Two days before leaving office, Barack Obama commuted Oscar López Rivera’s 70-year jail sentence unconditionally, along with 208 other grants of commutation.

Oscar López Rivera was a founding member of the Marxist Puerto Rican nationalist terror group FALN (Frente Armado de Liberación Nacional). The FALN was the most organized, active, well-trained and deadly domestic terror group based in the United States, leaving six dead and hundreds wounded in over 130 attacks.

The New York Times describes:

The F.A.L.N., which waged a violent campaign for the independence of Puerto Rico, was considered by the authorities to be among the most elusive and resilient terrorist groups to operate in the United States. Among its notable attacks was a bombing at Fraunces Tavern in New York in 1975 that killed four people.

The group was known for its tight-knit membership, fanatical zeal and hit-and-run tactics, as exemplified by the bombings of four government buildings in Manhattan and Brooklyn on New Year’s Eve in 1982 that seriously wounded three police officers.

López Rivera used his own apartment as a bomb-making facility.

He was sentenced to 55 years for seditious conspiracy, interstate transportation of firearms and explosives with intent to kill and injure people, vehicle theft, and other charges in 1981. In 1988 was sentenced to an additional 15 years for conspiring to escape from the Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, prison.

The escape attempts were not the Shawshank Redemption:

In one of two failed attempts to escape, he conspired with others inside and outside his prison to kill his way to freedom, attempting to procure grenades, rifles, plastic explosives, bulletproof vests, blasting caps, and armor-piercing bullets. After the FBI thwarted this plan, another 15 years was added to Lopez’s original 55-year sentence

Bill Clinton offered him clemency in 1999 (in a move that was engineered by then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder), but he turned it down since it did not include all FALN members serving jail terms at that time.

Among Lopez Rivera’s numerous victims was Angel Poggi, a young NYPD officer of Puerto Rican descent who was severely maimed during the FALN’s first attack, in December 1974 – his first day on the job.

López Rivera remains unrepentant.

Under Obama’s commutation order, Lopez Rivera’s prison sentence expires on May 17.

López Rivera will be welcome with open arms by Hamilton‘s creator,

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

and by NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio and City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito (the @MMViverito in the above tweet).

Next on the agenda,

Officials last week announced plans to honor unrepentant terrorist leader Oscar Lopez Rivera as their first ever “National Freedom Hero” at this year’s National Puerto Rican Day Parade on June 11.

As a woman born and raised in Puerto Rico, I am profoundly insulted by this exultation of a Marxist terrorist whose every action has been inimical to freedom. Indeed, as Steven Hayward reminds us of Bryan Burrough’s excellent book, Days of Rage: America’s Radical Underground, the FBI, and the Forgotten Age of Revolutionary Violence,

In his invaluable history of the maniacal leftist terrorism of the 1970s, Bryan Burrough frankly characterizes FALN leader Oscar López Rivera as “the man behind the deadliest bombing campaign of the era.” That’s quite a distinction.

López Rivera is no hero to anyone who loves freedom.

UPDATE
Linked to by The Other McCain. Thank you!

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes in U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog.

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Quoted by Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas

I have never heard of a law that attempted to restrict one’s “right to define” certain concepts; and if the passage calls into question the government’s power to regulate actions based on one’s self-defined “concept of existence, etc.,” it is the passage that ate the rule of law.

Justice Antonin Scalia, Lawrence v. Texas (dissenting)

I have long thought that this exchange from the Lawrence v. Texas case perfectly summarizes the difference between liberal and conservative judicial philosophies. We can see this being played out almost daily in the ongoing saga of how the law should treat “transgender” people. According to Justices O’Connor and Kennedy, “the right to define one’s own concept of existence” – presumably including the right to define one’s gender, regardless of biological reality – is “at the heart of liberty.” So, when the first transgender case comes before SCOTUS, it is clear that Justice Kennedy (unless, God willing, he retires first) will rule that a man who thinks he’s a woman has the “right” to shower in front of women and girls.

On the other hand, Justice Scalia’s view, which I hope is shared by a majority of the court, is that there is no law that restricts a man’s right to believe he is a woman, but that this belief has no bearing on the government’s power to regulate actions, such as prohibiting a biological male from using the women’s locker room or bathroom. The rule of law clearly requires that laws be self-consistent and have a logical limiting principle. Otherwise, no one would know what the law is, and worse, a person could be found in violation of a subjective law based on someone else’s opinion rather than on his own actions.

So, in order to maintain the rule of law, there must be some objective definition of “man” or “woman.” Having rejected the scientific definition of “man” (an X and a Y chromosome) and “woman” (XX chromosomes), liberals must scramble for an alternate definition. They seem to have settled on the fact that a man who feels more comfortable dressing and acting “like a woman” is really a woman, and vice versa. But these are the same people who have argued for years that men and women are “equal” (i.e. “the same”) and that gender roles are “socially constructed.” How can that be?

The answer is that liberals are perfectly comfortable “eating the rule of law” as long as they get to punish those who disagree with them.

Yesterday I was having a late lunch with my oldest and wondering what I would write about today, then I got home and saw this:

President Trump has fired the director of the F.B.I., James B. Comey, over his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails, the White House said Tuesday.

HotAir expands on this:

Comey has had a strange ride in Washington. When he was investigating Hillary Clinton’s emails, conservatives hoped he would be the person to finally hold a Clinton responsible for misbehavior. When he announced there would be no charges, progressives praised him and conservatives were furious he had balked. Then when he sent the letter last October and Hillary subsequently lost the election, he became every progressive’s most-hated-man-in-Washington again. In the end, this gaffe proved to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was apparently too much for the Trump administration to take.

The gaffe they are referring to are reports that his testimony before congress concerning Hillary’s emails was less that accurate:

But were the original claims about the extent of Huma’s document dispersion accurate? I ran across an interesting piece at Propublica which claims that their investigations, including reports from unnamed sources “close to the investigation” revealed that Comey’s comments were “inaccurate” and the real numbers would be shown to be far lower. Can that be real? It may all come down to semantics.

The problem: Much of what Comey said about this was inaccurate. Now the FBI is trying to figure out what to do about it.

FBI officials have privately acknowledged that Comey misstated what Abedin did and what the FBI investigators found. On Monday, the FBI was said to be preparing to correct the record by sending a letter to Congress later this week. But that plan now appears on hold, with the bureau undecided about what to do.

Wow! If this is true then it’s a real bombshell they’ve got on their hands.

Well given the animus of the left toward Mr. Comey you would think this would be the cause of unmitigated joy

Or not

And it’s reached the point where members of congress are calling for a special prosecutor:

For myself I’m indifferent, I never cared for Comey and I won’t be crying any tears for him but it just seems like just two days ago when the left was attacking James Comey and Hillary was blaming him for her defeat and now the left has decided that removing the man they considered public enemy number one is practically grounds for impeachment. Perhaps this is similar to their argument against Trump Executive Order in court where they claim the same text if offered by a President Clinton would be legal. This suggests that when it comes down to it, the only standard the Democrat have is: “Can we uses this for our political advantage at this moment?” That’s quite a double standard but of course if the left didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.

I’ll give the last words to Ed Morrissey and Jim Treacher:


All of this is paid for by you. If you think this site and our writers are worthwhile goal consider subscribing and become (if you wish) a listed as a Friend of DaTechguy blog

Remember all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



And of course if you want to give a one shot hit (and help pay DaWife’s medical bills) you can hit DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

If you are not in the position to kick in your funds we’ll always accept your prayers.