California mayor escalates ‘sanctuary city’ war, and Sessions returns fire

California mayor escalates ‘sanctuary city’ war, and Sessions returns fire
By Brian Lonergan, opinion contributor – 03/16/18 10:00 AM EDT

It is becoming increasingly difficult to deny the obvious: when it comes to immigration policy, there is a de facto cold war being fought between the state of California and Washington, D.C.

Libby Schaaf recently fired the first shot.

If California vs. D.C. is a cold war, Mayor Schaaf’s actions threaten to make it a hot one. Until now, California’s defiance of federal law has been mostly passive. The Golden State presently has 35 communities that have proudly enacted sanctuary policies to protect illegal aliens from federal immigration authorities. California’s SB 54 went into effect at the start of the year, officially banning local officials from asking about a person’s immigration status. Schaaf’s disclosure represents a much more proactive form of rebellion.

The feds are not amused. Last week Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a lawsuit against the state, charging that SB 54 and two of its other immigration laws violate the Supremacy Clause. Before an audience of law enforcement officers in Sacramento, Sessions unloaded on Schaaf while adding that he recently signed condolence letters the previous day to the families of two law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

“Here’s my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you?” said Sessions. “How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement officers to promote a radical, open borders agenda?”

Acting ICE Director Thomas Homan likened Schaaf’s actions to that of a “gang lookout” and said that more than 800 criminal aliens were able to escape the raid as a result of her warning. Homan has long insisted that by prohibiting state and local officials from cooperating, ICE agents are forced to deal with illegal aliens at their residences and other places that increase the danger to both sides. Homan and others have suggested that Schaaf and politicians who act similarly should face obstruction of justice charges.

In damage control mode, Schaaf issued a statement in which she proclaimed, “I know that Oakland is a city of law-abiding immigrants and families who deserve to live free from the constant threat of arrest and deportation.”

That statement explains a lot about the disconnect between open borders politicians and reality. In the upside-down world of California politics, illegal aliens are “law-abiding immigrants,” even though their very existence in the country constitutes a violation of federal law. Along the same line of thinking, those who break our immigration laws deserve to “live free” from any accountability for their actions. This is lunacy and shameless political pandering. Far down the mayor’s list of priorities, apparently, are the real law-abiding citizens of her community who still have more than 800 convicted criminals roaming free among them who should not be there.

While the immigration issue inspires enough passion on its own, California’s extreme position on it is tearing at the very fabric that holds our republic together. The precedent set here is an ominous one. What other federal laws may California decide tomorrow should no longer apply to it? What if numerous other states decide to follow their lead? Instead of immigration laws, what would be the effect if states chose to ignore federal laws on, say, firearm purchases, abortion or same-sex marriage? The result would be nothing short of chaos. The slippery slope here is steep, and California is willfully hurtling down it at breakneck speed.

Schaaf and others like her are doing great damage to the country. They are undermining the rule of law and encouraging illegal activity. Those who act out of such political expediency are putting their constituents, both citizens and illegal aliens, at risk. States should not be in open rebellion to the federal government on matters of national security. Like most wars, this one is not likely to end well for anyone.

Brian Lonergan is director of communications at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a public interest law firm working to defend the rights and interests of the American people from the negative effects of mass migration.


How REQUIRING A Gun Impacts Crime Rates

How REQUIRING A Gun Impacts Crime Rates
Posted at 12:00 pm on March 9, 2018 by Tom Knighton

WordPress MaddMedic:

Being a Georgia resident, I’m very familiar with Kennesaw, Georgia. For those of you who aren’t, it’s the city that actually requires each and every household to have a firearm.

Don’t get me wrong, the law isn’t enforced. It’s actually unenforceable. But that’s not the point. It’s a middle finger to communities that think banning guns is a good thing, and in that, it works beautifully.

However, it also has an impact on other things, such as the community’s crime rate.

While the 1982 law isn’t actually enforced, the town’s mayor spoke highly of it nonetheless.

“If you’re going to commit a crime in Kennesaw and you’re the criminal — are you going to take a chance that that homeowner is a law-abiding citizen?” asked Kennesaw Mayor Derek Easterling, reports CNN.

Lt. Craig Graydon of the Kennesaw Police Department explained the law “was meant to be kind of a crime deterrent.”

And while it’s difficult to prove a causal relationship between the law and crime in the town, Kennesaw, which boasts a population of 33,000 people, has a violent crime rate of less than 2 percent and has only had one murder in the last six years.

