Citing politics, sanctuary cities and CRIME, there’s an EXODUS out of California

(National SentinelUnsustainable: In the past few years more people are leaving many California cities than coming, despite the lure of good-paying high-tech jobs and other opportunities.

There are a number of reasons for the net outflow of California’s residents, but the principal causes are the high cost of housing, illegal immigrant crime, and the state’s far-Left politics.

“I loved it here when I first got here. I really loved it here. But it’s just not the same,” Carole Dabak, a retired engineer who’s lived in San Jose for 40 years, told local station KPIX.

She’s preparing to sell her home for about $1 million then buy a bigger home for less than half the price near Nashville, Tenn., where she has family and will retire.

Dabek cites crowding, crime, and politics as the reasons for her own exodus.

“We don’t like it here anymore. You know, we don’t like this sanctuary state status and just the politics here,” she said.

KPIX describes the outflow of people as a “mass exodus.”

Russell Hancock of Joint Venture Silicon Valley said, “Silicon Valley has been this place that is growing. And it was mostly growing because…people relocating here and relocating from other parts of the world. That’s changing.”

The company’s own survey found that people are moving to Sacramento, Austin and Portland, Oregon.

“You can’t even contemplate getting into the housing market here,” Hancock said. “And I don’t mean just service workers, I mean highly skilled professionals. The tech elite are having a hard time affording reasonable housing in Silicon Valley. So this is difficult, this makes it very difficult for employers trying to recruit.”

KPIX reported that nationwide the biggest migration centers are Phoenix, Las Vegas, Atlanta, and Nashville.

Others who have left California have cited the state’s high taxes and growing number of homeless people living in the streets.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Calif. court rules cake maker does NOT have to make wedding cake for gay couple

(National SentinelFirst Amendment: A California judge has ruled in favor of a cake maker who refused to bake a personalized wedding cake for a gay couple, citing a conflict with her Christian religious beliefs.

Superior Court Judge David Lampe denied the State of California’s request for a preliminary injunction that sought to force bakeshop owner Cathy Miller, The Daily Caller reported.

“For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment,” Lampe ruled.

The initial injunction also threatened that if Miller refused to bake the cake, the state would close her Tastries Bakery shop altogether.

“We are pleased that the judge recognized that the First Amendment protects Cathy’s freedom of speech,” chief counsel and Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF) president, Charles LiMandri, said after the ruling, according to a press release.

LiMandri had argued in Friday’s case that Miller does not discriminate against same-sex couples, but that she can’t use her artistic skills to help them celebrate marriage, which violates her closely-held Christian religious values.

“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law,” LiMandri said. “No doubt the California officials will continue their persecution of Cathy, but it is clear that she has the Constitution on her side.”

The case arose from a discrimination complaint filed with state authorities against Miller after she declined their wedding cake request.

The cake baking incident comes after the Supreme Court announced in June that it would hear a similar case that occurred in 2012. There, a Christian baker refused to make a personalized wedding cake for a gay couple.

Lower courts ruled that the baker, Jack Phillips, had violated the state’s accommodation laws by refusing a customer based on sexual orientation.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

California Dems NEXT big worry is thanks to TRUMP, GOP

(National SentinelExodus: California Democrats are worried about what they think will turn into a mass exodus of wealthy people from the state thanks in large part to the Republican tax reform legislation President Donald J. Trump signed last month.

As part of the tax reform measure, the law limits the amount of deductions wealthy Californians can take off their federal taxes, including limits on property taxes, which are high in the Golden State.

“People with higher incomes pay a lot more money, and some of them may be tempted to leave,” Gov. Jerry Brown said when he unveiled his 2018-19 budget proposal last week. “This was an assault by the Republicans in Congress against California.”

Republicans denied that, saying that the reform measure, instead, should force Democrats and their voters to reconsider the effects of higher taxation.

Already California Democrats are looking for ways to circumvent the new federal tax law. Senate President pro tem Kevin de León authored legislation that will allow state residents to take their state property taxes off of their federal taxes by listing them as charitable contributions.

It’s already cleared committees and is headed for a vote on the Senate floor.

The Trump IRS, however, said that won’t pass legal muster.

