3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights

This entire article could be summed up in one sentence. If you are against illegals voting it's because you're a racist. 

After reading the article why would anyone not want to come here illegally? What is the deterrent? Why be frustrated standing in line when you can just walk right in?

Another example of out-and-out insanity:

Tempers Flare When Huntington Park Appoints Undocumented Immigrants To City Commissions

----------------------------------

After two failed bids to grant voting rights to illegal immigrants, some San Francisco officials believe they have found the man who can make it happen: Donald Trump.

A proposed charter amendment drafted by Board of Supervisors member Eric Mar would give illegal immigrants with kids in the public school system the right to vote in school elections. Voters have rejected two previous ballot proposals, but Mar is betting on anti-Trump sentiment to carry the pro-illegal immigrant proposal if he can get it on the November ballot.

“With Donald Trump’s racist and anti-immigrant sentiments, there is a reaction from many of us who are disgusted by those politics," Mar said. "I think that’s going to ensure there is strong Latino turnout as well as other immigrant turnout.”

A key promise in Trump's campaign for the Republican nomination for president has been to build a wall on the Mexican border. This week, Trump claimed a federal judge overseeing a lawsuit against Trump University wouldn’t be impartial because he is of Mexican heritage.

Mar staffers confirmed the measure will go before the rules committee within weeks, and could then be presented to the full board of supervisors. If a majority support it, the charter amendment will be on the ballot Nov. 8 when the city and nation votes for president.

“The time is right for San Francisco to make history, to pave the way for immigrant parents to have a say in the policy decisions that impact their child’s education and who gets to sit on the Board of Education,” Mar said in a written statement.

In 2004, voters narrowly rejected the same proposal. A similar measure, introduced by California Assemblymember David Chiu, D-San Francisco, failed in 2010 with just 46 percent of the vote. 

just 46 percent!!!

Chiu believes Trump's presence on the ballot, and the fact that one of every three children in the system is now the child of an immigrant parent could make the third time a charm.

(This is an extremely serious situation which Californians are too stupid to realize. You see in their mind there is no distinction between illegal/immigrant. They will probably have to run it up to 9 out of every 10 in the system is illegal before they realize they just surrendered their own country to foreigners) 

Name me another country that even thinks about giving illegals the right to vote?

“With the anti-immigrant rhetoric from Donald Trump, it is more important than ever that we come together as San Franciscans to stand up for our immigrant communities and support their civic engagement,” Chiu said in a written statement.

The plan is “bad public policy,” according to Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation and former Federal Elections Commission member.

“It is wrong to extend the vote to individuals who have not entered the American social compact or made a commitment to the our Constitution, our law, and our cultural and political heritage by becoming citizens,” von Spakovsky said. “It is even worse to extend the franchise to illegal aliens whose very first act is to violate our laws; that encourages contempt for the law.”

While laws in all 50 states bar noncitizens from voting in state elections, and federal law makes it a felony for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, there is an opening in local elections, von Spakovsky acknowledged.

Seven jurisdictions - including 6 in Maryland and one in Chicago – afforded voting rights to noncitizens, Ron Hayduk, a political science professor at Queens College of the City University of New York, told the Chronicle.

3rd time a charm? San Francisco to try yet again to give illegal immigrants voting rights

Muslim massacres 50 in Orlando

Barry only spoke for a handful of minutes, but reminded the country of his position on gun control, though didn't bring up 'radical Islamic terror'.

Why acknowledge the significance of the person's ideology who perpetrated the crime? I mean... it's not like he was as bad as this red neck George Wallace/David Duke protégé which demanded the total destruction of our Southern heritage.



It could have been worse. Had this bastard been working at the Pulse nightclub. 

It would have been deemed workplace violence.

Muslim massacres 50 in Orlando

Pay to Play

Another sign Hillary Clinton's State Department was for sale

In the latest case of donors to Hillary Clinton's personal causes winning favor from the Clinton State Department, meet Rajiv Fernando.

The head of a Chicago-based high-frequency-trading firm, Fernando got a seat on the International Security Advisory Board, a group of nuclear scientists, ex-Cabinet secretaries and other experts that looks at the risks of nuclear war.

That puzzled his new fellows: "We had no idea who he was," one ISAB member told ABC News during its investigation.

Thanks to e-mails uncovered by the watchdog group Citizens United after a years-long Freedom of Information battle, we now know that Fernando was put on the board at the direction of Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at State (and now her personal attorney).

ABC actually started asking questions about Fernando back in 2011. The e-mails show regular State staffers were themselves puzzled about how he'd gotten the job — and were told by Clinton's flunkies to "stall" on answering ABC.

