Gathering aims to relaunch Minutemen, fortify border, in response to caravan.
Operation Cinco de Mayo: In thisvideo from the San Diego Union Tribunethe founder of the Minutemen, former California State Assemblyman Tim Donnelly explains why he called for the muster on the border of California and Mexico. The groups that responded to the call were Minutemen, Oath Keepers, and the California State Militia. Tim Donnelly is currently running for Congress.
At the end of the San Diego Union-Tribune excerpt are photos by Lisa Collins. Wonder what the border actually looks like? See the photos below. There are plans to continue these operations on our southern border.
From the article by by Bradley J. Fikes for the San Diego Union-Tribune:
Pledging to report unauthorized entries into the United States — and shame any state leaders who welcome them — about 20 border security supporters assembled Saturday morning near Jamul.
The group, including members of the Minuteman patrol movement, coordinated volunteers to watch designated border regions for 24 hours.
Their vigil, starting at 9 a.m. Saturday, was meant to help federal officers, Minuteman leader Tim Donnelly said.
By reporting unauthorized border crossings, the observers hope to help outnumbered border officers, Donnelly said. He is a Republican candidate for the 8th congressional district, which covers much of the desert area north of Imperial County.
Hayne Palmour IV / San Diego Union-Tribune A group of border security supporters put on their gear in preparation for heading to the U.S. – Mexican border to observe and report any signs of illegal immigration to the U.S. Border Patrol.
It was also meant as a warning to Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the California Values Act, which limits law enforcement in the state from certain kinds of cooperation with federal immigration officials. The law has been criticized as an effort to make California a sanctuary for unauthorized immigrants.
“My hope is that we will reignite the (Minuteman) movement and that people will again be aiding (border agents) for longer periods of time, longer musters,” Donnelly said.
The camouflage-dressed volunteers, wearing boots, bringing backpacks and other wilderness gear, were instructed on safety such as avoiding rattlesnakes before heading out from Pio Pico campground.
Volunteers were told to avoid confrontations with border crossers if possible, and to help those in distress.
“There is no animus toward those who are crossing desperate, you know, to escape oppression,” Donnelly said. “But at the same time, among those people come through wolves, people who mean harm people like Luis Bracamontes, who was just recently sentenced to death here in California for executing two sheriff’s deputies up in Sacramento.”
While expressing sympathy for plight of border crossers, Donnelly and others blasted Brown, who they said has violated his oath of office.
“This is not about waving American flags,” Donnelly said. “This is about actually securing the border and sending a message to the political authorities, to Jerry Brown.
“I dare Jerry Brown to come down and arrest me, because you might get arrested down here for being a tyrant, for being a traitor, for aiding and abetting illegal aliens and harboring them in violation of federal law, which is the supreme law of the land when it comes to immigration.”
Photos by Lisa Collins, Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. of CA, who handled the logistics for Tim Donnelly:
Securing the border with the Minutemen, Oath Keepers and Militia at Patriot Point.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
A law enforcement organization whose members include every county sheriff in California and across the nation threw its support Friday behind the Trump administration’s challenge to the state’s sanctuary laws, telling a federal judge that the laws interfere with immigration enforcement and could even subject local officers to criminal charges.
California “compels local law enforcement to violate federal law by concealing, harboring, or shielding illegal aliens,” the National Sheriffs’ Association said in a filing in federal court in Sacramento, where the Trump administration sued in March to overturn three new state laws that restrict local cooperation with federal immigration agents.
The filing singled out provisions of one law, SB54, that prohibit local jail officials who are holding an undocumented immigrant in custody from notifying federal agents of the immigrant’s release date, or from transferring custody to immigration agents once the local sentence has been served. Those restrictions do not apply to immigrants held for serious or violent crimes.
By concealing an immigrant’s whereabouts from federal agents, and preventing them from taking custody, “SB54 coerces local law enforcement to violate the federal anti-harboring statute,” the sheriffs’ association said.
The association also said the state law was “intended to frustrate federal enforcement of immigration law” and conflicted with government statutes promoting “federal-state cooperation” on immigration. And by enacting “its own policy preferences about which foreign nationals should stay within the nation’s borders,” the sheriffs’ group said, California is interfering with the federal government’s “exclusive authority over foreign affairs.”
In its suit, the Trump administration is also challenging state laws that prohibit local employers from allowing immigration agents into private workplaces without a judicial warrant, and that allow the state attorney general to inspect detention centers that have contracted with the federal government to hold immigrants awaiting possible deportation.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
PHOENIX (AP) – President Donald Trump said Thursday that he wants to send 2,000 and 4,000 National Guard members to the U.S.-Mexico border to help federal officials fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking.
Trump’s comments to reporters on Air Force One were his first estimate on guard levels he believes needed, and would be a lower number of troops than the 6,400 National Guard members that former President George Bush sent to the border between 2006 and 2008.
