SEE IT: Black Trump Voters Shock Illegals & California Politicians With Nasty Surprise

Image result for Trump and Illegals

Illegal aliens roam the streets in Los Angeles County with the blessing and help of California’s Democratic politicians like Kamla Harris, Diane Feinstein, and Nany Pelosi. In a shocking move, African-American voters identifying themselves as supporters of President Donald Trump just delivered a nasty surprise to the illegal aliens and to every Democrat in California causing them to totally freak out. Don’t miss this.

An African-American woman wearing #MAGA hat gives testimony at the Santa Clarita City Council meeting (left), Stock photo to represent illegal aliens (right) (Photo Credit: Screengrab/YouTube, Screengrab/YouTube)

The city of Santa Clarita in Los Angeles County was the spot of a major showdown over Governor Jerry Brown’s “sanctuary state” law. Leftists were shocked as they watched African-Americans file into the city council meeting wearing “Make America Great Again” hats, and to understand what happened next you must understand what’s happened to LA County.

Los Angeles County is the largest county in the United States with over 10 million residents. It’s also a Democratic stronghold, as LA County votes, so votes California. The issue of illegal aliens and a strong Southern border have now come to the attention of many African-Americans, who have watched cities like Compton, Lynwood, and South Central Los Angeles become invaded by illegals dumped there by the authorities.

Thirty years ago, those cities were primarily black communities. Now, the demographics have completely changed. Hispanic gangs have infiltrated those cities like MS-13. Nightly gunfire is heard as the African-American gangs and the Hispanic gangs vie for territory.

“Violent crime increased in Los Angeles for the third straight year as police tried to stem a rash of homicides and gang-related shootings while dealing with a growing homeless population,” reported the Los Angeles Times in 2016, and it has only gotten worse.

So it really shouldn’t be such a shock that the black community in LA County is waking up. The huge lie that President Trump is a racist isn’t working anymore, not when kids are getting killed by gang bangers, and the killer turns out to be an illegal alien who was deported several times and keeps coming back over the border with no problem.

That’s what happened to Jamiel Shaw, whose father, a resident of South Central Los Angeles, supported Donald Trump for president. So when Santa Clarita held it’s city council meeting to determine if they would uphold SB 54, the law that illegally makes California a sanctuary state, reporters were stunned as a line of #MAGA hats worn by African-Americans waited to give their testimony.

One woman wearing a #MAGA hat was the highlight. She was rightly pissed off at what is happening in the inner cities due to illegal aliens freely welcomed by the politicians with open arms. She started out by saying, “I’ve been fighting for this, and I’ve had to tell some people off.”

“I’m a black woman, I’m what you call an African-American and a daughter of immigrants and a granddaughter of immigrants, not from Mexico, but from the islands, from St. Croix. Where they just couldn’t walk across the border whistling Dixie, violating our Constitution, raping our Constitution, and in many cases raping our people,” she said with growing conviction.

She went on, “The black community is most adversely affected by the illegal alien activity. Because when these people, and I don’t care if they’re Swedish, Mexican, Nigerian or Nicaraguan, I don’t care…when they come here illegally they don’t get trucked into Brentwood. They don’t get trucked into Beverly Hills. Hell, they don’t even get trucked into the fairly upper-class suburbs where I live, they get trucked into Watts!”

On a roll, she continued, “Here in So Cal, they get trucked into the streets of Crenshaw, the Jungle [Compton], and East LA. A lot of black people don’t have the privilege that I have. A lot of black people are suffering academically and thus suffer economically, in immense abject poverty and crime. Their schools get pumped with illegal aliens and they’re more apt to drop out.”

She went on to point out that to get a job she must be bi-lingual. Not only is this true, you also get paid more to be bi-lingual, and were aren’t talking French. You must speak Spanish to get a teaching position with LA Unified School District.

Well, the great news is the Santa Clarita City Council voted 5-0 to pull out of Gov. Moonbeam’s illegal law SB 54. The Los Angeles Times reported, “With the 5-0 vote early Wednesday morning, Santa Clarita became what is believed to be the first city in Los Angeles County to officially oppose Senate Bill 54, joining a handful of municipalities elsewhere in Southern California that have challenged the law since Gov. Jerry Brown signed it in October.”

