Crime Pays In America - Stealing the American Dream, One Criminal At a Time

[WhiskeyGirl]

Millions are living illegally in America.  How do they support themselves?

Do they work?  How do they manage that?  False paperwork?  False business identity?  Welfare?

Crime pays in America. 

How much do they get away with?  Do they make up identities or steal the identities of others?  10 million Americans are the victims of identity theft each year.  What is government doing to stop it?  Prevent it?  Nothing.

Do they live on welfare to support their families?

Do they invest their money in America, or do they send it home and feather their own nest?

Crime pays in America.

Why not make them legal so they can pay taxes?  Fix those false identities so they will also qualify for Social Security.

What a great deal!!!  Work for 10 years in America and qualify for the same Social Security check someone who works a lifetime gets.

Why not keep importing an rotate group of 'immigrant citizens'.  Each can work 10 years, qualify and go home?

Those who are born here work a lifetime and have no money left over to save for retirement.  What little you have Obama wants to take through legislation, fees, and taxation.

In other parts of the world, the Social Security system only pays out what you contribute, plus a small amount of earning.  No Ponzi like system can survive long term.

Social Security funding is at it's end, and it's being made more unstable by 'guest citizens' who only contribute pennies and will reap the same benefits as those who contribute a lifetime.

In America, the dream has been hijacked by illegal aliens and criminals.

my opinions.

[WhiskeyGirl]

What of the professional gamblers?

Those Wall Street players who make impossible deals, and bet against the success of the deal.  Make money on the deal, make money before it implodes, and win even bigger when it fails.

If Wall Street players can predict failure and hedge their bets, why aren't they disclosing this information?

Would Obama let you buy and drive a Toyota, if Obama thought Toyota was selling a car with a faulty engine?  Gas pedal.  One that accelerated suddenly and could not be stopped?  Would Obama just pay Toyota to give you a bandaid?

Would Obama fine Toyota?  Throw someone in jail? 

Why did they put Bernie Madoff in jail exactly?

Why isn't Obama putting some effort into investigating the Wall Street players who gave us the financial meltdown?

I'm thinking these Wall Street players should be of greater interest.  Trillions are wasted, and having to be paid back by Main Street.

Where is Obama?  No interest in holding Wall Street players accountable for their actions?  Trillions in gambling profits?

Crime pays in America.  It just depends on who the criminal is.

No prosperity for Main Street.  No jobs.  No money.  Just the Obama debt that follows the Obama cash and bailouts for special interests.

my opinions.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Four deaths change a long term policy.  How will this affect life in Milwaukee?  I read about more and more of these stories. 

Does ignoring crime and criminals make it go away?  Will it be open season on Americans?

Does ignoring the border with Mexico and illegal aliens make them go away?  Make the drug flow less?  The violence less?

New Policy on Milwaukee Police Chases

By Melissa McCrady and Jay Sorgi

Story Updated: Mar 30, 2010

MILWAUKEE - The chief of police in Milwaukee has changed the policy regarding officer-involved chases.

Since December 31st, four people in three separate incidents were killed fleeing from Milwaukee Police officers.

Chief Ed Flynn released a statement saying, in part, "I have an obligation to my officers, despite the risks they are willing to take, to limit their risk of injury or death, to make sure that the danger represented by the suspect justifies the risk of violent death.  All too often, it clearly does not justify that risk."

That's why he issued this new policy of officers only chasing a vehicle if the suspect committed a violent felony.

Many, including Milwaukee Alderman Bob Donovan, have expressed their disagreement for the policy.

"If you may not have committed a violent felony, just take off. The police won't come after you. That's unfortunate to me. Quite frankly, this is quite a heads-up, probably increasing the number of individuals at least fleeing from the police which can in itself create some dangerous situations."

The union says it will be challenging the policy change.

"It will make it more difficult to police," said Michael Crivello of the Milwaukee Police Association.

"It will offer an opportunity for offender perpetrators to go forth and commit further crimes."

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/89497237.html

After 4 deaths, Milwaukee police pursuit policy changed

By Jesse Garza of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: March 29, 2010 |(46) Comments

Milwaukee police officers must now have probable cause that a violent felony has occurred rather than reasonable suspicion of a serious offense before engaging in vehicle pursuits of suspects.

That new policy, made public Monday, is drawing criticism from the union that represents rank and file officers and the chairman of the Common Council's Public Safety Committee.

Ald. Bob Donovan said the new policy takes discretion away from officers while encouraging criminals to disobey police.