Asked about the cost, Trump said his administration was looking at it.
Trump said he plans to keep the guard members there until a “large portion of the wall is built.”
Earlier Thursday, Ronald Vitiello, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acting deputy commissioner, cautioned against a rushed deployment.
“We are going to do it as quickly as we can do it safely,” Vitiello told Fox News Channel.
He said that guard members would be placed in jobs that do not require law enforcement work, an apparent reference to undertaking patrols and making arrests.
The National Guard in Texas expressed support, but said in a statement that deployment remained in “very early planning stages.” The Republican governors of New Mexico and Arizona have also backed the deployment. It remained unclear Thursday how Democratic California Gov. Jerry Brown would respond to Trump’s call.
In Washington, Marine Lt. Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie told reporters at the Pentagon that it has not yet been determined how many, if any, of the troops participating in the border security operation will be armed.
With troops in all states, the National Guard has been called on by past presidents and governors to help secure U.S. borders, and the Texas contingent said it had “firsthand knowledge of the mission and operating area” that will allow it to move seamlessly into the new role.
Trump ordered the deployment because “we are at a crisis point” with illegal immigration, Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen of the Department of Homeland Security said.
“We’d like to stop it before the numbers get even bigger,” she said.
Nielsen said guard members would provide support to border officials, “help look at the technology, the surveillance, in some cases we’ll ask for some fleet mechanics” and free up agents trained in law enforcement for other duties.
Arrests along the U.S. border with Mexico jumped to 50,308 in March, a 37 percent increase from February, and more than triple the same period last year. Border arrests rose 10 of the last 11 months after falling in April 2017 to the lowest since the Department of Homeland Security was created in 2003.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
The United States has 14,000 troops in Afghanistan, 39,000 in Japan, 34,805 in Germany, 23,000 in South Korea, and around 5,200 in Iraq. Our military protects the borders of countless nations.
Except our own.
In 1919, we had 18,500 soldiers on the border. “Twice a day every foot of the border line is patrolled by cavalrymen and infantrymen,” the New York Times noted.
A hundred years later, President Trump’s proposal to use the military to secure the border is controversial even though Marines fighting drug cartels have come under fire from drug smugglers.
El Salvadoran migration has inflicted 207 murderers on this country. The migrant caravan threatening to invade this country includes migrants from El Salvador. Some of them may be MS-13 members. The Pueblo Sin Fronteras caravan of 1,000 migrants is the product of an alliance between international leftists and migrant invaders. Their goal is the invasion, colonization and occupation of America.
And the only ones defending us against them are the members of an outnumbered border patrol, threatened by both drug cartels on the other side of the border and sanctuary states in this country.
That’s why President Trump is mobilizing the troops to do the job that the Democrats won’t do.
“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” President Trump said.
Some of the same politicians who oppose withdrawing our forces from Syria also oppose sending troops to secure the border. But which should be a higher priority?
If an enemy army were invading South Korea, our soldiers would swing into action. But the United States has already been invaded. The invaders have occupied and seized control of state governments, including California, while declaring that their rebel cities will defy Federal immigration law.
They mean to do the same thing to the entire country. Their DREAM is the end of America.
From fighting Indian raids to the banditry of Pancho Villa, the military has always secured the border against invasions out of Mexico. The military was our defense against the “Plan of San Diego” terror waged by Mexican racists who vowed to seize control of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and Colorado, liberate the “proletariat” and execute all “North American over sixteen years of age.”
And yes, the military can even “build the wall”.
Joint Task Force North’s military engineers have already built 62 miles of road, and border fence construction. There’s no reason why its anti-terrorist and drug smuggling prevention mission can’t be expanded to include securing the border with a wall and other impassable physical barriers.
Presidents have taken action against urgent illegal migrant threats before.
“Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right?” Donald Trump said during a primary debate. “Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country, moved them just beyond the border. They came back. Moved them again beyond the border, they came back. Didn’t like it. Moved them way south. They never came back.”
Operation Wetback was fantastically effective in clearing illegal aliens out of California and Texas.
Under General Joseph Swing, who had done everything from hunting Pancho Villa in Mexico to going up against the Japanese in the Philippines, the INS caught, detained and deported over a million illegals. Wetback had been based on the Operation Cloud Burst plan, which would have used a presidential proclamation to authorize the use of military force if the Army had not been tied down in Korea.
Some commentators have claimed that the Posse Comitatus Act would prevent the use of any military forces other than the National Guard on the border. But securing the border against foreign invaders (as opposed to domestic law enforcement directed against citizens) has always been a military matter.
Furthermore the military is already authorized to operate in areas where drug smuggling occurs.
Stopping illegal migrants does not subject “citizens to the exercise of military power”. If the military does not supplement ICE, but directly secures the border, there would be no Posse Comitatus issue.
But the law also permits the use of military force to “prevent disruption of Federal functions”.