Los Angeles County is the gem for politicians like Senators Kamala Harris and Diane Feinstein. If LA County has an uprising in the black community and they start voting to protect their children, exactly what this African-American woman pointed out, it’s curtains for all Democrats.

It looks like the fire of taking back their communities has started, and as each city rallies to reject SB 54, the Democrats are freaking out as they see their strongholds turn from blue to red as the “make America great again” agenda takes over California.

Just In: Trump Goes Nuclear on Rebellious California

Image result for Just In: Trump Goes Nuclear on Rebellious California

California is more or less in open rebellion against the federal government.

And reports out of the “Golden State” indicate that Trump is about to hit back, hard.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told local media that Trump had ordered the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct a massive sweep of the San Francisco Bay area.

Schaaf, as mayor of one of California’s rebellious “sanctuary” cities, insisted she was releasing this information to “protect” people.

Not citizens, not legal resident of California, but the millions of people who entered this country illegally.

Criminals. She’s snitching on the government to protect criminals.

Like most other cities in the state, Oakland has forbidden local police officers from cooperating with ICE.

That, according to Jessica Vaughn of the Center for Immigration Studies, should be enough for Trump to not only prosecute city officials like Schaaf, but to also drastically cut federal funding of law enforcement in California.

“Why should a jurisdiction get taxpayer money for law enforcement when they’re stiffing one of the biggest law enforcement agencies of the federal government?” she asked in remarks to Breitbart. “They shouldn’t. There needs to be some consequence for having a sanctuary policy.”

Trump’s tax cut not for everyone: 1 million Californians will owe $12 billion more next year

President Donald Trump displays the $1.5 trillion tax overhaul package he had just signed on Friday, Dec. 22, 2017, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington.

President Donald Trump’s tax cuts will be anything but for about 1 million California taxpayers who will owe Uncle Sam more money a year from now.

They’re the Californians who will lose a collective $12 billion because the new law caps a deduction they have been able to take for paying their state and local taxes, according to a new analysis by the Franchise Tax Board.

Very wealthy Californians earning more than $1 million a year will pay the lion’s share of that money, with 43,000 of them paying a combined $9 billion.

But some middle-class Californians will pay more, too.

About 751,000 households with incomes under $250,000 probably will owe more tax. All together, they’ll owe an extra $1.1 billion.

The FTB has been releasing reports on the new tax law in waves since December, explaining in detail how it differs from state regulations and analyzing how taxpayers might respond to the changes.

Overall, most Californians should see a tax cut. The new federal law doubles the standard deduction available to all taxpayers, and it increases a child tax credit. It also slashes corporate tax rates.

It’s still hard to tell how it will affect individual families and businesses, said Controller Betty Yee, a member of the tax board. She doesn’t have a clear picture yet on how different aspects of the new law will interact and potentially change taxpayer decisions.

“What we’ve been telling taxpayers is just stay in touch with your own situation, stay in touch with your tax preparer,” she said.

“And with the state,” she said, referring to the Legislature and other policy makers, “we shouldn’t rush to judgment.

The batch of reports the FTB published in March focused on the new cap on deductions for state and local taxes. California Democratic leaders have been wary of how the tax law will play out. Gov. Jerry Brown called it “evil in the extreme,” arguing that it primarily benefits wealthy people and swells federal deficits by hundreds of billions of dollars.

He also said in January that he’s worried that the changes will provide an incentive for wealthy Californians to leave the state, potentially starving the state of tax revenue. The state’s wealthiest 1 percent, for instance, pay about 48 percent of the state’s personal income tax.

Republican George Runner, a member of the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board, said the board’s report demonstrated that most Californians would benefit from the new law.

“The scenario that was being presented where Democrats were crying that Californians won’t benefit from it truly was out of place,” he said.

“The higher-income bracket” Californians who probably will pay more tax “for the most part, it’s the price you pay for having a high-priced house in California,” he said.

The FTB carried out its analysis with a sample of 300,000 California tax returns from 2015. It built a model to help it predict how taxpayers in different income tax brackets would respond to changes in the law.

That year, 5.9 million Californians itemized their returns and claimed $110 billion in deductions for state and local taxes. About 2.6 million of them claimed more in state and local taxes than the new $10,000 cap on those deductions would allow.