Notes the Sacramento Bee:

Democratic state lawmakers are worried because California relies so heavily on the income taxes it collects from high earners to fund government services. The state’s wealthiest 1 percent, for instance, pay 48 percent of its income tax, and the departure of just a few families could lead to a noticeable hit to state general fund revenue.

“It is a genuine concern and that’s why the legislatures in high-tax states are swinging into action immediately,” Katie Pratt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in taxes, told the paper.

“The new tax law is kind of like icing on the cake for some who were thinking about moving out of the state,” said Fiona Ma, a Democrat on the tax-collecting Board of Equalization who is running for state treasurer. “If they don’t have to stay here because of work or family, it doesn’t give them a lot of incentive.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Trump admin planning BIGGEST roundup of ILLEGAL aliens in DECADES in ‘sanctuary state’ of California

(National SentinelLaw Enforcement: The Trump administration is planning to send hundreds of immigration agents to California as part of a massive operation to locate and deport people in the country illegally.

As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the “massive sweep” is intended to send a message to the state and other “sanctuary cities” that the administration is serious about enforcing federal immigration laws.

“U.S. immigration officials have begun preparing for a major sweep in San Francisco and other Northern California cities in which federal officers would look to arrest more than 1,500 undocumented people while sending a message that immigration policy will be enforced in the sanctuary state, according to a source familiar with the operation,” the paper reported.

“The campaign, centered in the Bay Area, could happen within weeks, and is expected to become the biggest enforcement action of its kind under President Trump, said the source, who requested anonymity because the plans have not been made public,” the paper added.

Democrat-dominated California passed “sanctuary state” legislation last fall, which forbids state and local law enforcement officials from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Gov. Jerry Brown signed it and it took effect Jan. 1.

Federal immigration officials including ICE Director Thomas Homan criticized the law and called a dangerous precedent for other states.

He has also called on the Justice Department to look into ways it could hold officials of sanctuary jurisdictions criminally liable. On Tuesday Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielson confirmed during a Senate hearing that her agency had indeed been in contact with federal prosecutors to see what legal actions could be taken against local officials who implement and uphold sanctuary laws.

“The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues may be available,” Nielsen revealed to Senate Judiciary Committee members.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

California now leads the country! (In POVERTY)

(National SentinelSetting Records: The most populous state in the country, replete with entertainment and technology millionaires and billionaires, also has the highest per capita poverty rates, new data shows.

“Guess which state has the highest poverty rate in the country? Not Mississippi, New Mexico, or West Virginia, but California, where nearly one out of five residents is poor,” says an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times.

“That’s according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which factors in the cost of housing, food, utilities and clothing, and which includes noncash government assistance as a form of income,” the paper said.

There has been decent job growth in California along with associated prosperity in a number of industries, but still, residents of the state are falling behind in terms of net worth.

The state’s per-capita Gross Domestic Product has increased more than two-fold compared to the national average over five years ending in 2016 — 12.5 percent statewide compared with 6.27 percent nationally.

Given robust job growth and the prosperity generated by several industries, it’s worth asking why California has fallen behind, especially when the state’s per-capita GDP increased approximately twice as much as the U.S. average over the five years ending in 2016 (12.5%, compared with 6.27%).

The op-ed notes that Democrats who run the state have not neglected the poor, per se, but that hasn’t mattered.

“It’s not as though California policymakers have neglected to wage war on poverty. Sacramento and local governments have spent massive amounts in the cause. Several state and municipal benefit programs overlap with one another; in some cases, individuals with incomes 200% above the poverty line receive benefits,” it said.

“California state and local governments spent nearly $958 billion from 1992 through 2015 on public welfare programs, including cash-assistance payments, vendor payments and ‘other public welfare,’ according to the Census Bureau. California, with 12 percent of the American population, is home today to about one in three of the nation’s welfare recipients,” the paper noted.

So, though there has been “generous spending,” it has “not only failed to decrease poverty; it actually seems to have made it worse,” the op-ed noted further.

Other factors are at play as well. California’s restrictions on land use, combined with environmental regulations make housing unaffordable for many. Also, the state is bureaucrat-heavy, employing 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees in 2014.