Sanctuary states like California have disrupted the functioning of immigration law and have even passed laws prohibiting citizens from cooperating with Federal authorities. 10 U.S.C. 332, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces to enforce Federal law when unlawful obstructions or rebellion against the authority of the United States renders ordinary enforcement means unworkable.”
The unlawful obstruction of immigration law by sanctuary cities and states has made ordinary enforcement unworkable. The rebellion against the authority of the United States must end.
10 U.S.C. 333 further, “authorizes use of the militia and Armed Forces when domestic violence or conspiracy hinders execution of State or Federal law, and a State cannot or will not protect the constitutional rights of the citizens.” That’s the current state of affairs in California and elsewhere.
Californians are being robbed, raped and murdered by illegal aliens because their government not only refuses to protect their constitutional rights, but criminalizes cooperation with immigration authorities.
It sure doesn’t seem like Arizona approves of California’s sanctuary cities and one GOP Lawmaker hammered that point home. Marth McSally, in what was likely a tongue in cheek moment, proposed building a wall around California to protect the state of Arizona from their neighbor’s disastrous policies.
McSally announced her bid for Senate to replace Senator Jeff Flake (R) earlier this year. Flake is retiring at the end of this Congress. Other candidates in the primary include former Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former state Senator Kelli Ward (R).
When first hearing her quote, one could assume she wanted Arizona protected from those feeling the housing crisis and high taxation in California. But McSally, a congresswoman representing Arizona was referring to the “dangers of the southern border” and the sanctuary cities that California has allowed to infect the Golden State. Sanctuary cities are municipalities that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
“As we look in Arizona, we often look into the dangers of the southern border,” McSally said during a round-table discussion about “sanctuary cities” Tuesday at the White House. “But if these dangerous policies continue out of California, we might need to build a wall between California and Arizona as well to keep these dangerous criminals out of our state,” she said, smiling, and perhaps a little sarcastically.
She added that California can’t just “provide sanctuary for these criminals and think that it’s only impacting California dangerously.” McSally’s comments come on the heels of the announcement that the federal government is suing the state of California (state government) for failing to enforce their laws.
The Trump administration’s “America First” policy is a thorn in the side of many states that use illegal immigrants as votes to elect far-left Communists.
California’s governor, Jerry Brown (D), was upset that he has to follow others’ rules while making California almost unbearable with the number of rules, laws, and regulations he demands the residents of the Golden State adhere to, Brown became the offended hypocrite everyone knew he was in the wake of the federal lawsuit over sanctuary cities. Try not to choke on California’s hypocrisy. Never forget that the state (and Democrats in general) loves laws, just not the laws of others.
“You called this an act of war from the federal government,” a reporter began asking Brown. Brown immediately looked confused. “An act of war? That’s pretty strong. But I reciprocate that comment,” Brown responded.
More California cities may consider defying the state’s “sanctuary state” laws, after the city council of Los Alamitos passed an ordinance defying the state’s controversial new legislation preventing cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Leaders of Los Alamitos, in Orange County, passed the ordinance 4-1 and instructed the city attorney to file an amicus brief in the ongoing Department of Justice lawsuit against the State of California. The lawsuit challenges the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54).
The Orange County Registerreports that other cities — and even Orange County itself — are now thinking of following suit (original links):
The County of Orange and several cities in Southern California soon might join Los Alamitos in its bid to opt out of a controversial state law that limits cooperation with federal immigration officials.
Officials with the county as well as leaders in Aliso Viejo and Buena Park said Tuesday they plan to push for various versions of the anti-sanctuary ordinance approved in Los Alamitos late Monday by a 4-1 vote of that city council.
Immigration advocates said Los Alamitos and cities and counties that follow its opt-out ordinance will be violating state law and at risk of litigation.
But Los Alamitos’ anti-sanctuary push also received wide attention in conservative media, and gained support from those who don’t agree with California’s protective stance on all immigrants, regardless of legal status.
Orange County is a key battleground in 2018, both at the state and federal levels. Democrats are hoping to pick up several U.S. House seats in the county, which voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 — the first time in decades that the traditionally conservative county had backed a Democrat.
With about 12,000 residents spread across a few miles of suburban Southern California, Los Alamitos is better known for its good schools and small-town charms than political activism.
But the city now finds itself at the center of a rebellion against California’s “sanctuary” policies, which aim to protect immigrants here illegally as President Trump vows to ramp up deportations.
Los Alamitos leaders on Monday approved an ordinance that exempts their Orange County municipality from Senate Bill 54, a law that took effect Jan. 1 and restricts local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It marks a rare effort by a city to challenge the sanctuary movement, which has wide support among elected officials in left-leaning California.
Many cities have faced the ire of Trump and his administration for policies they say are too lenient toward those here illegally. The president slammed San Francisco over its sanctuary law, which he said had allowed a Mexican national who fatally shot a tourist to remain on the streets. And Oakland’s mayor is now the subject of a federal investigation after she sent out an alert warning residents of an immigration sweep.
