[VIDEO] SF sheriff defends prior release of suspect in pier slaying

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi has defended his office's decision to release a Mexican man who was in the U.S. illegally and who is now suspected in the killing of a woman at a sightseeing pier.

Mirkarimi said that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency should earlier have issued an arrest warrant for Francisco Sanchez.

"ICE knew that he had been deported five times," Mirkarimi said. "You would have thought he met a threshold that he required a court order or a warrant. They did not do that."

Prosecutors on Monday charged Sanchez with murder in the death of Kathryn Steinle, who was shot and killed last Wednesday as she and her father took a walk on the popular Pier 14.

Steinle's killing has brought criticism down on this liberal city because Sanchez had been deported repeatedly and was out on the streets after San Francisco officials disregarded a request from immigration authorities to keep him locked up.

San Francisco is one of dozens of cities and counties across the country that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities. The city goes so far as to promote itself as a "sanctuary" for people in the country illegally.

In a jailhouse interview with a TV station, Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender, appeared to confirm that he came to the city because of its status as a sanctuary.

The case has prompted a flurry of criticism from ICE officials, politicians and commenters on social media, all of whom portrayed the slaying as a preventable tragedy.

"Most of the blame should fall squarely on the shoulders of the San Francisco sheriff, because his department had custody of him and made the choice to let him go without notifying ICE," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, which wants tougher immigration enforcement.

Via: MyFoxDC

Continue Reading....

Hillary Flashback: Sanctuary Cities Keep Everyone Safe

Hillary: the government was failing when they enforced the law, and kept future illegal alien voters for me out of the country…

San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy is receiving harsh criticism after Wednesday’s murder of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a illegal immigrant who has been deported five times and has been convicted of seven felonies.

On Sept. 6, 2007 at Dartmouth College while debating during her last attempt to become president, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton supported sanctuary cities saying they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

Clinton said, “If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes. You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

When pressed if that means she supports the sanctuary cities policy Clinton replied, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice.”

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Man arrested in connection with San Francisco killing had been deported several times, officials say

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say. 

Further, Immigration and Customs Enforcement says San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify ICE when he was released. 

"DHS records indicate ICE lodged an immigration detainer on the subject at that time, requesting notification prior to his release so ICE officers could make arrangements to take custody. The detainer was not honored," ICE said in a statement Friday afternoon. 

Kathryn Steinle was killed Wednesday evening at Pier 14 -- one of the busiest tourist destinations in the city. 

Police said Thursday they arrested Francisco Sanchez in the shooting an hour after it occurred. 

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico. 

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

Nancy Pelosi’s Life As a 0.1 Percenter

Nancy Pelosi may be one of the most liberal members of the U.S. House, where she runs the Democratic caucus, railing against income inequality and the avarice of the 1 percent. But she also happens to be one of the body’s wealthiest members: In Washington, she lives in a multimillion-dollar Georgetown condo; she owns a 16-acre vineyard in Napa Valley and a 3,700 square-foot house in San Francisco’s tony Pacific Heights, according to her May 2015 financial disclosure statements.

Her May 2015 financial-disclosure statements,showing income that places her in the top one-tenth of the 1 percent of Americans, may surprise some in light of the concern she’s expressed about income equality and the distribution of wealth.

“We’re talking about addressing the disparity in our country of income, where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier,” Pelosi said in 2010 at a United Steelworkers’ event. “That disparity is not just about wages alone,” she added. “That disparity is about ownership and equity. It’s all about fairness in our country.” But even as she’s publicly bemoaned the rich getting richer, Pelosi’s fortune has grown. RELATED: With Harry Reid Gone, Why Is Nancy Pelosi Hanging On?

 Though financial-disclosure forms list only ranges of assets and liabilities, Pelosi listed between $42.4 million and $199.5 million in assets in 2013, which was enough for Bloomberg Business to deem her the richest member of House leadership from either party. By 2014, she and her husband, investment banker Paul Pelosi, were doing even better: She reported between $43.4 million and $202 million in assets. (Pelosi’s husband, in fact, has done so well that he tried the quixotic hobby of investing in an alternative to the National Football League, losing between $100,000 and $1 million in 2014.)

