and we would have gotten him.'”

Obama and the feds (ICE) are not off the hook here, either.

ICE is pointing its finger at the San Francisco policy and the police, but consider: ICE had this guy first, and released him to a sanctuary city, knowing they would probably let him go. According to CNN, “ICE said it turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities on March 26 for an outstanding drug warrant.” NBC tells us that this case was “a marijuana case that was about 20 years old.”

So: ICE officials knew Sanchez had been deported 5 times before. They knew that, after his last deportation, he was convicted of illegal re-entry and served several years in federal prison. But, upon his release from federal prison, rather than deport him, they turned him over to San Francisco officials for a 20-year-old marijuana case, knowing that San Francisco has this sanctuary policy. Shockingly, the D.A. declined to pursue the case, leading to his release (rather than being returned to ICE custody).

Federal officials should refuse to turn over illegal aliens to sanctuary cities for state prosecutions, unless the state prosecutions are for crimes of violence, or crimes in which the alien is facing several years in prison. Turning over aliens to sanctuary cities, for potential prosecution for low-level non-violent crimes for which they face little time in custody, is tantamount to releasing them outright. Federal officials have the right to say: “if you want to prosecute this guy, you sign a document saying you will return him to us. Otherwise you don’t get him at all. We will deport him.”

The failure to implement this policy is squarely on Obama. And the refusal to secure the border, allowing this guy to come back again and again and again, is also on Obama and the Democrats.

P.S. L.A. Times coverage of this naturally does not even mention the “sanctuary city” angle.

The More Things Change. . .

Filed under: General — JVW @ 9:47 am

[guest post by JVW]

Among the many grievances that the colonists laid out against against King George III of Great Britain 239 years ago in the Declaration of Independence were the following:

– He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
– He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
– He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
– He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
– He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.
– He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.

What do you suppose Messrs. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Livingstone, and Sherman would think of our present-day situation?

– JVW


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4812 secs.