After Brexit, Frexit?

Posted on by

Have the French finally had enough of jumping whenever Brussels or Merkel demands? Because it is, frankly, Brussels and Merkel who have determined the recent path of France.

First, Angela Merkel’s importation policy of illegals has not only inundated her country to the tune of one million+ Muslim “refugees” who are assimilating not unlike oil and water, but the flood has turned Paris and other cities into nightly displays of carbeques, riots, disturbances and increased crime — also creating actual “no-go” zones in France.

Folks, an important clue and safety tip from me to you: If you’re planning on seeing wonderful, beautiful Paris, you’d best cancel your rather expensive vacation, save your cash, and visit the downtown area of your nearest high-density, high-rise, low-footprint urban rat cage. You’ll see the same thing and at a fraction of the cost. You’re welcome.

The French are also tired of having their culture eradicated and enclaves formed by Muslim migrants.

There are those who, after Brexit, think that Italy or France will be next to step out of the European Union.

Italy already defeated a referendum about constitutional reform proposals that would transfer power from regions to the centralized Italian government. In other words, it was a Leftist power grab by former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi which would have removed checks and balances from the system. The power to block or revise legislation or even unseat a government would be been removed by Renzi.

The proposal failed at vote and, as promised if it failed, Renzi resigned.

Bottom line. What caused Italian voters to rebuke Renzi’s proposals? A crap economy and the flood of tens of thousands of migrants into Italy. Italian voters could see they were losing the country and losing the capability to keep what is their Italian culture and their Italian history.

At the time, around the middle of December, I said and wrote that likely Italy would attempt to exit the EU next and then possibly France. I also said that if France managed to leave, the rest of the European Union would essentially break apart like a dried leaf.

From the UKExpress.com:

FIRST BREXIT, NOW FREXIT: Brussels insider claims France WILL be next to leave EU

by Zoie O/Brien 

EXCLUSIVE: FRANCE will be the next member state to abandon the European Union, a Brussels insider has claimed.

Support for the bloc is declining across many of the 28-member-states with referendums and elections opening up across the continent.

Referendums have rocked the EU over the last few months with the British Brexit, the Dutch refusing an EU treaty with Ukraine and the coming votes in Italy and Hungary.

While each vote has been on a separate issue, the common consensus is voters are really using the ballot box to make clear their views on the European Union.

And, the prognosis for Brussels is not good.

Follow me please. I’m going somewhere with it.

(Hungarian MEP György Schöpflin) said: “If you are looking for a country to leave (the EU) look at France.

“In Hungary support for the European Union is at around 65 per cent – in France it is around 40, and it is low in Italy as well.

“We want a European Union that is ready to listen. They are not ready to listen and they are going their own way.

The UK started with Nigel Farage’s Brexit — still highly contested — and now appears to be moving towards Italy examining its own ejection from the European Union.

Is there already a ground level movement to have France leave the EU? From Breitbart.com:

Le Pen Hits back at Hollande’s anti-Populist NYE Speech: ‘After Trump, Brexit, the French Want Independence’

by Victoria Friedman

François Hollande denounced populism and nationalism ahead of upcoming French presidential elections, but Marine Le Pen hit back saying after Trump and Brexit, the French share the worldwide “aspiration for independence” in the fight against globalism.

In his New Year’s Eve address, President Hollande, who earlier in December said that he will not be seeking reelection in 2017, alluded to Front National candidate Le Pen when he warned against what he called “rising extremism,” citing Brexit in the U.K. and the election of Donald J. Trump in the U.S.

And therein lies the link. The commonalities are the rise of Donald Trump, the fall of the establishment or status quo on both political sides in the United States and, across the pond, the fall of the Leftist establishment by way of Brexit.

Leftists were, frankly, totally gobsmacked when Trump gained momentum despite every attempt by the Demorats, Leftists, social media, collusion by the American Media Maggots, DNC and much cheating along the way. Frustration grew as Trump became stronger and stronger. It was — and hate to use this term — a “populist wave.”

Simultaneously, sensing the time was right, Nigel Farage assembled the political components to push for and achieve UK’s Brexit. But please note there is a unifying commonality between all of these things: the creation of Donald Trump, the success of Brexit, the rumblings of Italy and, now, France.

The commonality is the standardization of the responses and pushback by Leftist elites to each and every one of those situations. It all went something like this.

