Monday, December 28, 2015

Muslim ‘rapes and tortures co-worker for 5 days to make her convert’

ByPAMELA GELLER on December 27, 2015

THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM 

18 Comments

    

Another moderate “misunderstanding” the supremacism of Islam.

A 30-year-old Muslim systems engineer was arrested in India and charged with kidnapping and rape after he abducted a former colleague and held her for five days to force her to convert to Islam and marry him.

“Techie held for ‘confining, sexually assaulting’ ex-colleague in Hyderabad,” Indian Express, December 23, 2015, (thanks to Farhana):
Hyderabad Police found the 27-year-old woman, in shock and with bruises, at a flat in Tolichowki area

A 30-year-old systems engineer was arrested for allegedly confining and sexually assaulting a former colleague, who he wanted to marry against her wishes, police said on Tuesday.

Hyderabad Police found the 27-year-old woman, in shock and with bruises, at a flat in Tolichowki area here. The police raided the flat after she managed to send an SMS and posted an SOS on social media, alerting her friends about the situation.

Officers at Humayunagar police station said Syed Emad Hasan physically and sexually assaulted the woman for five days to force her to convert to Islam and marry him.

Hasan, from Aligarh, did his BTech from Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad, and started working at an MNC. In June, the woman, who had completed a chartered accountancy course, joined the company as an intern. They became friends, and Hasan soon proposed to her, the police said. The woman refused.

In August, the woman left the company and moved to Dubai, where she got another job. However, Hasan allegedly started pestering her, insisting she talk to him every night over Skype. “The woman told us she was forced to talk to Hasan as he showed her photos and videos of them together in Hyderabad, and threatened to send them to her father. He also demanded that she send inappropriate photos of her,” Inspector S Ravinder said.

Unable to deal with the threats, the woman reportedly decided to go to Hyderabad and ask Hasan to give her the photos and videos. He promised to do so if she met him, the police said.

On December 14, Hasan picked her up from Hyderabad airport. “He took her to the flat in Al-Hasanath colony and confined her. He took three days’ leave and brutalised and sexually assaulted her. He threatened to continue doing so until she agreed to marry him after converting to Islam. He even threatened to set her on fire and strangle her,” an officer of the Hyderabad ‘She Team’ said.

“On December 20, the woman managed to use Hasan’s phone to send a text message to her friends, and used his laptop to post an SOS on social media. Her friends then alerted her brother, who informed the police. We found her in the bathroom with injuries on her head and body. She was scared and in shock, but managed to narrate her ordeal. Hasan said they were lovers, but the woman appears very scared in his presence,’’ the official said. Photos and videos of the woman were found on his mobile phone and laptop.

$6 million bill for Obama's Africa trip, $22,759 for copiers, $6,026 for 'basic phones'

By PAUL BEDARD • 7/28/15 5:22 PM

Obama in Africa

Inform

00:00 / 01:08

President Obama's five-day tour of Kenya and Ethiopia cost taxpayers $5.99 million in airfare alone and ties him for the most traveled president with Bill Clinton, according to a newNational Taxpayers Union Foundation analysis.

The report -- "Still Up in the Air: The Uncertain Costs of Presidential Travel Abroad" -- provided to Secrets shows that Obama and Clinton made 41 international trips by their seventh year as president. France and Mexico have been Obama's top destinations, with five visits each -- one more than his four visits to the troops in Afghanistan.

The taxpayer watchdog group determined that Obama's trip from Joint Base Andrews to Nairobi, Kenya, then to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia then home today has a total flight time of 29 hours.

President Obama in Ethiopia. AP Photo

The Air Force recently told Judicial Watch that it cost $206,337 an hour to fly Air Force One, putting the price just for Obama's jet at $5,983,773, said NTUF. Not included are the many millions more for lodging, security, communications and the prepositioning of cars, vans and aircraft for the president.

Study author and policy analyst Michael Tasselmyersaid, "While flight costs can be estimated, the rest of the expenses associated with travel, including security, lodging, food, and more, not just for the president and Air Force One, but additional staff and airplanes, remains opaque."

For example, Clinton once took over 500 staffers with him on a trip to China, but those costs were never made public.

