Five-Times-Deported Illegal Alien Jose Zarate Found Not Guilty in Murder of Kate Steinle
“A jury found seven-time felon, five times deported illegal alien Jose Garcia Zarate not guilty in the case of the 2015 murder of Kate Steinle Thursday evening.
The only count Zarate was found guilty on was felony possession of a weapon.
Thirty-two-year-old Steinle was shot and killed on a pier in San Francisco in 2015 while walking with her father. Her final words were pleas to her father for help, as she died in his arms.
Zarate, previously known as Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, previously confessed to shooting Steinle in a jailhouse interview with a local ABC News affiliate. He also told the outlet that he had chosen to go to San Francisco because he knew it was a sanctuary city.”
Rep. Luis Gutierrez to retire from Congress, sources say
|| Chicago Sun-Times
“Signaling the end to a quarter century career in Congress, Rep. Luis Gutierrez will announce Tuesday that he will not seek re-election, Democratic sources tell the Chicago Sun-Times.
The Northwest Side Democrat has been one of the more high-profile Latino politicians in the country, advocating forcefully for immigrant rights, since he became a U.S. representative 25 years ago.
Gutierrez, 63, planned to make his retirement announcement Tuesday in Chicago, the sources said.
He has a news conference scheduled for Tuesday afternoon at Maggiano’s Little Italy restaurant.
The sources added that Cook County Commissioner Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, D-Chicago, likely will run to succeed Gutierrez in next year’s election with Gutierrez’s endorsement. The sources said 22nd Ward Ald. Ricardo Muñoz was expected to run to replace Garcia on the Cook County Board of Commissioners.
Gutierrez and Garcia are scheduled to appear at a campaign kickoff event for Garcia at Mi Tierra restaurant in Little Village — Garcia’s neighborhood — at 6 p.m. Tuesday.
Neither Gutierrez and Garcia returned calls seeking comment Monday.”
Amnesty Champion Rep. Luis Gutierrez Quitting Congress, Says Chicago TV Station
“The Democrats’ leading pro-amnesty legislator, Chicago Rep. Luis Gutierrez, is quitting Congress, according to a Chicago TV station, NBC 5.
The station reported Monday evening:
NBC 5 has learned congressman Luis Gutierrez will announce Tuesday he is not running for re-election after 24 years on Capitol Hill, sources say. Guitterez telephoned key democratic leaders late this afternoon to let them know of his plans. Calls to Guitterez tonight have not been returned.
Gutierrez’s departure comes as his allies recognize the sinking prospects in 2017 for a no-strings “clean Dream Act” for 3 million illegals, including the 690,000 ‘DACA’ beneficiaries
In 2013 and 2014, Gutierrez was the leading Democratic pushing for House approval of the unpopular “Gang of Eight” amnesty-and-cheap-labor act.
For example, he worked closely with Rep. Paul Ryan to fashion a secret amnesty bill — even though the amnesty push was so unpopular that it cost Chuck Schumer nine Democratic seats plus the Senate majority in November 2014.
But Gutierrez’s 2017 push for a December amnesty is being blocked by hostile polls, Donald Trump’s immigration principles, top-level GOP opposition and tepid backroom support from Democrats.
For example, an amnesty for young illegals is a “top priority” for only 23 percent of American voters who identify as Independents, says a November poll by Morning Consult and Politico. The no-strings amnesty was strongly opposed by 16 percent in the November survey, and likely by many of the 23 percent of people who say they have no comment or don’t know.
Also, a November 27 report by the McClatchy news service included an admission by an amnesty proponent that the push for a December amnesty is losing ground:
“Two months have now passed, and I’m sad to report that we’re arguably further away from a solution today than we were then,” said Neil Bradley, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s chief policy officer.
ANOTHER ONE! Dem Congressman Arranged Secret “Severance Package” For Staffer Over Misconduct Claims
“Yet another Democrat Congressman is embroiled in a hush fund scandal. This time the lawmaker in question is Democrat Rep. Raul M. Grijalva.
The Arizona lawmaker arranged a “severance package” in 2015 for a staffer threatening a lawsuit claiming Grijalva was frequently drunk and created a hostile workplace environment.
Washington Times reports:
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva quietly arranged a “severance package” in 2015 for one of his top staffers who threatened a lawsuit claiming the Arizona Democrat was frequently drunk and created a hostile workplace environment, revealing yet another way that lawmakers can use taxpayer dollars to hide their misbehavior on Capitol Hill.
While the Office of Compliance has been the focus of outrage on Capitol Hill for hush-money payouts in sexual harassment cases, the Grijalva payout points to another office that lawmakers can use to sweep accusations under the rug with taxpayer-funded settlements negotiated by the House Employment Counsel, which acts as the attorney for all House offices.