About 1.5 million Californians who claimed more in state and local taxes than the new law allows should still see a tax cut next year because of other changes in the law, according to the FTB. About 100,000 of them will owe about the same amount of tax, and about 1 million taxpayers likely will owe more tax.

The FTB report “highlights the fact that most Americans and Californians as well are going to see a tax cut, contrary to what some others have been saying,” said Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, a member of the Revenue and Tax Committee.

The FTB report also gave five examples of how different households would be affected by the cap on the state and local tax deduction. They were:

  • A married couple with three dependent children who earn $200,000. The family paid $15,000 in state and local taxes and contributed $25,000 to charities. The couple would pay less federal tax despite losing the state and local tax deduction because it would benefit from an overall lower tax rate and expanded child credits. The FTB estimated the couple would pay $22,179 – about $3,900 less than under the prior tax law.
  • Another married couple with dependent children in college and a combined $130,000 annual income. They have itemized deductions worth $30,000 between state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions. The family would lose $5,000 in deductions for state and local taxes. Their federal tax bill would climb about $1,800 to $13,980.
  • A single father with a child in college and income of $125,000. He has itemized deductions of $28,000, which would decrease to $18,000 because of the cap on deductions for state and local taxes. His federal tax bill would increase by about $1,800 to $18,100.
  • A single mother with two children and income of $125,000. Her current itemized deductions are worth $15,000. Under the law, she’d get a standard deduction of $18,000 and a $4,000 child credit that she was not eligible to claim previously. Her taxes would decrease by $3,700 to $14,600.
  • A married couple with two children who earn $50,000 in wages and $150,000 in pass-through income from a business they own. They had $80,000 in itemized deductions, and their tax under the previous law was $19,200. They have the most to gain if their small business income qualifies for a new 20 percent deduction on pass-through income. It would reduce their federal tax bill by $4,900.

After Trump Turns Up The Heat On California, Jerry Brown Caves To His Demand

Image result for After Trump Turns Up The Heat On California, Jerry Brown Caves To His Demand

President Trump will accomplish his goals for America, come hell or high water.

His opponents clearly underestimate him, as they do the American people. They might complain or posture, but Trump’s going to make America great again.

We’ve seen it many times already. Even with less than two years into his first term, Trump has won again and again. We are seeing things happen few people could have predicted.

And what about his rivals’ attacks? They fail time and again. From Clinton to Obama to Comey to Stormy, the con artists that try to defeat Trump all fall by the wayside.

Take another Trump opponent. Governor of California, Jerry Brown, has been very vocal about Trump’s presidency. He has promised to oppose the POTUS every chance he gets. Even if that means putting Americans at risk.

But now it seems Brown has no other choice but to concede to Trump’s demands. In fact, he’s going to help secure the border. Imagine that.

From The Right Scoop:

Jerry Brown, the horrid governor of beautiful California, said that he will kneel before President Trump and utter passively, “what can Brown do for you?” after fruitlessly trying to resist MAGA.

California Governor Jerry Brown has announced that 400 California National Guard troops will be mobilized to fight gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers in the state, on the coast and at the border.

Why it matters: The troops will not enforce immigration laws or help build new border barriers. California and the Trump administration have been at a standoff recently, with California demanding that DHS and DOD sign the governor’s agreement memo limiting what the National Guard can be used for before deploying troops. Neither agency has signed the memo with the governor adding that he believes it is no longer necessary.

Previously he said he WOULD send them then he said he WOULDN’T and then President Trump broke his spineless resistance with one iron tweet!!!

You have to realize, if Brown was actually able to oppose Trump, he’d deny sending any troops. Yet he is sending 400 National Guard to fight the criminal cartels that flood the CA border. The liberal media claims the California troops will not enforce immigration law or help build the border wall. But the memo that forbade them from doing so was never signed.

Meaning, the National Guard will do whatever they’re ordered to do. That includes preventing illegals from entering the United States or offering a helping hand to build the wall.

Why do we even need the National Guard? Because, like it or not, Trump is starting the wall. The omnibus bill secured a huge amount of cash to the Pentagon. Much of it will be used to secure the border. But how will we be able to build the wall, if drug cartels and other scum attack our workers? Enter the National Guard.