Nominal Leftist bleats: it’s nothing but ill-informed populism run rampant with Islamophobia, driven by irrational xenophobia, because all the commoners, proles, groundlings and serfs well and truly do not know what is best for them whilst the Leftist Elites most certainly do. Commoners lack the brainulal horsepower to consider the greater overarching umbrella and must be convinced to properly and rightly concede power to a higher, more all-knowing singular authority

Taxpayers are finally beginning to awaken to their being fleeced by big governments globally, run by Leftist Elites who wish to ultimately answer to no one or nothing. Populism cannot be tolerated because it portends a diminishment of their centralized mastery, challenges their authority, and blinkers their chances to make even larger and farther-reaching power grabs for complete and utter dominance.

The Leftists in Europe aren’t backing down. There is a push for this:

Under the radical proposals, EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels. 

This is what, ultimately, Leftists in the US would also like to see. A proverbial One World Barbecue. But that is precisely what the vote for Brexit was about: removal of centralization in Brussels and the ability of those who pay taxes in the UK to hold elected persons responsible — as opposed to those unelected few many hundreds of miles away.

The excuses of the Leftist elites are like a company saying “you’re not buying our product, so it must be the consumer’s fault.”

The elephant in the room on both sides of the Atlantic was also the corruptive forces of unbridled migration and immigration. People are sick of it. They don’t want to see their cultures disappear.

There will be another country to leave the EU. Will it be Italy or will it be France?

BZ

P.S.
If the Brits have “Brexit,” then how about Departugal?  Italeave?  Fruckoff?  Czechout?  Oustria?  Finish?  Slovlong?  Latervia?  Byegium?  Leaving only Germlonely?

 

 Share

Bill introduced to defund “sanctuary cities”

Posted on by

US mayors and governors don’t have the power to defy the federal government. Or do they? Are there legal teeth in Donald Trump’s words to “defund sanctuary cities”?

Representative Lou Barletta (PA, 11th) introduced a bill on Thursday that would grow a nice set of chompers and provide consequences for defiance of federal law. From Barletta.house.gov:

BARLETTA’S 1ST BILL OF 115TH CONGRESS: DEFUND SANCTUARY CITIES

Stops Federal Funding for Cities Failing to Cooperate with Immigration Officials

WASHINGTON – Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11) today introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, H.R. 83, which will stop all federal funds from flowing to states or localities which resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or flatly refuse to cooperate with immigration officials.  The bill is the first piece of legislation introduced by Barletta in the 115th Congress and represents the third time the congressman has introduced the measure.  In 2011, the bill was the first piece of legislation he ever introduced as a member of Congress.  He introduced it a second time in the 114th Congress in 2015.

“One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility,” Barletta said.  “Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents.  This bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, ‘If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding.’”

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act prohibits any federal funding for a minimum period of one year to any state or local government which has a policy or law that prevents them from assisting immigration authorities in enforcing federal immigration law.  The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) lists about 300 such localities in the United States.  Barletta’s bill directs the attorney general to compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress.  A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certifies that its laws and policies are in compliance with federal immigration statutes.

The issue is this: 300 cities already refuse to cooperate with federal authorities over detainer requests from ICE officials, making illegals shielded from deportation — even those accused or convicted of felonies — as there is nothing in existing law obligating a city, county or state to cooperate, with no legal consequences when those entities fail to work with ICE.

Does anyone recall when then-Arizona Governor Jan Brewer passed a bill mandating state illegal immigrant enforcement that was tougher than the federal standard? Obama stated the US “cannot have fifty different immigration policies,” which the US Supreme Court affirmed. However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and that ruling may lend precedent, credence and authority to Barletta’s bill.

The Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act would cease federal funding to sanctuary regions or entities for one year. As Barletta said, “they would not get one federal cent.” We’re talking potentially billions of federal dollars of highway, education and medicaid cash.

The map above, provided by the Center for Immigration Studies, shows the location of US sanctuary cities, counties and one Leftist state, Fornicalia.

Then there is this point from CIS.org:

Tackling Sanctuaries

By Dan Cadman, Jessica Vaughan December 2016

Key Findings

This report examines the justifications given by sanctuary jurisdictions for their policies, and finds them to be largely unfounded:

  • Cooperation with immigration enforcement has not been shown to undermine community trust nor cause immigrants to refrain from reporting crimes; there are better ways to address issues of access to police assistance without obstructing enforcement;

  • Simply cooperating with federal immigration agencies does not turn local officers into de facto immigration officers, because federal officers make the decisions on which aliens are targeted for deportation;

  • Such cooperation is not very costly for local jurisdictions because the removal of criminal aliens spares future victims and saves future supervision, incarceration, and social services costs to criminal aliens. In addition, cooperative localities can receive partial reimbursement for their incarceration costs.

