By Florida Bill
In this day and age of cyber electronics and wireless everything, visionaries have created the high tech red light camera, which looks down from above like an all-knowing, all-seeing deity.
Even though electronics seem to run our lives these days, I wonder if the life of the famed red light camera is on the verge of being consigned to the black hole of irrelevance.
The overhead camera does its job taking videos of the traffic around red lights, thereby accomplishing the two-fold task of bringing in revenue and nailing reckless drivers. But there is a wrench in this engine. Under the Bill of Rights, a defendant of a crime, serious or trivial, has a right to confront and question his accuser, and when his accuser is a camera--well that's a problem.
In recent months and years, there have been a number of legal complaints about the devices, leaving municipalities concerned about whether courts may outlaw their expensive investments.
Right now, the cameras are operating at intersections in twenty-six states and in the District of Columbia in America, and in many countries throughout the world. It is a sticky situation in the USA with some judges giving cameras the okay, while others believe that judgments based upon pictures are skipping over constitutional requirements guaranteed to motorists. To be precise, say legal experts, you cannot always trust shutter bugs checking up from a metal box in the sky. There are photos and videos--yes, but who is reviewing them for their accuracy?
Even in trivial matters such as red light tickets, the Constitution gives motorists the right to confront their accuser. However, it's rather difficult to apply the Constitution to a dispute over the accuracy of a video produced by an unattended camera. But as far as financially strapped municipalities are concerned, "We gotcha, it's right here in black and white (or living color?), so pay up." But there are some outraged drivers willing to take on the power behind the lens and demand their day in court.
In Florida, a circuit judge dismissed a ticket issued to a motorist on the say-so of a camera, which had photographed his vehicle making an illegal right turn. The ticket was contested on the grounds that the citation was being issued by a company rather than by a policeman. The lower court dismissed the ticket, but the 3rd District Court of Appeals, in a 37-page opinion, reinstated the ticket, finding that it was the police behind the ticket.
Appellate courts often differ in their opinions, and the 3rd district finding was at loggerheads with Florida's 4th District Court of Appeals covering Broward County, which decided in 2014 that a red light ticket issued in Hollywood was without constitutional legs, since in that case the law was allowing the company hired to run the cameras to issue the tickets. Only police have authority to enforce traffic laws, the court ruled, and the fall-out from that opinion triggered dismissal of 24,000 tickets, leaving open questions of refunds for motorists who had paid fines based on a law subsequently declared illegal.
A friend of mine, Mike Hanley, a resident of South Florida, got flagged by the cameras at an intersection in Miami. With all the commotion about camera tickets, he was given a court date 10 months later in the Miami City hall and invited to contest the ticket. He did have the option to pay $158 and the violation would be dismissed, with no untoward consequences. Or he could request a hearing, which he did, but he risked a doubling of the fine if, after a trial, he was found guilty. Not a bad deal for municipal coffers, if the driver accused by camera is indeed adjudged guilty by a real court, and that is generally the outcome.
So Hanley, a feisty retired Delta airline captain and former Naval fighter pilot during Viet Nam days, went to court prepared to go to war with the red light faerie.
Without fanfare, the ticket was dismissed. Maybe it was because he had to wait 10 months for the hearing, or maybe the authorities saw the writing on the wall, and were not in the mood to cross swords with the enraged Hanley, who was in court with a copy of the constitution in his pocket.
The long and short of red light activity is that its future is in limbo and will no doubt eventually end up in the lap of supreme courts throughout the nation. Perhaps someday, if a targeted driver is persistent enough in his or her anger, it could end up before the nation's top court.
Red light cameras started appearing in various states some 30 years ago. Visionaries saw the possibilities of increasing revenue and safety in one clean punch. Over the years these magic overhead eyes have triggered much needed dollars for struggling municipalities and states.
The inspiration for the cameras picked up real momentum in the USA in the 1980s following a highly publicized crash involving a red light runner who collided with a mother and her 18- month-old daughter in a stroller in New York city.
The accident led to research into automated law enforcement systems to identify reckless drivers who run red lights. Scientists put their heads to work and presto--the eye in the sky. But no one is really sure right now whether it will be forced to blink shut in the future.
XXX
By Florida Bill
If you wish to deal in absurdities, Gallup, the polling wizard, has just the thing. Hillary Clinton is the "most admired" woman in the country.
