Still at it. Rachel Corrie's liberal parents sue Israel over their daughter's death.

It's been seven years since American leftist Rachel Corrie demonstrated astoundingly poor judgment in trying to stop an Israeli bulldozer from flattening a house used by Palestinian terrorists by hiding in the demolition area and popping up in front of the machine at the last second, trying to play "human shield". The results were predictable--Rachel Corrie was crushed beneath machine that she'd tried to stop. (Previously discussed in this article.)

Since that day, her fellow leftists have tried to lionize her as some sort of noble heroine, and her parents--both activists on behalf of Palestinian causes themselves--have chosen to blame Israel rather than admit that they themselves screwed up by supporting her and giving her the money to travel all over the world to bother people in the name of her typically Marxist causes. They have filed lawsuits against the Israeli government and even against Caterpillar, Inc.--the American company that made the bulldozer that Corrie tossed herself in front of.

Fortunately, the court--the US Ninth Circuit of all courts--tossed the suit against Caterpillar. But hell hath no fury like a liberal who feels wronged, and the Corries are in Haifa today, trying to get a paycheck.

Let me say right here that I sympathize in part with the Corries. No one should ever lose a child and it cannot be easy. However they were the ones who condoned her world travel and anti-American protests, and as her enablers and financiers, they bear a lot more blame than the nation-state of Israel or a firm that makes construction equipment. If Corrie had stayed in Washington State and just focused on her studies instead of going to other countries to wail about their policies, she'd probably still be alive today. But she decided that the Israelis were only going to be able to enforce their national security policies over her dead body, so she got some money for plane tickets from mom and dad and off she went, probably not realizing that in this case, the "over her dead body" part wasn't exactly going to be figurative.

Still, that sort of thing is entirely predictable when one hurls oneself in front of a bulldozer.

That said, I have to stand with the people of Israel and call for the dismissal of this asinine lawsuit, followed by the swift deportation of the Corries from Israel. Frankly, it says a lot about that country that they even allowed the Corries into their country and gave them access to their courts. I doubt that Rachel's cherished Palestinians would have been anywhere nearly this hospitable had she been killed in Gaza by PLO madmen.

People wanting the truth about Rachel Corrie and her delusional cause need only visit rachelcorriefacts.org or read this commentary by Roberta Sied. It's clear that she had a number of emotional problems and unfortunately, when her parents just let her go her own way, others, including her progressive private school and assorted leftist activists around her were only too willing to indoctrinate and exploit her for their own ends, ultimately leading to her unfortunate death. In short, there is plenty of blame to go around, but none of it is Caterpillar's or Israel's.Her parents taught her so well: Rachel Corrie burns an American flag in Gaza.

Liberal 9th Circuit bones America again on Illegal Alien issues

So let's see..

Two Mexicans are illegally in our country. The male Mexican gets deported back to their home country after racking up three criminal convictions here and the female Mexican follows him back. A child is born to both of them IN MEXICO and then they break up and the female sneaks back into the US again. The child is smuggled back here when she is five year old to be with the female Mexican, supposedly for a visit, but the female Mexican keeps the child. The male Mexican sues and the child is ordered returned, but on appeal, the 9th Circuit--the most-liberal and most-overturned Circuit Court in America--reversed the repatriation order, claiming that since she's spent so much time in America, she should be allowed to stay, even though both she and her mother are here illegally.

A Mexican girl residing illegally with her mother in Huntington Beach has the right to stay here while her father wages a custody battle from abroad because she is "settled" in her new country despite her lack of legal status, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The decision overturned a District Court judgment that would have sent the 11-year-old to live with her father in Acapulco. It was the first to address whether a child should be allowed to remain in the United States during an international custody dispute, to prevent further "distress."

The ruling by a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to be a new interpretation of the Hague Conventions on the protection of children in cross-border disputes, establishing that a right of stability be considered, along with each parent's compliance with the law.

Ivan Nemecio Salmeron brought the action under the international conventions protecting abducted children. Salmeron alleged that the girl's mother, Geremias Brito, had kept their daughter in Orange County years beyond the few months' visit to which he had agreed in 2002.

Although Brito has lived most of her life in the United States and Salmeron spent eight years here before being deported for three criminal infractions, neither parent has legal U.S. residency. Their daughter was born in 1996 in Acapulco, after Salmeron's deportation.

Alleging domestic violence and infidelity, Brito left Salmeron and took her daughter back to Orange County in 2001. The child spent the summer of 2002 with her father in Mexico, but later remained in the U.S. during the five-plus years when Salmeron petitioned U.S. and Mexican authorities to intervene.

A U.S. District Court in Santa Ana ruled to repatriate the child in late 2007, and Brito appealed.

In reversing the decision, the 9th Circuit panel pointed to the Hague Convention provision opposing a child's repatriation if "a forced return might only serve to cause him or her further distress and accentuate the harm caused by the wrongful relocation."

Writing for the unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt, an appointee of President Carter, observed that "It is never an easy nor a joyous task to resolve a dispute between parents that may determine the custody of their child, nor is the outcome ever fully satisfactory."

The judges, including appointees of Presidents Reagan and Clinton, noted the girl's good grades, bilingual skills, friendships and after-school activities such as serving as captain of her soccer team as evidence that she was settled despite her lack of legal status.

