Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Sanctuary Cities Suffer An Unpredicted Setback, And In A Very Liberal State

People are waking up!

Published

on

This goes to prove that the people in far left liberal states aren’t out of touch, only our elected officials are.

IJR Red is now reporting that an Oregon anti-illegal invasion activist group that is looking to curb illegal immigration in the state has managed to gather enough signatures to earn a spot on the ballot in the coming November election.

Stop Oregon Sanctuaries or (SOS) is the group responsible for this upcoming referendum and they were able to get over 110,000 signatures for its initiative. The group only needed to turn in 88,184 valid signatures. What a great day for the safety of the Citizens of the state of Oregon.

Via The Oregonian:

Trending: Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

“A ballot measure to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary state status will go before voters in November, the Secretary of State’s office confirmed Tuesday.

Initiative Petition 22 garnered 97,762 valid signatures, safely above the 88,184 needed to qualify for the Nov. 6 election.

If passed, the ballot measure would undo a 1987 law that prohibits the use of state and local law enforcement resources to enforce federal immigration standard.

Groups in support of Initiative Petition 22, such as Oregonians for Immigration Reform and Stop Oregon Sanctuaries, helped gather and submit 111,039 signatures by the July 6 deadline. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national organization, also backed the campaign.

Both Oregonians for Immigration Reform and the Federation for American Immigration Reform are listed as anti-immigrant hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Opponents of the referendum include Andrea Williams, the executive director of the immigrant rights organization Causa Oregon.

She’s helping lead Oregonians United Against Profiling, a group she said is working to raise awareness about the harms of repealing Oregon’s sanctuary state status.

The financial impacts of the three initiatives and the housing referral that will appear on the fall ballot proved difficult to predict for a state economist and finance staffers.

If Initiative Petition 22 passes, Williams said, law enforcement would be free to racially profile people on the streets, demanding documentation of legal status from anyone they think might be in the country illegally.

In a Tuesday news release, Oregonians United Against Profiling said Nike, Columbia Sportswear and the Portland Timbers and Thorns soccer teams have also come out against Initiative Petition 22.

“This ballot measure will ask voters to throw out the state law that protects all Oregonians, including immigrant Oregonians, from unfair racial profiling,” Williams said in the release. “We’re confident that Oregon values of fairness and looking out for our neighbors will prevail, and voters will say no to eliminating the law in November.”

According to The Oregonian, this new initiative targets the Oregon statute that forbids state law enforcement to do their duty and coordinate with ICE agents. Otherwise known as “Sanctuary State.” In a statement, SOS said this policy “rendered Oregon a ‘sanctuary’” and “gives illegal aliens yet another reason to settle in our state.”

The main concern and the reason this initiative was started by SOS is because of the safety of Oregonians. It pointed to Bonifacio Oseguera-Gonzalez, an undocumented immigrant who had previously been deported six times. Osequera-Gonzales reportedly admitted to k*****g three people and injuring another in a s******g at a blueberry farm in June 2016.

Official statement from SOS:

Stop Oregon Sanctuaries is a citizen’s initiative to repeal Oregon’s Sanctuary State Statute. Read the complete text of ORS 181A.820 (the full text of the original statute is in italics).

Since 1987, Oregon Revised Statute 181A.820 has kept Oregon’s state and local law-enforcement agencies from offering their fullest cooperation to the U.S. authorities charged with identifying and detaining illegal aliens. In doing so, the law has effectively rendered Oregon a “sanctuary” state for foreigners here illegally.

Activists affiliated with Oregonians for Immigration Reform have filed Initiative Petition 22 with the Oregon Secretary of State’s Elections Division. IP 22’s goal: to place a measure onto the November 2018 statewide ballot that will give Oregonians the chance to repeal ORS 181A.820. To reach the ballot, the signatures of 88,184 registered Oregon voters are needed by July 2018.

Why does ORS 181A.820 need to be repealed? It undermines the rule of law generally and U.S. immigration law specifically. It thwarts the enforcement efforts of the courageous federal agents who serve on our national-security front lines. And it gives illegal aliens yet another reason to settle in our state.
Perhaps worst of all, ORS 181A.820 endangers innocent Americans. One high-profile example: In Woodburn last summer, Bonifacio Oseguera-Gonzalez, an illegal alien who had been deported six times, shot and k****d three people. ORS 181A.820 prohibits police and sheriffs’ “moneys, equipment or personnel” from being used to detect or apprehend illegal aliens. If not for that, before his murders Oseguera-Gonzalez, during a contact with an Oregon law-enforcement officer, might have been identified as an illegal alien, detained and removed from the country.

Illegal aliens can and do harm the American citizens to whom Oregon owes its foremost responsibility. For this reason, enforcement of U.S. immigration law is central to the duties of Oregon’s police departments and sheriff’s offices. Sign Initiative Petition 22 to help give Oregonians the chance to repeal ORS 181A.820 — and to free Oregon law enforcement to better protect Oregonians from criminal aliens.”

