Border's Biggest Chumps

The Border Patrol has successfully cleared out the thousands of people camped out illegally under a bridge in Del Rio, TX. Aerial photographs show the land is totally empty of people, tents, and the detritus of an illegal encampment. After the embarrassment of images showing Border Patrol agents herding black illegal aliens like an old slavery roundup, the Biden administration did a remarkably quick job of fixing the mess.

Where did all those people go? There were an estimated 30,000 people, most of them from Haiti, who were crossing the border illegally from Mexico into Del Rio hoping to seek asylum when they reached U.S. soil. How can they possibly process thousands of people seeking asylum so quickly when the usual time frame is measured in months and years, not hours and days.

The unfortunate answer is that the government did what the progressive liberals wanted them to do all along. Most of the people were simply let into the country with a promise to show up to immigration court at some far distant future date. Altogether, 12,400 Haitians were simply released into the country and sent on their merry ways. Another 8,000 voluntarily returned to the Mexican side of the border. About 2,000 were deported to Haiti. And about 5,000 are in some sort of processing still with the CBP. 

Congratulations to the 12,400 Haitians who successfully forced their way into the U.S. The old saying about safety in numbers proves true again. But what about the people who volunteered to go back to Mexico or the unlucky ones who were caught early and sent on a one way flight back to Haiti? I bet they feel like the biggest chumps in the world. If they had stayed together with the rest of the crowd for a few more days, they too would now be in the promised land.

Now that Del Rio is emptied of illegal aliens, I wonder how long it will stay that way? People all over the world will see this news. When will be the next mass storming of the border and occupation of that underpass. Everybody can see that if enough pressure is applied to this progressive president, he will just let almost anybody in rather than face the tough job of actually controlling the border. This is only the beginning. There are no real plans to protect American borders because the liberals want to let as many poor and desperate people in as possible so we can give them free food and shelter and secure their votes in the future.

Peter Liang Screwed By Asian Judge

Things were looking hopeful for former NYPD officer Peter Liang. One of the jurors in his trial, Michael Vargas, was found to harbor strong anti-police feelings that were not picked up during jury selection. During the selection, Mr. Vargas denied any close family members had been involved in criminal activity. As it turned out, his father served a seven year sentence for murder. Since he was estranged from his father who has since died, he didn't consider him to be a close family member. It was also discovered that Vargas had a Facebook page with multiple postings ranting against police brutality and abuse of power. Vargas also testified that in a previous jury selection, he mentioned his father's crimes and was not chosen for that trial but he failed to mention it for Mr. Lian's jury selection.

Despite all these obvious disqualifications to participate as an impartial juror, New York State Supreme Court Justice Danny Chun somehow found that Mr. Liang received a fair trial in his conviction for manslaughter of Akai Gurley. Judge Chun stated that Mr. Vargas was "not at the top level of intelligence" and so could not have premeditated a scheme to get on Mr. Liang's trial.

What? So the judge is saying this juror is too dumb to connive his way into a trial? This is despite his acumen at using social media to propogate his anti-police viewpoints? The judge feels this guy is so unintelligent he couldn't possibly harm Mr. Liang's chances for a fair trial but his well planned Facebook postings don't matter at all? If Mr. Vargas really is so stupid, isn't that alone worth kicking him off the juror and declare a mistrial? How much does Mr. Vargas even understand of the trial if he is really as dull as the judge seems to be implying?

I suspect that Judge Chun is being unduly harsh to Mr. Liang because he is caught in a no win situation. If he overturned the conviction and declared a mistrial, he could potential start race riots in the streets. In addition, many would think that the judge was soft on the defendant because they are both of Asian nationalities. Though it obviously would not be true, it is all too easy for people to come to that racist conclusion. Ultimately it was easier for the judge to let the conviction stand and perhaps go more lenient on the sentencing next week. So Officer Liang essentially got screwed because he came before an Asian judge.

As for the black people who cheered the judge's ruling, well they just need a scapegoat for all the unarmed black people that were killed by white police officers who were never even charged with a crime. However I can't help but notice they don't remember the outrage they felt when black defendants were convicted by white jurors who harbored openly racist attitudes. If the same thing happened to another defendant of color, well that's just too bad. They are going down even if it is obvious to everybody that a juror was less than impartial. As long as somebody is convicted it doesn't matter how much injustice was served.