The employment counsel negotiated a deal for taxpayers to give $48,395 — five additional months’ salary — to the female aide, who left her job after three months. She didn’t pursue the hostile workplace complaint further.
“On the advice of House Employment Counsel, I provided a severance package to a former employee who resigned. The severance did not involve the Office of Compliance and at no time was any allegation of sexual harassment made, and no sexual harassment occurred,” Rep. Grijalva stated to The Washington Times.
“Under the terms of the agreement, had there been an allegation of sexual harassment, the employee would have been free to report it. Regrettably, for me to provide any further details on this matter would violate the agreement,” Grijalva added.
That makes two new Capitol Hill Democrats that are now embroiled in misconduct scandals this week.
Rep. Al Green (D-TX) is under fire following reports he had sex with a drug-addicted staffer and then sued her after she threatened to go public with the encounter. Green is one of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill calling for President Trump to be impeached.”
Report: Foreign Nationals Outnumber Americans in High-Paying, White-Collar Silicon Valley Jobs
“Foreign nationals now outnumber Americans in high-paying, high-skilled, white-collar jobs in Silicon Valley, California – the hub of the United States tech industry.
Silicon Valley Leadership Group President Carl Guardino touted the statistic in a report, revealing that 57 out of every 100 jobs in Silicon Valley that require at least a bachelor’s degree are taken by a foreign-born resident.
The revelation comes as President Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, has led an initiative to increase educational funding of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) fields while ignoring the issue of mass immigration and multiple visa programs that have led to Americans being replaced by foreign nationals.
For instance, Ivanka helped secure $200 million of the Department of Education’s grant funds towards STEM fields, Breitbart News reported.
At the same time, Ivanka endorsed a plan to give amnesty to illegal aliens who have been shielded under a President Obama-created temporary amnesty program. Such an amnesty would have the potential to lead to a chain migration whereby between 9.9 million and 19 million foreign nationals enter the U.S. over the next few decades, further crowding out Americans from the workforce.
The growing foreign-born population taking jobs in Silicon Valley comes as nearly 500,000 Americans graduate in the STEM fields every year who are forced to compete with a booming foreign-born population in the U.S. and foreign workers who are imported by outsourcing firms and major tech conglomerates.
For example, the H-1B visa, which brings more than 100,000 foreign workers to the U.S. every year, has been used quietly by tech giants like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook to import a cheaper, foreign workforce, as Breitbart News reported. The H-1B visa allows for Americans to be displaced from their white-collar jobs, and sometimes they are even forced to train their foreign replacements as a stipulation of their severance.
Every year, more than 1.5 million illegal and legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S., with the current foreign-born population booming to an unprecedented high of roughly 44 million individuals. Mass immigration to the U.S. has been at the expense of American workers in the working and middle-class who have been forced to compete with foreign labor while their wages have remained stagnant.”
Dem Congressman Who Oversees Sexual Harassment Settlements is Under FBI Investigation
“It turns out that the Democrat swamp creature who oversees Congressional sexual harassment settlements is under FBI investigation.
Democrat Congressman Bob Brady of Pennsylvania is under FBI investigation for false statements, conspiracy and campaign fraud, Newsweek reported.
Brady is apparently Congress’ most trusted man to oversee sexual harassment cases. Amazing.
Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Brady, who oversees the settlements paid by Congress for sexual discrimination complaints, is under FBI investigation for false statements, conspiracy and campaign fraud, documents showed Tuesday.
Brady, a Democrat, is a ranking member of the Committee on House Administration, which gives him power over settlement payments with taxpayer dollars. The office also works to prevent sexual harassment in Congress.
The FBI obtained a search warrant for Brady’s emails.
There is probable cause to believe that Brady and his associates “were involved in the commission of several crimes, including conspiracy, false statements, producing false records, false campaign contribution reports, and violating limits on campaign contributions and expenditures,” the court papers say. “Brady’s email account is likely to contain evidence of these crimes.”
Brady’s campaign associates were also indicted last month.
A man like Bob Brady can easily be bribed or blackmailed since he is compromised. He is not fit to be in a position of power over other men who are desperate to make their sexual harassment cases disappear. This dynamic further stacks up against female victims who are abused and intimidated by powerful men in DC.”
100 Officials Singing La Marseillaise Drown Out Islamic Prayers
|| the Gateway Pundit
“In a scene perhaps reminiscent of film classic, Casablanca, a defiant crowd of two hundred Parisians faced-off with Islamic protestors, Friday lunchtime, attempting to end a street protest which has brought the town center to a standstill each Friday afternoon for eight months.
