Monday, July 24, 2017

san francisco

by -
Illegal Windfall
Crime pays, as long as those crimes are committed in a Sanctuary City.

San Francisco’s policies that make it a “sanctuary city,” has caused the city to soon pay $190,000 in taxpayer dollars to settle a lawsuit against Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno.

Figueroa-Zarceno an illegal immigrant has stated that he was reported to federal immigration authority, although San Francisco has a sanctuary policy in place. CBS News notes, “Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno walked into a police station on Dec. 2, 2015, to recover his stolen car.

When he left the station, he was immediately taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A document from federal immigration authorities released by his attorneys indicates that a San Francisco police officer directly contacted ICE and told them where to find Figueroa-Zarceno, the man’s attorneys and representatives said.”

A spokesman for the office of San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, John Cote highlighted that there are very “strong” policies in place to protect victims and crimes to be protected from deportation. “San Francisco has strong policies in place to encourage victims and witnesses to report crimes without fear of being deported, which include our sanctuary ordinance.

“These policies are designed to foster respect and trust between law enforcement and residents to ensure our communities are safe.”

“The city, including the Police Department, remain committed to them. This proposed settlement is a fair resolution for all of the parties involved,” he added.

In a news conference with CBS, Figueroa-Zarceno went on to describe the incident, he stated that his 8-year-old child was yelling “Dad! Dad!” as the police arrested him. “I could hear her telling them not to take her dad,” he stated.

Furthermore, CBS has reported, “ICE officials confirmed the detention but would not comment on the released documents.

Zachary Nightingale, Figueroa-Zarceno’s attorney, said the document shows that while he served two days for a DUI in 2012, there were no criminal warrants for Figueroa-Zarceno in the system, only a civil deportation order dating back to 2005.

A judge has since reopened Figueroa-Zarceno’s immigration case after finding that the initial order was given without proper notification, and a new hearing was scheduled for 2019, Nightingale said.”

by -

San Francisco quarterback, Colin Kaepernick sat down during the national anthem to oppose oppression, but is he really making a stand by taking a seat?

First of all, I respect the right to protest and support Americans having the ability to stand up for what they think is right.

The stance that the quarterback is taking is one that should not be overlooked. There are real problems with how minorities are treated in some places and in some ways around our country. That can’t be denied.

My problem comes from the choice to sit during the national anthem and here is why.

People trying to escape religious persecution founded America, and we fought oppression from the British and won our freedom.

When slavery was allowed in America, men white and black fought for the freedom of all men.

When women and minorities were not allowed to vote, we learned from our mistakes and fought the system and won.

When the Civil Rights movement kicked off, all everyone wanted was equal rights. Again, white and black people fought and marched together to make sure equality was the law in America.

Now we see new injustices and some people are waking up for the first time. People like Colin have always stood up and made the injustices known, but the problem here is how he did it.

Not standing for the national anthem is a slap in the face to all those people that fought for the right for us to make a stand. America is not oppressive.

America is made up of the people, and our history proves that we always team up with the side of “what is right”. That is our history.

The corruption and oppression is coming from those in power. America is not oppressive, but different agencies and officials can be. We need to end the oppression, but it will take Americans to do it. The same people that Kaepernick is sitting against in protest are the same people that can help end this mess.

He didn’t direct his protest towards the government, but towards America. He said that America is oppressive, but it is literally quite the opposite. The problem is we look at things in such a small scale.

We remember back a couple of years or even to our childhood, but don’t consider that this country is still relatively new and we are building on our 238-year history. We can fix this problem too.

If we want to see what real oppression looks like, ask a Syrian Christian. There are real problems in this country, and we can fix them, but we can’t do it by blaming America. America is made up of real people that want change; we the people are not the oppressive ones.

The moral of the story, make sure you are fighting the right enemy.

Let me know your thoughts on what Kaepernick did in the comments below.

by -
Black Seed

A new protest group spun off of “Black Lives Matter” took over the Bay Bridge and completely shut off a busy corridor into San Francisco for nearly an hour on Martin Luther King, Jr. day.

The group calling itself “Black.Seed” or possible “Black Seed” if the period between the words is a typo, is a self-professed “Black, queer liberation collective.”

Initially, it was unclear if they want liberation for African Americans and homosexuals or just African American homosexuals.

The group finally explained through a press release:

For the second year in a row, the Anti-Police Terror Project (APTP) put out a call for 96 Hours of Direct Action to reclaim Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s radical legacy and take a stand against anti-Black racism and terrorism. In a courageous display of solidarity and the spirit of MLK, Black.Seed, a Black, queer liberation collective, has shut down the Bay Bridge as a show of resistance to a system that continues to oppress Black, Queer, Brown, Indigenous and other marginalized people throughout the Bay Area.

The group demanded that the city invest in affordable housing, the resignation of Oakland’s mayor, the firing of San Francisco’s and Oakland’s police chiefs and several officers. They also called for the divestment of city funds used for policing.

The protesters also unveiled a sign that stretched the width of the bridge that read “Black Health Matters.”

The protesters may have been unaware that flu shots are free at many local pharmacies.

The media initially reported that “more than 1,000 protesters” blocked the bridge but from the looks of YouTube videos it was maybe a few dozen protesters.

Police in riot gear and blue hospital gloves responded to quickly arrest the protesters. Twenty-five were arrested although no skulls were reported cracked.

by -
san francisco gun store

If you want to buy a gun while you’re visiting San Francisco, you can’t. The last gun store in the city has closed in protest of California’s insistence that gun buyers are criminals.