How did it manage to make that incredible determination? It interviewed 1,028 persons by telephone over a four day period and presto--there is no one in these 50 states that residents hold in greater awe than the former First Lady and Secretary of State.
Pretty amazing for the 69-year-old defeated Presidential candidate who, on the campaign trail, was labeled "Crooked Hillary," and whose sneaky mishandling of classified information in violation of federal statutes made her the subject of an FBI criminal investigation which apparently is continuing, post-election.
Gallup, whose name is synonymous with surveys determining what people believe and think, has been around a long time. In this "most admired" poll, 12 per cent of the individuals surveyed made Mrs. Clinton number one. You guessed it, Michelle Obama was the second "most admired" woman, garnering around 8 per cent of the first place votes
In the male "most admired," category, Barack Obama came in on top receiving 22 per cent of the first place votes cast. I have to wonder about the accuracy of that finding also, but it probably has more authenticity than Clinton's new medal. Second "most admired" man was the new President, Donald Trump.
Gallup made a lot of mistakes in the past election in which it reported repeatedly that Clinton was a cinch winner. Its new survey only seems to enhance its reputation for misfiring. It raises questions as to how serious anyone should be in accepting the imprimatur of dependable old Gallup.
These findings probably make a lot of citizens gleeful, but there are millions who perceive some sort of a "fix." Gallup purports to produce the opinions of a sample of people who are representative of the opinions of the whole group. That's a tall order considering that the USA is a nation with some 318 million persons residing in more than 30,000 cities town and villages across 3 million square miles of of land and water.
Those who read these polls are never told the questions asked or where the "random" telephone calls go. If the calls are directed to the residents of inner cities and liberal enclaves in California, there will be ample Obama and Hillary fans which will tilt the survey in the Obama-Clinton direction. If the phones jingling with eager pollsters are located in blue collar neighborhoods where jobs have been lost, and the Obama administration is held in disrepute, then the dial on the admiration scale is likely to tilt in a much different direction. Since Mrs. Clinton's numbers are so low and the field so wide, you wonder why Gallup would give this poll any publicity at all, or even bother to report such results. Maybe it would have been more enlightening if they reported that 88 percent of those surveyed did not admire Hillary Clinton. Polls and surveys have become an integral part of reporting the news of the day. These seers are making a lucrative career out of asking the opinions of maybe 1,000 people and then firing out the results to members of the fawning media, pundits and columnists who then disseminate the crystal ball product (accurate to plus or minus 3%) to readers and viewers. The heartbeat of the nation delivered via a telephone, notebook and pencil, and of course, a computer. Yeah, sure.
XXX
I
.
By Florida Bill
In recent days and weeks, I have seen a good number of stories on the social airways about celebrities, politicians, athletes and other prominent persons with incredibly high intelligence quotients (IQs).
Discussions about who is smart and who is officially a bit of a dim bulb can liven up any conversation. Reports on IQs levels--not to mention how they are measured--actually differ from one account to another, so the final word on who is a whiz kid and who has an empty head may not be completely accurate.
There are various charts as to which numbers equate to levels of intelligence. Basically, the average IQ across all Americans is a score of 100, with 91 to 109 considered average or normal. Stepping up, 110 to 119 is considered to be "superior intelligence" and 120 to 129 is considered "very superior intelligence." A score of 130 to 139 is listed as "Gifted," and 140 or above is considered "Genius or Near Genius." And the higher the score, the greater the genius; and when you surpass 200--well you do not fool with that egghead.
If you thought that the young singers and composers, Lady Gaga and Shakira, were just a couple of dingbats earning millions--guess again. There is another side to those faces. They are, so we are told, certified geniuses checking in with IQs of around 140-160. Actually, we are told that there are a good many geniuses around Hollywood. Among them are actors James Woods who logs in with super intelligence of 180, and Matt Damon at 160; and the long gone actress and Oscar winner, Judy Holiday (no doubt social media might ask who that is) scored a 172.
IQ is intelligence quotient and it is derived from standardized testing results when a portfolio is available from which to glean the information. When the paper work is not fully available, as is the case with Gallileo (185) and Leonardo Da Vinci (220), other factors are considered. California Professor Dean Keith Simonton has used a technique of assembling everything about a person, including achievements, discoveries and compositions to estimate an IQ. It is a "histriometric" approach to assessing brainpower (IQ) when results of standardized testing are not to be found or test scores are missing, the professor has explained.