Tasselmyer added: "Where in the world is Barack Obama remains the easy question, the difficult question for taxpayers is: What in the world is the cost of the travel?"

The USASpending.gov website, however, did reveal some expenditures:

-- $22,759 for copiers in Ethiopia.

Obama Announces US Taxpayers Will Be Sending $1 BILLION to Kenya

[Video]

JUL 27, 2015by ADMINin DIASPORA

And the Kenyan crowds went wild for Obama’s wealth redistribution of hard-earned American dollars! Yeah!! America is flat ass broke and Obama is giving the Kenyans $1 billion dollars – who does he think he is? Dr. Evil? He’s over there schmoozing with his Islamic relatives, promising them everything we have. He’s soooo concerned about their economy and their young people… what about ours? I consider this Daily Mail piece to be absolute propaganda for Obama. It drips it. Marxism doesn’t lift people out of poverty. It entrenches poverty and want. Look at what has happened here in the States. He’s right about one thing… Africa is one of the fastest growing regions in the world – for terrorism and the Caliphate. Yeah, I can just see Islamists putting down their machetes, so they can go into business for themselves. What Marxist tripe.

From the Daily Mail:

President Barack Obama said his mission to encourage growth in Africa is a personal one while speaking at a business summit in Kenya designed to help supercharge the region’s economy.

Obama, whose father was Kenyan and has dozens of relatives in the country, hailed a ‘continent on the move’ which is lifting its citizens ‘out of poverty’ in a speech Saturday at a business event.

The President is trying to encourage investors to support African nations like Kenya, and has brought a contingent of more than 200 U.S. investors with him, whom he hopes will make commitments to the region.

His address to the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in Nairobi, Kenya’s capital, follows a family reunion last night where he met dozens of his relatives in an upscale city hotel.

He told his audience: ‘This is personal for me. There’s a reason why my name is Barack Hussein Obama. My father came from these parts.’

Talking up the region’s expanding economy, he said: ‘Africa is one of the fastest-growing regions of the world. People are being lifted out of poverty… What happens in Africa is going to affect the world.’

He later expanded on his ideas, saying new business in Africa can offer hope to young people in the continent, parts of which continue to be ravaged by war, famine and extremism.

He said: ‘Entrepreneurship offers a positive alternative to the ideologies of violence and division that can all too often fill the void when young people don’t see a future for themselves.’

Obama also spoke of his optimism for the country last night, posting a tweet from his personal account.

It said: ‘Proud to be the first American President to visit Kenya. Happy to see family, and to talk with young Kenyans about the future.’

Kenyans themselves have responded to the president with an enthusiasm which at least equals his.

Banners and billboards sporting the President’s face sprung up around Nairobi ahead of the visit, while thousands of eager fans waved American flags and painted their faces while getting as close as they could to the Presidential motorcade amid intense security.

In Kogelo, the hometown and place of burial of Barack Obama Snr, Obama has two schools named in his honor, dedicated when he was still an Illinois senator.

Kogelo locals named the Senator Obama Kogelo Primary School and Senator Obama Kogelo Secondary School in his honor when he visited in 2006.

Since then the enthusiasm for the President, whom locals consider their native son, has surged, with many children being named for him.

[…]

Obama also used his appearance at the business summit to announce more than $1billion in new commitments from the U.S. government, as well as American banks, foundations and philanthropists.

Half of the money will go to support women and young people, who Obama says face bigger obstacles when trying to start businesses.

‘If half of your team is not playing, you’ve got a problem,’ Obama said, referring to women excluded from the formal economy.

Obama hosted the inaugural entrepreneurship summit at the White House in 2010. This year’s conference is the first to be held in sub-Saharan Africa.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who co-hosted the summit, said that he hoped Obama’s visit would help change his nation’s image, which has been tainted by security issues – most notably a 2013 terrorist attack by Al-Shabaab militants on an upscale mall in Nairobi.

Kenyatta said: ‘Africa is the world’s newest and most promising frontier of limitless opportunity. Gone are the days when the only lens to view our continent was one of despair and indignity.’

While in Nairobi, Obama toured an innovation fair highlighting the work of vendors working with his Power Africa initiative, which aims to double sub-Saharan access to electricity.