Notes Michael Walsh at PJ Media:

The progressives who control every aspect of the state’s government are not necessarily stupid people, but they are malign. They understand that increasing welfare spending only encourages the arrival of more recipients on whom to spend it, and the high likelihood that those new constituents will vote Democrat as soon as they are able, legally or otherwise.

They’re not “misguided” — in fact, they’re doing exactly what the progressives designed them to do.

It’s a perfect racket, and one that will continue unless and until the California Republicans get their act together and begin vigorously contesting what has become a one-party state designed to enrich those at the top, beggar the middle class, and keep those on the bottom in permanent penury.

“Aren’t Democrats the ones who lecture conservatives and libertarians about income inequality?” said The National Sentinel editor-in-chief J. D. Heyes. “Seems to me they’re the ones perpetuating it in what they claim is a progressive model for the rest of the country.

“If this doesn’t prove to people what a failure Marxist, progressive economic policies really are, then nothing will,” he added.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Part of the PROBLEM: Gov. ‘Moonbeam’ in Calif. PARDONS immigrant FELONS facing deportation

(National SentinelEnabler: California Gov. Jerry Brown angered immigration enforcement advocates on Saturday when he announced he would pardon immigrants who have been convicted of felonies in order to prevent them from being deported by the Trump administration.


As reported by the Sacramento Bee, Brown’s decision puts his state at further odds with President Donald J. Trump’s administration, which has vowed to crack down on illegal immigrants inside the country, as well as so-called “sanctuary cities,” or municipalities whose local leaders have forbidden their law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

California has scores of sanctuary cities including San Francisco, home of Kate Steinle, who was killed by an illegal immigrant felon in 2015.

The paper noted:

Brown extended a total of 132 pardons and 19 commutations. Since returning to office in 2011, he has handed down a modern-era record 1,059 pardons, along with 37 commutations, far more than the 404 pardons and one commutation he made over his first two terms as governor, from 1975 to 1983.

Brown signed “sanctuary state” legislation passed by the heavy Democrat majority in the state legislature. That law puts limitation on state and local law enforcement’s ability to help federal officials enforce immigration violations.

Among those Brown pardoned was Candace Lee Fox, 57, of Los Angeles, who had been sentenced to 15 years to life. Fox has served 33 years in prison for joining others in a killing and robbery.

Critics of Brown’s policies towards illegal aliens note it is already costing his state vital federal law enforcement funding.

The Los Angeles Police Department was denied a request for $3 million funding from the Justice Department for an anti-violence program that LAPD officials believe is tied to the city’s — and the state’s — pro-illegal immigrant policies.

The Justice Department has not said why it denied the funding.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Doug Jones, a Democrat, WINS Alabama Senate Race; GOP majority hangs by a THREAD

(National Sentinel‘Limit to Crazy’: Democrats have pulled off one of the biggest political upsets in modern times as Democrat Doug Jones defeated embattled GOP candidate Judge Roy Moore in the hotly contested Alabama Senate race.

The freak win for Dems in Deep Red ‘Bama led Internet guru Matt Drudge to declare, “Luther Strange would have won in a landslide… Just too much crazy in nerve racking times. There IS a limit!” in a tweet.

Strange currently holds the seat that was up for grabs. He was appointed to it by Alabama’s governor to replace Jeff Sessions, who gave up the seat to become President Donald J. Trump’s attorney general.

Moore defeated Strange in the primary earlier this year.

It wasn’t the first time Drudge had expressed his displeasure with Moore. Earlier, he labeled him “Judge Whore” on his popular news aggregation site.

Moore was accused of sexual misconduct last month by multiple women, including one woman who said Moore initiated a sexual encounter with her when she was 14 years old and he was in his 30s.

Moore regularly denied the allegations, but nevertheless faced calls from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky and other Republican senators to drop out of the race.

The GOP’s loss of the seat trims its majority to 51-49 in a highly partisan Senate. Tie votes would still go to Republicans as the deciding ballot on key legislation would be decided by Vice President Mike Pence as president of the chamber.

