After the decision by a San Francisco jury in the Kate Steinle murder case and the acquittal on all murder charges of the five times illegal immigrant and seven times felon, Jose Garcia Zarate, American citizens—at least the ones who still care about the rule of law and about the future of this country—should be rightfully outraged. Not even found guilty of the lesser murder charge, involuntary manslaughter, which given Zarate’s defense should have been what he might have hoped for—the California jury found him innocent on all counts of murder, with a slap on the wrists for possession of a purloined firearm. That’s it. And the jury was not even permitted to take into consideration the illegal Mexican’s history of criminality—repeated felonies and multiple illegal entries (each time returning across the porous California border to commit more crimes).
“Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the illegal immigrant who murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco, was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges but found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm. San Francisco has in effect urinated on our Constitution and the rule of law as Kate Steinle's parents grieve again as the murderer of their daughter will likely serve only 2-3 years in California prison. Assuming California does not turn Zarate lose yet again after serving in their prison, Zarate may serve a couple of additional years in federal prison for having been deported so many times, but again the total prison time given the crime is a slap on the wrist.
“I actually met Kate's Mom in Washington, DC this past September while attending a FAIR event along with meeting with staff members of Republican members of Congress from North Carolina and Senator Richard Burr. Please pray for Kate's family as they suffer again due to today's gross miscarriage of justice.
“Garcia Zarate had been deported five times and the federal government was seeking to deport him a sixth time when he was instead released by San Francisco authorities under their sanctuary policy restricting cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Kate Steinle’s death was totally preventable and a stain on our judicial system. This is another sad day for our nation.”[November 30, 2017; firstname.lastname@example.org]
As he has been in jail for nearly two years awaiting trial and the minimum he can get for the firearms violation is two years, possibly in a month he will walk free—once again. True, the federal immigration authorities will probably deport him one more time, but, who is to say that within a month or so he won’t be back in Sanctuary City San Francisco, or at least back in Sanctuary State California, which have become like illegal immigrant Meccas in horse pastures to swarms of nutrient-seeking flies? And which new victim will die needlessly next time?
San Francisco and California have made it very clear to any and all illegals, whether violent criminals or not, that they are welcome, and that the state and municipal governments will do everything in their power to protect and coddle them, including providing top drawer legal counsel for the basest of criminals—if they are illegal immigrants.
Yet, the simple fact is this: Zarate and others like him are not American citizens. How can they—how does he—merit attorneys paid-for-by-American-
taxpayers, indeed, the very best lawyers that most Americans could never afford? What kind of “justice” system is that? And what kind of system is so degenerate that, with passion and zeal, it basically drops all other concerns to spend its time, efforts and money on defending a murderer who, had he been a regular white male citizen, would no doubt have been thrown to the dogs?
But it goes further than this. After the verdict was reached and defense attorney Matt Gonzalez and his co-counsel went to the microphone to comment, they could not resist turning this judicial circus into a vicious ideological attack on President Trump and anyone who believes in protecting our borders. Indeed, instead of a case which should have been about justice for the murdered Kate Steinle, both men attempted to convert it into a crassly political circus, which undoubtedly for them it was. They launched into a defense of illegal immigration and an assault on the president and his agenda as “racist” and “bigoted.” In other words, if anyone raises even the slightest question or doubt, not just about the verdict but about illegal immigration, itself, then ipso facto, that is a manifestation of the now unforgivable sin of racism.
The jury verdict and the comments by Zarate’s attorneys were an affront to millions of hardworking, law-abiding citizens, and one more illustration of this nation’s horribly broken immigration system. But they also clearly indicate the ideological significance of the country’s growing illegal population and the uses to which that population is put by America’s political elites. And it is not just limited to manipulation by Leftist Democrats searching for “replacement” voters to take the place of former blue collar Democrats in places like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania who have finally figured out where their essential interests lie, but it embraces much of the Republican establishment and “conservative” movement and their inability to actually deal with the problem (or if they do, to basically cave to Open Border zealots or to the enticements from Big Business).
Thus, it is no exaggeration to state that the blood of Kate Steinle and thousands like her does not just weigh down on and indict the legal system and leaders of San Francisco and California, it also is an indictment of culture traitors like Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake, and the reprehensible Thom Tillis from North Carolina, securely snuggled away in the deep pockets of the Chambers of Commerce and big agri-business, with their reassuring belief in “universal equality and human rights” as somehow conservative values. Their misplaced “humanitarianism” and their subservience to their major donors is both shameful and potentially fatal to the very existence of the American nation.
I have been making the case for some time that the leadership of both the national Republican Party—certainly in Congress—and of the present “(neo)conservative movement”: (1) owe their philosophical origins, their essential foundations, to the historic Trotskyite Left, that is, that they accept fully the Progressivist and Marxist template of the Idea of Progress. That (2), that “progress” always and continually moves to the Left. And (3), that Progress is moored in the concept of universal egalitarianism and demands the imposition (usually by us or a surrogate) of liberal democracy and equality in every corner of the globe.
Neither the Neoconservatives nor the “farther Left” represent or defend the traditions of the Old Republic, its reliance on Natural Law and on the inheritance of English Law that the Framers originally incorporated into our Constitution. With their ideological moorings over on the Left, is it any wonder that the contemporary “conservative movement” has become little more than an enabler for that “farther Left”?
Just the other day (November 29), my friend Dr. Paul Gottfried came across a statement from writer Mark Hemingway (in that paragon of Neoconservative ideology, The Weekly Standard), that, “Whether liberals want to acknowledge it or not, conservatives have embraced a large degree of social progress in the last 50 years on everything from women in the workplace to rejecting over criminalization of marijuana use.”
“Once you accept my premises and my underlying vision of the world,” states the Communist commissar in El Silencio de Dios, Rafael Gambra’s account of a future dystopian New World Order, “you implicitly accept my conclusions also.”
Once we embrace—go along—with the “idea” of universal equality as the fundamental American principle and that it is applicable and must be applied everywhere (including by force of our arms), then the “social progress” and “civil rights advances” of the past half century come into sharper focus…they are the veritable unmaking of the American republic, the step-by-step transformation so urged by and hoped for by the Progressivist and Marxist theoreticians of a century ago.
I never tire of employing a prescient commentary, both on his time and also on ours, by the great post-War Between the States Southern critic Robert Lewis Dabney. (http://www.unz.com/article/
“…conservatism. This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is to-day one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will to-morrow be forced upon its timidity, and will be succeeded by some third revolution, to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
“American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it he salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious, for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always—when about to enter a protest—very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its "bark is worse than its bite," and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent rôle of resistance.
“The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it "in wind," and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women's suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position." (http://dabneyarchive.com/
Like the vaunted “conservative” opposition to the so-called “expansion of voting rights” (when control over those rights was arbitrarily shifted from the states to the Federal government), or to Federal control of education, or to same sex marriage, or, most recently, to transgenderism, accepting illegal immigration is just one more emerging surrender by the GOP/conservative establishment—that is, unless real traditional conservatives rebel and begin the process of reclaiming the country.
It’s a dubious and arduous prospect, at best, but a necessary one if we are to “make America great again.”
One essay I recommend and link to today, and it’s by Dr. Jack Kerwick, and it’s an excellent, in depth examination of this process and the disfiguring of our history, and what I would call “the great brain robbery of American conservatism.”
pending-article=big- conservatism-the-big-con-and- the-fundamental- transformation-of-america]