Issues, States

Illinois County to Become ‘Sanctuary County’…For Guns

More sanctuary news in the headlines this week, but not for the reason you’d think.

Effingham County, Illinois, has had enough of the state legislature’s socialist crackdown on guns (Chicago is home to some of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation).

And now they’re taking matters into their own hands.

By a vote of 8 to 1, the county board declared that, should a spate of anti-gun laws pass through the state legislature in the coming weeks, the county will officially become a sanctuary for gun owners in which authorities will not enforce the new state laws.

Finally, some federalism and common sense in an otherwise blue state.

This could be another showdown at the OK Corral.

Here’s more from Hotair…

Out in Illinois, the state legislature has been attempting to seize on the supposed momentum for new firearms restrictions and begun passing a raft of new gun control measures. Governor Bruce Rauner has been using his veto powers in some cases, but that hasn’t slowed down the Democrats seeking new restrictions. In response to this flurry of legislative activity, the residents and elected officials of one Illinois county have come up with what some are seeing as at least a partial solution. They’ve voted to declare themselves a “sanctuary county” for gun owners if the new control measures all go into effect. (Washington Times)

An overwhelming majority of board members in Effingham County, Illinois, decided to “flip the script” this week and declare itself a “sanctuary” for gun owners.

Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler and board member David Campbell called a barrage of gun-control bills working their way through the Illinois House and Senate a clear signal that it’s time to “take a stand.”

The men joined “Fox & Friends First” on Thursday to discuss a new Second Amendment resolution that passed along an 8-1 vote…

The resolution reads: “If the Government of the State of Illinois shall infringe upon the inalienable rights granted by the Second Amendment, Effingham County shall become a ‘sanctuary county’ for all firearms.”


Big govt, Politics, States

Sheriff Israel Faces No Confidence Vote from Deputies

Shamed Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel has unfortunately dropped out of the headlines despite his abject incompetence and self-congratulation after the Parkland massacre.

But now he may finally receive his comeuppance.

Over the next several days, Israel is being subjected to a no-confidence vote from his deputies, which was confirmed by the president of the deputies’ union.

We’re not quite sure what might have prompted the vote.

Well, except maybe that he threw Deputy Scot Peterson, who failed to enter the school during the shooting — completely under the bus.

Oh, and there was the policy of not arresting juveniles along with the dozens of visits to the shooter’s home.

We could go on, but you get the picture.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel is facing a no-confidence vote from his own deputies for his actions in the wake of the Parkland school shooting that have “crushed morale through the agency,” as the Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association described it.

The February 14th shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School left 17 students and teachers dead, and an additional 17 wounded. Israel has faced intense criticism for the dozens of visits to the shooter’s home that never resulted in an arrest, their policy of avoiding juvenile arrests even for serious and violent crimes, and the failure of his deputies to enter the school and engage the shooter.

Israel’s actions in the aftermath of the shooting have only raised the v0lume from his critics — his grandstanding attempts to demonize the NRA and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) at a CNN townhall, his scapegoating of his own deputies, and additional troubling reports about the shooter’s brother being arrested on campus and a BSO deputy getting caught sleeping while on duty that same day at Stoneman Douglas.


Politics, States

San Diego Joins Trump Lawsuit Against CA Sanctuary

Uber-lefties at the helm in the state capitol in Sacramento are up against the wall this week as the growing cadre of cities around the state of California openly opposing the sanctuary state now includes one of the largest: San Diego.

The City Board met early this week to vote on whether to join the suit against the state brought by the Trump administration, and by a one-sided vote of 3 to 1, the deal was done.

San Diego joins at least nine of the cities along the Mexico border where incursions by illegal aliens has been most felt most acutely.

Here’s more from Mercury News…

Leaders of California’s second-largest county voted Tuesday to officially support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state’s so-called sanctuary law that limits police cooperation with federal immigration agents.