Moore’s loss will be presented by Democrats as a blow to Trump, who threw his support behind the embattled candidate earlier this month, urging voters not to put a Democrat into the seat who would oppose his agenda.

The New York Times reported the razor-thin win: Jones received 49.9 percent of the vote, compared to Moore’s 48.4 percent, a 1.5 percent gap.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?

Court: Seattle ‘wealth tax’ is illegal

(National SentinelPunishing Success: The city of Seattle’s tax on “wealthy” households has failed its first legal challenge after a King County Superior Court judge ruled it illegal.

In a summary judgment, Judge John R. Ruhl agreed with multiple challengers that the city ordinance adopted in July is not authorized under state law, the Seattle Times reported.

The ruling was applauded by opponents and legal challengers who said the city has long known the tax was not legal but nevertheless pushed it through.

“The city knowingly violated several laws in imposing this tax,” said Brian T. Hodges, a senior attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing a number of Seattle residents who are challenging the law. “This ruling is probably the worst scenario for the city and the best scenario for the opponents of the income tax.”

That said, the city is already planning to appeal the ruling to the State Supreme Court where they always believed that the case would end up, a spokesperson for Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes told the paper in an email.

Holmes and Seattle Mayor Tim Burgess, both Democrats, said that their goal remains getting rid of the city’s regressive sales taxes and to ensure that the wealth pay their fair share.

The Times said that Washington’s tax system has been called one of the most regressive in the country, taxing lower earners at higher rates than wealthy earners.

Protect your world, ensure your privacy, secure your data while online — Buy now!

The tax law the city is defending in court pegs the “wealthy” as single earners making $250,000 or more per year, and $500,000 for couples. The tax, signed into law by Mayor Ed Murray, the Seattle measure would impose a 2.25 percent tax on those earners.

Backers of the law say the increased income taxes would help lower property taxes and provide money to finance low-income housing.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?


Did Nebraska regulators just kill the Keystone XL pipeline?

(National SentinelEnergy Dependence: State regulators in Nebraska sought to finally approve the long-awaited Keystone XL pipeline project, much-delayed thanks in large part to environmental activism on the part of groups and the former Obama administration.

But instead of green-lighting the project, they may actually have killed it for good.

In a 3-2 vote on Monday, the Nebraska Public Service Commission approved a route for the $8-billion pipeline that would stretch from Canada to Texas and which would pass through the state.

However, the regulators did not approve the route sought by the pipeline’s owner project operator, TransCanada, the Washington Times reports.

Oddly, the new route was approved with very little study or debate.

Now, the State Department, which is in charge of reviewing pipelines that cross international borders, is looking into whether it must now perform an entirely new review, which is a process that may take years and come at considerable expense to taxpayers.

As TransCanada is thus far not saying whether it is even interested in the new route and using the permit issued by the Nebraska PSC, analysts proffer that state regulators have made it far less likely that the project will ever be completed after what was supposed to be the final hurdle to moving ahead with the pipeline’s construction.

“I am just bewildered by the PSC decision. I think the commission wanted to have their cake and eat it, too,” Brigham McCown, former administrator of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told the Times.

“The current route has been studied by the federal government for eight years, produced over 800,000 pages of Obama administration [review] documents I think these guys lost sight of the big picture and got caught up in minutiae and did not have the political courage to do what’s right and instead tried to split the baby,” McCown added.

“In doing so, they’ve guaranteed another two- to three-year legal battle and probably have raised the cost of the project another $1 billion or $2 billion for no reason whatsoever.”

During his campaign, President Donald J. Trump promised that he would approve the pipeline and that it would get built. Experts note, however, that the administration has little control over state regulatory processes.

And as it stares at a seemingly endless approval process, TransCanada officials may simply choose to abandon the project altogether or make good on an earlier threat to extend the pipeline to the Canadian west coast and sell the oil to international buyers like China.

Still, officials with the Trump State Dept. said they are currently looking at whether another lengthy study is needed in order to green-light the project.

McCown said Nebraska regulators “have turned this very simple pipeline project into a circus.”

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

What are your thoughts?