As reported by the Gateway Pundit in spring, Clichy-la-Garenne, several métro stops from central Paris, has been the scene of Friday street prayers by Muslims demanding the town provide a new mosque in the heart of Clichy – despite the opening, at tax-payer expense, of a new prayer room and Islamic center a short distance away.
At 12:30pm, close to one hundred elected officials from right and centrist parties, wearing saches in the red, white and blue of the French Republic, assembled outside the town hall and marched towards the site of Friday’s Islamic street prayers – a pedestrianized street where two hundred Muslims were gathering a short distance away.
As the republican cortège neared the street protest, a dozen or so elected officials physically attempted to prevent Friday prayers from taking place at which point heavily armed CRS, French riot police, intervened forming a double cordon between the Muslim gathering and the elected officials and supporters.
Led by Mayor Rémi Muzeau, the march pressed closer to the police line, breaking into La Marseillaise, the French national anthem, and advancing until such point as the two opposing groups were mere feet apart.
In the surreal moments that followed, the Muslim faithful – mostly of North African descent, some of whom were dressed in traditional Islamic garb – offered up incantations in Arabic as the elected representatives and longtime Clichy residents continued their patriotic rendition of La Marseillaise, the two sides squaring off against one another.
Minor scuffles broke out on the fringe of the protest and police temporarily struggled to maintain order as tempers flared leading up to the moment the two opposing sides came face to face.
Friday’s protest represents the first time the Islamic protesters were seriously challenged since their street prayers began in March this year, apart from a minor demonstration by secular protesters earlier in the week.
‘’We cannot accept that the public space is occupied in this manner. The mayor is powerless. It’s up to the State to act’’, Valérie Pécresse, regional president of the conservative Les Républicains explained to the assembled media.
The mayor of Clichy, Rémi Muzeau (also of Les Républicains) went further, calling on the French Minister of the Interior, Gérard Collomb, to ban the illegal street prayers, citing his duty to ensure the tranquility and liberty of the town’s 60,ooo inhabitants.
‘‘They present a bad image of our town on social media and to the whole world, and I don’t want that’’, Muzeau explained to RTL radio, calling on the state to finally intervene.
As the Gateway Pundit reported earlier this year, the mayor of Clichy chose not to renew a short-term lease granted by his socialist predecessor, which had allowed members of the local Muslim community to utilize a city building as a mosque and Islamic cultural center. In its place, he opened an Islamic center and prayer room a short distance away.
Representatives of the town’s 20,000 strong Muslim population say the building is badly served by public transport however, and have vowed to continue to observe their Friday prayers in the open on the streets of Clichy until a suitable facility is provided.
Through-out France, a massive expansion of mosque building is underway, including huge ‘cathedral mosques’ nearing completion across the historically Catholic country, a sign of the country’s shifting demographics.
Thus far, there has been no reaction from President Macron’s Interior Minister, Gérard Collomb, to Friday’s events.
French social media lit up in support of the counter protest, Friday evening, with Clichy Mayor, Rémi Muzeau calling the event ”an immense success” and vowing to counter protest the street prayers every Friday until the state takes action.”
Mass Immigration to U.S. Is World’s ‘Largest Anti-Poverty Program’ at the Expense of Americans
“Decades of mass immigration to the United States, with more than 1.5 million legal immigrants entering the country every year, is the world’s “largest anti-poverty program” at the expense of blue-collar American workers and the middle class, says a Harvard University economist.
In an interview with Talking Points Memo, economist George Borjas detailed how more than five decades of mass immigration of low-wage foreign nationals to the U.S. have negatively impacted America’s poor, working class, and middle class in the labor force.
Since 1965, we have admitted a lot of low-skilled immigrants, and one way to view that policy is that we were running basically the largest anti-poverty program in the world. That is actually not a bad thing at all. Except someone is going to have to pay the cost for that.
This is the question that most progressives don’t want to face up to. They really want to believe that immigrants are manna from heaven. That everybody is really better off and that everybody is happy forever after. What they refuse to confront is the reality that nothing in the world is like manna from heaven. In any policy change, some people benefit a lot and some people don’t. And this point also applies to immigration, which has created the dynamics of where we are now.
When it comes to how much Americans have suffered because of mass immigration, Borjas says his “rule of thumb is that if immigration increases the number of workers by 10 percent, the wage of workers probably drops by about 3 percent.”
“The largest loss is probably the wage drop suffered by the workers who now face more competition in the labor market,” Borjas said.
“It is not a huge drop, but it is certainly not zero. And we should all find it particularly worrisome when this wage drop is imposed on workers who can least afford it. And this obviously tends to aggravate the forces that lead to greater inequality in our economy,” Borjas continued.
Borjas said that Americans are not only negatively impacted by immigration in the workforce but also in how much they must pay in social services for new arrivals.