Los Alamitos, by contrast, is moving in a different direction, with some residents and officials saying they want nothing to do with those policies.
About 160 people showed up to Monday’s regular City Council meeting, a monthly event that rarely draws enough people to fill the 40-seat chamber. Speakers lined up late into the evening to address elected officials, who eventually voted 4 to 1 to approve the ordinance.
“Sometimes things are bigger than we are,” said Mayor Troy D. Edgar.
Cheers erupted inside the chamber after the vote, with some shouting “Patriots!” and “This is a win for America!” as others waved pro-Trump flags.
Councilman Mark A. Chirco was the sole dissenter, suggesting the initiative could expose the city to litigation.
“We disagree with Sacramento on a lot of things. Are we not going to follow state law every time we disagree with them?” he said. “I don’t think that would be prudent.”
It’s unclear how the ordinance will be implemented, and Mayor Pro Tem Warren Kusumoto, who proposed the initiative, said it may end up being largely symbolic.
WASHINGTON – Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said he is “not scared at all” about the Department of Justice considering charges against local officials in sanctuary cities, calling it a “weak and pathetic move.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen recently told a Senate committee hearing that DOJ is “reviewing what avenues might be available” to charge local officials who do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
“The context of this is, of course, not only putting my [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] officers at risk, but also finding an efficient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws,” she said.
During an interview with Fox News, Acting ICE Director Tom Homan recently said, “We’ve got to take [sanctuary cities] to court, and we’ve got to start charging some of these politicians with crimes.”
PJM asked Garcetti if he is worried about potentially facing federal charges.
“Not at all. I think it’s a political circus. I think it’s about stirring up, you know, blowing a dog whistle – not about anything real. There’s not a single document we’ve ever cut back, and they know that. There’s not a single city in America that has done that, so it was kind of a weak and pathetic move and I’m not scared at all,” Garcetti told PJM during an interview at the U.S. Conference of Mayors Winter Meeting recently.
Garcetti was referring to DOJ requesting records from Los Angeles and other cities pertaining to their compliance with federal immigration law.
When asked if there are federal statutes that he thinks DOJ would be able to use against his city, Garcetti replied, “Nope. They can do it [withdraw federal funds] but we’ll probably get those funds because it’s probably going to be thrown out by courts as it has been now. We coordinate and cooperate with our federal authorities. We can’t break the Constitution, though, and that’s what some of their requirements have asked us to do.
Democratic Mayor J. Christian Bollwage of Elizabeth, N.J., the fourth largest city in the state, explained that illegal immigrants who are arrested and accused of certain crimes like burglary are processed and released immediately in N.J. He compared DOJ’s threat to charge local officials to a fascist regime.
“The city of Elizabeth is not a sanctuary city, but it really scares me that the Department of Justice would send out subpoenas or arrest warrants for mayors who are performing their duty with respect to whatever their constituency is. So the threat of that reminds me of either a fascist regime or a strong dictatorship, and the United States has not moved in that direction, I believe,” he told PJM. “So therefore, it would strike me as extremely difficult to implement. And I hope when they say that, the Department of Justice, it was thrown as a way of fodder to say, ‘hey, we need to get you to start helping us.’”
Bollwage said anyone in his city who commits a crime of third degree or higher would likely go to jail, but undocumented immigrants accused of lesser offenses would be processed after their arrest and released.
“We are not a sanctuary city because there are times when outside agencies require our help and we are going to be helpful. In New Jersey, the issue of immigration does not really play into the county jails,” he said. “It doesn’t happen because if you get picked up for a violation and you are an undocumented immigrant, you are going to go to the local jail and with bail reform in New Jersey, you are not even going to be held if you’ve committed a traffic accident or something and you have no papers. Under bail reform in New Jersey, you are not even going to be held. You are let go immediately.”
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Please plan on joining by computer so you will be able to see video presentations and also so you can ask questions and make comments.
Presenters will be Navy Jack and Stewart Rhodes. We may add other presenters.
NavyJackwill review the continuing efforts of the resistance movement against Trump, including the coordinated support for the office of special counsel Mueller. He will provide a list of potential guideposts that will determine the landscape for the upcoming mid-term elections, the prognosis for the remaining three years of the President’s term, and how these events are shaping domestic and foreign policy.
Stewart Rhodes will present on the reality that the state government of California, by declaring itself a “sanctuary state,” is now in insurrection against the legitimate, constitutionally enacted immigration laws of the Union, in direct violation of clear federal law that makes harboring illegal aliens a felony offense, and how this amounts to an insurrection against the Constitution itself, which guarantees to each state a republican form of government – and how this is the latest salvo in an ongoing Marxist/Democratic party coup/insurrection which aims to illegitimately secure a permanent leftist/Democratic lock on political power not just in California but across the nation. He will also highlight some ominous parallels with what is happening in Europe and how this all ties in with globalist goals of destabilization and consolidation of their power.