The President also visited a memorial at the site of the 1998 bombing of the city’s U.S. embassy, which killed more than 200 people.


And please spare me the awful joke that Obama was honoring the twelve Americans killed in the Nairobi Embassy Bombing. He might have been honoring his fellow Kenyans, although I suspect it was just another political photo-op for the panderer-in-chief. Here’s an idea, since Obama loves Kenya so much and they love him back, why doesn’t he move there and run for office? I know America would breathe a collective sigh of relief. In reality, he’s much more likely to get a spanking new office at the UN though. Better to oversee worldwide destruction and chaos. By the way, as he’s pandering to women there, he knows that is ridiculous. Women in Islam are considered less than men, which he never even mentions.

Donald Trump slams Virginia GOP for loyalty oath

www.cbsnews.com

Last Updated Dec 27, 2015 9:42 PM EST

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump went on a Twitter tirade Sunday after learning that voters wishing to cast a ballot in the Virginia Republican presidential primary will have to sign an oath affirming they are a member of the party.

It begins, Republican Party of Virginia, controlled by the RNC, is working hard to disallow independent, unaffiliated and new voters. BAD!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)December 27, 2015

R.P.Virginia has lost statewide 7 times in a row. Will now not allow desperately needed new voters. Suicidal mistake. RNC MUST ACT NOW!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)December 27, 2015

The voters the Republican Party of Virginia are excluding will doom any chance of victory. The Dems LOVE IT! Be smart and win for a change!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)December 27, 2015

Straighten out The Republican Party of Virginia before it is too late. Stupid! RNC

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)December 27, 2015

Trump's frustration likely stems from the fact that he performs especially well among voters who have not declared a party affiliation. In a recent survey by American Research Group, for example, he got the support of 15 percent of registered Republicans in New Hampshire, but 29 percent of those who were not registered with either political party.

Virginia voters are not required to register with a particular party, but with the approval of the State Board of Elections, the Republican Party will be able to ask primary voters to sign a party oath.

The state GOP considered a loyalty oath for the 2011 presidential primary. That pledge would have required voters to promise they intended to support the party's nominee during the general election. State Republicans ultimatelyscrapped the plan after it came under heavy criticism.

Trump has publicly flirted with the idea of mounting a third-party bid if he feels the Republican Party is treating him unfairly. At the last GOP debate earlier this month, however, he said he "really" is ready to commit to not running as an independent.

"I've gained great respect for the Republican leadership...[and] the people on the dais," he said.