"I think it is a good precedent," Brito's pro bono attorney, Mark T. Cramer, said of the decision focusing on the best interests of the child.

"One of the things about this case that is key and important is that the mere fact that a child is not a legal immigrant in itself . . . [shouldn't] prevent the finding that the child is now settled."

Ira Mehlman, national media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said it was his organization's view that "they should all be sent back to Mexico and let the Mexican authorities sort it out."

"The fact that someone brings a child to this country doesn't entitle that child to stay automatically, and whatever harm comes to the child occurs because the parents knowingly violated the law," Mehlman said.

And now we get to support both the illegal adult Mexican female and her illegal Mexican daughter instead of just sending them back to their home country and letting the Mexican courts decide the custody issue.

Anyone remember a kid named Elian Gonzales? He'd spent most of his life here too--and legally--but he was ordered returned to a Communist country by the Clinton Administration, and Janet Reno sent armed officers to go snatch him away from his home and send him off to a life of poverty and oppression. Poor kid. If he'd only been an illegal alien in California, he'd undoubtedly still be here and probably have a pretty nice taxpayer-financed college education and a taxpayer-backed mortgage right now.

Betcha he's pissed...


Meanwhile back at the Lair...

Extra security precautions are now in effect as intelligence indicates that a sophisticatedly-charming and at times delightfully risque redhead has threatened to abscond with Lagniappe, who appears unable to resist her attentions and her offerings of doggie treats.

Got bolt cutters?

Wow--the 9th Circuit actually gets another one right!

Imagine that!

According to this LA Times story, Jean Pierre Arteaga, a gang member facing deportation to his native El Salvador following several felony convictions here argued that he should be granted permanent refugee staus here in our country and be allowed to continue gang-banging without fear of deportation because his gang tattoos that he chose to adorn himself with would mark him and put him at risk from rival gang members back in his own country.


But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that he had provided no proof of this and denied his claim, putting Arteaga back on the pathway to his rightful home...El Salvador. Kudos to the court that usually gets it wrong for actually coming down on the right side of this issue, even if they did base their decision on a lack of proof instead of the sheer stupidity of the gang punk's claim. Had the court ruled in his favor and said that gang tattoos could be grounds for preventing deportation of non-citizen gang members, every illegal alien that ever wanted to stay in America would just have to scrawl some gang symbols on their arm and they'd be immune from ever being sent home. Can't you just picture all those people running around with MS-13 logos...even those people illegally here from China, India and Europe?

Wow--the 9th Circuit actually gets one right

I'm feeling like I'm in some sort of backwards Bizarro World tonight when I read this story about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals actually standing up and supporting something that helps America as a whole, something previously thought to be about as unlikely as the ACLU suddenly becoming a patriotic organization.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court rejected a challenge Monday to a county's practice of routinely searching welfare applicants' homes without warrants and ruling out assistance for those who refuse to let them in.

The justices refused, without comment, to intervene in the case from San Diego County, where investigators from the local District Attorney's office show up unannounced at applicants' homes and conduct searches that include peeking into closets and cabinets. The visits do not require any suspicion of fraud and are intended to confirm that people are eligible for government aid.

Failure to submit to the searches, which can last an hour, disqualifies applicants from assistance.

The 10-year-old program was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of six single parents who were seeking assistance. The welfare applicants argued that the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches, protects them from the home visits.

"When the investigator conducts the home inspection, no part of the home is off-limits," they said.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the program, said the Supreme Court in 1971 allowed social workers to visit homes in New York to determine eligibility. The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, said the visits do not even constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment in part because people are free to turn away the investigators.

Eight appeals court judges voted to have the full San Francisco-based court hear the case. Seven of those judges called the program "an attack on the poor."

The case is Sanchez v. San Diego, 07-211.

A close decision, eight to seven, but a proper one, and totally unexpected from the court that is the most liberal--and most often reversed--of any of our US Circuit Courts.

And I agree wholeheartedly. This isn't an 'attack on the poor", but merely local government showing some responsibility and trying to ensure that those who apply for and live off of public assistance funds actually meet the criteria and deserve it. Truth is, there are untold numbers of cheaters and frauds on the welfare rolls all across this country, and every one of those people is sucking up a benefit intended for a truly needy family who is currently going without. While I'm no fan of the welfare system in general, I take serious issue with people who milk the program and scam it and anything that deters or catches these crooks and leads to their prosecution and incarceration is a good thing.

And if the people on welfare have a problem with it or consider it too intrusive, they can always give up the welfare checks and/or move out of the houses that the rest of us are paying for and support themselves in the workforce just like almost everyone else does. Like the Supreme Court pointed out in it's 1971 decision referenced above, they get to choose.

In my opinion, the government needs to check every welfare home for evidence of high living, drug use, illegal weapons, etc. These people set themselves up as children of the state when they applied for and took public money in lieu of jobs and that made the government their de facto parents. Parents have not only a right but a responsibility to monitor their charges and make sure that they're doing the right thing and that holds equally true for the heads of individual households and the heads of our nation's social services programs. As the people asking for welfare are admitting that they're in trouble and are in need of help from the rest of us, I'm of the belief that we need to be helping them make the right choices, and that means making sure that they aren't using drugs, making sure that their children are eating right and also ensuring that the single moms who are asking us to raise their kids for them are working part-time and/or going to school and not letting able-bodied but non-supporting men move in with them.