"So now, if a burglary suspect or drug dealer jumps in a vehicle and refuses to stop for a patrol car, he'll be able to take off and get away because the crime was not a violent felony," Donovan said in a statement issued Monday.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/89484172.html

What about rapists?  Abusers? 

from the comments at the JSonline site -

Buzzz - Mar 30, 2010 12:07 AM
That's fine...Just "Shoot to Kill" before the chase...The criminals are not paying the appointed Attorney Fees, and Court Fees, and Proccessing Fee's, and Detective Salaries, and Research Fee's and years of Incarciration...I am. Also, maybe one-less welfare check. Sorry for the pessamistic response, I am overly fustrated as I am Paying my taxes.

Evilpaul2112 - Mar 30, 2010 12:51 AM
There is NO reason not to flee now if you have a gun(s) and/or dope in the car. NO reason not to flee if you are drunk. No reason not to flee if you just committed a burglary. No reason not to flee if you just broke into several cars. NO reason not to flee if you are in a stolen car. NO reason not to flee if you have warrants. NO reason not to flee if you just dont want to be stopped.

In fact, you could simply drive as fast as you want, disregard all the stop lights you want, and as recklessly as you want. Those are not violent felony crimes and the Cops wont(cant) pursue you.

Imagine sitting at a stop light, when a car speeds by the line of cars stopped for the light, in the wrong lane, and through the intersection. If a Cop were sitting there at that light, he could NOT pursue that vehicle according to this policy.

A thug could drive his vehicle next to a squad car, smoking weed, stereo thumping, and a gun in his waistband. Even if the Cop saw all of this, the thug would simply just have to speed away alittle over the speed limit and the Cop would be PROHIBITED from pursuing that car.

This is a STUPID policy. The city of Milwaukee deserves better that this.

Did giving Somali pirates more and more money for decades make the problem go away?

Did they stop being pirates when they were given money?  Nobody shot back?

[WhiskeyGirl]

MsLaw - Mar 30, 2010 7:48 AM
This policy is despicable and puts the entire community at risk. How are the police supposed to apprehend criminals if they are not allowed to pursue them? Only the worst and most violent criminals run from the police, and now those are the criminals that will remain on the streets. Very, very disappointing.

IIRC, ignoring crime is one of those policies favored by those who promote an 'open society'.

Societies without rules, where one and all are encouraged to just do what ever they want, regardless of who they hurt in the process.

my opinions.

[WhiskeyGirl]

The future of America, some people see it already -

La Crosse County domestic dispute leads to police shooting

Posted: March 30, 2010 |(5) Comments

Police in La Crosse County shot a man last night after a woman was stabbed in a domestic dispute, the La Crosse Tribune is reporting.

Law enforcement officers were called to a Town of Hamilton residence after 9 p.m. and found the woman injured and the garage of the home on fire, the paper reports. That's when a man left the house armed with a knife. He lunged at the officers and was shot, the Tribune reports.

more here - http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/89525497.html

From the comments -

JARK924 - Mar 30, 2010 1:39 PM

      If this guy was in Milwaukee, he could've got in his car and bolted while the Police had to sit back and watch not pursuing.

      ...Hail to the Chief!

      JARK924 - Mar 30, 2010 2:50 PM

      Obviously you are a black-belt in the world of sarcasim aren't you?

      ...in case you missed it, yes obviously this would warrent a high speed chase if in fact the perp decided to make a run for it.

      What my point was that the limitations the MPD Chief put on "high speed chase criteria" is absolutely rediculous. Basically giving so called "petty thieves" carte blanche to do whatever they want and laugh as they speed away. Or, how about the basic traffic violations that catch sooo many felons that may have warrents for "VIOLENT CRIMES"?! So, all that a person, that is a suspect in a murder/rape/assult/armed bank robbery/drug dealing, has to do now is take off. How many felons w/ warrents get caught because they have a tail or head light out, or illegal turn, or speeding, that have been caught and taken off the streets? Now all they have to do is take off and the cops can't pursue!!!!!

      jc227 - Mar 30, 2010 2:55 PM
      JARK924 is misinformed on MPD's change in policy for pursuits. Chief Flynn is now requiring that probable cause must exist that a "violent felony" has been committed and you are pursuing the person who committed it. I don't agree with this decision. It's not as bad as Boston's "no pursuit" policy, but if you're going to hire and place trust in police officers to make life and death decisions why take the discretion away with the squads? What's next, a "no shoot" policy stating that the perps must shoot at you first? Yeah, let's let the "non-violent" felony offenders--no such animal (drug dealers, burglars, etc) speed away...or let the people who flee a "routine traffic stop"(no such thing) who are fleeing because they may very well have just committed a violent felony (you don't know what they've until you get them stopped...bodies in trunk, just shot someone???)..yeah, leave them to flee for the next cop to get shot pulling them over or dealing with them somewhere outside the wonderful city of milwaukee...or the next citizen to be a victim, when you could have had them in custody in the first place. The mandatory State law requiring every police agency to have a pursuit policy sets guidlines and guides management's judgement. What is it now, you can't supervise your troops and can't trust them?? Or someone in Milwaukee City government has something on Chief Flynn and is forcing him to do this to advance a LIBERAL agenda....more likely the case.

lccfcc - Mar 30, 2010 10:58 PM

      Weren't three innocent young people killed because of police chases that did NOT net any serious criminals?? And aren't there other means of catching the fleeing drivers "down the road"?