I don’t think those coyotes will have much of a chance against trained, armed American soldiers. The presence of the National Guard will ensure that efforts to secure the border will go unhindered. A brilliant move by the President.

Brown’s troops don’t have to enforce immigration law in order to do what Trump wants. They will be there to prevent violence against our border agents and construction workers. So, Trump got what he wanted from Brown. Once again.

Source: The Right Scoop,

Deportation Poll Reveals The Civil War Inside Sanctuary California Is Intensifying

Image result for Deportation Poll Reveals The Civil War Inside Sanctuary California Is Intensifying

If you live outside of California, you’re probably shocked to see what’s going on there.

Their democratic majority is pushing all kinds of toxic laws. They are fighting the federal government by protecting criminal aliens. Billions of dollars are wasted on needless programs. Meanwhile, the state’s infrastructure crumbles.

Gov. Jerry Brown shocked the nation when his sanctuary law went into effect. The entire state of California is banned from helping federal immigration authorities.

Tell me that’s not unconstitutional. Police are not allowed to cooperate with ICE. Criminal aliens they arrest are released back into the state. Free to commit more crime.

But it looks like not everyone in the Golden State shares Brown’s views. Numerous cities have voted to reject his sanctuary law. Now, a new poll proves that many citizens are sick of Brown’s policies. In fact, they are supporting the President.

From Daily Democrat:

About half of Californians say they support President Trump’s Muslim travel ban and more deportations of undocumented immigrants, according to a new poll that challenges the conventional belief that residents of the left-leaning Golden State are overwhelmingly allergic to the administration’s hard line on immigration…

About 24 percent of the survey’s participants said it’s “very important” for the U.S. to increase deportations of undocumented immigrants, while 35 percent said it’s “somewhat important,” according to the poll. That viewpoint even held true in the Bay Area, where 25 percent of those surveyed said increasing deportations is very important and 35 percent said it’s somewhat important.

And about 49 percent of Californians support temporarily banning people from Muslim-majority countries, according to the poll. In the Bay Area, 44 percent of residents support the ban, the least out of any region in California.

It’s worth noting that the numbers are so high in the Bay Area. San Francisco is ground zero for all kinds of empty-headed, hippie nonsense. From there it spreads to infect the rest of the state. The fact that so many thereare on board with Trump’s plans tells you something. Not everyone in California wants the Democrats’ toxic version of America.

Real people see the effects of illegal immigration. Crime is on the rise. Homelessness is an epidemic in places like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Businesses and homes are impacted by the increase in illegal immigration. Why would citizens sit by and let this happen to their communities?

Democrats have protected illegal immigration by calling conservatives racist. They want you to believe that enforcing our laws is somehow discrimination. That’s nonsense. Protecting Americans comes first. That includes Americans of all races. Everyone is welcome to come here, so long as they do it legally.

More Californians are realizing the left’s tired rhetoric is destructive. They are rejecting Brown’s terrible agenda. Hopefully that will result in some real changes in the state.

Source: Daily Democrat,

Neil Gorsuch Scores Supreme Victory Against Abortion… Liberals Stunned

California is probably the abortion capital of the nation and until the Supreme Court stepped in, certain medical establishments were allowed to aggressively advertise abortion. It’s disgusting, wrong and immoral.

Luckily that’s all gonna change now…

DailyWire reports:

On Tuesday, the justices of the Supreme Court sounded as if they are ready to shred the California law that requires pregnancy centers to notify women that the state offers subsidies for abortion.

That law was adopted in California in 2015, and forced the pregnancy centers to post a prominent notice if they had “no licensed medical provider” available. If the centers were licensed, they were forced to notify clients that the state offers “free or low-cost” contraception, prenatal care and abortion.

As The Los Angeles Times reports of the case, titled NIFLA vs. Becerra, the justices gave the California law short shrift:

Justice Elena Kagan, referring to the fact that doctors and for-profit clinics were exempt from the law, said, “If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue.” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed that the law “has a lot of crazy exceptions. … What you’re left with is a very strange pattern, and, gee, it turns out just about the only clinics that are covered by this are pro-life clinics.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy saw the law as violating the laws of free speech, calling the required notice “mandating speech” that “alters the content of the message.” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch said that California has “other means to provide messages. … It’s pretty unusual to force a private speaker to do that for you under the 1st Amendment.”