  • Claims by some local law enforcement agencies that they need a warrant in order to hold aliens for ICE are dubious but can be accommodated by the issuance of ICE administrative warrants.

The Trump administration has a number of tools available at its disposal and within the confines of executive authority to address the problem of sanctuaries and the public safety problems they create.

Here’s how to do so:

  • Rescind the Obama administration actions and policies that encourage and enable sanctuaries, including clarifying that local agencies are expected to comply with detainers;

  • Cut federal funding to sanctuaries;

  • Initiate civil litigation to enjoin state or local laws and policies that egregiously obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations;

  • Selectively initiate prosecution under the alien harboring-and-shielding statute, which is a federal felony; and

  • When requested, issue administrative warrants to accompany detainers as a reasonable accommodation to state or local concerns. Negotiating over which aliens will be subject to detainers, as is current policy, is not a reasonable accommodation.

  • Direct ICE to begin publishing a weekly report providing the public with information on all criminal aliens released by the sanctuaries.

Please read the excellent but somewhat lengthy article here.

Representative Barletta’s H.R. 83 is an important bill submitted at the proper time. Barletta is correct; we’re either a nation of laws or we are not. We either obey the rule of law or we do not. If we do not — by allowing sanctuary cities, counties and states to stand, in direct contradiction of federal law — then we undermine ourselves.

If we have no rule of law, then most any city, county or state may arbitrarily decide which laws they wish to obey or disregard. Therefore, if that stands, it logically follows that the individual likewise has the freedom to obey or disregard the laws that he or she chooses, when he or she chooses.

It is the path to chaos.

The time is now to stop the chaos, and establish and reaffirm discipline and sovereignty.

BZ

 Share

White House “unsure” if Chicago torture is a hate crime

Posted on by

First, the video (with some commentary from a site). I selected this version for display because faces have not been removed, nor have the words spoken been censored. You need to see this and you need to hear this.

For those who may be unaware of the story, please read this from Fox32Chicago.com:

4 in custody after mentally disabled man tied up, tortured on Facebook Live

by Lisa Chavarria

FOX 32 NEWS – Chicago investigators are questioning four African-Americans after a Facebook Live video shows a group of people torturing a white mentally disabled man while someone yelled “F*** Trump!” and “F*** white people!”

UPDATE: 4 charged in beating of special needs man on Facebook Live

Chicago police were made aware of the video Tuesday afternoon. A young African American woman streamed the video live on Facebook showing at least four people holding the young white man hostage.

Throughout the video, the victim is repeatedly kicked and hit, his scalp is cut, all while he is tied up with his mouth taped shut.

At one point, the victim is held at knife point and told to curse President-elect Donald Trump. The group also forces the victim to drink water from a toilet.

The suspects can be heard saying they want the video to go viral.

Oh, it went viral, all right. Let’s add, from the UKDailyMail.com:

Black teens are charged with a HATE CRIME after live-streaming torture of white disabled man who they held prisoner for days before he escaped – as cops reveal they have shown NO remorse

by Ashley Collman and Emily Crane

  • The four people believed to be behind the attack on a young special needs man in Chicago on Tuesday have been identified and charged 
  • The suspected attackers are Jordan Hill, 18; Tesfaye Cooper, 18; and sisters Brittany, 18, and Tanisha Covington, 24
  • The foursome face charges of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery and a hate crime 
  • Hill, who was acquainted with the victim, faces an additional charge of robbery and possession of a stolen vehicle
  • Hill, Cooper and Brittany Covington also face charges of residential burglary 
  • The four were arrested on Wednesday in connection to a video that was live-streamed on Facebook, showing four people torturing a special needs man 
  • The traumatized victim in the incident was found wandering a Chicago street after escaping on Wednesday 
  • The  victim – who has not been identified – has been returned to his family 

The four black friends believed to be behind the disturbing torture of a white special needs man in a Facebook live video have been identified and charged with committing a hate crime. 

Jordan Hill, 18; Tesfaye Cooper, 18; and sisters Birttany, 18, and Tanisha Covington, 24, were charged Thursday morning with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated unlawful restraint, aggravated battery and a hate crime, according to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. Hill was also charged with robbery and possession of a stolen motor vehicle. He, Cooper and Brittany Covington face additional charges of residential burglary.