Stewart will also lead a discussion on what can and must be done about this at the federal and state level, and what role we the people, and especially we the trained military and police, have to play in putting down this insurrection – which is aimed at the final checkmate and destruction of our Constitutional Republic.
Please join us for this important webinar. You will be encouraged to ask questions and to comment. Please invite your friends and family to attend, and please also spread the word on social media and by email.
We have a limit of 1,000 registered attendees, so please register right away to reserve a slot.
PS – Please note that this is not about race. This is about ideology – the cancer of Marxism that has infected this nation just like it has infected Europe with similar results – intentional national assisted suicide. The Marxists use racial ‘identity politics” to divide and conquer the American people along racial lines, and in particular aim to radicalize and weaponize both native born and immigrant racial minorities, by indoctrinating them with Marxist ideology and resultant hatred of this nation and its institutions. Immigrants (legal and illegal) are encouraged NOT to assimilate, and to instead have loyalty to their nation of origin and to their race- if non-white (just as is done in Europe with the Muslim immigrants, except they are encouraged to place radical Islam in the prime place of loyalty). Native born American minorities are likewise conditioned to hate and despise the nation of their birth and its Constitution, as being inherently “racist, imperialistic, and oppressive” – the standard Marxist propaganda against all Western Civilization.
This is not about race. This is about ideology. A message from new Oath Keepers member, Max Vasquez (USMC Vietnam veteran): “Just let him know that I support and stand next to him. Ready to go to the border and help secure it. “To Protect and Defend..”, Oath did not have an expiration date on it.” Semper Fi Marine. You fought communists in Vietnam, now you fight them here too.
Of course, the Marxists, especially in universities, also indoctrinate millions of white Americans to likewise hate and despise the nation of their birth, using the same propaganda – again, just as is done in Europe, so that anyone who opposes them is labeled “racist” and “fascist” for simply defending the fundamental building blocks of Western Civilization such as rule of law, private property, free enterprise, individual liberty, free speech, constitutional limited government, and sane immigration that only allows immigration at a rate that ensures assimilation and loyalty to the nation. in fact, the very concept of a nation, with secured borders and enforced immigration laws, which deserves loyalty, is attacked. All of of the above are demonized as inherently “racist” and “xenophobic” with the only “approved answer” being unconditional surrender and submission to endless open border immigration, non-assimilation, and intentional balkanization. The goal is nothing less than the fragmenting and destruction of all of Western Civilization, to be replaced with a SJW Marxist Hell on Earth which the globalist, corporate fascist elites will ultimately rule from above.
That is how we end up with white, black, and brown Americans all burning the American flag, flying the Soviet flag or some other foreign flag, refusing to stand for the national anthem, and running around in black masks, assaulting anyone who disagrees with them.
And this is why we wouldn’t want ten million white Swedes to emigrate here either, judging by what a FUBAR socialist mess Sweden now is. No thanks. We have enough Marxist internal enemies already. Stay in Sweden and fix Sweden. They demonstrate that ideology shapes destiny, regardless of race. A cancerous ideology like Marxism will kill any nation.
Thankfully, there are millions of American patriots who are now wise to this strategy and are pushing back. let’s help lead the way.
UPDATE: After amassing almost five million views in 24 hours, the original post has disappeared without explanation, but a copy has been embedded below.
Video footage of a homeless encampment in Orange County, California, has gone ultra-viral after a Facebook page operated by former law enforcement posted stunning scenes of the sanctuary state’s rapid descent into a dystopian “shit hole.”
Retired Orange County Deputy Sheriffs released the video on Facebook, where it racked up nearly five million views and 104,000 shares in little more than a day.
In the caption, the page’s administrators placed blame for the shocking breakdown of law and order on Orange County Sheriff-Coroner Sandra Hutchens and Undersheriff Don Barnes, with a tongue-in-cheek reference to controversial – yet unsubstantiated – “sh*thole” comments attributed to President Donald Trump.
“Orange County is now a shit hole country thanks to Sheriff Sandra Hutchins and her co-conspirator Don Barnes,” they wrote. “Please watch 10 minutes of filth.”
The slum stretches for a considerable distance, abutting upper-scale apartment complexes, multiple professional sporting venues, private businesses, and even a children’s playground. Squatters’ garbage and personal effects are strewn along and across the pathway, and derelicts in various states of undress and consciousness can be seen walking or lying about.
Posted by G. Edward Griffin at needtoknow.news – January 1 marked the first day that California’s new sanctuary-state law went into effect, which gives illegal aliens protected status, The signs read: “Felons, Illegals and MS13 Welcome!” and conclude with the declaration, “Democrats Need The Votes!”. The source of the signs is not known.
