Showing posts with label San Francisco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Francisco. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Jack Kelly: Don't blame Trump

Kate Steinle, 32, was walking with her father along the Embarcadero in San Francisco in the early evening July 1 when she was shot – apparently at random -- by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, 45, an illegal alien from Mexico who’d committed 7 previous felonies in the U.S.
Mr. Lopez-Sanchez had been deported five times. It would have been six, but for the fact San Francisco is a “sanctuary city.”
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had Mr. Lopez Sanchez in custody after his release from federal prison in March, but turned him over to sheriff’s deputies for San Francisco county, where a drug warrant had been issued for him.
ICE asked to be notified if San Francisco released Mr. Lopez-Sanchez, so he could be deported. But San Francisco does not honor such requests from federal immigration authorities.
In Laredo, Texas, the day after Kate Steinle was murdered, Juan Francisco de Luna Vasquez, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, beat his wife to death with a hammer.
Mr. de Luna Vazquez had been deported four times. It would have been five if Laredo police had informed the Border Patrol of earlier violent episodes with his wife.
In 2013, ICE released back into local communities 36,007 illegal aliens who among them had nearly 88,000 criminal convictions – including 193 homicides, 426 sexual assaults, 303 kidnappings, and 1,075 aggravated assaults.
All were being processed for deportation, but were freed while awaiting final disposition of their cases. Most of the releases were discretionary (not required by law.) After their release, at least 1,000 committed additional crimes.
The 36,000 were in addition to 68,000 other illegal aliens with criminal convictions encountered by ICE in 2013, but released without being processed for deportation.
Last year ICE released 30,558 criminal aliens who, collectively, had almost 80,000 convictions, including 250 homicides, 386 kidnappings, 373 sexual assaults, 994 aggravated assaults.
Illegal immigrants comprise about 3 percent of the population in the U.S., 30 percent the federal prison population, 38 percent of those convicted of federal crimes in FY 2013. More than 40 percent of federal criminal cases filed by U.S. attorneys last year were in five districts along the Mexican border.
These statistics go unmentioned by Democrats and journalists who’ve assailed Donald Trump for remarks he made about illegal immigrants when he announced his candidacy for president June 16.
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”
This was a crude statement from someone notorious for making crude remarks. The vast majority of illegal immigrants have broken no other U.S. laws. Most work long hours for low wages at scut jobs to provide a better life for their families.
Illegals are far more likely to be victims of violent crime. As many as 80 percent of illegal immigrant women are raped during their perilous journey here. In every major population group, only a relative handful of people commit violent crimes. The proportion of violent felons among illegal immigrants probably is about the same as for the native born.
But violent felons among the illegal immigrants commit lots of crimes -- crimes that would not have been committed if they hadn’t gotten into the country in the first place, been deported promptly, or kept in custody until they could be deported.
Mr. Trump deserves criticism for how he said it, but the thrust of what he said is indisputably true. Criticism of his infelicitous remark is hypocritical coming from those who’ve asserted or implied Republicans who seek stronger border security measures are “racist.”
I don’t like Donald Trump. I wish he’d said what he said in a more accurate, less provocative way. But it isn’t he who deserves condemnation. It’s the politicians whose policies have made them accessories before the fact in the murder of Kate Steinle, and so many others.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Can Kate Steinle's Family Sue San Francisco Over Its Sanctuary City Policy?

FILE -- July 2, 2015: Liz Sullivan, left, and Jim Steinle, right, parents of Kathryn "Kate" Steinle, talk to members of the media outside their home in Pleasanton, Calif.
FILE -- July 2, 2015: Liz Sullivan, left, and Jim Steinle, right, parents of Kathryn "Kate" Steinle, talk to members of the media outside their home in Pleasanton, Calif. (Lea Suzuki/San Francisco Chronicle via AP
)Looking for justice? Move to Mexico. When it comes to looking to the U.S. courts for protection, you may have a better chance if you’re from south of the border.
Kathryn "Kate" Steinle was shot dead on July 1, allegedly by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a Mexican felon who was in the U.S. illegally. Lopez-Sanchez would have been deported but for the fact that San Francisco is a "sanctuary city," which is why officials there chose to release him and ignore an ICE detainer. This effectively put him back on the street. And yet, if Steinle's family tries to sue the city for this travesty, it may be thrown out of court.
Meanwhile, in Arizona, a judge has just denied a motion to dismiss a case brought by the mother of a Mexican teen who was shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent in a cross-border shooting. You read that right. The teen was Mexican, shot in Mexico, and the judge still ruled that his mother may sue the Border Patrol agent. U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins opined that "the Mexican national may avail himself to the protections of the Fourth Amendment and that the agent may not assert qualified immunity." The ACLU attorney on the case applauded this ruling, saying, "The court was right to recognize that constitutional protections don't stop at the border."
Perhaps they begin there. If Kate Steinle's family cannot use our laws to get justice in her name, and yet the family of this Mexican teen can, the immigration debate has truly become the twilight zone.