As President Trump pushed the issue to the forefront, comprehensive reforms passed through Congress, including the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act. Both the policy and Kate’s Law were drafted after Kate Steinle was shot and k****d in the sanctuary city of San Francisco by Jose Ines Garcia Zarat who is an Illegal Alien from Mexico who was deported five times before he murdered Steinle, He was tried for her m****r but the San Francisco jury acquitted him of m****r charges after his defense team argued that the g*n went off accidentally. He was only found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm as a felon and sentenced to time served.

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Colorado Christian Cake Shop Owner Exonerated By Supreme Court Just Got Really Bad News

This is outrageous!

Published

on

Here we go again. I’m sure you are familiar with the Colorado Christian cake shop owner who just won a huge case in front of the Supreme Court this last June. Jack Phillips is the Christian baker who made history by prevailing in front of the High Court after he refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple on the basis of religious beliefs. Most of America celebrated with Phillips when he won the case and it provided a glimmer of hope for religious freedom once again here in the United States.

At the time of Phillips case, the Supreme Court admonished the state’s attorney who was standing against the baker for religious intolerance. He allegedly made a number of comments that gave the court pause on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court issued a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its “religious hostility” toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. They were right to think that and it has been proven even more to be true this week as this baker just got really bad news. Phillips just filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. From what I am seeing he is being set up to be taken down in a different legalistic move… this time it involves gender issues.

Phillips and his attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom contend that the Commission has revived its campaign against him following June’s High Court decision, singling Masterpiece Cakeshop out for disparate treatment on the basis of their religious beliefs. It’s like deja vu all over again.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, who is an Alliance Defending Freedom attorney that represents Phillips. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him — something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”

The person allegedly behind all of this is an attorney named Autumn Scardina. She reportedly called Phillips’ shop the day the decision in his favor was rendered and asked him to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The caller asked that the cake be blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Over several months after that, Phillips received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, s******y explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. He’s convinced that Scardina was the one who made all of the requests to set him up for legal action.

From PJ Media:

“To forestall a second round of litigation, ADF filed suit against the commission in federal court. Jeremy Tedesco, ADF’s senior counsel and vice president of U.S. Advocacy and Administration, told PJ Media his firm would “preemptively file a lawsuit in federal court to try to stop what the commission is doing.”

“‘We think the circumstances are uniquely aligned to do that,” Tedesco explained.

“Especially since the Supreme Court ruled that the commission had treated Phillips unfairly on the basis of his religion, thus violating his right to free exercise, this follow-up round seems particularly noxious. “It seems like another round of targeting him and putting him through this very difficult process simply because he wants to be faithful in his business in what he creates through his art,” Tedesco said.

“The commission could have decided not to pursue this second case against Phillips. The ADF lawyer explained that, when a Colorado citizen thinks he or she has been discriminated against, they file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division, which then conducts an investigation and determines probable cause.

“When Autumn Scardina filed this complaint, Tedesco would have expected the civil rights commission to reject it. “After Masterpiece came down from the Supreme Court, we expected Colorado to take that into account and realize that it was a bad decision to keep targeting Jack for his religious convictions,” the lawyer explained. “Instead, they found probable cause.”

“‘He’s going to be fully investigated again, there will be hearings from an administrative law judge,” Tedesco said. “It’s restarting the entire scenario.”

“‘It’s appalling,” the lawyer declared. “It’s unconscionable that they would go after him again right on the heels of losing a case because they were openly hostile to his religious beliefs.'”

Scardina has now filed a complaint with the civil rights commission. She is alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity. The complaint was held aside while the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips’ other case. Just three weeks after Phillips won his case, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination. This sure looks as though it was all planned out this way. “Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor,” Phillips’ lawsuit states. “This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.”

The freedom of religion is sacrosanct in this nation as a First Amendment right. Weaponizing lawfare to take it apart is not only unconstitutional but unconscionable. I sincerely hope that Phillips prevails once more and that a more solid ruling by the Supreme Court puts an end to this form of religious bigotry.

Continue Reading

News

Judge Who Let Compound Muslims Walk Free Before Trial Exposed For What Else She Did

She supported Obama of course!

Published

on

The New Mexico judge who on Monday set a ridiculous $20,000 bail for five defendants arrested at a remote New Mexico compound where authorities say children were being trained to conduct school shootings seems to have a history of issuing low bail to violent offenders, especially when it comes to crimes against children.

Judge Sarah Backus (let’s remember the name), who is an elected Democrat is the judge who ordered the two men and three women to wear ankle monitors, have weekly contact with their attorneys and not consume alcohol or own firearms while on bail, after paying the 20k. And what’s possibly the worst part of all this is she actually said that although she was concerned by the “troubling facts” in this case, prosecutors failed to make the case for any specific threats to the community. What????