After Michael P. Farris, a lawyer for the centers, said advertisements, including billboards, would have to offer the information in large print and in 13 languages, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turned to the lawyer for California and stated, “If you have to say that, those two sentences in 13 different languages, it can be very burdensome,” she said.

The Times reported further:

“What would happen if an unlicensed center just had a billboard that said, ‘Choose Life.’ Would they have to make the disclosure?” Kennedy asked.

“Yes, your honor,” Farris replied.

“It would be 29 words, in the same size font as ‘Choose Life’?” Kennedy continued.

Yes, Farris said, “and in the number of languages required by that county.”

Kennedy said he had heard all he needed to hear. “It seems to me that means that this is an undue burden. And that should suffice to invalidate the statute,” he said.

As Politico reported, “California Deputy Solicitor General Joshua Klein acknowledged that the law might be unconstitutional in some applications, but he encouraged the justices to return the issue to the lower courts to address specific concerns involving certain plaintiffs. That did not sit well with Kennedy. “You want me to have a remand to have them tell the court what a billboard is?” Kennedy scoffed.

Only Justice Stephen G. Breyer defended the law.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor also agreed with those who found the law problematic.

The Times concluded, “By the hour’s end, it appeared the justices would vote to strike down all or at least most of the law’s mandatory disclosure provisions.”


Justice Kennedy Calls Out Sotomayor for Breaking Very Basic Rule All Judges Know

Image result for Justice Kennedy Calls Out Sotomayor for Breaking Very Basic Rule All Judges Know

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in NIFLA v. Becerra, a case out of California centered around abortion that has big ramifications regarding the issue of free speech versus state-compelled speech, according to Fox News.

At issue is a 2015 statute passed by the state of California which requires all pregnancy-related facilities to conspicuously post a disclosure informing women of the state-provided “free or low-cost access” to various forms of prenatal care, such as abortion. The law also requires unlicensed, non-medical facilities to prominently inform their clients that they are not licensed medical providers.

However, the law was written with so many carveouts and exemptions that it ended up solely targeting a number of explicitly pro-life, nonprofit “crisis pregnancy centers,” which counsel women on options other than abortion, such as adoption. However, the law compelled these centers to inform the women of their abortion options.

David French of National Review noted that during arguments in front of the Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed to step outside the traditional norms of evidence submitted in the case and earned a rebuke for it from her colleague, Justice Anthony Kennedy.

In questioning the attorney representing the plaintiffs — Mike Farris of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates — Sotomayor referenced information she had obtained herself from the website of one of the unlicensed pro-life pregnancy centers, and asked several questions in regard to licensed versus unlicensed facilities providing what amounts to medical advice.

According to a transcript of the arguments (page 22), Sotomayor was followed by Kennedy, who began his line of questioning with a not-so-subtle criticism of Sotomayor for side-stepping the normal bounds of Court procedure.

Kennedy stated, “Well, in this case I didn’t go beyond the record to look on the internet because I don’t think we should do that, but I do have a hypothetical.”

French, who has a legal background, pointed out that court cases are fought over evidence that has been submitted ahead of time and placed into the record in such a manner that both sides have an equal opportunity to examine the same set of facts.

This is done so that unverified or misleading claims don’t end up deciding the outcome of a case.

“Simply put, judges should not act as free-lance investigators in the cases before them. In fact, this is judging 101,” French wrote.

Sotomayor nevertheless took it upon herself to do some “free-lance investigating,” thus going above and beyond the set of facts already put forward through arguments and evidence in lower courts by questioning an attorney with whom she no doubt disagreed ideologically.

Of course, The Associated Press was quick to rush to Sotomayor’s defense after she was rebuked by Kennedy.

The AP noted that there have been a handful of previous instances in other cases where justices or their clerks will have looked something up online to better inform their line of questioning, and even cited examples where Kennedy and Roberts had done so, as well as Breyer, Justice Sam Alito and the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Yet, given the thousands of cases heard over the years by the Supreme Court that have strictly kept to the presented record, a mere five examples of a justice going outside the record in their questions or written opinions doesn’t give Sotomayor any excuse.

Kennedy was right to call out Sotomayor for stepping outside the record, and his rebuke should serve as a reminder going forward to all current and future justices.