[VIDEO] Megyn Kelly: Why Is Obama Silent on the Murder of Kate Steinle By an Illegal Immigrant?

MEGYN KELLY, HOST, "THE KELLY FILE": Breaking tonight, the young woman gunned down by an illegal immigrant in San Francisco was just laid to rest. Surrounded by friends and family. It does not appear at this hour that anyone from the Obama administration was in attendance.
Welcome to THE KELLY FILE, everyone. I'm Megyn Kelly. Funeral services were held this evening for 32-year-old Katherine Steinle. Her loved ones remembering her as an avid traveler who loved connecting with people until her life was cut short a week ago. That's when Kate was shot and killed while in her father's arms, police say by this man, Francisco Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who had been deported five times from this country and had racked up a string of felonies while in the U.S. The San Francisco sheriff had Sanchez in custody as recently as April but released him pursuant to San Francisco's sanctuary city policy where they have rules against handing over anyone to the Feds who might be deported.
This sheriff himself a convicted criminal says, he stands by the city's policy. Kate's murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrant, sanctuary cities in crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city's decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.
Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray's death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?
Marc Thiessen is a FOX News contributor and the former chief presidential speechwriter for President George W. Bush. Richard Fowler is a nationally syndicated radio host. Thank you for being here, both. Marc, why?
MARC THIESSEN, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, the silence from President Obama is absolutely deafening. He had plenty to say when it came to Trayvon Martin, when it came to Michael Brown, when it came to Freddie Gray, but all of the sudden a woman is killed by a criminal alien, and all of a sudden the President is tongue tied. He's got nothing to say. Why is that? The answer is simple. In all of those other cases, he had liberal policy points that he wanted to make about gun control, about police bias, about racial profiling. In this case he has no policy points he wants to make because the policies that he supports are the ones that got this woman killed. His support for sanctuary cities, his support for releasing criminal aliens into the communities. So he doesn't want to highlight this because there's no political gain to be made from it.
KELLY: Richard, do you disagree with any word that Marc just said?
RICHARD FOWLER, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED RADIO HOST: I disagree with about 90 percent of it. I think this president is outraged that we haven't passed comprehensive immigration reform. Since this president is coming to the White House --
KELLY: Where is the comment on Kate Steinle's death?
FOWLER: Over and over and over again about comprehensive immigration reform. This president has said number of times --
KELLY: But if you could just answer my question, Richard? Could you answer my question?
FOWLER: I am answering your question, Megyn.
KELLY: Where is the comment about Kate Steinle's murder?
FOWLER: The reason why Kate Steinle's murder happened, and the White House will tell you the same thing, is because we have a broken immigration system. George Bush tried to fix it and Republicans blocked it. Now, the President has tried to fix it. Marco Rubio even tried. It was so bad that he ran away from it.

Candidates call for changes in "sanctuary city" policies

As immigration continues to be a contentious issue on the campaign trail, many politicians are calling for changes in "sanctuary city" policies, reports CBS News correspondent Jan Crawford.
The idea of the policies is to support immigrants and provide assistance if they became involved with minor offenses. But the policies have come under scrutinysince the murder of a San Francisco woman, allegedly by an undocumented immigrant.
"We ought to eliminate 'sanctuary cities,"' former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said.
On this immigration issue, Republican presidential candidates agree.
"One of the things we've talked about in the past, and we've tried to get included with negotiations with Democrats in the past, is the idea of getting rid of the 'sanctuary city' situation," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said on Fox News.
Now Congress is considering action.
"I don't think you can have whole cities or whole states just not obeying the law," Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said.
It became front-page news after the murder of Kathryn Steinle, allegedly shot and killed by Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a convicted felon who had been deported to Mexico five times.
Lopez-Sanchez was released from jail in April. But he was on the streets because San Francisco officials, under city policy, ignored a request from federal immigration officials to notify them before he was set free.
The crime even has Democratic candidates like Hillary Clinton softening their previous support for "sanctuary cities."
"The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported," she said.
But for Republicans, it's a chance to reset the crucial immigration debate and move away fromDonald Trump's incendiary comments about illegal immigrants.
San Francisco is one of more than 200 sanctuary jurisdictions, including New York, Miami and Los Angeles, that can offer a safe harbor for undocumented immigrants who otherwise might face deportation.