Does it depend upon who is asking, or who has the info? Most reports which I have seen, find genius genes in many of the same persons, including Madonna, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and chess master Gary Kasparov. Also on top of the brain mountain are: Dolph Lundgren, Rocky's Russian nemesis (160), Sharon Stone (154), and Conan O'Brien (160).
Amazingly, the iconic President Kennedy is down there with a lot of regular folks at 117, and President Reagan is said to be just an ordinary guy at 107. President Nixon hit 143. There are some reports that George W. Bush, the younger. has an IQ of only 91--yet there are others who claim his brain power is closer to 126, very intelligent. For Bush, maybe some political "histriometrics"?
Mohammed Ali, the Louisville boxer and poet, was said to have an IQ of 78. That is mighty low ball alongside Sylvester Stallone (AKA Rocky) punching in at genius level, 160. Muscular ex-Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger scores 132.
Famous classical composers (Bach, Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn) were estimated by a Catherine Cox in 1926 to have IQs between 160 and 170. Music geniuses all. Lady Gaga's talents as a writer and composer must surely account for some of her membership in that stratosphere of the intelligence continuum.
The typical child prodigy usually has an exceptionally high IQ. For example, Korean born Kim Ung-Yong has been recorded as having an IQ score of about 210. Yong reportedly could speak fluently at six months old and was a guest student in physics at Hanyang University by the time he was three-years-old.
The highest IQ ever recorded was 228, according to the Guinness Book of Records. This score belongs to the "smartest" person in the world, Marilyn vos Savant, 70, a Parade magazine columnist, author and lecturer. Ms Savant scored it when she was 10 years old.
Oh yes, one other thing. President Trump is said to have an IQ of 156, dwarfing Hillary Clinton's 140.
Like everything, there are challenges to all this rhetoric about super high IQs. The numbers and lists which are being tossed about were said to have been published initially by Mensa, the UK-based society considered to be the oldest and largest high IQ society in the world.
But, Mensa has said that it has not published any such list of celebrity members and in fact never issues list of Mensa members to the press and does not disclose individual IQ scores to anyone. The genesis of all this discussion of individual brain-power is unknown, according to Mensa.
The Huffington Post is said to be the only media member which has acknowledged that these lists attributed to Mensa are "fakes." One of the critics of the "Mensa" published list observed that the report is a "measure of just how easy it is to get a catchy story to move.... and hang around even after being retracted."
It is all kind of fun and interesting to read about who is supposedly smart and who is just average and those who are barely scratching the surface of the brainpower spectrum. Accurate? No doubt, only those with the highest IQs know for sure.
XXX
By Florida Bill
With all of the controversy about so-called "fake news," is it a fair question to ask if journalists abide by any code of conduct, or are they free to say anything about any person or event in the public eye? Does anyone watch the watchers?
Most of the time news stories are true, not necessarily completely accurate, but true. Critical stories of figures in the news will always generate gripes and denials even when true. But the revelations from factually true reports are the benefit of a free press which holds the feet of government and its representatives to the fire.
But when journalists fabricate and carve stories in such a way that they are counterfeit or simply a "fake," and then use these reports to hammer candidates, office holders and politicians---Is that to be accepted as the price to be paid for having a country which guarantees freedom of speech and an unshackled press? I do not think that such conduct was ever intended to be a tool of journalists provided for in the First Amendment.
When the hot news is a reporter's creation, which it often is, and the accusations leveled against "public figures" are clearly false, does the news station or anchor take a hit? Where is the accountability, the correction, the apology? The sloppiness and irresponsibility of today's media, and its incredible, bullet proof arrogance, is often beyond belief. Recently, CNN and "Buzzfeed" sent out a phony story about President-elect Trump, claiming a British intelligence officer's report had revealed immoral behavior and his collusion with Russian authorities to manipulate the election. The story had no "legs," and was designed to humiliate Trump, who had become the media's arch enemy.
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith demonstrated the bluster and resistance typical of the media in the face of obvious dishonest news gathering. "It is our observation," said Smith, " that (CNN and Buzzfeed) correspondents followed journalistic standards and that neither they nor any other journalists should be subjected to belittling or de-legitimatizing by the President elect of the United States."
The sad and short answer of course is no one holds the media accountable. Having watchers who watch public actions, riding herd on public figures, is a good thing, one of the hallmarks of our democracy. When public officials fail to live up to the public trust, it is the press that calls them out and demands action. But when the media lies, and fabricates out of personal enmity or political bias, who takes them to task? The answer is no one.
