SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:13:21 AM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
longnshort

  Respond to of 1577886
 
Obama Subverts the Law in the Name of Clemency

Obama's rewriting of narcotics statutes is a gross abuse of power.

.......................................................................................................
National Review Online ^ | April 26, 2014 | By Andrew C. McCarthy

So now it’s the pardon power.

To this point, in making a mockery of his core constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully, the broad law-enforcement discretion the Constitution vests in the executive branch has been President Obama’s preferred sleight of hand.

In reality, “prosecutorial discretion” is merely a resource-allocation doctrine peculiar to criminal law: a recognition of the obvious fact that enforcement resources are finite; that it is neither possible nor desirable that every penal infraction be prosecuted; and therefore that priorities must be established about which cases should be pursued, which left to state law-enforcement to handle, and which overlooked.

The doctrine has never been what the president has turned it into: a license not merely to ignore but to rewrite laws — not just penal laws; any laws
— with which he disagrees on policy grounds.

Thus is “prosecutorial discretion” the subterfuge for usurping congressional law-making power — the maze of unilateral waivers, amendments, and whole-cloth weaving that marks Obama’s enforcement of the “Affordable” Care Act, the immigration laws, and other federal statutes.

Alas, the next item on the transformational-change agenda is undoing prior administrations’ faithful execution of the narcotics laws. The forward-looking prosecutorial-discretion doctrine is unavailing to address the past. That is where the pardon power comes in.

The Obama administration does not like the federal narcotics laws. The enmity goes way beyond the president’s nostalgic sympathy for pot smokers. And it has nothing to do with the philosophical objections of libertarians to the criminalization of drug use — we are talking, after all, about an administration whose zeal to intrude on our private lives could make Michael Bloomberg blush. Instead, like Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s incoherent dissent in the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action ruling this week — she argues that a public referendum banning racial discrimination is somehow racially discriminatory — the administration’s disdain for the drug laws owes to its obsession with race and the poisonous politics that flow from it.

For years before they came to power, the president and his underlings belonged to a confederacy of leftist defense lawyers, academics, and “community organizers” — the people who gave us the criminal-rights revolution of the 1960s and the resultant soaring crime rates of the 1970s. Their cart-before-the-horse illogic gave us “disparate impact”: The theory that perversely erases from our consideration the only thing that makes racism racism — the intention to discriminate by race. Instead, they conveniently overlook the social, cultural, and government-policy roots of crime rates in minority communities, and instruct us to deduce systemic racism from the mere happenstance of higher minority conviction rates. The absence of a scintilla of evidence of racism in the text or enactment of the criminal laws makes no difference.

This thinking pervaded the bench every bit as much as the bar and the law schools. Criminals were often given absurdly light sentences for serious offenses. Consequently, when the public finally demanded that meaningful action be taken against the rising tide of crime, elected officials who answer to the voters took some sentencing discretion out of the hands of judges who do not.

In connection with drug-trafficking (as well as other crimes in which violence is a commonplace), this meant enacting “mandatory minimum” sentences — incarceration floors that, though a staple of state penal systems, were unusual in the federal code. In narcotics law, mandatory-minimum provisions were driven by the quantities involved in an offense, and varied from drug to drug. For example, if a distribution crime involved a kilogram of heroin, 5 kilograms of powder cocaine (cocaine hydrochloride), or 50 grams of crack (cocaine base), the judge had to sentence the defendant to at least ten years’ imprisonment. For crimes involving 100 grams of heroin, 500 grams of powder cocaine, or 5 grams of crack, the mandatory minimum was five years in the slammer.

Note the bracing disparity between the treatment of crack and powder cocaine, the former punished at a 100:1 ratio to the latter. This has been a cause célèbre of the Lawyer Left for years. Many small-time crack dealers are black and many big-time cocaine importers and distributors are not. Viewed through the “disparate impact” lens, the disparity can only be explained by racism — and never you mind that white defendants caught selling crack (of which there are plenty) are treated exactly the same as black and Latino crack defendants, and mutatis mutandis for powder-cocaine traffickers.