Before any answer went out, Fernando quit, and the story died.

In advance of getting the prestigious position, he'd been a big Hillary donor, maxing out donations to her presidential PAC in 2007 and 2008, and bundling over 100 grand. He'd also given more than $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation — later rising that to at least $1 million. He's also bundled for her current White House run. And he'll be a Hillary superdelegate at the Democratic Convention.

(But it's not rigged)

In unrelated news, Clinton this week doubled down on her promises to clean up Wall Street once she becomes president. Right.

Pay to Play

So much for “security inquiry”

White House confirms 'criminal' probe over Clinton emails, 'shreds' campaign claim

Perhaps it was an unguarded moment, but the White House has seemingly confirmed that the Justice Department is conducting a “criminal investigation” regarding Hillary Clinton’s personal email use – despite persistent claims from the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee that investigators are pursuing a mere “security inquiry.”

Press Secretary Josh Earnest used the term at Thursday’s briefing, after being asked by Fox News about whether President Obama’s newly unveiled endorsement of Clinton might apply pressure to investigators assigned to the Clinton case.

Earnest rejected the premise, saying the job of career prosecutors is to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion.

“That's why the president, when discussing this issue in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference,” Earnest said. 

The Republican National Committee seized on the use of the term “criminal investigation.”

“The White House’s admission that the FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email server as a ‘criminal’ matter shreds her dishonest claim that it is a routine ‘security inquiry,’” RNC spokesman Michael Short said in a statement. 

Asked Friday to clarify his comments, Earnest said he hasn’t been “briefed” by the Justice Department and had no particular “insight” to give. 

In fact, FBI Director James Comey had already shot down the Clinton campaign’s terminology last month. Asked at the time by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”

Yet days earlier, Clinton in an interview had downplayed the probe as a “security inquiry.”

And her campaign website still asserts there is no criminal investigation.

On a campaign ‘factsheet’ about the email controversy, the website includes this Q&A:

“Is Department of Justice conducting a criminal inquiry into Clinton’s email use?

No. As the Department of Justice and Inspectors General made clear, the IGs made a security referral. This was not criminal in nature as misreported by some in the press. The Department of Justice is now seeking assurances about the storage of materials related to Clinton’s email account.”

Clinton has voiced confidence all along that, no matter what it’s called, the probe will not result in an indictment.

She said so again on Wednesday during an interview with Fox News. 

“That is not going to happen. There is no basis for it, and I'm looking forward to this being wrapped up as soon as possible,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that investigators handling the “criminal probe” are focusing on emails that discussed drone strikes in Pakistan.

So much for “security inquiry”

Warren to meet with Clinton this morning, fueling VP speculation

Sure as hell hope this comes about. 

The Lying Highness and Pocahontas on the same ticket. The kiss of death.

On another note beside the email scandal, she got some hefty paydays from Wall Street but won't release the transcripts. What did she tell them that she doesn't want the voting public to know? If she has nothing to hide why won't she do press conferences?

Remember this:

Video 248

  

--------------------------------------

Warren endorses Clinton: 'I'm ready to get in this fight'

Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton will meet privately Friday morning, according to two knowledgeable Democrats.

The sit-down, coming just hours after the Massachusetts senator formally endorsed the presumptive Democratic nominee, will fuel speculation about her prospects as a potential vice presidential pick.

The women have had several conversations over the past month, including one that lasted around half an hour, sources told The Washington Post. The conversations were broad and focused on large topics and issues, rather than the nitty-gritty of the campaign. Their staffs have been engaged in more tactical discussions.

The two women do not have a particularly deep relationship, but that could change as Clinton rallies Democrats around her in the wake of winning the Democratic nomination in recent days. There were three big endorsements that could have meaningfully helped Clinton wrap up the nomination battle: Warren, President Obama and Vice President Biden. Clinton secured all three on Thursday.

Clinton, a Yale-educated lawyer, like Warren, a Harvard Law professor until she was elected in 2012, is a policy wonk at heart. So the two might talk in more detail about how Clinton could embrace pieces of the progressive agenda that allowed Bernie Sanders to win more than 20 states.

Warren is late to get on the Clinton bandwagon, but her support is crucial nonetheless to Democratic unity efforts. When all of the Democratic women in the Senate endorsed Clinton very early in the campaign,Warren was the lone holdout. She had earlier been the target of efforts from the left to draft her into the presidential race as an alternative to Clinton.