Some say there are libel and slander laws which provide appropriate sanctions. Not so. Libel and slander are fairly effective when the slandered person is an ordinary citizen outside the public arena. But these anti-defamation laws are virtually meaningless in situations involving the media and public figures such as office holders and candidates for public office.
Jim Strong a retired Chicago Tribune reporter and editor, sees libel laws relative to politics as a "fraud." "They allow corrupt publishers and writers to profit from publishing or broadcasting garbage without any fear of the victims they beat up on," he said.
The unvarnished truth is that the media can say virtually anything about a candidate or a public official without fear of liability. "Absence of malice" is always the "get out of jail free" card for a reporter and the company he or she works for.
The respected and renowned Col. Robert R. McCormick, late and great publisher of the Chicago Tribune, used to say that a newspaper (the media) delivers that check upon government which no Constitution has ever been able to provide.
Very true, Colonel, but no one checks up on the checkers. Journalism professors established the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) in 1908, which has drafted a journalist's "Code of Ethics." It encourages honesty and integrity and spells out guidelines for reporters.
Yet it is not a set of rules, opines Don Kirk, a veteran Asian correspondent for various newspapers, but only a guide that encourages all who engage in journalism to take responsibility for the information they provide, regardless of medium. But the missing element in the SPJ dicta is the prescribed enforcement mechanism of its recommended code. Consequences for sending out phony news reports attacking the character of public figures do not exist.
Defenders of the press who are so appalled by President-elect Trump's Twitter rants against the media are quick to respond with lofty statements about the tradition of honor and integrity among newsmen. There is never a suggestion that maybe, just maybe, there is a kernel of truth in what the new president is saying, and that something ought to be done about the mendacious members of the press corps, and the companies which endorse such conduct. Journalists must come together and enact codes of enforceable conduct with due process rights accorded alleged violators. It is not enough to spell out how a reporter must handle the job of covering the news in a moral and professional way. The elephant in the room is the lack of accountability for lying journalists intending to destroy a news subject whose ideology runs counter to that of the newsman's and the company he works for.
It is possible to uphold freedom of the press and still penalize reporters who dishonor it with their lies and fabrications. Sanctions should range from a reprimand to loss of press credentials. It is not and can never be government which regulates the media, only the profession itself. It is time that the media starts weeding out its own bad actors.
By Florida Bill
This is a new era and from all indications, we have a President with genuine concern for America's military and the men and women who wear its uniform.
This country has been engaged in a war against terror and the countries where it was spawned and now thrives for more than 15 years. The USA is defended by all volunteer forces which have fought for and advanced the cause of freedom in Afghanistan and in other remote areas of the middle east.
For the past eight years, the country was guided by Barack Obama who saw the military as annoying, but necessary. Other matters appeared to be of far more importance to the 44th President. Many congressmen and generals have accused Obama of having "eviscerated" the military forces, and of looking upon undocumented immigrants and Islamic followers with greater compassion than the soldiers who were and are defending the country. Former Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani has said that Obama does not love his country as other presidents and patriots have.
Hopefully, President Trump will bring a different heart and attitude for America to the White House. He has said that under him,"it will always be America first." That being the case, there is no way that he could ever turn away from the miscarriage of justice heaped upon a young army officer who acted to protect the men in his command during patrol in the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.
On President Trump's desk is the petition for a pardon for army First Lt. Clint Lorance who is serving a 20-year sentence at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, having been found guilty of the second degree murder of two Afghans who he believed to be suicide bombers. He has been stripped of his honor and ordered to live behind bars. He serves his time in a small cell in a compound alongside Major Nidal Hasan, the radicalized army major who slaughtered 13 fellow soldiers in an assembly hall in Fort Hood, Texas, and now awaits the execution he has asked for and for which he has been sentenced
Lt. Lorance, now 32, was the commander of a nine member platoon on a research mission in the Kandahar province, near Panzai in July of 2012. He had joined the army after high school; attended college and earned a commission as an officer and was making a career of the army, He was assigned to lead the platoon, replacing an officer who had been wounded in a Taliban attack by suicide bombers. It was actually Lorance's fourth day in command when the incident occurred which has divested him of his honor and made him into a war criminal.