“We can’t say that just that gun law contributes x number of percent to why we have a low crime rate. It may be part of it, but it needs to be looked at from a whole picture,” said Graydon, who’s been with the police department for 30 years.

However, anyone with half a brain can look at one simple fact and tell the difference.

You see, about 15 minutes away from Kennesaw is Acworth, Georgia. The two communities are easy to travel between, meaning there’s no barrier for criminals to act in one but not the other.

Yet Acworth’s crime rate is higher than normal for a community of its size. What’s the difference? Kennesaw’s gun requirement law.

It’s important to remember that while the law is basically unenforceable, it serves as a warning to criminals. They recognize that the city won’t provide barriers to the private ownership of firearms. Worse, most people will try and comply with the new law. That means the majority of the people in the town are armed.

Would you want to break into a home in that town?

Of course, anti-gun activists will look at Graydon’s inability to quantify exactly what kind of an impact the law has had as evidence it might not have had any, but that’s just willful self-delusion. To say it’s had no impact is to completely ignore the reality that criminals know there are guns in almost every home in town and thus stay out.

Again, this isn’t rocket science. Criminals are like anyone else. They don’t want to get shot.

As a result, they tend to try to avoid places where there’s a high likelihood of being shot. Kennesaw, with its gun law requiring people to be armed, sure sounds like a place where a criminal’s life expectancy can rapidly approach zero. There’s no way the gun law hasn’t reduced crime.

Kennesaw is probably one of the safest communities in the country, all because of the private ownership of firearms.

God bless America!
What is an assault rifle?

About Salmonella

About Salmonella

About Salmonella

Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever.

Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms.

Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting.

Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain.

Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans.

If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian.

What Caused the Recall?

This recall was issued after the company was notified by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture of the positive Salmonella finding.

Product affected was isolated to 1 lot of 540 lbs (108 boxes) and distributed to distributors in Minnesota, Georgia, Kansas, and Pennsylvania.

The products were sold at pet specialty retail stores.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Raw Basics tests all batches of products for all pathogens in a hold and release program before releasing for shipping.
What to Do?

Consumers who have purchased the affected product are are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 800-219-3650.

U.S. citizens can report complaints about FDA-regulated pet food products by calling the consumer complaint coordinator in your area.

Or go to

Canadians can report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form.
Get Dog Food Recall Alerts by Email

Get free dog food recall alerts sent to you by email. Subscribe to The Dog Food Advisor’s emergency recall notification system.

Tucker’s Raw Frozen Dog Food Recall

Dear Fellow Dog Lover,

I’m sending you this special recall alert.

Raw Basics LLC of Pleasant Prairie, WI, is recalling one specific lot of its Tucker’s raw frozen dog food due to possible contamination with Salmonella.
To learn which products are affected, please visit the following link:

Tucker’s Raw Frozen Dog Food Recall

Please share the news of this alert with other pet owners.

Mike Sagman, Editor
The Dog Food Advisor

P.S. Need help? Get instant access to a list of The Dog Food Advisor’s most recommended dog food brands. Click here for details.

Trump to Second Amendment: Drop Dead — Freedom Is Just Another Word…

Trump Drops the Gloves and Becomes the “Gun-Grabber-in Chief” Lewis G. Carroll said it first: “First the execution; then the trial.” On Wednesday, Donald Trump echoed that sentiment when he said: “Take the guns first; go through due process later.” Well, that’s not exactly the way due process is supposed to work. But Trump made […]

via Trump to Second Amendment: Drop Dead — Freedom Is Just Another Word…

WTF Did Trump Just Say? —

Originally posted on Articles and Short Stories for the Discerning Martial Citizen: BETRAYAL: Trump Says Government Should ‘Take The Guns First, Go Through Due Process Second’ ? On Wednesday, President Trump met with Congressional Democrats and Republicans to discuss measures to bolster student security in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida massacre. There, Trump proceeded…

via WTF Did Trump Just Say? —

Trump Announces He Will Unconstitutionally By Pass State Sovereignty To Confiscate Guns Using Jeff Session’s Illegal Asset Forfeiture Rule — Political Vel Craft

Donald Trump suggested actively [violating State sovereignty by] confiscating some people’s guns with no [Constitutional] due process and made a host of other random [unconstitutional] pronouncements during a wild, freewheeling meeting with members of Congress on Wednesday in which the president’s eagerness to appear “tough” in the wake of the Parkland shooting—as well as his […]

via Trump Announces He Will Unconstitutionally By Pass State Sovereignty To Confiscate Guns Using Jeff Session’s Illegal Asset Forfeiture Rule — Political Vel Craft