Here is more on this case via NBC News:

“A 3-year-old boy died — allegedly during a religious ritual. Children said they were being trained to commit mass shootings. A large weapons cache was found, with practice targets.

On Monday, prosecutors detailed horrifying allegations against five adults who were found with 11 starving children in a makeshift compound in Taos County, New Mexico — but the judge said they weren’t backed by enough evidence to keep the defendants behind bars as they await their trial.

“The state alleges that there was a big plan afoot,” state District Judge Sarah Backus said in court. “But the state hasn’t shown to my satisfaction, in clear and convincing evidence, what that plan was.”

The decision stunned many, and prompted threats against Backus. But experts say the move is the result of a series of recent changes to how the state treats defendants before their trials, with “clear and convincing evidence” of being a danger to the community a legal requirement for pre-trial detention with no bail.

“These people have been charged. They have not been convicted,” said Leo Romero, a law professor emeritus at the University of New Mexico and the chairman of a committee that made recommendations on reforming cash bail in the state, which were adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2017.

“So you’re balancing individual rights versus safety of the community, and the judge is weighing that when she is determining the evidence presented by the prosecutor,” he said.

New Mexico is part of a wave of a states that, in recent years, have re-examined how they handle bail and pretrial detention.

In 2014, the state Supreme Court, in New Mexico vs. Walter Ernest Brown, deemed that even if someone is charged with a serious offense, a judge has to make an individual determination on whether to detain the defendant before trial.

“Just because someone is charged with first-degree m****r or first-degree sexual assault, that by itself is insufficient,” Romero said. “The court’s got to consider other evidence of whether the person might be a danger or a flight risk, such as the nature and circumstances, which is different than the charge itself.”

Authorities have “no excuse,” said Jason Badger, who reported seeing missing boy months ago.
And in 2016, an overwhelming number of voters agreed to a constitutional amendment that moved the state away from the traditional money-based bail system to an evidence-of-risk-based system of release and detention, in an effort to bring more fairness. The new system took effect last year.

Backus would not comment on the case because it is still pending. Barry Massey, a spokesman for the New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts, said that “what she said in court yesterday is as much explanation for her decisions as she can provide.”

“Prosecutors have to file a motion, and then they have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that no other conditions of release will reasonably protect the public’s safety,” he said. “What the judge said yesterday is that they didn’t meet that burden.”

While Backus agreed to release the defendants from jail to house arrest, she required them to wear GPS ankle monitors and to check in weekly with their attorneys, plus cooperate with the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Division.

The decision not to hold the defendants spurred a backlash on social media, with some calling for Backus to resign. The New Mexico Administrative Office of the Courts said the judge had also received threatening phone calls and emails.

State Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, a former law enforcement officer, said he felt Backus had not been tough enough.

“There’s the remains of a young child found here,” he said. “Someone should be charged with some kind of homicide or m****r. Whoever did that clearly is a violent person, and so they should be detained.”

Bail was set at $20,000 for each defendant, but Backus said she would allow the defendants to walk out on what’s called a signature bond — in which case they don’t have to post any cash.

The case has yet another twist: While the five were released to house arrest, because they were living on a makeshift compound on someone else’s property, they don’t technically have a house to go to.

Massey said that had been solved by offers from residents in Taos County to let them stay with them.

Marie Legrand Miller, a public defender for one of the defendants, Hujrah Wahhaj, confirmed her client had received such offers, but would not say from whom, other than to say the residents didn’t have any criminal problems and were in good standing.

“My client would like to obviously get out of jail and she has no desire to go back to the compound property,” Legrand Miller said. “The judge has ordered that they not return there, and she has no desire to return there.”

Fox News has reported that this isn’t the first time judge Backus has pulled a stunt like this. Just last month, she set a $10,000 bond for 24-year-old Rafael Orozco from Taos who was accused of beating his girlfriend, his newborn child and even a healthcare worker at Holy Cross Hospital in September 2016. He then prompted a lockdown at Holy Cross Hospital after allegedly attacking those 3 individuals.

Police later confirmed that Orozco prompted the lockdown at the hospital after punching his girlfriend as she breastfed their newborn in front of a male doctor, grabbing the mother by the throat and slapping the baby. Orozco then fled the hospital and was arrested in Rio Arriba County a few months later.

During his time in prison, Orozco was accused of other crimes, including obtaining Suboxone, an opioid medication, and pulling a fire alarm. A year later, he and his brother, Cristian Orozco, were charged with assaulting and threatening a guard. In September, Backus approved an order to incarcerate Orozco at the Lea County Correctional Facility until his trial.

Orozco’s defense attorney recently filed a motion arguing for his release and last month, Backus ruled in his favor.

Of course, with a little research, we here at RWN found that Judge Backus apparently gave money to Barack Obama for his 2008 campaign for president.

Figures.

Continue Reading

Thanks for sharing!

We'd like to invite you to become a RWN insider. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to a friend