Via: National Review

Continue Reading....

Pelosi-Obama Cold Front Moving Into California

On Friday, one of the Democratic Party’s most generous supporters may view up close what “climate change” looks like. That's when President Obama and Nancy Pelosi will be among those gathered at his home near San Francisco in support of House Democrats.

By anyone’s definition, putting Obama and Pelosi together under one roof to sing House Democrats’ praises a week after a messy intraparty rift over trade policy should be interesting.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund founder whose passion is combating climate change, is scheduled along with wife Kat Taylor to host a top-dollar fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at their home, where the president and the minority leader have replenished Democratic coffers many times before. 

But on Tuesday, it was unclear whether the president and the liberal congresswoman from San Francisco were on speaking terms. 

Scrambling to rescue his administration’s Asia-focused trade agenda, which Pelosi’s opposition helped torpedo on June 12, Obama spoke by phone several times with House Speaker John Boehner on Monday, but by Tuesday he had not touched base with Pelosi, according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest.  

“President Obama and Leader Pelosi have demonstrated that they have a strong enough personal and professional relationship to withstand a difference even on an important issue like this,” Earnest said.

Pelosi, in an interview with CNBC Tuesday, declined to describe her conversation with Obama before the climactic House votes tangled the trade trajectory. She spoke like a San Francisco congresswoman more than as a House Democratic leader when she said she wanted to “slow down” fast-track legislation that would have granted U.S. negotiators leverage to get a massive trans-Pacific trade pact completed. 

“What you saw on the floor on Friday was an expression of concern of the American people. We are representatives. That is our title, and that is our job description. These are our constituents,” she told CNBC’s John Harwood.

“I'll take you with me to my district, we'll go to church, we'll go to a parade, any place, the dry cleaners. And you will be very surprised at how everyday people who are not connected to any organized organizations, who come up and say, ‘Don't vote for that.’”

Via: Real Clear Politics

Continue Reading....

California Gun Limits Face Court Challenge

California Gun Limits Face Court Challenge

June 16, 2015 By Ashby 

California’s requirement that residents looking to carry firearms in public have a good reason to do so is facing a high-level court challenge, one that gets to a key question surrounding the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.

On Tuesday, 11 judges of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will hear arguments over California’s requirement that applicants show “good cause” before they are allowed to carry a concealed handgun in public. The challengers are taking issue with the rules in two California counties — San Diego and Yolo — where sheriffs say that concern for one’s personal safety alone isn’t considered justification enough for a concealed-carry permit.

In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled definitively that people had the right to bear arms in their homes, even in municipalities with strict gun-control laws. But aside from a 2010 case that extended the reach of that ruling, the court has been quiet on how far the right extends beyond the front door, largely leaving lower courts little guidance. The California case will likely give the high court another opportunity to more clearly define the law.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Sack This! An Impossible Task for NFL Refs to Also Serve as Word Police

The N-Word.

The F-word (not the four-letter version, but the six-letter derogatory gay term).

Two words that have no place in public discourse.

And potentially two words with serious consequences if used during games in the National Football League. As you may have heard, the NFL is considering instituting a rule where players would be penalized 15 yards for uttering the aforementioned words on the field.

It’s noble what the NFL is attempting to do here.

It’s also absolutely unenforceable.

Picture this scenario: It’s a Sunday night game between the 49ers and Seahawks in Seattle. As you may have heard, CenturyLink Field is undoubtedly the loudest stadium in the league (which is impressive considering it is an outdoor stadium). So noisy, so difficult to play in for opponents, they retired #12 in honor of the fans (the 12th man). That said, it’s no coincidence the reigning champs are 15-1 at home over the past two seasons.