From Fox News:
Drivers entering California are being greeted with signs proclaiming the liberal bastion an “OFFICIAL SANCTUARY STATE,” according to photos and videos circulating on social media appearing to show a prankster attached the official-looking blue signs just below legitimate “Welcome to California” markers.
The sanctuary state sign, which adds “Felons, Illegals and MS13 [gang members] welcome,” is similar to one hung up by a Malibu activist last year.
“Democrats Need The Votes!” reads a message on the signs, which are plastered with the Great Seal of California and a donkey, one of the symbols of the Democratic Party.
The law bars police in the nation’s most populous state from asking people about their immigration status or participating in federal immigration enforcement activities in most cases.
The Golden State is home to an estimated 2.3 million illegal immigrants.
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
Update 1: AP reports thatU.S. immigration officials say they will deport the Mexican man found not guilty of murder in San Francisco pier shooting.
* * *
As we detailed earlier, in a verdict that has shocked many in the Bay Area (and across America), a jury of six men and six women in sanctuary city San Francisco found illegal immigrant (and five-time deportee) Jose Ines Garcia Zarate not guilty in the death of Kate Steinle.
Mr. Garcia Zarate had been homeless at the time of the shooting and had multiple felony convictions and five prior deportations to Mexico.He had been set free from jail only months before the shooting, in defiance of requests by federal immigration authorities, who had asked that he be held longer so he could be deported again.
The backlash to his release into the community crescendoed when Donald Trump invoked Ms. Steinle’s killing as he campaigned for president.
As The New York Times reports, Ms. Steinle’s death in July 2015 fed into a fierce debate over whether immigrants without legal status should be deported more aggressively, and over the role local law enforcement should play.
Ms. Steinle, known as Kate, a 32-year-old medical equipment saleswoman, waswalking along Pier 14 in San Francisco when she was struck by a bullet and collapsed into her father’s arms.
Mr. Garcia Zarate acknowledged firing the weapon, but said it was an accident.
Zarate and his defense team maintained the argument that the suspect found the stolen weapon on the pier that day and it “just fired.”
The gun belonged to a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger and was stolen from his parked car a week earlier.
The bullet ricocheted on the pier’s concrete walkway before it struck Steinle, killing her. Zarate has admitted to shooting Steinle, but says it was an accident.
Defense attorney Matt Gonzalez said Garcia Zarate found the gun at the pier… but the stories of what happened copntradicted one another…
He said it was wrapped in cloth, and when Garcia Zarate unwrapped it, the gun accidentally discharged.
But in a police interrogation, Garcia Zarate admitted to firing the gun, saying he was aiming at a seal.
Healso told police that he stepped on the gun, causing it to fire.
But still, after six days of deliberation, the illegal Mexcian immigrant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter charges and also found not guilty of assault with a firearm.
Garcia Zarate was found guilty of illegal firearms possession, which carries a sentence of 16 months to three years.
* * *
The public defender wasted no time in focusing his thoughts on President Trump and his administration…saying Zarate was “extremely relieved” by the outcome and that while Steinle’s death “was a horrible tragedy,” it was used as “political fodder for then candidate Donald Trump’s anti-immigration agenda.”
Adachi added, “Despite the unfairly politicized atmosphere surrounding this case, jurors focused on the evidence, which was clear and convincing, and rendered a just verdict.”
In a response to the verdict, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a statement saying that despite California’s attempt at a murder conviction, Zarate was able to walk away with only a firearm possession conviction because he was not turned over by San Francisco to ICE.
“When jurisdictions choose to return criminal aliens to the streets rather than turning them over to federal immigration authorities, they put the public’s safety at risk,” the statement said.
“San Francisco’s decision to protect criminal aliens led to the preventable and heartbreaking death of Kate Steinle.”
Sessions continued, “I urge the leaders of the nation’s communities to reflect on the outcome of this case and consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.”
Social media erupted with outrage at the verdict (with very few – if any attempting to defend the verdict)…
I don"t know any American citizen who is a 5x felon and could get away with killing someone with a stolen gun. #KateSteinle#KatesLaw#JoseZarate
SF city just proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they dont care if YOU, or others get killed by their policies. They will continue to shelter illegals and allow them to do as they please and dont care about the innocents hurt by them. SICK!#KateSteinle#KatesLaw
If Hillary Clinton were in office, we"d all be in danger. The #KateSteinle verdict is an endorsement of murder. There is no way to spin this, there is no defense, today the mask came off.
And even politically-correct politicians piped in…
Kate Steinle’s murderer not guilty? This is outrageous! A great injustice has been done. No Californian can feel good about their justice system today. I grieve from the bottom of my heart for the Steinle family who must be personally suffering from this injustice.
Citizen journalists have released shocking video of a large migrant encampment that has formed in the shadows of Orange County, California’s key government buildings, including multiple courthouses, in the city of Santa Ana.