The decision by San Diego County’s all-Republican Board of Supervisors comes amid a growing conservative backlash in California against the Democratic governor’s stance on immigration enforcement.

The region of 3 million residents that borders Mexico joins neighboring Orange County and at least nine other Orange County cities that have passed anti-sanctuary resolutions or voted to support the lawsuit filed last month by President Donald Trump’s administration.

The board voted 3-1, with one member absent. It pledged to file an amicus brief supporting the federal lawsuit at the first available opportunity, chairwoman Kristin Gaspar said. She expects the Trump administration to win and California to appeal, at which point the county would be allowed to file its brief.


Culture, States

‘Infiltration’: NY Mag Bashes Chik Fil A in NYC

These days news, satire and parody all have become one and the same, as truth and fiction are indistinguishable.

So it comes as no surprise that the New Yorker magazine, a reliably leftist iconoclast in the long-form print media, has taken to its next boogeyman: Chik Fil A.

It’s no secret that the owners of the corporation are overtly evangelical and politically conservative.

Everyone, including the corporate executive, is entitled to his opinion, even the soft-communist CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz.

But what the New Yorker laments is how Chik Fil A has the right to ‘infiltrate’ their city. The crime? They’re conservative, Christians.

So much for the First Amendment and the right of religious expression.

Here’s more from Hotair…

A little diversion for a lazy Friday afternoon on which absolutely nothing is happening news-wise. The worst part of this isn’t the casual hostility towards Christians or the fact that the author seems so much a caricature of the tedious, ostentatiously right-thinking liberal intellectual that populates the New Yorker readership that the piece plays like parody for the first few paragraphs. (It’s overwritten and his author bio notes that he lives in Brooklyn, deepening the parody suspicions.) Although both of those things are obnoxious in different ways.

The worst part is this sentence, which made me pause to pray for an asteroid to come and let our world start anew: “Its expansion raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.” What we expect from our fast food.

Cleanse this planet with fire.

New York has taken to Chick-fil-A. One of the Manhattan locations estimates that it sells a sandwich every six seconds, and the company has announced plans to open as many as a dozen more storefronts in the city. And yet the brand’s arrival here feels like an infiltration, in no small part because of its pervasive Christian traditionalism. Its headquarters, in Atlanta, is adorned with Bible verses and a statue of Jesus washing a disciple’s feet. Its stores close on Sundays. Its C.E.O., Dan Cathy, has been accused of bigotry for using the company’s charitable wing to fun anti-gay causes, including groups that oppose same-sex marriage. “We’re inviting God’s judgment on our nation,” he once said, “when we shake our fist at him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’ ” The company has since reaffirmed its intention to “treat every person with honor, dignity and respect,” but it has quietly continued to donate to anti-L.G.B.T. groups. When the first stand-alone New York location opened, in 2015, a throng of protesters appeared. When a location opened in a Queens mall, in 2016, Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a boycott. No such controversy greeted the opening of this newest outpost. Chick-fil-A’s success here is a marketing coup. Its expansion raises questions about what we expect from our fast food, and to what extent a corporation can join a community.


Politics, States

Three More CA Cities Reject ‘Sanctuary’ Status

Last month, Las Alamitos city officials voted to reject the ‘sanctuary state’ policy imposed by the California legislature on the grounds that it violates federal law and that it’s generally a bad idea.

Now Gov. Jerry Brown is stuck between a rock and hard place as three more cities have joined the growing coalition of local government rejection of the policy.

All of this why federal DHS and ICE authorities continue to put the squeeze on California with raids of businesses to crack down on illegal immigration.

And if that weren’t enough, the fact that California may soon be split into three has got the liberals foaming at the mouth.

Chickens are coming home to roost.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The “Sanctuary State” of California isn’t as committed at the city level as Gov. Moonbeam might hope. Individual cities aren’t so keen on the absurd policy of defying the Federal gov’t and abandoning American sovereignty.

In March, it was Los Alamitos that voted to resist the insanity. Now it’s three more: Newport Beach, Westminster, and Orange City.