Cruz: Dems filibustered his legislation in 2013 that would have landed Texas church killer in jail

(National SentinelCrime & Punishment: Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News Tuesday night that federal legislation he co-sponsored in 2013 would have sent church shooter Devin Patrick Kelley to prison, thereby denying him the chance to kill 26 people on Sunday, but Democrats filibustered it.

“Democrats filibustered the legislation that would have resulted in this shooter being in federal prison,” Cruz said on “Fox News @ Night.” “Instead of murdering those innocents in that Texas church.”

The legislation, which Cruz filed after the Sandy Hook shooting, would not have introduced any new restrictions on access to guns. However, it would have required that federal court information regarding convictions for certain crimes that disqualify persons from owning weapons be made available to the FBI’s background check database.

Also, the legislation would have created a “Cruz Task Force” that would oversee prosecution of Americans who cannot pass criminal background checks.ckground checks.

Cruz insisted that his bill, which was killed by a Democratic-led filibuster in 2013, would have prevented Sunday’s church shooting.

“There were a couple elements of that legislation that were critical: One, it mandated that federal agencies, including the Air Force, report to the [NICS] because that was a problem back then,” he said.

“But, two, and this is an even more critical piece… when he went into Academy to buy this — these weapons — he lied on the forms,” Cruz added.

“That is a felony to lie on those forms,” he continued. “The Obama administration didn’t prosecute those cases. In 2010, 48,000 felons and fugitives lied and illegally tried to purchase guns. They prosecuted only 44 of them.”

Cruz was noting that the Kelley was court-martialed by the Air Force in 2012 for domestic violence against his wife and infant stepson, the latter whose skull he fractured in a rage.

Those two incidents alone — the court martial and the crime — are disqualifying factors for gun ownership. But the Air Force failed to report Kelley’s conviction to the FBI as it is required to do, thus allowing the killer to purchase guns illegally, including the AR-15-style rifle he used to kill dozens of worshippers at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday.

“Under federal law, it was illegal for this individual to purchase a firearm. He had a conviction for a crime that’s punishable by more than a year in prison, and he had a conviction for multiple domestic violence crimes,” Cruz said. “Both of those, it’s already ineligible.”

He also said that the Air Force’s mishandling of Kelley’s conviction was not isolated.

“That’s an endemic problem. It’s a problem with the federal government. It’s a problem with the states,” he said. “And so, when he went in to buy the guns, they ran the background check, and they didn’t find it because it wasn’t in the database.”

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

EXISTING gun laws should have made it impossible for Texas church killer to buy a firearm

(National SentinelGun Control: Following the mass shooting of worshippers at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs Texas on Sunday, Democrats and liberals are once again calling for “sensible gun laws” — which essentially equates into more gun control.

However, the shooter, Devin Kelley, should not have been able to purchase the AR-15-style weapon he used to murder more than 26 people under existing gun laws, noted Amy Swearer, a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

Writing in The Daily Signal, Swearer notes that while the Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the “right to keep and bear arms” — an interpretation that has repeatedly been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court — gun ownership is still subject to restrictions.

She notes:

The dominant federal law for purposes of firearm restrictions is 18 U.S.C. §922(g), which bars the possession of firearms by nine different categories of individuals, including: those convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than one year imprisonment; those dishonorably discharged from the military; those subject to a restraining order against an intimate partner or child; and those convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The only way for these individuals to legally possess a weapon is to have their firearm rights explicitly restored by the jurisdiction in which they were convicted [18 U.S.C. § (a)(33)(A)(ii)].

Those convicted in state courts are subject to gun restoration rights and processes in those states.

“Roughly half of states allow for restoration of firearm rights only through a gubernatorial pardon. States like Iowa and California do not allow restoration of firearm rights for certain offenses, even with a pardon,” Swearer wrote.

“Other states will automatically restore firearm rights after a certain number of years without another offense, and still others, like Texas, will automatically restore a limited right to possess only a handgun and only in the home.”

However, those convicted in federal or military courts of disqualifying crimes can only have their rights restored via federal law, and while “federal law technically affords a mechanism of application for the restoration of these rights, Congress has not funded this mechanism since 1992,” she noted.