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship Hillary and the sanctuary sisters of San Francisco.

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco’s refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. “Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise — but it didn’t stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.
“The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police,” Feinstein explained in an email. “I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement.”

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco’s sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There’s an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE — the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer. “Thank you. Amen. Yes,” Saldana answered.

Then came blowback from the anti-enforcement community. Saldana released a statement that said such a law would be counterproductive and “lead to more resistance.” You have to figure her reversal was on orders from the White House. Asked about Steinle’s killing at a press conference this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Republicans in Congress for blocking “common-sense immigration reform.”

Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep their city safe.



Thursday, July 9, 2015

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco's refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, "The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on."
In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. "Well, I don't think there is any choice," she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if "they think you're also going to be enforcing the immigration laws." She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.
In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise -- but it didn't stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.
"The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police," Feinstein explained in an email. "I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement."
Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco's sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There's an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)
Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments "may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk."
Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE -- the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein and Boxer. "Thank you. Amen. Yes," Saldana answered.

[VIDEO] Fox’s Jesse Watters Confronted San Fran Board of Supervisors over Kate Steinle’s Death


Bill O’Reilly‘s roving reporter Jesse Watters dropped his usual shtick to get serious and confront San Francisco’s board of supervisors over Kate Steinle‘s death.

Since Monday, O’Reilly has made it clear he’s very outraged about Steinle being shot dead by an illegal immigrant who had already been deported. He said the Obama administration is “complicit”and her death is “collateral damage” of San Francisco’s “insane left-wing politics.”
Tonight he kept the focus on San Francisco, showing video of Watters there yesterday confronting the city board of supervisors over their “dangerous sanctuary city policies.”
He held up a picture of Steinle, said the city let her killer out, and called them out for their silence and for not looking at the photo.
Later on in the segment, Watters attempted to confront other city officials in their offices about her death, but did not exactly get direct responses.

S.F. Shooting Reveals Gaps in Immigration Enforcement

A slaying in San Francisco has sparked a national furor over its status as a so-called “sanctuary city” for unlawfully present immigrants. In an area popular with tourists, a five-time deportee named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez shot Kathryn Steinle as she walked the waterfront with her father.
In addition to his five deportations, Lopez-Sanchez had racked up seven felony convictions since 1991, according to the Washington Post. “San Francisco authorities released him from custody in April after drug charges against him were dropped, despite an urgent request from the Department of Homeland Security that he be deported a sixth time to his native Mexico,” the Post reported.
Laying blame squarely at the feet of the city, federal officials have helped return California to the center of the immigration debate roiling the U.S. amidst the early stages of a presidential election season.

Municipal crisis

Caught flat-footed, city officials have scrambled to respond to the ballooning criticism. Donald Trump, who has made immigration enforcement a divisive wedge issue defining his maverick run for the presidency, recently seized upon the shooting as evidence justifying his proposed crackdown. City officials emphasized that their actions were in accordance with municipal law, as the Los Angeles Times noted:
“San Francisco’s ordinance made Sanchez ineligible for a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement hold because he did not have ‘a violent felony conviction within the last seven years, or a probable cause for holding issued by a magistrate or judge on a current violent felony,’ said Freya Horne, an attorney for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. ‘Nothing in his background showed anything like that.’”
Lopez-Sanchez fell under the purview of a 2013 law adopted by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. “Since then,” added the Times, “dozens of cities and counties across the country have stopped complying with immigration “detainer” requests after a federal judge ruled that an Oregon county violated one woman’s 4th Amendment rights by holding her for immigration authorities without probable cause.”
Lopez-Sanchez has now been charged by city prosecutors in connection with Steinle’s killing, according to Fox News.

Murdered by the Left: Time for a campaign against “sanctuary” cities

On Monday, illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, a 45-year-old repeat drug offender who had been deported five times, was charged with killing Kathryn Steinle, 32, at Pier 14 in the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco. The details surrounding this case are a testament to the multi-layered bankruptcy of progressive ideology.


We begin with the contemptible notion of a sanctuary city itself. Despite the passage of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996 requiring cities to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE), there are literally hundreds of cities in the nation that provide safe haven for illegal aliens in open defiance of federal law. Yet, because that law conflicts with progressive sensibilities, not a single lawsuit has ever been filed by the federal government against a sanctuary city for violating it. In a revealing contrast, the Obama administration has filed suit against states such as Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina that were attempting to enforce federal immigration law. The administration claimed the states had no right to do so—despite the reality the administration itself refuses to do so.