That's why I feel that organizations like #AsiansForBlackLives is so naive. Run by mostly young, liberal college educated Asian Americans, they can't fathom that their love and respect of black people will never be reciprocated. Black people look at them merely as curiosities, not as brothers in arms. These people need to go get meaningful jobs and discover how the real world operates.

Only White Police Officers Get Away With Murder

As if we need any more evidence that white police officers alone get away with shooting and killing unarmed people of color. In South Carolina, former police officer Justin Craven has just been given three years of probation and no jail time for killing 68 year old African-American Ernest Satterwhite.

Officer Craven was following Mr. Satterwhite, who was driving while intoxicated, weaving on the road and hitting parked cars. When the driver finally stopped in his own driveway, according to the police dashcam, Craven rushed to the drivers side door and pointed his gun through the window. Mr. Satterwhite's arm can be seen pushing the officer away. That's when Craven shot multiple times into the car. He was pronounced dead at the scene. No weapons were found in the car. His blood alcohol level was 0.15.

When prosecutors tried to charge him with voluntary manslaughter with a sentence of 2 to 30 years, the grand jury, despite the video evidence, refused to indict him. They did charge him with a lesser felony that carried a sentence of 10 years. Eventually the prosecutor settled for a misdemeanor misconduct in office charge that carries no jail time.

So this officer willfully ran up to the driver's side window of the victim and fired point blank into the car killing the driver. Contrast that with New York Police Officer Peter Liang who was convicted of manslaughter for ACCIDENTALLY firing his gun into a darkened stairwell. The bullet somehow ricocheted over multiple surfaces and angles, striking Akai Gurley in the heart TWO floors below. True Officer Liang did not render aid immediately upon finding his mistake. But neither did Officer Craven.

Is it any wonder Asians all over the country were protesting what they justifiably felt was the punitive justice heaped upon Officer Liang but not on any other police officers accused of killing a minority? Though it's wrong to wish Officer Liang had gotten away with murder, like all the other policemen, neither is it right that he was the only one convicted while officers such as Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo were not even indicted by a grand jury. There can be no post-racial society in America until there is post-racial justice in America.

Gloria Allred's Legal Confusion

It seems that every other day another woman pops out of the woodworks to accuse comedian and uber famous star Bill Cosby of committing rape that occurred at least ten years ago. Naturally when there are women involved in a high profile lawsuit, guess who will appear at a new conference in front of dozens of cameras leading the charge--Gloria Allred.

This Los Angeles feminist rights lawyer has been photobombing sensational news stories for decades, always holding herself up as a savior to women involved in some sort of lawsuit against a greater, meaner, more callous defendant. A couple of days ago, she demanded that Mr. Cosby put up $100 million as a legal fund to compensate all the potential suits that women may bring against him now and in the future. Says Ms. Allred, "If Mr. Cosby believes all the women are being untruthful, then this is his opportunity to prove it. What could be fairer than that?"

I don't know what kind of law the Loyola University School of Law taught Ms. Allred, but the American legal system has for centuries been based on the maxim that a person is innocent until proven guilty. It is very disingenuous of her to demand that Mr. Cosby drop the statute of limitations of these accusations and allow these women to sue him and have him prove his innocence. As a lawyer, she should know that it is not the defendant's duty to prove his innocence, it is the plaintiffs and their lawyers to show guilt. Mr. Cosby has no legal obligation to prove that he did not touch these women. That would be like asking him to prove he did not touch the other seven billion people on this earth. How would you prove a negative?

Most people I know are quite skeptical of all these women who suddenly appeared in the last few months to make the same complaints over and over again. Where were these women ten or twenty, or even forty years ago when they were supposedly raped by Mr. Cosby? Not a single one of them went to the police or told a family member who could talk them into going to the authorities?

Also hanging a $100 million kitty out there for anybody to collect is bound to bring forth even more women, not least of which is Ms. Allred herself. History has taught us that anytime a defendant settles with a large sum of money to distribute to plaintiffs, the legal vultures start circling hungrily. This has happened in cases like the tobacco and BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill lawsuits. Once an enormous amount of money is at stake, more people will suddenly decide that they have a good reason to want a pick of that carcass.

I don't know if Mr. Cosby is innocent or guilty of these charges. But his lawyer is smart in keeping him mum about the whole legal circus that is swirling around him. He is legally protected by the statue of limitations for activities that may or may not have happened decades ago. Unless there is some sort of photographic or DNA evidence, it is basically a he said/she said situation. Lawyers like Ms. Allred are just there to get their faces on the news cameras and make more money and fame for themselves.