Why can’t we take care of our homeless veterans? Those who have served our country?
This nation’s priorities are completely wrong. The priorities of Demorats, Leftists and the American Media Maggots are all wrong.
It’s illegals who can go to hell. Not our veterans.
BZ
Featuring Right thinking from a left brain, doing the job the American Media Maggots won’t, embracing ubiquitous, sagacious perspicacity and broadcasting behind enemy lines in Occupied Fornicalia from the veritable Belly of the Beast, the Bill Mill in Sacramento, Fornicalia, I continue to proffer my thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to utilize their studio and hijack their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, thanks to my shameless contract, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show each Wednesday evening.
Thursday’s show featured the Underground Professor, Dr Michael Jones, and also a few stories which led up to one massive revelation — finally given verbalization by an individual I highly respect — that I term the DC Axiom, which answers most questions about the swamp. And why little gets done in Washington.
Tonight in the Saloon:
If you care to listen to the show in Spreaker, please click on start.
If you care to watch the show on YouTube, please click on start.
Next Tuesday’s show on September 19th will feature Dan Butcher of the High Plains 
Pundit media empire as he and I chat about time political and social events. Miss it at your own peril.
Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.
As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening later via podcast.
Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here. Want to watch the past shows on YouTube? Please visit the SHR Media Network YouTube channel here.
BZ
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
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
Why and how, you ask? It is conventional wisdom that California put Hillary Clinton over the top (slightly) with regard to the number of votes tallied, as opposed to the electoral college. The difference was roughly one million votes.
Is it, then, merely co-inky-dink that the number of illegal immigrants with drivers licenses in California is also at roughly the one million mark?
A report was issued recently which indicated 800,000+ illegal immigrants were issued licenses in California alone. California passed a law (AB 60) two years ago which allows illegals to acquire licenses. Twelve states now allow illegals to possess drivers licenses. From IBTimes.com:
California DMV: 800,000 Undocumented Immigrants Got Driver’s Licenses Under State’s Controversial AB 60 Law In 2 Years
by Seerat Chabba
A controversial California law has allowed thousands of undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses at a time when President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office next month, vowed to crackdown on illegal immigration.
AB 60 was implemented on Jan. 1, 2015 and allowed an estimated 806,000 undocumented residents to receive driver’s licenses in the next two years, according to Department of Motor Vehicles statistics cited by Mercury News.
The month of November, which saw Trump being elected as president of the United States, also marked the issuing of 14,000 of these licenses by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in California as offices remained packed with immigrants hoping to make the most of the opportunity.
Does the California DMV plan to share their information about illegals to, say, investigatory agencies? Uh, no. Not just no, but hell no.
“The California Department of Motor Vehicles takes very seriously the protection of personal information for all license holders,” the DMV reportedly said Tuesday, addressing privacy concerns.
The problem with the law allowing states to issue licenses to illegals stems from the 9/11 Report following that tragic event. It concluded that illegals should not be eligible for licenses.
Despite that, the federal government allowed licenses to be issued by states, but only if the card is obviously and clearly different — which, by the way, California’s license is not. Please describe to me the immediate and obvious differences you see.
Additionally, as we all know, drivers licenses are a gateway to quite a number of other services, offers, entitlements and perquisites enjoyed by lawful citizens. One of those is: voting.
How many persons staffing voter stations in California know — or even care — about the differences in the two cards? California has stated it’s going to be a “sanctuary state.” I’d say that’s quite a clear statement with an obvious point: California couldn’t care less about the legal status of persons living there. And they sure as hell aren’t going to deport illegals. California doesn’t want to deport criminals or even murderers (witness Kate Steinle) who are illegal.
Then there is the California Motor Voter Law. And therein lies the crux of the biscuit.
From Breitbart.com:
California Licenses 800K Illegal Aliens as Motor Voter Law Looms
by Michelle Moons
Over the last two years, the Golden State has licensed over 800,000 illegal aliens to drive, and as the new motor voter law AB 1461 goes into effect in 2017, anti-Trump lawmakers are vowing to fight the Trump administration on attempts to enforce immigration law.
Meaning: it’s going to get even worse in California than it is now. We already know local voter precincts in California didn’t challenge Mexicans or illegals who stepped towards a voting booth in November possessing a license for that is fundamentally indistinguishable from that of a lawful citizen. It would be judgmental and poor form to do so, particularly if you are a Mark I, Model I GOWP.