Activist Legal Latino Heat posted the stunning footage in which the fully operational tent city packed with migrants, drug addicts and their pets sprawls across the Plaza of the Flags situated in the heart of the Santa Ana Civic Center, which serves as the nucleus of government operations for all of Orange County.
“Wow, this is America,” narrates the cameraman. “At least they’ve got security,” he adds, showing the police presence patrolling the camp.
“This is a sanctuary city, ladies and gentlemen… in between the courthouses, we have all these lawyers and everything, and this is how people are living.”
“Why do you want more illegals to come into this country – so they can live like this?” he asks.
Encountering a police officer, he inquires, “Officer, they just live up there?”
“Yeah. It’s bad,” replies the officer.
Location of tent city
The journalist remarks repeatedly about the scent of urine pervading the encampment and surrounding area, which has been formally declared a “public health and safety crisis” by the Santa Ana City Council.
“Officials said that the homeless population in the area swelled beyond 400 earlier this year,”reported the LA Times in September. “They are worried that the Civic Center complex is unsafe for the area’s more than 15,000 government workers, many of whom have complained of feces, urine and trash on the sidewalks, including syringes.”
Vance memorializes the Pulse nightclub “gun-free zone” murders by an Islamist terrorist by endorsing more citizen disarmament as the way to thwart ISIS. Promoting anti-RKBA sentiment in Spanish is telling in terms of understanding the enthusiasm for “sanctuary cities.”
“New York County District Attorney Cy Vance in an interview aired Sunday blasted a GOP plan that would allow qualified owners to carry concealed handguns in other states that allow individuals to carry concealed firearms,” The Hill reported Sunday. “The district attorney warned lawmakers that they were ‘playing into the hand’ of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorists, pointing to ISIS publications describing the ease of buying guns in some American states.”
“This bill is supported, I’m sure, by ISIS,” Vance asserted, just to make sure the headlines would be hysterical and the herd would be properly spooked. “ISIS points its readers to America and how they can easily obtain guns by going to states where there are no permitting requirements. So ISIS is paying close attention to this bill as well.”
For “Progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, so leave it to one of their key players to declare the very thing the Founders deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” to be its undoing. And that, of course, requires that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms [BE] infringed.”
Tim Sullivan knew the most successful official criminals controlled the guns.
New York City is a prime violator of that right, from the criminally insane Sullivan Laws—literally. The notoriously corrupt “Big Tim” Sullivan, a favorite of city trade union leaders and the suffragette movement, forced them through to the benefit of his criminal cronies. He died under mysterious circumstances after escaping from a sanitarium, where he’d been suffering from paranoid delusions and the ravages of tertiary syphilis.
Vance is happy to keep the paranoid delusions against an armed citizenry going. The son of a former Secretary of State and globalist insider, he has teamed with Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (another oath-breaking gun-grabber) to form Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, a nationwide clique of elitist government lawyers from “progressive”-controlled urban areas intent on advancing a state monopoly of violence.
“The group plans to focus on policies to reduce gang violence and weapons trafficking,” The Los Angeles Times claims. “Prosecutors will also explore connections linking domestic violence, mental health and gun-related crimes.”
Meanwhile, they fight like hell to import more gang members, who promise to reward them with even more blood to dance in and exploit, translating to more power. Their ancillary agenda, using domestic violence and mental health as cover justifications, is to disarm even more citizens who have not been convicted of anything. Their agenda is to further erode the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the right to full due process and jury trials.
Vance welcomes Feuer as they join to impose their “progressive” urban disarmament agenda throughout the Republic.
As for Vance’s charge that ISIS will benefit if your right to keep and bear arms is recognized and honored, it’s fair to explore what’s wrong with immigration and refugee policies that allow unvettable foreign nationals into the country in the first place. But rather than address that problem, New York City, under socialist Mayor Bill de Blasio, has proudly declared The Big Apple a “sanctuary city,” and pledged to fight President Trump’s travel restrictions (which we should be learning more about later today if the Supreme Court weighs in as expected).
So the “progressive” solution is to let in more Islamists, disarm the people, and smear anyone who warns against that as a hater and an anti-government extremist.
—–
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
It was reported by Aamer Madhani, a White House reporter under Barack Hussein Obama’s criminal administration, that big city mayors have vowed to defy the law and President Donald Trump regarding sanctuary cities harboring illegal aliens.
Aamer reported, “As you may know, back in Jan 26, 2017 several big city mayors across the U.S. vowed to defy President Trump’s executive order that threatens to cut off federal funding to cities that offer some sort of protection to illegal immigrants in their communities.”
The question is, how did they approve the funding in the first place?
Furthermore, the Law does not protect illegal aliens. It prosecutes them.
Aamer continued, “The pushback came from these mayors came as Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order that directs the government to identify federal money it can withhold to punish so-called ‘sanctuary cities.’”
Since when did the federal government receive delegated authority from the American people to take their tax money and reallocate it to cities that are harboring illegal aliens?