The case of Lopez-Sanchez itself is equally illuminating. Despite his presence in America following five deportations to his native country of Mexico, ICE turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco police on March 26 because he had an outstanding drug warrant. And despite the reality he had a record of seven felony convictions, San Francisco released Lopez-Sanchez to the streets on April 15, after the district attorney declined to prosecute him for a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge. In short, the feds aided and abetted the release of a serial border-buster to a sanctuary city manifestly unwilling to jail a career criminal.

No one made that reality clearer than San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. Mirkarimi first blamed ICE for Sanchez-Lopez’s release, insisting the agency didn’t file a formal court application to detain him. But in a later interview with CNN, his progressive instincts were revealed. The sheriff defended San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy, insisting it “makes us safer.” “We’re a world-renowned city with a large immigrant population,” Mirkarimi declared. “And of that population is a population that is also here undocumented. From a law enforcement perspective, we want to build trust with that population. And our sanctuary city and other attendant laws have allowed us to do that.”

Mirkarimi’s arrogant defiance of federal law is nothing new. In a press release sent out last year, he boasted about a revision made to his department’s policy of retainment that “reduced the number of individuals released to ICE authorities by 62 percent. Only one other county in California had a policy of similar strength,” it stated.

San Francisco’s equally contemptible Mayor, Ed Lee, added ideologically inspired insult to injury. Despite issuing a press release saying he was “deeply saddened” by the “tragic and senseless death,” of Steinle and that his “thoughts and prayers” were with her family, he also endorsed his city’s sanctuary policy. “Let me be clear: [the policy] protects residents regardless of immigration status and is not intended to protect repeat, serious and violent felons,” he said. Lee further emphasized his commitment to “civil liberties” and “public safety” to explain his 2013 decision to “veto any legislation” undermining the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department’s ability to determined whether or not to honor ICE-issued “detainers” on a case-by-case basis.


Wednesday, July 8, 2015

[VIDEO] Shooting renews scrutiny on 'sanctuary'-backing San Francisco sheriff

The murder of a young woman in San Francisco allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant has brought renewed scrutiny on the sheriff who released the defendant before the attack and has ardently backed policies making the city a “sanctuary” for undocumented immigrants. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials in March handed over defendant Francisco Sanchez on a drug-related warrant to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.
However, the department released him several weeks later, after the charges were dropped, following a policy of not complying with federal requests to detain illegal immigrants for deportation.
"My long-held belief is that local law enforcement should not be in the civil immigration detainer business," San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said last year, after the policy was adopted.
Mirkarimi, a Democrat and former Green Party member, has argued since Sanchez allegedly shot to death 32-year-old Kate Steinle on July 1 that federal authorities should have issued a warrant or court order to hold Sanchez, who has seven prior convictions and has already been deported five times. 
But this claim has been met with skepticism, given the circumstances. “He should have honored the immigration hold,” immigration lawyer Francisco Hernandez told Fox News on Tuesday. 
Mirkarimi, elected in 2011, is up for re-election in November. Now, Steinle’s death, coupled with personal and departmental missteps, pose potential problems. 
Via: Fox News
Continue Reading....

Why aren't Democrats asked if they agree with sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce immigration laws?

Why does the administration sue states like Arizona who want to enforce federal immigration laws and essentially reward sanctuary cities like San Francisco who refuse to enforce the laws of the land?

Since sanctuary cities are acceptable to the administration, I believe the concept of sanctuary businesses should be set up nationwide. These businesses could choose to not comply with Federal immigration laws. They would get the double benefit of not having to cover illegal immigrants for Obama Care since that is not required. I am sure the Justice Department, the Obama Administrations, all Democrats, the compliant media, the ACLU and others would be major supporters of these sanctuary businesses since they are just trying to help out their fellow man and we all know that the U.S became the greatest economic power in the World because of illegal immigration.

Anyone who opposes these common sense sanctuary businesses should be called hostile to all immigrants.

I actually think the concept of sanctuary cities and businesses should be expanded so they can pick and choose the  federal laws they want to comply with. After all, some laws just aren’t working and the legislative process is just too cumbersome. What could go wrong?

Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as common sense politicians.
I guess laws of the land only have to be obeyed if Democrats and the media agrees with those laws. Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.


Most of the media essentially portrays Republicans who want to enforce existing immigration laws as far right extremists and portrays Democrats who willingly ignore existing laws as common sense politicians.