“The other big loss that we need to think about in terms of low-skill immigration is the increased cost of government services that we provide to them,” Borjas said. “According to the latest National Academy report, this number could easily exceed over $50 billion a year.”
The cost of legal immigration noted by Borjas is just one component of the cost of overall immigration to the U.S. For instance, a recent study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found that illegal immigration costs American taxpayers $116 billion a year, as Breitbart News reported.
Legislation to reduce the burden of legal and illegal immigration on Americans has been set forward by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Sen. David Perdue’s (R-GA) RAISE Act, which President Trump has endorsed.
Under the RAISE Act, the recommendations of Civil Rights Leader Barbara Jordan would be fulfilled, as the bill would cut legal immigration levels in half — reducing immigration to 500,000 new immigrants a year — while also transforming the current low-skilled immigration system into one based on the merit and skills of foreign nationals.”
Pelosi Battles Pro-Amnesty Demonstrators At DREAM Act Event
|| Daily Caller
This is What Democracy Looks Like?
“A group of undocumented protesters shouted down House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at a community event on Monday for working with President Trump to pass the DREAM Act.
Pelosi responded to the outburst in impolitic fashion, yelling for the protesters to “Stop it!”
Pelosi was attending an event in San Jose with California Reps. Barbara Lee and Jared Huffman when a group of around 40 protesters interrupted with shouts of “Let us speak,” and “No lip service.”
San Francisco’s CBS affiliate reported that some of the demonstrators carried signs reading “Democrats are Deporters.”
They appeared upset that Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been negotiating with Trump in order to pass a law that will grant amnesty to people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
“We undocumented youth demand a clean bill…We undocumented youth demand that you do not sell out our community and our values…We undocumented youth will not be a bargaining chip for Trump,” the agitators shouted, according to CBS San Francisco.
After the initial outburst from protesters, Pelosi tried to regain control of the event.
“Let me say this, because you’ve had your say, and it’s beautiful to our ears to hear you protecting your self dignity,” Pelosi began.
“No lip service!” the demonstrators chanted.
“Stop it. Just stop it now,” Pelosi repeated over and over.
“Yes or no!” the protesters screamed.
“To what?” Pelosi asked in response.
“We do not owe you nothing,” the protesters shouted, adding: “This is what democracy looks like!”
California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill
|| Daily Caller
“California lawmakers punctuated the end of the 2017 legislative season by passing a comprehensive immigration bill that makes the state one of the nation’s most hostile to federal immigration authorities.
In a party line vote early Saturday morning, the state senate passed SB 54, a long-debated measure to shield illegal immigrants from the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement.
The bill sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people on civil immigration violations.
Entitled the “California Values Act,” the final version passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 27-11. The bill, now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown, is a scaled-back revision of an earlier proposal that would have cut off communication and resource-sharing with federal immigration authorities except in cases backed by a criminal warrant.
Democratic lawmakers amended SB 54 after negotiations with Brown last week to allow immigration agents to keep working with state corrections officials. Legislators also agreed to allow state and local police to hand over criminal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the subject has been convicted of one or more of 800 crimes enumerated in a previous law, the California Trust Act.
California senate leader Kevin De Leon said the changes wouldn’t alter the fundamental objective of the law: preventing law enforcement from aiding the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown against supposedly non-violent illegal immigrants.
“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said according to the Los Angles Times. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”
De Leon introduced SB 54 in December in response to Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. The measure was one of several introduced by Democratic lawmakers to benefit California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrant residents. Other proposals included using public funds for immigrants’ legal defense and expanding employer protections against ICE operations at work sites.
The original draft of SB 54 drew protest from many of California’s law enforcement officials and some Democratic lawmakers, who worried its severe restrictions on cooperation with ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens to avoid detention. De Leon’s compromise with Brown made the bill palatable for California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and moved the California Police Chiefs Association from opposed to neutral, reports the Los Angeles Times.
The amended version of SB 54 still has significant opposition in California’s law enforcement community. In a statement released in advance of Saturday’s vote, the California Sheriffs Association said the bill “goes too far in cutting off communications” with the federal government and prevents notification about the pending release of public safety threats such as repeat drunk drivers and hit-and-run suspects.
The passage of SB 54, which Brown is expected to sign in the coming weeks, will likely worsen tension between California and federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detention requests or give ICE agents access to local jails. He has singled out San Francisco and Los Angeles as cities whose sanctuary policies run afoul of new Department of Justice eligibility rules for criminal justice grants.
On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago gave California, and every other state, a temporary reprieve from Sessions’ crackdown. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a nationwide injunction that blocks the Department of Justice from implementing the new guidelines while Chicago’s lawsuit against the order is is evaluated by the courts.”
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
“The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.
Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.
This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.
In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.
A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.”