Within five minutes of my entry, one of the staffers for the
event informed me that I could not wear a cape which read “President Trump:
Make America Great Again.”
Nowhere in the town hall rules did it say that I could not
wear it. The only stipulation regarding “banners” was that they could not be on
polls.
Then Corporal Nick Martinez approached me and informed me
that I would have to remove “the banner”. I showed up the rules of the town
hall, and in no way was did they indicate that I could not wear the cape.
Officer Nick Martinez
He then told me that I could either remove the cape or leave
the town hall.
This action was a violation of my First Amendment rights.
At the 30 minute mark for the town hall, the two police
officers Bennett and Martinez escorted me out for “disrupting the meeting”. I
called out against Congresswoman Chu’s document record of ethics violations.
Other people were shouting out in the town hall, but I was the only one
targeted for removal from the Town Hall.
Please see this perverse violation of my First Amendment
right. Click here.
I asked repeatedly why I was not granted a warning or how II
was disruptive.
The two officers provided no information. They ordered me to
leave the premises, without warning or clear indication of how I was
disruptive.
I have attended and seen numerous town halls throughout
California and the country. It is customary for members to shout out when they
hear something that is false or misleading.
Here is an article I wrote detailing these different town
halls. Click
here.
Karlan Bennett
Other witnesses who saw the event affirmed that the police
went too far in having me removed.
These witnesses can attest to the violations described
above:
Gary Gileno
Jesse Suave
Please have this matter attended to and have disciplinary action taken
against the two officers identified above.
The First Amendment is a sacred right of all Americans, and my rights
were TWICE violated in one meeting in the city of Claremont.
What an exciting night it was in Claremont, California on Tuesday, January 24.
All these cranky SJWs filled up the entire city hall and spilled out into the steps at the front of the city hall:
I had hoped to find a seat inside the city council chambers, but instead, I went to the Citrus Room above the city council chambers, where it turned into standing room only:
CLAREMONT -- On the eve before President Donald J. Trump signed
an executive order to build a border wall and another to pull funding from
self-declared sanctuary cities, the City Council heard five hours of testimony,
then narrowly agreed to reaffirm the city’s commitment to diversity and
safeguard the civil rights, safety and dignity of all people.
The student rabble wanted Claremont to become a fully-fledged federal outlaw and go sanctuary city.
In the wee hours of Wednesday, the vote was 3-1, with Councilman Corey
Calaycay abstaining and Councilman Opanyi Nasiali voting no.
About 200 people packed council chambers, the lobby and an overflow
room upstairs to share their opinions on the resolution, which stops short of
declaring Claremont a “sanctuary city.”
It was packed alright!
I came 30 minutes before the meeting started, and the building was overflowing with people, mostlly college students.
Trump’s second, related executive order blocks federal funding for
sanctuary cities, defined as jurisdictions that decline to cooperate fully with
federal immigration enforcement agencies. The city of Claremont receives about
$491,000 in federal monies.
I understand the sum to be closer to $1 million.
“To me, it doesn’t have anything to do with losing $500,000 or
cost-benefit analysis as some have said to dissuade us,” Councilman Joe Lyons
said. “It has to do with our moral and ethical obligation as representatives.
That’s what Claremont is about and has been about. It’s one of the reasons many
of us have moved to Claremont.”
The moral and ethical thing for the city to do? Uphold and defend federal law and abide by those laws. Cities are for citizens, not illegal aliens.
The discussion began in November when members of Pitzer College Student
Senate began the process of asking Claremont be designated as a sanctuary city.
A formal plea to the council was made at December council meeting.
So, a bunch of college students put pressure on the city council.
REALLY?! This is just sad. That alone is good reason to have them removed from office. The men elected to higher office are supposed to uphold the law and serve as examples for young people. Instead, we are witnessing a culture far more interested in pandering and placating arrogant, entitled college students rather than standing up to them.
Claremont officials, however, declined to take that route because the
implications for a sanctuary city designation are not clear, Assistant City
Manager Colin Tudor said Tuesday night.
Yes, they are clear. This kind of language is the weasel approach for not taking a stand for anything. They do indeed know the implications for choosing to disregard federal law. They just don't want to admit to the irate college cry-bullies that they will stand by their oath of office and defend the Constitution (or rather, their own jobs).
Tudor added it’s the Claremont Police Department’s practice to neither
conduct immigration enforcement raids nor stop or detain anyone to determine
his legal status.
The resolution comes as the City Council just two weeks ago voted to
reinstate the Committee on Human Relations, which will be tasked with
developing an ongoing public dialogue to address hate crimes and intolerance.
It will work with the public to promote education and understanding among
various groups and cultures in society.
How about hate and intolerance toward legal residents? That would be nice? How about tolerance for the rule of law in our country?