The Massachusetts senator justified staying on the sidelines until now by telling Rachel Maddow on MSNBC Thursday night that she thought it was "really important" to let voters choose in the primary and that the debate has been "constructive."

"Hillary Clinton won," Warren said. "And she won because she's a fighter."

"What Bernie Sanders did was just powerfully important," she added. "He ran a campaign from the heart. … And he brought millions of people into the Democratic Party.

The meeting on Friday will only further fuel speculation about Clinton drafting Warren as her running mate on a historic all-female ticket.

Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon declined to comment.

The vice presidential nominee historically plays the attack dog role on the national ticket, going hard after the other side so that the nominee can stay more positive. Warren has shown repeatedly in recent weeks that she is willing to throw punches at the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Just before formally endorsing Clinton, Warren delivered an anti-Trump stem-winder at the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. She told the liberal legal group that Trump is a "thin-skinned, racist bully" and "a guy who inherited a fortune and kept it rolling along by cheating people."

A few weeks ago, she fired off a storm of tweets at Trump. They successfully got under Trump's skin, which was the goal. He responded by attacking her, not just on Twitter but at his rallies. This further elevated her profile.

Since then, there have been more frequent conversation between the Warren and Clinton camps, below the level of the principals. Clinton's team was very pleased with Warren's first attack and offered encouragement. The Clinton campaign also gave Warren a heads up before her own speech attacking Trump in San Diego last week, outlining the key themes.

Warren is very clearly intrigued by the possibility of becoming vice president, but Friday's meeting is not necessarily some kind of interview for the job.

Warren told Maddow that she is not being vetted. "I know there's been a lot of speculation about this," Warren said. "But the truth is, I love the work I do. I can't tell you how grateful I am to the people of Massachusetts who sent me here to just wade into these fights."

Friday's session could be a way for Clinton to signal to the progressive wing of the party that she still cares about their priorities even after vanquishing Sanders.

Whether Clinton picks Warren, or a populist progressive in her mold, ultimately depends on how much work she believes she must do to win over those who supported Sanders during the nominating contest.

Clinton may decide that it makes more sense to tack a little more to the center now that the primaries are over or that she should choose someone who could help deliver a battleground, such as Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine.

Trump's racially-loaded attack on a federal judge of Mexican descent is just the latest example of an issue that might allow Clinton to make inroads with moderates, independents and even GOP-leaning women. Warren might not help bring those voters into the fold as much as someone else could.

Ed Rendell, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and governor of Pennsylvania, predicted earlier this week that Clinton would not choose Warren as her vice presidential nominee because the senator is not ready.

"I think Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful, bright, passionate person, but with no experience in foreign affairs and not in any way, shape or form ready to be commander-in-chief," Rendell, a longtime Clinton ally, told a Philadelphia radio station.

The ensuing kerfuffle prompted Clinton to come to Warren's defense. "I have the highest regard for Sen. Warren," the former secretary of state told Politico. "I think she is an incredible public servant, eminently qualified for any role. I look forward to working with her on behalf of not only the campaign and her very effective critique of Trump, but also on the issues that she and I both care about."

Maddow asked Warren about the Rendell quote Thursday night and whether she thinks she's capable of being commander-in-chief. "Yes, I do," Warren replied.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) also thinks highly of the idea of putting Warren on the ticket. The Senate minority leader has expressed public concerns about losing the Senate seat if that were to happen, because the Republican governor of Massachusetts would get to pick Warren's successor until a special election is held. But he is now more comfortable with the idea.

Short of becoming Clinton's running mate, Warren still has a very big role to play in bringing Sanders's supporters around and making them more enthusiastic about Clinton. That could be a big theme of the Friday's conversation.

Republicans take Warren very seriously, and a constellation of groups attacked her when news of her endorsement broke. Both the Republican National Committee and American Crossroads called Warren a "sellout."

Some significant differences exist between Warren and Clinton. In an old book, Warren attacked Clinton for changing her vote on a bankruptcy bill when she was a senator from New York, accusing her of siding with the financial services industry over consumers in order to get campaign contributions.

Warren has been Wall Street's most outspoken antagonist in Congress. Sanders has benefited enormously from criticizing Clinton's ties to the big banks and for getting hefty fees to speak at Goldman Sachs. The Vermonter has spent several months pushing Clinton to release the transcripts of her speeches to Goldman.

Warren ducked when The Boston Globe, her hometown paper, asked her Thursday night whether the woman she had just endorsed should release the transcripts. "That's for her to decide," she said. "There will be a whole lot of issues to talk about over the next several months."

Warren to meet with Clinton this morning, fueling VP speculation