They need to stick to the arguments and evidence before them, not whatever information they can pull up with a quick internet search.

What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!

Fed-Up California Conservatives Make Power Move Against “Sanctuary City” Status

Sure, we make fun of the liberal bastion of California quite often because a majority of the state are tree-hugging, crunchy hippies who are still waiting for socialism to kick in. But we must not forget our conservative brothers and sisters who live (mostly) in the northern parts of the state, where traditional American values still run deep.

Lately, a group of angry conservatives in the southern part of the state decided to fight back against the “sanctuary city” status that puts their communities in grave danger, and they scored a major victory…

Breitbart reports:

The city council of Los Alamitos, California, in Orange County voted 4-1 Monday night for an ordinance to defy the state’s new “sanctuary state” law, and to assist federal law enforcement in stopping illegal immigration.

As Breitbart News reported Sunday, the city took on SB 54, the so-called “California Values Act,” which constrains state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice is challenging SB 54 as one of three “sanctuary state” laws that, it claims, violate the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Members of the city council were concerned that SB 54 required them to violate their oaths of office, which require them to uphold and defend the Constitution. Although legal experts say that there is a chance SB 54 will survive in the courts — since unlike the other two law it merely requires state and local government not to assist federal law enforcement, while the other two laws interfere with federal authority — city council members were still concerned,

The Orange County Register notes that the city council debate on Monday evening was intense on both sides:

While the crowd had dwindled both in and outside the chamber when the vote came, people erupted in cheers after the vote and began chanting “USA.” But on the pro-immigrant rights side, there was this chant: “The people united, will never be divided.”

Someone shouted out to Councilman Warren Kusumoto, who introduced the legislation, “great American patriot!” while someone else screamed out “America first.”

Throughout the night, many in the crowd of more than 150 people from Los Alamitos, Long Beach and other communities engaged in heated debate – sometimes in front of the dais, other times with each other.

Separately, Register also reported that Kusumoto was particularly concerned that SB 54 would require him to disobey the Constitution: “California legislators are bulling local elected officials into violating our oath of office,” he said.

The council also voted to direct the city attorney of Los Alamitos — the county’s second-smallest city — to prepare an amicus brief on the side of the Department of Justice in its case against the State of California.


Pro-Trump Protesters Rally Outside Oakland Café That Wouldn’t Serve Latino Cop

Pro-Trump protester at Oakland Cafe (AshtonBirdie / YouTube / Screenshot)

A group of pro-Trump Californians protested outside the Haste Muerte café (which means “Until Death” in Spanish) in East Oakland for refusing to serve a uniformed police officer last month.

“This is Trump country,” the protesters chanted, according to the East Bay Times. They also chanted, “Blue lives matter.” Supporters of the cafe reportedly showed up to the rally with signs and chanting, “Let’s go, Oakland!”

Some of the pro-Trump protesters who came out in support of Oakland Police Department Sgt. Robert Trevino, who is Latino, carried American flags and wore flag-themed clothing.

On February 16, Sgt. Trevino was refused a cup of coffee by the workers at the cafe due to “a policy of asking police to leave for the physical and emotional safety of our customers and ourselves.”

On its Instagram page, the cafe wrote its own account of why it refused to serve the Latino police officer:

Last Friday, February 16th a police (OPD) entered our shop and was told by one of our worker-owners that “we have a policy of asking police to leave for the physical and emotional safety of our customers and ourselves.” Since then, cop supporters are trying to publicly shame us online with low reviews because this particular police visitor was Latino. He broadcasted to his network that he was “refused service” at a local business and now the rumblings are spreading.

The post also featured a crossed-out Oakland police seal and badge in pink with the Spanish words “Habla con tu vecinxs no con la policia,” which translates to, “Speak with your neighbors, not the police.”

The coffee shop also supports convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur (JoAnne Chesimard), who escaped from a New Jersey prison and fled to Cuba after being convicted of the murder of police officer Werner Foerster in 1973. The Women’s March supports Shakur, and the felon has even received support from Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), who is being challenged by conservative Latino Omar Navarro (R) in California’s 43rd congressional district..

In an email sent to Breitbart News on Monday, one of the pro-Trump supporters present at the rally, Ashton Whitty, said that the anti-cop counter-protesters, ironically, threatened to call the cops on the pro-police protesters.