COMMENTS

The GOP's New Hampshire nightmare

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


www.politico.com
BERLIN, N.H. — Chris Christie is mocking Marco Rubio for not showing up. An hour’s drive up the road, Jeb Bush is hammering away at Donald Trump — oh, and there he goes attacking Christie, too. Just a few blocks up the road, Rubio is quietly lashing Ted Cruz, reminding the people at his town hall that “some Republicans” voted to cut defense spending.
Welcome to New Hampshire, where the fight for the establishment lane of the GOP presidential primary is turning into a circular firing squad.
As the year winds down, four Republicans have crisscrossed the state, pointing their attacks in all directions. And with less than 50 days until the first-in-the-nation primary, it’s only going to get worse.
Forget Iowa, which Cruz appears to be locking up. It's New Hampshire that will cull this field. And with Christie, Bush and John Kasich making the Granite State the singular focus of their campaigns, and Rubio, should he lose Iowa, needing a top-tier finish, the fight to be the mainstream alternative to Cruz or Trump could end here.
“At the beginning of the year, we seemed to have an embarrassment of riches, and I thought it was a sign of strength of the party. And then Trump gets in and all of the sudden that strength has worked itself into something of a weakness,” said Drew Cline, the former editorial page editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader, the state’s biggest newspaper. “He has left all of the candidates in his shadow for months. And it’s trickier for a Trump alternative to emerge when the field is just so crowded.”
If Trump wins the Feb. 9 primary a week after Cruz wins Iowa, only one or two candidates finishing behind him will likely have the momentum to carry on. If four or even five candidates split the vote of an establishment electorate that never coalesces behind one standard-bearer, there may be only hollow victories to declare on primary night because none will have the firepower to challenge Cruz or Trump in South Carolina.
Just ask Cruz; he’s counting on it.
“Marco is perceived by many to be the most formidable candidate in the moderate lane. But he has serious competition in the moderate lane. Look, the winner of the moderate lane has to win New Hampshire,” the Texas senator said in a wide-ranging interview with National Review about his political strategy last week. “And at this point it is not clear to me who will win.”
A new poll of 500 likely New Hampshire Republican-primary voters, conducted by Tel Opinion Research and first reported Tuesday by POLITICO, underscores how competitive the state is: Trump leads with 24 percent, followed by Cruz at 16 percent, Rubio at 14 percent, Christie at 13 percent and Bush at 9 percent. Kasich didn’t even merit a stand-alone mention in that survey, getting grouped instead into “other.”
According to the Real Clear Politics polling average of New Hampshire polling, Trump stands first (26.5 percent) followed by Rubio (12.8 percent) and Christie (11.5 percent). Kasich and Bush both sit south of 10 percent.
“The race is absolutely wide open,” said Steve Duprey, New Hampshire’s Republican National Committee committeeman, who is neutral in the primary. “In some ways, Donald Trump leading is very legitimate. He’s done the best job of capturing people’s anger with a government that doesn’t work. But I’m now seeing voters saying we want details on these issues.”
Another important takeaway from the Tel Opinion poll’s cross-tabs is that Rubio has the best shot of winning New Hampshire in a narrower field. In a three-way GOP race, Trump’s support ticks up to 30 percent, Rubio's jumps to 28 percent — doubling his numbers — and Cruz’s support grows by 10 percentage points, to 26 percent.
“If the establishment coalesces, that can put someone else in the top tier,” said Tom Rath, a longtime GOP operative in New Hampshire who is backing Kasich. “But, that’s a big if.”
Indeed, New Hampshire is in fact quite far from uniting behind one more mainstream candidate to take on Cruz and Trump, if the polling is to be believed.
Cline, who has endorsed Rubio, says he thinks the Florida senator and Christie, buoyed by late-year momentum, have the best shot to consolidate establishment support in the state. “I think there’s a real opportunity for one of them to emerge as the strong alternative to Trump,” he said. “Especially, if Cruz just blows off New Hampshire and focuses on Iowa, it helps one of those two become that strong alternative to Trump.”
But Rubio has been reluctant to prioritize any one early-voting state, concerning his big-dollar donors. He went on a three-day swing across New Hampshire before Christmas but, to date, he has been made just 44 stops here this presidential cycle — a point his rivals are eagerly highlighting for New Hampshire voters as the year races to a close.
“We’ve been looking for Marco, but we can’t find him,” Christie said Monday. “We’ve had the bus all over New Hampshire. We haven’t been able to find him.” Bush, too, has bragged of late that he plans to outwork his rivals in a state that has long rewarded candidates who exhaust themselves in the rigors of retail politics: answering all the questions, shaking all the hands, taking all the selfies.
But all that bluster from Bush and Christie about how they’re working four times harder merits a question about why they’re not polling four times better than Rubio. He is still running slightly ahead of or even with Christie (131 stops in New Hampshire), Bush (71 stops) and Kasich (108 stops).
While he plans to increase the number of town halls and retail stops here, Rubio has positioned himself as a top-tier candidate largely through his success in nationally televised debates and interviews. His supporters, recognizing that as many conversations take place these days in the virtual communities of Twitter, Facebook and Instagram as elsewhere, work hard to spread positive items across their social networks.
But that might mean nothing in New Hampshire, where voters, infamously, don’t commit until days, perhaps moments, before primary election day. Four years ago, 46 percent of voters decided on a candidate in the final days before the primary — a figure that could be even higher this year.
“A lot of people in New Hampshire were tuned to the last debate,” said Jody Nelson, the Derry GOP vice chairwoman and a Rubio backer. “Rubio and Cruz dominated that debate, and we’ve seen their support go up here. People are smart enough to see Christie’s all in in New Hampshire, but we also wonder what he has in other states. Cruz and Rubio aren’t here all the time, but they are investing time. ... We know we need to pick a candidate who can win the nomination and beat Hillary Clinton, not just camp out in New Hampshire.”
After Rubio’s town hall Tuesday, a number of the people who waited in line to shake his hand indicated that they were leaning toward supporting him but that they planned to take a bit longer to make up their minds.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has positioned himself as a leading candidate largely on the strength of his performances in nationally televised debates. | Getty
“There’s so many choices, that’s part of the problem,” said Paul Graney, who came to see Rubio with his wife and planned to attend Bush’s town hall a mile up the street later that afternoon.
Diane Taupier, who also took advantage of the two candidates being in her small town on the same day, is torn among Rubio, Cruz and Bush and planning to take her time. “I prefer waiting to get as much information as possible.”
Bush, after underperforming for months, maintains a financial advantage and is fighting on multiple fronts to regain a foothold in the race. The former Florida governor has asserted himself as the one Republican candidate willing to stand up to Trump. And last week, he began, however tentatively, to sharpen the contrast between himself and Christie, who has leveraged the Union Leader’s endorsement into broader support.
First in an interview and later with a group of reporters, Bush emphasized his record of having had Florida’s bond rating upgraded to AAA on his watch, in contrast with New Jersey’s, which has fallen under Christie. After asserting that he is “the most conservative, reform-minded candidate” among the governors or former governors still in the race, Bush was asked point-blank whether Christie’s record stacked up to his. “No,” he said, as his voice lowered significantly. “He has not had the level of success of being a conservative governor implementing conservative policies.”
Bush has steered clear of attacking Rubio since late October, when his botched criticism of his former protégé in the third GOP debate sent his campaign into a downward spiral. But the Florida senator continues to take heat from Christie, Cruz and Rand Paul. While his campaign engages in an intense back-and-forth on policy, Rubio often makes it through his hourlong town halls without mentioning a single Republican rival by name.
That’s partly because Rubio doesn’t want to be grouped with the lower-polling mainstreamers. In fact, he’s spent considerable time in December sparring not with Bush or Kasich but with Cruz, seeing the contest not as one of conservative vs. moderate but old vs. new.
“We are being asked to do what every generation before us did,” Rubio said here last week. “The people who came before us did what they had to do —they confronted their challenges and embraced their opportunities.
“Now it’s time for us."
Eli Stokols is a national politics reporter.
COMMENTS