Half an hour of this torture was live-streamed on Facebook, showing the group beating the young man, cutting off a piece of his scalp, forcing him to drink toilet water. At one point in the video, one of the four yells  ‘f*** Donald Trump. F*** white people’ at the victim.

I suspect by now you’ve a rather good grasp of the overall situation, what occurred, and the players involved. I believe you’re beginning to draw some conclusions; one of them may be “we’re dealing with a hate crime.”

Because the incident made national news on Wednesday the 4th, you can be sure that Mr Obama, Loretta Lynch, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, Southern Poverty Law Center and the ACLU immediately demanded, the same day, that hate crime charges be applied to the black suspects.

No.

In fact, the White House said it’s “too early to tell” if the torture of a mentally-challenged white male whose semi-scalping by four black suspects — to the point where you can see the white of his skull in the video — rises to the threshold of a hate crime. Watch:

Of course. Nothing like a little live torture on the internet to convince people that no hate crime was involved whatsoever.

In fact, if we really think about it, Donald Trump, his minions and Caucasoids are responsible for this act which, if you’re honest with yourself, was committed by errant kids who simply made a mistake.

Brittany Covington clasping a semi-automatic pistol. But wait; I thought there were gun laws in Chicago. Harsh gun laws. Onerous gun laws. Right?

The impartial Don Lemon hosts one guest — Symone Sanders, a black female — who knows the suspects did not commit a hate crime.

Please note the equivocation of Sanders, who seems to be more offended that the suspects were sufficiently daft to broadcast the event live on social media. “We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.” Of course. She names “their disability” as one factor of a hate crime. Symone, did you even hear what you said? And did you listen to or watch the video? It would seem to me that, yes, I did hear the words “fuck white people.” After years in radio, wearing headphones, attending loud concerts, being Rangemaster of a 2,000+ officer department and having tinnitus, yes, my hearing isn’t what it used to be. But it’s not that bad.

Sanders has previously mocked a victim of mob violence who was beaten after the presidential election while the attackers shouted, “You voted for Trump.” She has also suggested that the election of Trump has “put white supremacy into the White House.”

“And I don’t mean to have favorites here, but at the end of the day – white people always tend to overreact and over-blame people for any type of incidents they get involved in,” Sanders added.

Later, Don Lemon himself said he didn’t think the suspects were evil but, instead, chalked it up to “bad home training.” Please watch the video.

Chicago Police Commander Kevin Duffin stated “They’re young adults and they make stupid decisions.”

Right. This is just a silly, forgettable mistake by misguided Chicago young adults. Who are all 18 and chargeable as adults.

My final thought is this. I always like to do what I call the “Reversal Theory.” What if four Caucasoid 18-year-olds, two male and two female, had taken a mentally-challenged young black male and done the precise same things, and had also said “fuck Barack Obama” and “fuck niggers”?

I wonder if all the persons I mentioned above would have been commenting within the very hour of the release of the story, calling for hate crime prosecution and more? Civil unrest? Riots?

I think you know the answer.

BZ

 

 Share

Rep Tom McClintock (R) 4th, weighs in on CA’s hiring of Eric Holder

Posted on by

It was discovered yesterday that California taxpayer dollars will be funneled into the pockets of ex-US Attorney General Eric Holder and his firm, Covington & Burling, in order to fight the Trump administration on behalf of the State of California. For background, please see this.

SHR Media, of which I am a part, discussed the issue Wednesday night on the Sack Heads Radio show. Before the show, however, I attempted to acquire a response from the California Attorney General’s office but was unsuccessful.

I next contacted the office of my former 4th District representative, Tom McClintock, first speaking to Bill George in Rocklin, and followed with an email in order to see if I could solicit Rep McClintock’s opinion on the hiring of former AG Eric Holder.

Representative McClintock was kind enough to respond the very next day, and had this to say:

1.     This is a huge vote of no confidence in Xavier Becerra, who as incoming Attorney General would otherwise be responsible for representing the state government’s perspective in the courts.  Implicitly, legislative leaders are saying they don’t trust Becerra’s competence and need to bring in outside counsel.  I don’t disagree with them in this assessment.  Normally, the Attorney General would decide whether he needed additional legal counsel for a specific case – it looks like legislative leaders have made this decision for him.