“After five minutes of standing outside the coffee shop, a man comes out and threatens to call the cops,” Whitty wrote in the email to Breitbart News.

She continued:

Basically he threatened to call the cops because we were peacefully protesting a coffee shop that hates cops. This coffee shop also has a picture of Assata Shakur, the famous cop killer, who escaped prison and fled for Cuba where she was protected by Fidel Castro. Funny, how the coffee shop supports a FBI wanted terrorist but not police officers who serve and protect. Shortly after this man threatened to call the police, a man stops his truck in the middle of the street and walks up to us, threatening us. He’s saying “there’s going to be consequences” as his friend is putting on black gloves and wielding a bat. Next thing you know a third guy shows up ripping down flags and attacks someone with a flag. Someone on the flag side tries to defend him with pepper spray, but someone from Antifa then pepper sprays all of them and also pepper sprays me. All while we’re getting pepper sprayed one guy is hit with a bat. Someone was also tazed as you can hear in my video. When the police show up, people start calling us nazis despite the fact they attacked us for peacefully protesting.

The cafe also featured a picture of a Trump hat, designed in the classic “Make America Great Again” style, but in blue, which reads instead: “Make Racists Afraid Again.”

According to the East Bay Times, approximately a dozen of the pro-Trump protesters left the cafe and showed up at the Temescal farmers market on the 5300 block of Claremont Avenue and confronted Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf during her “mobile mayor” gathering.

Schaaf has been accused of obstructing justice for informing her constituents of a raid by officials with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) last month.



California Governor Jerry Brown thought he was above the law when he defied President Donald Trump to declare his state to be a sanctuary state. Unfortunately for Brown, however, he just learned he was dead wrong.

Trump dropped the hammer on the “sanctuary state” of California this week when Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed a lawsuit against the state’s immigration policies. Brown responded by having a pathetic meltdown at a press conference in which he accused Sessions of catering to Trump and to his conservative base.

“This is really unprecedented for the chief law enforcement officer of the United States to come out to California and act more like Fox News than a law enforcement officer. This is a political stunt,” Brown said, according to The Hill. “We know the Trump administration is full of liars. They’ve pled guilty already to the special counsel. This is basically going to war against the state of California, the engine of the American economy. It’s not wise, it’s not right, and it will not stand.”

The lawsuit filed by Sessions on Tuesday targets three California laws aimed at protecting undocumented immigrants. The first law requires employers to notify employees if immigration authorities are going to conduct enforcement operations on the job site, while the second law allows California’s Department of Justice to inspect federal detention facilities where undocumented immigrants are held.

The third law stops state and local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration authorities to transfer or facilitate detentions of undocumented immigrants in state custody. This specific law is what Trump’s supporters have said makes California a sanctuary jurisdiction for undocumented immigrants.

Trump’s Department of Justice said in court documents that these three laws “have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California.”

“California is using every power it has, and some it doesn’t, to frustrate federal law enforcement,” Sessions told a gathering of officers in Sacramento. “So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them.”

He went on to say that California was trying to nullify the law.

“There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land. I would invite any doubters to go to Gettysburg, to the tombstones of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln. This matter has been settled,” Sessions said.

Brown lost his mind at this, saying that Sessions’ speech was “unbecoming” of the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. The governor then suggested that Sessions is trying to return to Trump’s good graces after a rocky first year in which Trump and Sessions developed a serious rift in their once-close relationship.

“I assume, and this is pure speculation, that Jeff thinks that Donald will be happy with him,” Brown said. “Let’s face it, the Trump White House is under siege. [Special counsel Robert] Mueller is closing in. There are more indictments to come.”

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) pledged that his office will vigorously defend the three laws.

“The lawsuit challenges some of our state laws, which are again fully constitutional and provide for the safety and welfare of all of our people,” Becerra said. “The 10th Amendment provides California with the right to decline to participate in civil immigration enforcement.”

He went on to say that Trump’s DOJ opened itself to the discovery process, which would allow California lawyers to dig into the internal debate over the lawsuit, which could drag on for years.

“This lawsuit is going to last a lot longer than the Trump administration,” Brown ominously concluded.

What do you think about this? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section.