Webb blasts Hillary for ‘inept leadership’ on Libya

thehill.com

Former Democratic presidential candidate Jim Webb is accusing his party’s front-runner for her “inept leadership” in Libya as secretary of State.

“Hillary Clinton should be called to account for her inept leadership that brought about the chaos in Libya, and the power vacuums that resulted in the rest of the region,” Webb wrote in a Facebookpost Saturday.

Webb said Clinton has tried to frame the situation in Libya as a successful point in her tenure at the helm of the State Department.

But he said the removal of former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi has only destabilized the region, giving rise to radical Islamic terrorism and fanning the flames of the Syrian civil war.

“The predictable chaos was bad enough, but it also helped bring about the disaster in Syria,” he said.

“While she held that office, the U.S. spent about $2 billion backing the Libyan uprising against Qaddafi,” he continued. “The uprising, which was part of the Arab Spring, led directly to Qaddafi being removed from power and killed by rebel forces in 2011. Now some 2,000 ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and Syria] terrorists have established a foothold in Libya.

“Who is taking her to task for this?”

The former U.S. senator from Virginiadropped out of the Democratic primary race in October, but said he would still consider running as an independent.

COMMENTS

Friday, December 25, 2015

Lies, damned lies, and Obama’s deportation statistics

By Anna O. Law April 21, 2014


CALEXICO, CA – NOVEMBER 15: A U.S. Border Patrol agent looks for tracks along the U.S.-Mexico border fence on November 15, 2013 in Calexico, California. The fence separates the large Mexican city of Mexicali with Calexico, CA, and is a frequent illegal crossing point for immigrant smugglers. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Obama’s Deportation Statistics

This is a guest post from Anna O. Law, the Herbert Kurz Associate Professor of  Constitutional Law and Civil Liberties at CUNY Brooklyn College. She is the author ofThe Immigration Battle in American Courts.