2.     Since the administration has not taken office and therefore has not yet taken any official actions, it is hard to see specifically what Holder et al are being hired to contest.  Placing them on general retainer once again voices no confidence in Becerra and, given the partisan political connections involved, has the appearance of a political payoff.  Holder is also a curious choice as the only Attorney General to be held in contempt of Congress.

3.     An essential component of federalism is the ability of a state to assert its constitutional powers and prerogatives and to challenge federal authority through our legal system.  If they have no confidence in Becerra, they have every reason to hire outside counsel and every right to challenge federal actions.  Although I obviously strongly disagree with them on policy, I think state legal challenges to federal action are healthy.  This is certainly preferable to recent Democratic attempts to nullify federal law by refusing to obey or enforce it.   Democrats started the discredited and defeated doctrine of nullification in the antebellum era and have revived it with “sanctuary” and non-enforcement policies in recent years.   

I wholeheartedly concur with Rep McClintock’s assessment of incoming AG Becerra. It’s, to me, something of a resounding slap in the face. Particularly in light, as Rep McClintock aptly points out, of the fact that Holder was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

This is, essentially, the State of California posturing for the Leftists within and without; chest-puffing if you will. Holder’s retainer comes directly out of the budgets of the Senate and Assembly. Will Holder’s consultancy extend beyond the “initial” three months? Quite possibly.

Thanks kindly to Tom McClintock and Bill George for assisting me in the matter and their rapid response.

BZ

 

 Share

California hires former AG Eric Holder to fight Trump

Posted on by

The rampant insanity continues unabated in the state of the insane.

I truly am “behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia.”

My taxpayer dollars are going to be used to fight taxpayers. Meaning, I’m funding the state to fight my philosophy.

From SacBee.com:

California Legislature to pay Eric Holder to challenge Trump administration

by Taryn Luna

The California Legislature has hired the firm of former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder as outside counsel to assist legal challenges posed by conflicts with the Trump Administration, Democratic leaders announced Wednesday.

Holder’s firm, Covington & Burling, will advise the Legislature “in our efforts to resist any attempts to roll back the progress California has made,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon in a joint statement on Wednesday.

As I said, my taxpayer dollars going to fight me. $75,000 in fact.

The Assembly and Senate have agreed to split the firm’s $25,000-a-month fee for an initial three-month period. “Given the urgency, intensity and complexity of the work, these terms are eminently fair and consistent with industry standards,” Assembly spokesman Kevin Liao said in a statement. “The initial agreement extends for a minimum of three months, at which time the parties will mutually and more specifically assess the evolving federal landscape and determine what overall scope of work will be required to meet California’s challenges going forward.”

Fornicalia politicians admit that illegals voted for them.

“This is a critical moment in the history of our nation,” Rendon and de León said. “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us and the policies and diversity that make California an example of what truly makes a nation great.”

Note: “We have an obligation to defend the people who elected us.” Why would lawful Fornicalians require defense?

State legislative leaders have struck a defiant tone against President-Elect Donald Trump. The day after the election Rendon and de León issued a statement praising California, which voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton, and pledging to protect the state from Trump policies that may hurt the economy or infringe on the rights of people living in the state.

“I am honored that the Legislature chose Covington to serve as its legal advisor as it considers how to respond to potential changes in federal law that could impact California’s residents and policy priorities,” Holder said in a statement, “I am confident that our expertise across a wide array of federal legal and regulatory issues will be a great resource to the legislature.”

But wait. Do I detect some potential conflict of interest here?

De León has connections to Covington that extend beyond Holder.

Really? In what fashion?

Dan Shallman, a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles office, is the brother of John Shallman, whose Southern California-based political consulting and advertising agency serves as the longtime consulting house for de León and several other California elected officials. It is paid a $10,000 a month retainer by the California Democratic Party. This summer, Shallman Communications hired de León’s daughter, Lluvia de Milagros Carrasco, a recent graduate of Saint Mary’s College in Moraga, to work as an account coordinator.

There is going to be, clearly, a fight. First, a court fight. But possibly, in time, a civil fight that will extend across the nation.

Either the rule of law wins, or the rule of law loses.

If the rule of law loses and entire states can flaunt laws, then why should any other state — or, for that matter, you and me — obey state or federal laws? If the rule of law loses, the precedent will have been set.

This is a place that, trust me, California and Leftists nationally do not want to go.

BZ

P.S.

Can you now see the vital importance of the Second Amendment and the First Amendment?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

 Share