      I trust Chief Flynn. Is it true he has to work with politicians? Sure - and I'd rather have a Chief who can work with politics and not waste his time in posturing and standoffs like some previous chiefs.

      Chief Flynn has made progress on the crime rate. Part of that progress is related to gaining the trust of the law abiding people in the high crime areas. There are two sides to the high speed chase controversy, and no one so far on this comment board has even mentioned the downside of high speed chases in residential or population dense areas.

      I can see both sides of the debate, but my bottom line is that I'd cut this police chief a heckuva lot of slack on policing decisions - and not pay too much attention to grandstanding alderman like bombastic Bob Donovan.

      Lucy Cooper

In some odd way, "Part of that progress is related to gaining the trust of the law abiding people in the high crime areas."  reminds me of Dodd's 'financial reforms'.

Are the reforms repairing/reinstalling the regulations that were 'deregulated' and caused the problems?  Or, just giving the financial casinos new wind?  More steam paid for by taxpayers?

False promises?

Just ignore the problem.  Let the wrongdoers go.  What?  Call them wrongdoers?  Bite your tongue.  We're civilized here in America.  They're not really wrongdoers unless they are apprehended, charged, get a fair and expensive trial supervised by Mr. Holder, and are convicted.

What?  Catch them?  Pursue them?  Hurt innocent people?

We're civilized people.  Just ignore them.  If we give them money, they'll just go away?

They'll come back?  Don't be silly.

Crime pays in America.

my opinions.

[WhiskeyGirl]

I've never seen it explained like this -

Credit Crisis, Outrage, Far From Over

The big bad secret is that if banks and other financial companies reported their true financial positions they’d be out of business – insolvent. The Fed and the SEC are certainly well aware of these problems, but the game goes on. The fraud is intentional and conscience. They know there are two sets of books, that MBS on their books are virtually worthless, they just bought $1.1 trillion worth of the toxic waste and they are well aware that the shadow inventory on their books is at best worth $0.30 on the dollar. In fact, everyone within the beltway knows it, just like seven years ago they all knew Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were broke. As you can see, there is no law; it is only what these people want it to be. Faithfully all regulators and our elected representatives look the other way. They allow corruption to flourish.
 
One thing that can be guaranteed is that if you report any of these frauds nothing is liable to happen.
 
Today that is the American way – crime pays.

more here - http://beforeitsnews.com/news/28582/Credit_Crisis,_Outrage,_Far_From_Over.html

Maybe they use 'financial reform' to create bigger bailouts for special interests?  Keep the financial casino open?

[WhiskeyGirl]

This is an interesting article.

Why does Obama keep the gambling casino on Wall Street open?

Why does Barney want to expand internet gambling?

Why are there call to legalize addictive drugs?

Do any of these thing make society better?  Have a history of making life better on Main Street?

Or, do they lead to financial disaster?  Time after time?

What does history suggest?

Both upper- and middle-class Americans have succumbed to the addictions of predatory capitalism, looking for get-rich-quick schemes made possible by economic bubbles that burst with increasing regularity, wiping out many small investors and leaving the taxpayers to clean up the mess.

For Americans who didn’t have the wealth to get into the big-money Wall Street casinos, there were lower-end addictions: entertainment, gambling, shopping, drugs (both legal and illegal), sports and religious fundamentalism.

And besides the many millions of victims inside America, there also were the tens of millions of people around the world who suffered from U.S. military interventions and the greedy exploiters whose interests invariably got protected – in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East.

The hundreds of billions of American tax dollars wasted annually for war, war preparations and the massive, endless costs of the physical and mental health care that are needed by the combat-traumatized veterans is money that is then unavailable for programs of "social uplift," including hunger relief, poverty reduction, affordable housing, education, health care and meaningful jobs.

The federal debt reached a crippling $7 trillion during George W. Bush’s open-ended wars of the past decade, and that was before the economic crash of 2008, which pushed the debt to $12 trillion. This unsustainable debt obligation will make social projects worth paying for unaffordable in the future.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street financiers and members of the investor class still profit handsomely from war – partly because federal borrowing to pay for war pays interest mostly to the upper classes (and foreign investors) – but the extravagant bill will eventually have to be paid back by the taxpayers, or at least by their children and grandchildren.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/033010a.html

Who does Obama turn a blind eye to the global financial casino and it's special interest groups?

Who does Obama work for?  Wall Street?  Special interests?