They join what is now a true trend in Central California, joining Aliso Viejo, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Mission Viejo, Barstow, Escondido, San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Linda, Hesperia, and above-mentioned Los Alamitos in opposition to the state’s Sanctuary policy or in support of the Trump administration’s lawsuit against it.

Here’s more from Fox News Insider:

“It’s a tool in the toolbox for our police to help keep criminals off the street,” Newport Beach Councilman Scott Peotter said of the vote against the law.

He said the issue is not about opposition to immigrants – as critics allege – but about keeping “illegal alien criminals” from re-entering the community.

The sanctuary law is heavily supported by Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and State Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D).

Peotter also said that Brown is sending National Guard troops to the border for reasons other than to prevent illegal immigration.

“You listen to Jerry Brown, and he’s sending [troops] there for other reasons. Not for immigration purposes,” he said. “In either event, the troops end up being at the border.”


Politics, States

Break Up California Into 3 Smaller States on Ballot?

There’s been talk for at least the last four years about the potential break-up of California into new states.

And so far it’s been a pipe dream.

But this week the third attempt for a ballot initiative submitted nearly double the number of required signatures to put the measure on the November ballot for California voters.

The effort has been backed by billionaire Tim Draper whose idea is to slice the state into three new states: Northern California, Southern California, and California proper.

If approved by election authorities, November could be the beginning of the end of the Left

Coast as we know it.

Here’s more from Fox News…

Could California be split up to better represent its citizens?

Billionaire venture capitalist Tim Draper says his petition to break up California into three states has garnered enough signatures for the initiative to be added to the ballot this November.

Draper lobbied unsuccessfully for similar ballot initiatives in 2014 and 2016, but this year he said he was able to amass approximately 600,000 signatures, well more than the 365,880 required. The initiative reportedly will be submitted to election officials next week.

CBS Los Angeles reported that the initiative proposes a central state that would consist of Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey and San Benito counties; a southern state made up of Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial, Kern, Kings, Fresno, Tulare, Inyo, Madera and Mono counties; and the 40 remaining counties grouped into a northern state.


Issues, Politics, States, War on Terror

Poll: Nearly Half Support Troops Along The Border

Surprise, surprise. Nearly half of Americans are in favor of President Trump’s order to send the National Guard to the US-Mexico border.

The poll conducted by Politico shows 48 percent of respondents agree that the Guard is needed in order to counteract the flood of illegal immigrants across the border.

While it’s not quite a majority, it’s far greater than the 42 percent who disagreed.

That’s a stark contrast leading up to the November elections, and it could serve as a marker for how those elections will go if immigration remains a major issue.

Stay tuned.

Here’s more from Hotair…

A poll by Politico/Morning Consult found nearly half of Americans surveyed support sending National Guard troops to the border. Of course, there is a stark divide between Democrats and Republicans on the issue.

A plurality of 48 percent support sending troops to the border — greater than the 42 percent who oppose dispatching the National Guard. Nine percent of voters have no opinion of Trump’s order…

“President Trump’s decision to deploy National Guard troops is a hugely popular move with his base,” said Dropp. “Sixty percent of Trump voters ‘strongly’ approve of the decision. Among this same group, 49 percent ‘strongly’ approve of Trump’s job performance overall.”

The partisan split on the issue underscores this divide: Just 22 percent of Democratic voters support sending troops to the border, compared to 84 percent of Republicans. Independents are evenly divided: 44 percent support sending the National Guard to the border, and 44 percent oppose doing so.

As Jazz pointed out Monday, Border Patrol agents appear to be among those who are in support. The number of troops at the border will gradually ramp up until it reaches up to 4,000. CNN reports they are armed but are not expected to be interacting directly with illegal immigrants because they have no authority to detain or arrest anyone.


Issues, States

LA Is Painting Streets White to Combat Global Warming

Because the state of California is totally flush with dollars and citizens absolutely don’t mind being taxed even more, the city of Los Angeles has decided to paint their roads…white.