Just as our counterterrorism policy is skewed by over-lawyering — normal people are more concerned about whether our methods prevent terrorist atrocities than whether they give enough due process to terrorists — so too is law-enforcement policy. The Lawyer Left agitates over the racial composition of narcotics dealers. But if lawmakers were factoring race into the equation at all when they wrote the drug laws — and the statutes themselves are race-neutral, as the Constitution mandates — it was the victims of narcotics trafficking they had in mind. The only disparate impact of significance to normal people, those not obsessed with race or criminals’ rights, is the impact that crack dealing has had on minority communities. They have been ravaged.

It is entirely sensible to argue that, even given the heightened addictive nature of crack and the infamous street violence that’s associated with it, a 100:1 ratio is disproportionate. Indeed, as I have noted, the disparity has been narrowed — albeit not to a degree that satisfies many thoughtful critics. But it is and has always been lunacy to contend that racial animus explains the harsh treatment of crack dealers. That is why the laws have not been significantly changed through our constitutional legislative process. Elected officials who have to confront the voters — including voters in states, cities, and communities that confront crack trafficking — have good reason to worry about the backlash from a rerun of That Seventies Show.

Not good enough for the Lawyer Left, so two of its most prominent members, President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, will use the executive’s pardon power to rewrite the narcotics statutes. This is a gross abuse.

The pardon power exists to mitigate injustice in individual cases. The president, to the contrary, proposes to use it to target laws he disagrees with — laws whose constitutionality is beyond dispute but to which he objects on policy grounds. Which is to say: laws that it is his solemn constitutional duty to execute faithfully, not undermine.

As usual, the administration’s story is rife with fraud. Holder carefully talks about “non-violent” drug “offenders.” Obama riffs about “kids or individual users” supposedly “lock[ed] up . . . for long stretches of jail time.” You are left to imagine poor addicts who never hurt anyone but themselves, languishing for decades in some super-max prison. Yet federal drug enforcement targets felony drug dealers, not simple possession of drugs — the latter is left to the states. Mere users of marijuana and crack are not wasting away in federal penitentiaries. Moreover, an offender sentenced under a mandatory-minimum provision has necessarily committed a significant narcotics felony; the felony distribution of minor amounts of narcotics is not subject to a mandatory minimum, and judges maintain discretion to sentence those offenders to little or no jail time.

Obama and Holder are talking about freeing what could amount to thousands of serious criminals.

The administration also claims that, at least at the start, it is going to commute only the sentences of convicts who have served at least a decade in prison, and only for the purpose of giving them the benefit of a recent change in the law. In the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 (FSA), Congress reduced some drug penalties. Thus, Obama and Holder claim they are merely giving pre-2010 drug convicts the benefit of the 2010 law. But Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), who was deeply involved in the debate over passage of the FSA, points out that retroactivity was a major bone of contention. The law, like most legislation, was a compromise that would not have been enacted without the assurance that it would have only prospective effect. That is, Obama is using the pardon power as a smokescreen to impose by decree a measure Congress specifically refused to pass by the Constitution’s legislative process.

A lawless president does more than violate his oath and demonstrate his unfitness. He forfeits trust.

You say you want immigration reformed? You say you want drug policy rethought? Opinions on these matters vary widely, but one thing is for certain: It makes no sense to legislate on a subject that hinges on effective law enforcement unless you can trust that the law you pass will be the law. That means you have to be able to trust the president. With this president, it means waiting for the next president.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. He is the author, most recently, of Spring Fever: The Illusion of Islamic Democracy.