So it’s a tie game in the 4th quarter. Defensive Player X from San Francisco is running across the field to attempt to tackle running back Player Y of Seattle. But before he gets there, he is chopped-blocked at the knees by Player Z, a pulling lineman for the Seahawks. San Fran Player X feels the block was a cheap shot with intent to hurt him, and calls him the N-word for attempting to do so.

But this all unfolds away from the ball, and the referees are focused on what’s happening around Player Y, the Seattle RB. A ref thinks he hears someone yell the N-word, but isn’t sure due to a deafening crowd that once reached a decibel level of 136 (148 can make an ear rupture). But with more than a few players miked up for NFL Films and NBC, the official needs to do something or be reprimanded by his bosses for missing something that may be on tape.

So…he throws a flag on Player A from San Francisco and assesses a 15-yard penalty for illegal use of language. One problem: Player A wasn’t even involved (Player Z was the guilty party)…he just happened to be close by at the time. But again, with 22 players moving at once and 72,000 fans louder than a jet plane, enforcement is not remotely close to being an exact science.

Player A—a veteran who has built a good reputation in the league and is respected by his teammates and opponents alike—is all the rage the next morning on ESPN and even cable news. In our race-obsessed media, the questions are as predictable as the Jets offense: Is Player A a racist? Should he be fined or suspended for saying such a thing? According to Al Sharpton, that should absolutely be the case.

Via: Mediaite.com

Continue Reading.....

Los Angeles: Will the City of the Future Make it There?

When I arrived in Los Angeles almost 40 years ago, there was a palpable sense that here, for better or worse, lay the future of America, and even the world. Los Angeles dominated so many areas — film, international trade, fashion, manufacturing, aerospace — that its ascendency seemed assured. Even in terms of the urban form, L.A.’s car-dominated, multipolar configuration was being imitated almost everywhere; it was becoming, as one writer noted, “the original in the Xerox” machine.

Yet today the nation’s second-largest city seems to have fallen off the map of ascendant urban areas. Today’s dynamic cities in terms of job and population growth are the “new Los Angeleses,” such as Houston, Dallas, Phoenix or Charlotte; at the same time L.A. lags many more traditional “legacy” cities in job creation and growth, notably New York, Boston and Seattle. Worst of all, L.A. has lost its status as the dominant city on the West Coast; that title, in terms of both economic and political power, has shifted to the tech-heavy Bay Area.

With a weak economy and little media outside Hollywood, the city has lost much of its cachet. A Businessweek survey last year ranked San Francisco as America’s best city to live in. Los Angeles was 50th, behind such unlikely competitors as Cleveland, Omaha, Tulsa, Indianapolis and Phoenix. In another survey that purported to identify the top 10 cities for millennials, Seattle ranked first, followed by Houston, Minneapolis, Dallas, Washington, Boston and New York. Neither L.A. nor Orange County made the cut.

L.A.’s relative decline reflects a collective inability to readjust to changing economic conditions. Some of this has to do with the end of the Cold War, but also with the loss of the headquarters of many of the area’s top defense contractors, such as Lockheed and, most recently, Northrop Grumman. In 1990, the county had 130,100 aerospace workers. A decade later, that number dropped by more than half to 52,400. By 2010, the county’s aerospace jobs numbered 39,100.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading...

Three California Programmers Create Alternative Healthcare Website

CBS Evening News reports S.F. programmers build alternative to HealthCare.Gov Website

 On Friday, President Obama had this to say about problems with the Obamcare website during a speech in New Orleans: "I promise you, nobody's been more frustrated. I wanted to go in and fix it myself, but I don't write code."

But plenty of programmers do write code. And three of them have created their own website that addresses some of the most annoying problems with HealthCare.gov.

In a San Francisco office shared with other tech start-ups, three 20-year-olds saw HealthCare.gov as a challenge.

With a few late nights, Ning Liang, George Kalogeropoulos and Michael Wasser built "thehealthsherpa.com," a two-week-old website that solves one of the biggest problems with the government's site.