The lieutenant and the nine soldiers in his command had been warned of suicide bombers eager to find and kill American soldiers. When three men on a motorcycle did not stop their movement toward the platoon, and despite repeated signals that they do so, Lt. Lorance directed his men to "engage" the enemy and they did so, fatally wounding two of the riders. The third man was captured as he endeavored to escape into the mountains.
The riders were found to have been unarmed, and within days Lt Lorance was accused of murder. Twelve months later, Lorance was tried by a military tribunal. He was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to 20 years, then reduced to 19 years, in an army prison. Appeals failed to correct the injustice and a petition to President Obama supported by thousands, was completely ignored by the Commander-in-Chief who opted instead to grant clemency to nearly 2,000 drug pushers and users,(231 in a single day) and to commute the sentence of the traitorous Pvt. Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning who served just 3 years of his 35-year penalty for his betrayal of America by publicizing highly classified data.
As the Lorance petition awaits action by the new president, attorneys and supporters of Lt. Lorance have found that the fatally wounded Afghans had "ties to terrorists." Former Congressman and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West who supports and understands the actions of Lt. Lorance said that America's war on terror is not like any other war. America's enemies do not wear uniforms and they pass themselves off as innocent civilians while finding ways to kill Americans. Soldiers need to be alert at all times in fighting this enemy.
Lt. Lorance's mother, Anna, has said that she will never stop fighting for her son. She has been encouraged to seek a meeting with the President so as to inform him of the moral character and innate goodness of her son, who acted in accord with his training as an officer leading his platoon during this war on terror, and in the face of an enemy which seeks only to kill Americans.
xxx
By Florida Bill
While Florida wildlife professionals are trying to out maneuver and remove the Burmese python from the magnificent Everglades, there has arisen a new impediment slowing down the ousting of these unwelcome critters--the Miccosukee Indians and their special traditions.
To the Miccosukees, which has a proud and noble history in Florida which even predates Columbus, the snake is considered to be a "sacred" animal which has contributed in positive ways to early Indian days in North America. Although the invasive python problem in the Everglades is fairly new, it is the generic snake, whatever its kind, which is deserving of respect by the tribe, so put your machetes away, and let the natives work on the problem.
With this tradition, and guided by a new Miccosukee chief, the tribe has formally ordered the state of Florida to halt ongoing research into Burmese pythons on the designated Indian reservations occupying about 130 square miles of the sunshine state, deep in the Everglades. The tribe has had ownership rights of the land since 1962 by decree of Florida authorities.
The Miccosukees see the negatives in the snake's hissing presence, gobbling up the wildlife beauty in the Everglades. So, while ordering an end to research and machete wielding by local snake haters, the tribe's wildlife unit will take charge of catching and disposing of these reptiles on the reservation, explained Gintas Zavadzkas, a Miccosukee ecological coordinator. Without too much elaboration, Zavadzkas said future work will be evaluated on a "case by-case" basis.
The tribe coordinator's announcement came as a surprise and a bit of a setback for Florida scientists. The decision means that an ongoing study tracking python habitats and movement by a prominent Geological Survey biologist on reservation land will cease, an official explained.
Coordinator Zavadzkas has expressed some frustration with state and federal efforts which he suggests have gummed things up for the tribe, impacting negatively on traditional Miccosukee way of life. State and local authorities could do more, he said, to discourage the flourishing of this invasive animal; for example, the state could require python owners to neuter pet snakes which could help control their spread.
In other matters, authorities have gotten in the way of traditional fishing and hunting by tribal members in a water conservation area on the reservation, the Miccosukee spokesman charged.
The unwelcome presence of the Burmese python in Florida first manifested itself in the 1980s. Their number continues to grow. The reptile can grow to 20-feet in length, maybe even longer. It is not poisonous, but ravenous in its hunger for the birds and rabbits and other special critters who have made their home in the grassy everglades which extends over 1.5 million acres in southern Florida. In recent months, the python has been found south of the Everglades in Key Largo.
In the past years, wildlife authorities of Florida have sponsored Python hunts as an added measure to reduce the population of the snakes. Hundreds of persons have participated in a "Python Challenge" and many male and female snakes have been destroyed; with cash awards given to the most successful hunters. Another hunt is planned for later in 2017. Florida officials hope for the best from the Miccosukees in finding and destroying the invaders, but vow that their scientific fight to preserve the health and pristine nature of the Glades will continue.