What is the trend in deportation of immigrants under the Obama administration? This seemingly simple question is proving very hard to answer. Consider three characterizations from recent media reports. Here is The Economistin February 2014:

America is expelling illegal immigrants at nine times the rate of 20 years ago; nearly 2m so far under Barack Obama, easily outpacing any previous president.


In April, the Los Angeles Times wrote:

A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data. Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.


And last week, Julia Preston of the New York Times reported that in the fiscal year 2013, the immigration courts saw a 26 percent drop in the number of people who have been deported, thereby producing:

… a different picture of President Obama’s enforcement policies than the one painted by many immigrant advocates, who have assailed the president as the ‘deporter in chief’ and accused him of rushing to reach a record of 2 million deportations. While Obama has deported more foreigners than any other president, the pace of deportations has recently declined.


Somehow, the Obama administration is simultaneously responsible for the highest rate of deportation in 20 years and a 26 percent drop in deportation. What is going on here? As it turns out, changes in immigration law, terminology and classification are causing this confusion.

One problem is the continued use of “deportation” in virtually all media reporting. In actuality, that category has been obsolete in immigration law since 1996. Prior to 1996, immigration law distinguished between immigrants who were “excluded,” or stopped and prevented from entering U.S. territory, and those who were “deported,” or expelled from the United States after they had made their way into U.S. territory. After 1996, both exclusion and deportation were rolled into one procedure called “removal.” At that point, the term “deportation” no longer had any meaning within the official immigration statistics. Its continued use in media reports is part of the confusion.

The large number of immigrants who are apprehended, usually but not exclusively along the southwestern border, and prevented from entering the country were part of a category called “voluntary departure” before 2006. Now that is called “return,” which also includes the subcategory of  “reinstatement.”  There is also a large category of “expedited removals” of persons that do not appear before an immigration judge but the procedure carries all the sanctions as a judge ordered removal.

These would-be immigrants accept this sanction that forgoes a court appearance before an immigration judge because formal removal — in which the U.S. government runs them through legal proceedings and pays for their return to their home country — would result in a multi-year bar (five to 20 years) on their eligibility to legally reenter the United States. Critics deride this policy “as catch and release.” The consequences of a return are much less harsh than a formal removal because the returned immigrant could come back legally, and presumably illegally, at any time.

Thus, comparing the deportation statistics across different presidential administrations is dicey because it is unclear what categories of people are actually being counted and categorized. Moreover, different administrations choose to emphasize different statistics. Dara Lindnotes that the Bush administration seems to have reported removals and returns together, but Obama’s administration has emphasized only its number of removals.

Meanwhile, many media reports continue to use the term “deportation” when they mean either return or removal or some subset of those. The Department of Homeland Security that issues official statistics must now try to retrofit new legal categories to old data, and even it cannot excise the term deportation altogether because pre-1996, there were, in fact, deportations.

Confusion about terminology helps explain the conflicting accounts cited above.  The aforementioned New York Times article focuses on return numbers. But the Economist is also right, because if you combine the Obama’s return and removal numbers, he is well over the controversial 2 million mark.

This confusion enables political spin, too. If you want to portray Obama as weak on enforcement, use the removal numbers, which, compared to his predecessors, are lower. If you want to make Obama look tougher on enforcement, combine the return and removal numbers (like George W. Bush apparently did) or use the now meaningless “deportation”; both moves would conflate return and removal — and boost the overall number of expulsions. 

But don’t expect these nuances to make it into political discourse anytime soon.  Way back in 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit described immigration law as “second in complexity only to the internal revenue code.” It would appear little has changed.

CORRECTION: The original post claimed that Obama had de-emphasized removals and concentrated on returns and that the ratio of his removals to returns was skewed toward returns compared to his predecessors.  That claim is not correct because based on DHS’s data, (Table 39:  Aliens Removed and Returned, FY 1892-2012)  his cumulative numbers since taking office show Obama has removed a total of 1,974,688 people and returned 1,609,055 others.  There have been more returns than removals only in FY 2009 and 2010.  Moreover, comparing across administrations is not wise given the changes in law and counting procedures.