AB 60 went into effect on January 1, 2015, inviting well over a million illegal aliens in California to apply for driver licenses with lawmaker promises that their non-citizen status would not be shared with immigration authorities.
With the law about to hit the two-year mark, the California Department of Motor Vehicles announced that 806,000 illegal aliens have been granted driver licenses, according to the Bay Area’s Mercury News. 14,000 of those licenses were issued in November of this year.
In 2017, new motor voter law AB 1461 will go into effect, automatically registering most licensed California drivers to vote. As the Mercury News points out, concerns have been raised about the crossover of AB60 illegal alien licensees being illegally registered to vote as a result. Some lawmakers have claimed there are safeguards against such a case.
But fear not; California legislators are actively planning to stymie any and all attempts to deport illegals and instead shield them to the best of their abilities.
Former Assemblyman Luis Alejo, author of AB 60, offered reassurance to illegal aliens that he had spoken with Gov. Jerry Brown’s office, the DMV, and state legislative leaders who are all “committed to protecting all the information submitted to the DMV by AB60 applicants,” according to the Mercury News. Alejo pledged to fight against the Trump administration on illegal immigration and to do “everything possible” to maintain AB 60.
Already, ladies and gentlemen, you inherently know where Clinton got her vote count nudge. I haven’t even addressed the issue of illegal signups and other voter fraud venues to include the living dead and voting machines that defaulted to HRC. Voter fraud was sufficient to hand HRC the popular vote in November. Trump was correct.
But wait.
If you thought the Demorats cheated in this election, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
BZ
FORMER San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi wasn’t a cop anyway. He was a Leftist poseur who donned a law enforcement uniform in order to further his own perverse Leftist agendas because he could. And shamed the uniform itself during his ridiculous rule. He also has the blood of Kate Steinle on his hands.
Now he’s gone. The citizens of San Francisco voted him out, and a former SFSO Chief Deputy Sheriff named Vicki Hennessy is in. Even SF voters can act like a broken clock now and then.
Let’s recall: Ross Mirkarimi was the co-founder of the Green Party of Fornicalia. His claim to fame as a SF Supervisor was to ban plastic bags. He introduced legislation to legalize marijuana. He wanted to ban smoking on golf courses. He introduced the re-naming of Eddy Street to Marcus Garvey Way, because he knew the name change would convince 
black residents to stay in the city despite cost of living increases. He wanted reparations for SF blacks displaced in the 1960s when the Fillmore District was mostly torn down.
Mirkarimi was a heavy advocate of gun control despite the fact that he owned firearms. One happy note: he had those firearms confiscated, and was convicted of false imprisonment stemming from a domestic violence call where he was initially charged with battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness. Good times, eh Ross? Smack the ol’ wife around, get convicted of false imprisonment and then “somehow” manage to get that conviction expunged? Good times, eh Ross? Read about that here. His firearm was given back due to a plea bargain. He was Sheriff, after all.
Except for this: if me or any other LEO in Fornicalia were convicted for any domestic-violence-related charge, we would be mandated to forfeit our firearms under Fornicalia law, which in turn means we would forfeit our jobs.
Mirkarimi also had his license suspended when he was involved in an accident with his official County of San Francisco vehicle and did not report the accident to DMV as required by law. Oddly enough, his county G-ride got repaired. Imagine that.
Sort of a clue: Mirkarimi did not receive an endorsement from the SF Deputy Sheriff’s Association when he ran for Sheriff.
Finally, if you recall, it was the agenda and directives of Ross Mirkarimi that resulted in the needless death of Kate Steinle on SFs’ Pier 14. The illegal Mexican suspect had been deported five times. Despite that, it was the policy of the SFSO — under Mirkarimi — that illegals should not be held. SFSO asked for the Mexican suspect to be transferred to their agency so that they could free him.
I wrote that San Francisco helped to kill Kate Steinle here.
I wrote that Mirkarimi was personally complicit here.
Ross Mirkarimi, go back to smoking your bags of dope, your fairies, pink ponies, unicorns and purple skies.
One further suggestion: stay the FUCK out of law enforcement.
BZ