Aamer added, “If you remember, Trump had pledged to take action against sanctuary cities on the campaign trail.”
“But as Trump announced the order — as well as action to build a wall along the U.S-Mexico border and hire thousands of new border patrol agents and immigration officers — leaders of some of the nation’s biggest cities flatly stated they would not cooperate with the president,” Aamer wrote.
And you need to ask why. This is not Trump against the mayors. This is the mayors working against American Law! And the law exposes the criminal (Romans 3:20).
Aamer reported “In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio vowed that the action ‘won’t change how we enforce the law in New York City.’”
“De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce the crime rate in the nation’s largest city, in part, because relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant communities,” the report continued. “He added that if Trump follows through with the plan it would mean he’s effectively cutting funding from the New York Police Department.”
In other words, through totalitarian methods, Mayor de Blasio is attempting to use the law against the law. Here, you have the criminal blaming the law for his crimes (1 John 3:12).
“Here in New York City and in cities across the nation, this executive order could in fact undermine public safety and make our neighborhoods less safe,” de Blasio said.
What De Blasio said was that the enforcement of law could undermine public safety. He is the one personally responsible for the undermining of the public’s safety. Was America told that they were under an Islamic threat after September 11, 2001? How does his statement line up with the facts?
There were 68.57 illegal aliens imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Arizona, compared to 54.06 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned for every 100,000 citizens and legal noncitizens.
There were 97.2 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in California, compared to 74.1 citizens and legal noncitizens imprisoned per 100,000 citizen and legal noncitizens.
There were 54.85 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Florida, compared to 67.8 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 168.75 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in New York, compared to 48.12 legal immigrants imprisoned for every 100,000 legal immigrants.
There were 54.54 illegals imprisoned for every 100,000 illegals in Texas, compared to 65.43 legal immigrants.
“After President Donald Trump signed an executive order exploring cutting off funding to so-called sanctuary cities, mayors on both coasts of the U.S. say their cities will not be bullied,” Aamer reported.
These mayors are the ones that are bullying anyone who does not go along with their lawless objectives. These are Saul Alinsky tactics at their best. They play the victim while perpetuating the crime.
In Boston, Mayor Marty Walsh called the executive order an attack on “Boston’s people, Boston’s strength and Boston’s values.”
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here,” Walsh told reporters at a news conference. “They can use my office. They can use any office in this building.”
Americans should put these criminal actors that masquerade as mayors in jail where they belong, and remind each and every one of them that these buildings belong to “We the people.”
Furthermore no one has the right to desecrate the blood of those who fought, bled and died enforcing the very laws that they are violating.
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, who has been accused and investigated for sexually molesting minors, said, “We believe we have the rule of law and the courts on our side.”
The opposite is true as I am about to show you.
Mayor of Chicago Rham Emanuel said, “I want to be clear. We’re gonna stay a sanctuary city. There is no stranger among us. We welcome people, whether you’re from Poland or Pakistan, whether you’re from Ireland or India or Israel and whether you’re from Mexico or Moldova, where my grandfather came from, you are welcome in Chicago as you pursue the American Dream.”
San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee told reporters nothing has changed for his city following Trump’s executive order.
“I am here today to say we are still a sanctuary city,” Lee said. “We stand by our sanctuary city because we want everybody to feel safe and utilize the services they deserve, including education and health care.”
Have Americans been inundated by the media’s narrative that there are threats constantly against “We the people”? Who has attacked the rights of Americans more than those who call themselves representatives? No one has.
Here, we have mayors that are committing treason (Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution) by opening the doors to those who are sworn enemies to America (Jeremiah 11:9).
A top aide to Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan questioned whether the city even qualified as a sanctuary city.
The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Major Cities Chiefs Association expressed concern that the executive order is overly vague.
“We call upon the Secretary of Homeland Security to document and promulgate a lawful definition before further actions are taken, so the cities across the Nation may determine how to proceed,” the organization added.
knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii)
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv)
encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I)
engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II)
aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B)A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—
(i)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;
(ii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;
(iii)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and
(iv)
in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
WASHINGTON (INTELLIHUB) — The nation’s Attorney General briefed members of the press at the White House Monday afternoon on his recent federal request for sanctuary cities to follow detention and deportation laws regarding illegal immigration.
“The Department of Justice has a duty to enforce our nation’s laws, including our immigration laws,” Attorney General Jefferson Sessions said.
According to Sessions, in many cases, sanctuary cities have failed to adhere to federal detainer requests and have let violent criminals go.
President Donald Trump has previously addressed the issue both publically and in an executive order after the Inspector General found that such issues violate federal law.
Now, under Sessions watch, sanctuary cities will be required to comply with “Section 1373” in order to be eligible for Office of Justice Programs (OJP) grants.
“Such policies make their cities and states less safe. Public safety as well as national security are at stake and put them at risk of losing federal dollars,” Session said.
Steff
(@TechQn) 