"They got it completely backwards in terms of what people want up front," said Liang. He added: "They want prices and benefits, so that they could make the decision."

Liang showed CBS News how it worked. "You come to our website and you put in your zip code -- in this case a California zip code. You hit 'find plans,' and you immediately see the exchange plans that are available for that zip code."

Via: TownHall

Continue Reading... 

Soda Wars and the Nanny State

It’s one thing to tell people they should eat their vegetables, but it’s quite another to ban everything but carrots and broccoli from the dinner table.

But for many of state’s lawmakers, making rules about what Californians can and can’t eat is just part of their job description, convinced as they are that politicians know what’s best for us.

In San Francisco, the city is gearing up for a soda pop war on next year’s ballot, with Supervisor Scott Weiner calling for a two-cents-per-ounce tax on all sugary drinks. San Francisco being San Francisco, about the only complaint now being heard is from another supervisor who has his own plan for a soda tax and different ideas about how the estimated $31million in annual revenues should be spent.

If this sounds familiar, it should. A year ago, Richmond tried to put a penny-an-ounce tax on soda, only to see the ballot measure go down by a two-to-one margin, thanks to voters whose outrage was fueled by more than $2 million in campaign contributions from the American Beverage Association.

A similar measure in El Monte was walloped in a June vote.

And don’t forget that San Francisco and Santa Clara County also have banned McDonalds from putting toys in any Happy Meals that contain more than the limits they set on calories and salt.

In each case, lawmakers argued that they were just doing what was needed to stem the rising tide of childhood obesity, forgetting – or perhaps ignoring – the fact that children have parents whose job it is, morally and legally, to see to their well being.

Unless the politicians are planning to send every parent with an overweight kid to the slammer for child abuse, maybe they should back off and let those parents decide whether their child can munch the occasional French fry or, gasp, drink a Coke.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading.....

In California, hundreds of thousands to pay more for health insurance

Hundreds of thousands of Californians who purchase their own health insurance are bracing to pay more for their plans, as the cost of the federal health care overhaul lands harder on middle-class customers.

Notices began arriving in recent weeks informing consumers that their plans are being phased out and replaced with policies that comply with requirements of the health care law. Many are being told to expect double-digit percentage increases in monthly costs, in part to help balance the cost of covering the underprivileged and those with pre-existing medical conditions who may not have had coverage.

The notices throw into sharp relief an e stirring reality of the law: While many will benefit, a smaller segment may not.

“There is certainly going to be heat around this, and lots of understandably unhappy people,” said Janet Coffman, a professor at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies and the department of family and community medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

“This is one important slice that is experiencing some very substantial increases in premiums,” she said. “But it’s important to understand this is one of many areas in which the impact of the health care law on individuals and families varies widely.”

Via: Sacramento Bee

Continue Reading.....

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/11/04/5877848/in-california-hundreds-of-thousands.html#storylink=cpy

Loyal Obama Supporters, Canceled by Obamacare

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

Since 1995, Hammack and Brothers have received their health coverage from Kaiser Permanente, where Brothers worked until 2009 as a dietician and diabetes educator. “We’ve both been in very good health all of our lives – exercise, don’t smoke, drink lightly, healthy weight, no health issues, and so on,” Hammack told me.

The couple — Lee, 60, and JoEllen, 59 — have been paying $550 a month for their health coverage — a plan that offers solid coverage, not one of the skimpy plans Obama has criticized. But recently, Kaiser informed them the plan would be canceled at the end of the year because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The couple would need to find another one. The cost would be around double what they pay now, but the benefits would be worse.

“From all of the sob stories I’ve heard and read, ours is the most extreme,” Lee told me in an email last week.

I’ve been skeptical about media stories featuring those who claimed they would be worse off because their insurance policies were being canceled on account of the ACA. In many cases, it turns out, the consumers could have found cheaper coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces, or their plans weren’t very good to begin with. Some didn’t know they could qualify for subsidies that would lower their insurance premiums.

Via: Pro Publica

Continue Reading.....