I guess laws of the land only have to be obeyed if Democrats and the media agrees with those laws. Ignoring the oath of office and the Constitution is obviously fine when the media agrees.

Where are the protests and where is the outrage by the media that San Francisco politicians and the Obama Administration willingly look the other way as they let  a criminal illegal alien who had already been deported five times out on the street to kill an innocent woman. .We have been told that the borders are more secure than ever and that is obviously true because the murderer has only been deported five times. Now we learn that he killed the woman with a gun stolen from a federal agent. That shows that we have to get all guns out of the hands of federal agents because one death like this is one too many.

I am also shocked that President Obama is not giving the eulogy on the murdered woman and that there is not continuous coverage of her funeral.

And we all must remember, that, according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, that even though this murder occurred in The Democrat sanctuary city of San Francisco who released this known criminal, that it is the Republicans’ fault because they didn’t pass the immigration bill.
The bias in the media is truly hard to spot.




Gun Used by Illegal Immigrant in San Francisco Shooting Belonged to Federal Agent

AP
The gun used by a Mexican illegal immigrant when he allegedly shot dead a 32-year-old woman at a San Francisco pier belonged to a federal agent, a source confirmed to Fox News Tuesday.
It was not immediately clear how Francisco Sanchez, 45, would have obtained the weapon. However, the San Francisco Chronicle reported sources told the paper the gun had been stolen during a car burglary in June.
Earlier Tuesday, Sanchez pled not guilty to first-degree murder in last week's shooting of Kathryn Steinle, 32, while she was walking with her father and a family friend at Pier 14. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.
Sanchez had previously told KGO-TV Sunday in a mix of Spanish and English that he found a gun wrapped inside a shirt while he was sitting on a bench at the pier and smoking a cigarette.
"So I picked it up and ... it started to fire on its own," Sanchez said, adding that he heard three shots go off.
A source familiar with the investigation told the San Francisco Chronicle that Sanchez said he was at the popular pier to shoot at sea lions, and discarded the firearm after realizing he had shot Steinle.

Tuesday, July 7, 2015

Confederate Flag Kills Ten in Chicago... OH WAIT!!!!

If President Obama had a son, he might look like Amari Brown, the little boy killed by a bullet intended for his gang-banger father on the streets of President Obama’s Chicago in yet another bloody Windy City weekend. As the Chicago Tribune reported, over the Fourth of July weekend, Amari Brown was one of the ten that were killed among 55 that were shot, none attributed to Confederate flag loyalists:
Among those killed was 7-year-old Amari Brown, shot in the chest as he watched fireworks near his father's home in Humboldt Park late Saturday night.  Police say they believe the attack was aimed at the father, whom they described as a ranking gang member.
Also gunned down was 17-year-old Vonzell Banks, who was shot as he played basketball Friday at a park named for Hadiya Pendleton, a high school student fatally shot in 2013 near President Barack Obama's Chicago home.
The wounded included a 16-year-old boy and a 15-year-old girl shot shortly after midnight Sunday as they walked in Old Town, and a 19-year-old man shot around 10 p.m. Saturday as two groups fought near Navy Pier after the fireworks display there.
We are told that black lives matter, but apparently only those that can be blamed on rogue white cops or the occasional loony tune inspired by admirers of the Confederate flag. Trayon Martin matters, President Obama’s first imaginary son, who turned to confront neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman instead of just continuing on home. 

Michael Brown matters, the thug who committed a strong-armed robbery of a convenience store and then assaulted a police officer, trying to kill him with his own gun. The rush to judgment false narrative inspired the “hands up, don’t shoot” false mantra endlessly repeated by those determined to perpetuate black victimhood and white guilt.
Chicago Police Commissioner Gary McCarthy got it right when he observed that Amari Brown was another victim, , not of racism, but of gang violence and a revolving door justice system:
Antonio Brown, who police say is a ranking member of the Four Corner Hustlers street gang, has been arrested 45 times on charges ranging from gun possession to burglary, and is not cooperating with detectives in their investigation into the slaying of his son, Amari Brown, police said.
McCarthy said that the elder Brown's last arrest was in April for gun possession after leading police on a vehicle pursuit. Brown was later released on bail in that case, Cook County court records show.
"If Mr. Brown is in custody, his son is alive," McCarthy, flanked by several police officials and other officers, told a room full of reporters at the Harrison District police station on the West Side on Sunday afternoon. "That's not the case. Quite frankly, he shouldn't have been on the street."



Popular Posts