To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:43:58 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
A lawless president violates his oath and demonstrates his unfitness.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:44:58 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
The pardon power exists to mitigate injustice in individual cases. The president, to the contrary, proposes to use it to target laws he disagrees with.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:46:41 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
Two of the most prominent members of the Lawyer Left, Obama and Holder, will use the executive’s pardon power to rewrite the narcotics statutes. This is a gross abuse.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:47:40 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
Our counterterrorism policy is skewed by over-lawyering— normal people are more concerned about whether our methods prevent terrorist atrocities than whether they give enough due process to terrorists



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:49:01 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
For years before they came to power, the president and his underlings belonged to a confederacy of leftist defense lawyers, academics, and “community organizers” — the people who gave us the criminal-rights revolution of the 1960s and the resultant soaring crime rates of the 1970s.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:50:11 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s incoherent dissent in the Supreme Court’s affirmative-action ruling this week— she argues that a public referendum banning racial discrimination is somehow racially discriminatory.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 11:51:07 AM
From: joseffy  Respond to of 1577886
 
Obama ---making a mockery of his core constitutional duty to execute the laws faithfully.



To: longnshort who wrote (781919)4/26/2014 12:00:14 PM
From: joseffy1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Respond to of 1577886
 
Racist Murderous Pedophile Muslim Cult is Back in California
..............................................................................................
FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE ^ | 4/25/2014 | Daniel Greenfield

Your Black Muslim Bakery is probably the last thing Oakland needs right now. But it’s getting it anyway.

Minister Dahood Sharrieff Bey gathers his workers inside Your Black Muslim Temple No. 1 and delivers a sermon.

As a suited young man stands sentry outside the West Oakland headquarters, Bey presides over an organization that he and his followers have spent years quietly modeling after an intimidating criminal enterprise with a record of violence and fraud that a prosecutor once said terrorized the city: Your Black Muslim Bakery.

“Now the persecution is upon the people,” Dahood Bey said in a lecture posted to YouTube in 2011, his words reminiscent of his late mentor, bakery founder Yusuf Bey. “You’re seeing the results of desolation. You’re seeing the results of the white man’s evil.”

Speaking of evil… there’s Your Black Muslim Bakery.

Former Your Black Muslim Bakery leader Yusuf Bey IV plotted the murder of Oakland journalist Chauncey Bailey and other crimes in 2007 in a desperate attempt to save the bakery from bankruptcy, a prosecutor alleges in a recent court filing.

Bey, 24, and former bakery employee Antoine Mackey, also 24, will stand trial early next year on three counts of murder for the deaths of Bailey, who was the editor of the Oakland Post, Odell Robertson Jr. and Michael Wills in Oakland in the summer of 2007.

Krum said the bakery was founded by Bey’s father, Yusuf Bey, in 1968 but he died of cancer in October 2003 while waiting to stand trial on charges of child molestation and forcible rape, oral copulation and sodomy.

The prosecutor alleged that Bey IV had two motives for having Bailey killed: “IV despised Bailey form writing what IV perceived to be scandalous or libelous stories about IV’s father molesting and raping children and he found out that Bailey was writing a negative story about IV and the impending ruin of his business and sought to keep the story from making the paper, lest it ruin his chances to avoid Chapter 7 liquidation in the bankruptcy court.”

Bey IV became the bakery’s leader in October 2005 after two previous leaders who had succeeded his father were killed, Krum said.

Krum said Bey and Mackey were driving down the street while talking about the Zebra killers, whom she said were “a group of black men in the early 1970s who were notorious for committing a series of murders and other violent attacks on white citizens in San Francisco.

She said Bey “considered the Zebra Killers to be giving the white community ‘a taste of their own medicine’” for violence done by whites on blacks, such as lynchings.

Krum said that during the discussion about the Zebra Killers, Bey and Mackey spotted Wills walking down the street and Bey pulled his car over, Mackey got out, chased Wills down and shot and killed him.

Krum said in her motion that she wants to introduce evidence that Bey and several bakery associates kidnapped two women in Oakland in May of 2007 because it shows how bleak the bakery’s financial situation was at the time.