Based on what is currently known about Kelley, he was court-martialed by the Air Force in 2012 and sentenced to 12 months confinement in a military prison for assaulting his wife and child, in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 128. He received a bad conduct from the service in 2014.

And yet, Kelley managed to purchase four firearms after his conviction, including the rifle he used to commit his heinous murders Sunday. On his background check application, he indicated he did not have any disqualifying criminal history and listed his address as Colorado Springs, Colo.


Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, citing the Texas Department of Public Safety, noted that Kelley at one point applied for and was denied a state license to carry weapons. It is unclear whether this occurred before or after Kelley purchased the Ruger, or for what reason the application was denied.

In Texas, long guns may be carried openly without a license, while a “license to carry” is required for handguns carried in any manner. Licenses are issued on a nondiscretionary, “shall-issue” basis. This means the Texas Department of Public Safety may only deny licenses to those who do not meet statutory criteria for eligibility.

Further, Texas law prohibits the possession and licensing of firearms for anyone found guilty in any jurisdiction of domestic violence misdemeanors or their equivalent.

In other words, Kelley should not have been able to purchase any of his weapons.

“This shooting appears to have been preventable under existing state and federal statutes. Sunday’s reign of terror should never have happened,” she concludes. “Many times, as this shooting indicates, the best way to stop this type of evil is not to impose more laws, but to better enforce current ones.”

Update: The Washington Free Beacon is reporting this morning that the Air Force failed to share Kelley’s conviction and discharge information with the FBI, which helps explain why it didn’t show up when gun stores performed the mandatory background check, which uses an FBI database to ensure gun buyers are not prevented by law from owning guns.

“Initial information indicates that Kelley’s domestic violence offense was not entered into the National Criminal Information Center database by the Holloman Air Force Base Office of Special Investigations,” Ann Stefanek, an Air Force spokesperson, told the Washington Free Beacon.

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here


Plan to split California into thirds clears its first hurdle

(National SentinelBreak-up: The long-shot initiative to divide California into three states is actually making a bit of progress.

Residents of the state who support the initiative are now able to collect signatures in order to put it on a statewide ballot next year, according to KABC.

Led by billionaire venture capitalist Tim Draper, the plan calls for breaking up California into north, southern, and coastal states.

The northern state, aptly named Northern California, would include Sacramento and San Francisco. The coastal state of California would include Los Angeles, while Southern California would incorporate the cities of San Diego and Fresno.

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla announced last week the details of the ballot initiative.

KNTV reported that the proposal requires 365,880 valid signatures to be placed onto the Nov. 2018 ballot.

Backers will have 180 days to circulate petitions and gather signatures. They will then be submitted to elections officials by no later than April 23, 2018.

If enough voters back the issue and pass the ballot measure, the issue then goes to Congress, where it faces a high hurdle.

Draper says dividing up the country’s largest state, population-wise, would give residents more local control.

Opponents, however, say the plan would lead to chaos.

“Creating three new governments, three new legislatures, three new governors and then having to disrupt what we have as a state all our prison systems, our higher education systems, I think diversity is what makes California great and this would actually ruin it,” political analyst Steven Maviglio said in a statement.

Plus, conservatives say the inclusion of large Democrat-run cities in each new ‘state’ would likely produce six new Democratic U.S. senators, thereby handing control of the chamber to that party for the foreseeable future.

What are your thoughts?

Advertising disclaimer: Click here


Federal court upholds most of Texas law banning so-called ‘sanctuary cities’

(National SentinelImmigration: A largely Democrat-appointed three-judge federal appeals panel ruled on Monday that key parts of a Texas law aimed at blocking cities from becoming so-called “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants could take effect, with some quick changes the court ordered.

As reported by the Washington Times, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled 3-0 that localities under the state law were required to hold on to illegal immigrants for pickup by deportation officers.

While saying Texas’ law, known as SB4, was clumsy, the court said changes could be quickly made by the state legislature for most of it to go into effect.

The Times:

The…decision appears to mark the first time a high-level federal appeals court has said states can demand that their localities comply with detainer requests, which are the crux of the sanctuary city issue.

“Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office defended Texas’ law.