Speculation is that the snake's genesis came about by way of pet owners who became disenchanted with their exotic prize, maybe because they got too big or ate too much, and discarded them in the "the wild" --that being the Everglades. The Burmese population took hold, and now 35 years later, thanks to the serpentine version of the birds and the bees, there is a daunting overpopulation problem. Lady pythons lay hundreds of eggs at a time and too many survive other predators, and grow. Adult Burmese pythons here have no natural predators, experts tell us. Even alligators do not always fare well in one-on-one combat. The Miccosukees of Florida is a federally recognized Native American tribe in the USA, inside the state of Florida. Originally part of the Creek nation, the Indians migrated into Florida before it became part of the United States. The Tribe and its reservation was federally recognized in Florida in 1962.
XXX
.
By Florida Bill
A few days ago, President Trump put his pen where his mouth has been for the last 20 months and signed an ordered to withhold federal funds from the so-called "Sanctuary Cities" which have declined to enforce federal law dealing with undocumented immigrants.
His executive order triggered declarations from mayors of big city recipients who in essence said the "heck with the money." Their municipalities will be standing firm in their refusal to enforce federal law deemed unfair to illegal immigrants whom they apparently feel deserve the right to "pursue the American dream," even when committing crimes in their illegally attained new homes.
For New York and Chicago, billions of dollars are on the table. It is hard to imagine such recalcitrance by city officials whose urban territories are heavy with recipients of welfare and whose budgets are already in deep trouble, despite federal subsidies.
In sanctuary cities, police will arrest and prosecute illegal aliens for crimes, but will not advise federal authorities that the perpetrator is subject to deportation for breaking federal law by sneaking into the country. In other situations, when individuals are deported on federal order, they often return and take up residence in a sanctuary city, where they need not fear getting sent back again. Too often they commit other criminal offenses.
In recent months and years, there have been publicized incidents of crimes committed by illegal aliens who have been protected in their sanctuary from federal arrest and deportation. A senate committee has released statistics showing that in a four year span, 121 killings were carried out by convicted immigrants who were not deported, but should have been.
Most notorious was the fatal shooting of 32-year-old Kate Steinle in July, 2015, in San Francisco by an illegal alien who had been deported five times by federal authorities. After each deportation, the murderer of Ms. Steinle had returned to his San Francisco home, where he remained secure from interference by immigration authorities.
In the United States, there are 364 counties and 39 cities, including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Baltimore and San Francisco, which are sanctuaries, allowing criminal aliens protection from deportation by federal authorities. Such credentials as a sanctuary city are established by local or state law (de jure), or by performance (de facto).
The President's new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, is in sync with President Trump on this issue, and it is anticipated that the Department of Justice under him will turn up the heat on the cities and counties which thumb their noses at federal immigration statutes.
If the President prevails with this executive order, which is being challenged in the courts, the sanctuary cities and boroughs will lose huge amounts of revenue which they receive by way of grants and through other federal programs. In New York, for example, the big Apple would be deprived of an estimated $10 billion dollars a year.
For New York, the nation's largest city, Mayor Bill de Blasio has pledged that his city would remain a sanctuary for the estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants residing in its five boroughs. He won't be coerced by Mr. Trump, he vows.
"We're gonna stay a sanctuary city," asserted Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. He added, in a news conference interview, that "we welcome people, whether you're from Poland or Pakistan...Ireland, India or Israel...Mexico or Moldova... you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream."
Critics are charging that the out-of-control gun violence in Chicago is connected with its illegal immigration problem. Aside from the sanctuary city question, President Trump has threatened that if Emanuel does not address and fix the gun problem in which thousands are being killed each year, he will send federal troops into the Windy city to get the job done. The question of freezing federal funds for sanctuary cities which ignore federal law will ultimately be decided in the courts. Proponents of the sanctuaries argue that the states and cities have no obligation to enforce federal laws...enforcement being the job of the federal government. Yet they expect the federal government to continue to subsidize them with revenues drawn from federal taxes and authorized by federal statutes.
The concept of a sanctuary city actually goes back thousands of years though which perpetrators of violence have sought asylum and avoidance of blood vengeance as allowed by law. In some cases, churches in medieval England were set up as sanctuaries by royal charter.
In the USA, the hot button issue of sanctuary cities first arose in presidential politics in 2008 in the Republican race for the nomination. At that time Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform, specifically attacking sanctuary cities.
XXX