Apparently global hot air is getting so bad that it’s time to paint the roads a lighter color to reflect the sunlight and drop the temperature.

This is a really great idea, provided global warming is really real.

Plus, it only costs a low, low price of 40 grand…per mile.

Given that LA is among the nation’s largest metros, they’ll eventually have to increase that to 40 billion.

At that rate, no one will be able to afford air conditioning. Brilliant.

Here’s more from Redstate…

The city of Los Angeles is taking going to combat global warming, and now they’re taking it to the streets, and I mean literally.

According to Fox News, LA found that applying a coat of sealant to the road, and giving it a white hue reduces the temperature of the roads:

The LA Street Services began rolling out the project last May, which preliminary testing shows has reduced the temperature of roadways by up to 10 degrees. The project involves applying a light gray coating of the product CoolSeal, made by the company GuardTop.

“CoolSeal is applied like conventional sealcoats to asphalt surfaces to protect and maintain the quality and longevity of the surface,” according to the company website. “While most cool pavements on the market are polymer based, CoolSeal is a water-based, asphalt emulsion.”

This reportedly reduces climate change…somehow.


International, States

Obama Gave Soros Millions for Communists in Albania

Judicial Watch is uncovering more political bodies buried in the graveyard of Obama’s legacy this week.

After winning a FOIA suit against the US State Department, JW released 32 pages of documentation showing that the Obama administration funneled more than 9 million in taxpayer funds to an organization backed by George Soros for the purpose of promoting Communist activities in Albania.

What’s worse, it was revealed the organization — the Open Society Foundations — was allowed to assist the State Department in review federal grant applications.

Fox in the hen house perhaps? This from the ‘most ethical administration’ in history.

Here’s more from PJ Media…

The U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in 2016 sent $9 million in U.S. taxpayer funds to a Soros-backed group which used the money to fund far-left political activities in Albania, newly released documents show.

According to Judicial Watch, which obtained the 32 pages of records through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, the American tax dollars were used to help the country’s socialist government push for highly controversial judicial “reform.” The records also provide insight into how the Soros operation “helped the State Department review grant applications from other groups for taxpayer funding.”

The new documents show that USAID funds were funneled through that agency’s Civil Society Project to back Soros’s left-wing Open Society Foundations in Albania, particularly the Soros operation efforts to give the socialist government greater control of the judiciary. USAID reportedly gave $9 million in 2016 to the “Justice for All” campaign, which is overseen by Soros’s “East West Management Institute.”


Politics, States

CA Court Rules Coffee Needs Cancer Warning Label

We can’t not laugh at the Left Coast. First it’s campus free speech zones in which one cannot exercise his or her First Amendment rights.

Then came mandatory minimum wages which are driving small businesses out of the market.

And now in the latest iteration of ‘non-compos mentis fiat’ is a court order that coffee should carry mandatory cancer warning labels just like those found on packs of cigarettes.

The order comes despite rampant scientific evidence that coffee not only does not cause cancer but in some cases may actually prevent it.

Coffee companies will likely respond by simply refusing to distribute to California, which would be perfectly just desserts.

Here’s more from Redstate…

Despite a growing number of scientific studies in recent years finding that coffee either does not increase your risk of getting cancer or may possibly even lower it, a judge in California thinks coffee should have a scary cancer warning label anyway.

(I’m literally drinking a lovely cup of Cuban coffee as I write this and the caffeine is giving me plenty of energy to roll my eyes.)

According to the Washington Post, The Council for Education and Research on Toxics filed a lawsuit under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, which the state’s voters approved as Proposition 65 in 1986, against Starbucks and about ninety other companies selling coffee in the state, including grocery stores and coffee shops.

This law requires warning labels if a product contains any among a long list of chemicals deemed to cause cancer, including acrylamide, which is produced in trace amounts during the process of roasting coffee beans.