The Zebra Murders get much less publicity because they were violently racist.

The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974 and left 71 people dead.

The majority of the attacks were carried out by five members of a group within Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam called the “Death Angels.” Jesse Lee Cooks, J.C. Simon, Larry Green, Manuel Moore and Anthony Harris were part of this group which believed that whites were created 3,000 years ago by a black mad scientist named Yacub who wanted a race of inferiors to rule over. Death Angels believed they could earn “points” towards going to heaven when they died if they killed whites.

But back to the Racist Muslim Bakery from Hell...

Bey, a self-appointed minister who gave himself the title of “Dr.,” was formerly a hairdresser. He opened Your Black Muslim Bakery in the early 1970s, espousing black self-reliance and his own interpretation of Islam, which included racist attacks on whites. Nevertheless, in his more than 30 years in North Oakland, Bey gained the support of local business leaders, clergy and politicians eager to align with the underclass.

Banks, who was born in the East Bay, said her father, who had a drug problem, met Bey’s followers while doing jail time for drug-related crimes.

One Sunday night in 1976, Bey invited Banks to spend the night in his apartment, telling her she could play with his baby daughter. Banks was nervous and thought it strange to spend time with Bey, then 41. But her older sister had spent the night there and returned toting candy and new clothes. She said that night marked the first time Bey molested her. She was 8.

Bey told her to tell no one, she said. If she did, she would be killed.

“But he didn’t stop with me,” she said. “He told me he’d murder my whole family, everyone.”

She delivered the first of three children by Bey at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley at 13.

Not long after, Banks said, Bey came into her bedroom above the bakery while she was sleeping, and raped her. She was 10 and remembers wearing one-piece pink zip-up pajamas. After the assault, she sought help from Nora Bey, then 23, one of the minister’s many “wives.” Banks’ father had surrendered his paternal rights so Yusuf Bey could receive welfare for their care; the court appointed Nora Bey, later known as Esperanza Johnson, as their legal guardian.

“ ‘I need you to help me because he’s trying to do things to me,’ ” Banks recalls telling Nora Bey. “And her comment was, ‘Oh, girl, he’s not going to do anything to you that he hasn’t done to anyone else.’ ”

In the bakery’s school, Yusuf Bey’s doctrine was drilled into the children. Girls were taught to cover their heads; everyone was addressed as “brother” or “sister.” Bey preached the superiority of men over women and of blacks over whites. Whites, he said, were “the devil” and responsible for all the world’s problems.

“The men were the ceiling, and women were the floor,” Banks said, quoting Bey.

All the while, Banks said, Bey received – and kept for himself – welfare payments and food stamps intended for Banks, her siblings, others and eventually the children born as a result of the rapes. Bey was said to have more than 40 children and called up to 100 women his wives.

And now it’s making a horrible comeback.

Dahood Bey, 42, has emerged as the leader of an insular organization many thought extinct.

He has twice threatened to kill people, including the mother of one of his children, court records show. He also pleaded no contest to perjury for giving the Department of Motor Vehicles false applications that netted him 22 driver’s licenses all bearing different names, photographs, physical descriptions or birth dates, records show.

Another Black Muslim whom Dahood Bey was charged with torturing in 2009 described him in court as a “more than zealous” disciple of Yusuf Bey who believed the firebrand preacher was “a great man.”

Karl Evanzz, who wrote a biography of Muhammad, said the Oakland temple is one of several practicing his “true teachings,” including a “bizarre notion that Caucasians are the physical embodiment of biblical devils.”

“The return to the primitive teachings of the Nation of Islam is perhaps a response to worsening racial conditions in black enclaves throughout the nation,” Evanzz said.

… or you know, just plain old racism. And here’s a fine member of Your Black Muslim Bakery at work.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/racist-murderous-pedophile-muslim-cult-is-back-in-california/