The ruling by the three judges – two Democratic appointees and one Republican appointee – is just a temporary victory, however, as it stays parts of an injunction issued by a lower district court. The full appeals court will more arguments on the law later this year.

That said, the ruling represents a rare occasion that Democrat-appointed federal judges ruled in favor of tougher immigration enforcement in the Trump age. It is also a victory for President Trump’s Department of Justice, which was backing Texas in the case.

Texas is one step closer to ending the dangerous sanctuary policies that prevent federal law enforcement from keeping criminal aliens off the streets and keeping Texans safe,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said.

The Times noted further:

The key part of the ruling prevents localities from blocking their officers and deputies from cooperating with federal immigration authorities who ask for information or help.

More critically for enforcement, localities must comply with “detainer” requests to notify federal officers when a target is being released and to hold them for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would otherwise be set free based on the state or local charges.

Little by little, the Trump administration is chipping away at cities’ illegal sanctuary policies through a combination of Executive Branch authority, statutory law, and federal courts.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here

Mo. Gov. to violent St. Louis protestors: ‘Only safe space will be a jail cell’

(National SentinelLaw & Order: Missouri’s former Navy SEAL governor, Eric Greitens, has a warning for protesters upset over a recent judge’s verdict in a case involving a former St. Louis police officer in the shooting death of a black man: Violence will get you jail time.

“We had leaders who wanted to give people a safe space to loot and to burn,” Greitens told Fox News. “Now in Missouri, if you loot the only safe space you’re going to have is in a jail cell.”

Greitens said anyone peacefully demonstrating will of course be allowed to do so as such speech is protected by the First Amendment. But if protestors turn violent or attack police, that won’t be tolerated.

“If you’re going to riot, we’re going to cuff you,” he said. “Violence and vandalism is not protest. It is a crime.”

Former officer Jason Stockley was acquitted Friday of first-degree murder and armed criminal action charges for the 2011 killing after a high-speed chase of 24-year-old Anthony Lamar Smith.

Protests over the verdict grew increasingly violent over the weekend.

Sen. Graham on Obamacare repeal: ‘Melt Congress’ phone lines’

(National SentinelObamacare: GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is pushing a new Obamacare repeal plan that he hopes will generate enough support among Republican constituencies to “melt” lawmakers’ phone lines and “insist that we have the vote.”

In an interview with Breitbart Radio, Graham said it’s either back his new legislation or be faced with an almost certain “single-payer” healthcare system that is full-on government controlled.

He said:

It’s either this or we’re going to Obamacare and Bernie-Care. Now, Bernie-Care is full-blown single-payer socialism. It is his dream and that’s where Democrats are going. We’ve been stumbling around trying to repeal and replace Obamacare. The McConnell approach was better than Obamacare but it wasn’t transformational. Let’s get back to the basics of being conservative. We take the money that we would spend on Obamacare in Washington, and we block grant it to the states. There are four states under Obamacare that get 40 percent of the money: New York, California, Massachusetts, and Maryland. They get 40 percent of the money, and they’re 20 percent of the population.

So we repeal the employer mandate, which is going to kick in in October and destroy job creation. We repeal the individual mandate, we repeal the medical device tax, we take the other revenue streams from Obamacare taxes and we block grant it to the states. By 2026, every patient in every state regardless of where you live will get the same basic contribution from the federal government.

We achieve parity. No longer will four blue states get 40 percent of the money. A state like Mississippi, they get a 900 percent increase. South Carolina gets 300 percent. So the goal is to get the money and the power out of Washington. This is not about repealing and replacing Obamacare. This is about stopping a march towards socialism.

At the end of the day, Matt, this is the last best chance we will have to act and end Obamacare and stop Bernie-Care.


Graham said several GOP governors — “approaching 20” — were already on board with the changes.

“Let’s just get to the heart of the matter: If you’re not for this, then you really got to wonder whether or not you’re a Republican because the Republican philosophy is the government closest to the people is the best government. Under Obamacare, if you don’t like your healthcare, who do you complain to? You can complain to me in South Carolina, but I don’t run Obamacare. It’s some damn bureaucrat that you will never meet who could care less about you,” he added.

Advertising disclaimer: Click here