Steven Alcairo announced the closing of his store, High Bridge Arms, in September of this year. And while it may seem like a bad business move to close your location when you stand without competition, Alcairo saw it as the only thing he could do to stand up for gun rights.

The regulations that have been enacted require gun store owners to videotape each gun sale and report ammunition sales to the police. These invasive measures were the last straw. In Alcairo’s words:

“I’m not doing that to our customers. Enough is enough…Buying a gun is a constitutionally protected right. Our customers shouldn’t be treated like they’re doing something wrong.”

He’s absolutely right. Pharmacies don’t have to report how many Plan B pills they sell, nor do websites have to report the names and amounts of fetish pornography they provide each customer. This measure just affects gun owners.

Gun safety advocates don’t understand why Alcairo would close. They say that it would not affect his bottom line to comply with the regulations.

High Bridge Arms has been open for 63 years. The owner, Masashi Takahashi, says that he is too old to keep up with the city’s regulations. He is in his 70s and Alcairo says he is done with it.

Customers have been voicing their frustrations with the shop having to close and pointing to the new laws as the reason. When a city makes it so difficult for independent gun shops to operate, they are contributing to the problem. On top of that, they are villainizing the customer base, who is doing nothing wrong.

A Wal-Mart spokesperson has even come out and said that they also videotape gun sales. Other parts of California have adopted the practice as well.

There is reason, aside from common sense, to protest the measures reaching into other parts of the state. More rural areas have more gun owners buying more ammunition.

When asked about the gun laws being passed in California, a North Dakota gun shop owner described the practices as, “being a mess” and that it would require a lot of his time. In small business, time very much means money. Another shop owner said that if someone came in and bought 1,000-5,000 rounds it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow. They very well may be hunting prairie dogs off their land.

The same is most likely true for the more rural regions of California, namely, Northern California and any other farmland in the state. Criminalizing the purchase of weapons and ammunition via videotaping and reporting purchases just adds to the stigma the left has created around owning a gun in the first place.

Owning weapons is part of life for most rural folks. Farms are remiss to not have one. Coyotes get after chickens, mountain lions can threaten larger animals and people, animals need to be put down even to stop their suffering. The fundamental lack of understanding of why people own guns is echoed in these ridiculous laws.

There are a million reasons to own a gun. Post below why you own yours and what you think of San Francisco’s laws.

by -

A middle school in San Francisco threw out student election results because the winners weren’t “diverse” enough.

Now, parents and students alike are up in arms.

The student election at Everett Middle School in downtown San Francisco’s Mission District was held on October 9, but the results have not yet come out yet.

One of the students involved in the election, seventh grader Sebastian Kaplan, explained that the delay was because school administrators were concerned that the student body had elected too many white kids to leadership roles.

“The organizers are saying things like, ‘we want everyone’s voice to be heard,’ but in truth, the voters’ voices are not being heard,” Kaplan explained. “Most kids are in agreement that the results need to come out because kids worked really hard on it.”

“The whole school voted for those people, so it is not like people rigged the game,” he added. “But in a way, now it is kinda being rigged.”

All students in the school voted in the election.

Principal Lena Van Haren, 36, however, justified valuing diversity over democracy by explaining that the student government had to be more “representative.” Apparently, by adding voices that the student body itself has specifically not chosen to represent them.

“It’s not OK for a school that is really, really diverse to have the student representatives majority white,” she said, without justification.

Despite immediate criticism from parents, Van Haren brushed off claims that she was running Everett Middle School elections essentially like a member of the Castro family: “This is middle school. It’s not a presidential election.”

After overwhelming controversy–both from parents and the media–Van Haren agreed to certify the original election results, and let white students like Sebastian Kaplan take the offices that the entire student body had elected them to have. But said she still stood by her effort to increase diversity in student leadership.

by -

San Francisco has just announced another victory for the transgender community: you’ll be able to pick whether you go to a male or female jail by the end of the year.

Currently, transgender inmates in San Francisco are housed in isolation in the city’s downtown jail. But, by the end of the year, the San Francisco Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, hopes to house them in the general population–with whatever gender they “identify” with.

The reason? Nebulous claims of “social justice” for transgender Americans.

“I carry the perspective forward that the transgender population is marginalized on the streets of America,” Mirkarimi explained. “Consider how magnified that treatment is inside prisons and jails.”

Transgender inmates allegedly won’t just be able to declare a gender–they’ll be subjected a review process, to determine whether they’re actually transgender. But San Francisco offers no objective reasoning for how they’ll determine that, and it’s not clear that the so-called review will be anything more than a politically-correct rubber stamp.

Most surprisingly, it would allow a man or a woman who have not not yet had gender reassignment surgery to go in the prison of their choosing–a transgender inmate still built as their birth gender could wind up in a prison with their self-identified gender.

“It’s not going to be based on genitalia alone,” Mirkarimi clarified.

This kind of policy would be the first in the country–including other prisons in California. California has a liberal policy on transgender immigrants, including paying for their reassignment surgery, but doesn’t allow pre-operation transgenders into the regular population. San Francisco’s new policy will change that.

Currently, just 6 prisoners, out of San Francisco’s 1,257 inmates, are transgender.


Environmental Disaster

The feds believe that spending $200,000 on a video game that focuses on the importance of clean water can be a total game changer...