Several of the of the speakers, including Lyons, referenced the city’s
history and how it ties to the decision to support the resolution. A
predominately citrus industry, Claremont relied on an immigrant labor force to
thrive.
Yes, but now we have an unprecedented 95 million people out of work!
They are looking for work, and they will do the jobs which the amnesty advocates claim "white people" will not do.
I confronted one of the older amnesty advocates on this issue at the outset of my arrival at city hall:
In casting his vote, Councilman Larry Schroeder, who participated in
the Women’s March L.A. over the weekend, said he believes that Claremont has
been a sanctuary city without the need of a formal title.
He doesn't want the formal title, because that would mean losing lots of federal dollars!
Guess what? Because the police force is strictly not cooperating with ICE, they are still a de facto sanctuary city.
Bye-bye, federal money!
Meanwhile, Calaycay’s said his abstention shouldn’t be seen as voting
down the resolution. However, he doesn’t feel comfortable with “putting all of
the residents on record” without truly knowing how their sentiments on the
topic.
The issue isn’t black and white, Calaycay said.
That much was evident Tuesday night during several tense moments when
both sides tried to drown out speakers’ comments.
For one night, Claremont — known as the city of trees and Ph.D.s — was
embroiled in the national debate about immigration.
Here's the section which featured my comments:
Wearing candidate Trump’s signature red “Make America Great Again” hat,
Arthur Schaper, president of Beach Cities Republicans of Palos Verdes Estates,
addressed the council at the podium about his opposition to the resolution. He
finished by saying, “God Bless Donald Trump.”
The crowded groaned in disapproval. As Schaper made his way back
outside, he responded: “Suck it up buttercups; you lost, he won.” Some in the
crowd countered by holding up signs that read, “no human being is illegal,” and
“Sanctuary here.”
Here is a great photo taken by one of the newspaper photographers:
Of the 109 speakers at Tuesday’s meeting, most were in support of the
resolution and many were students from the Claremont Colleges.
Most were in support because those individuals are college students who do not have jobs and who are not really learning anything in their classrooms.
They sound more like indoctrinated SWJs interested in fomenting arbitrary conflict and self-loathing.
Speaker after speaker, they shared stories which ranged from being sons
and daughters of immigrants to teachers of undocumented students and their
parents who were concerned about their future under Trump’s administration.
“This platform, the one that I stand at right now, is not a license to
preach hate,” Pomona College student Ian Schafer said. “Instead of alternative
facts, let’s talk about love, empathy and respect. Let’s talk about how
immigrants pay more taxes than a demagogue named Donald Drumpf.”
Since when did demanding the rule of law become a form of hate?
This young people are not thinking. They are simply emoting.
Josue Pasillas, president of the Pitzer College Student Senate, said
fellow students at Pitzer and friends of his are undocumented. He added that
students come from around the world to study at the Claremont Colleges, making
the college town home to many beliefs, religions and ethnicities.
“The current presidential administration has filled our community with
fear and hate. As President Trump prepares to sign executive orders on
immigration … here, in Claremont, we need to move forward, not backward. We
need to stand up for our neighbors no matter what they look like,” he told the
council.
I saw nothing but hate in the audience, from the college students.
Check out what I was put through in this video:
Notice how one bigoted lady gave me the middle finger.
Very abusive and disrespectful!
Many called on the council to go a step further and enact an ordinance,
one that can be legally binding.
Read the above passage again for yourself. They want to pass a legally binding ordinance which would allow illegal aliens to stay in the city of Claremont.
How much further does this insanity have to go before people hit bottom and wake up?
To keep the council meeting going and not be disrupted by clapping, the
crowd would snap their fingers anytime they agreed with the speaker.
But the council also heard from residents from neighboring cities — and
as far away as Huntington Beach — and members of Claremont-based We the People
Rising, who were opposed to the city taking a stance or any move which could
make them look like a sanctuary city.
Go Robin!
Many shared their concerns that the resolution could affect the safety
of everyone and increase crime.
“We are a great nation because we are a nation of laws,” Robin
Hvidston, with We the People and an Upland resident, said. “The law clearly
states, you are to enter into the county legally, and you are to reside in it
legally. This entire debate could have been eliminated with a simple statement:
‘Claremont is not a sanctuary city.’”
AMEN!
Hvidston, who earlier in the night was holding up a sign that read,
“help our homeless,” told council members they should be focusing on those
living on the streets.
Yes, indeed. There is a homelessness problem in municipalities throughout Los Angeles County.
I found a homeless person sleeping in front of the local bank two blocks down the street from the city hall!
Homeless person in Claremont
All those rich college kids could spend some time and money helping the homeless, couldn't they?
But the meeting was also filled with some strange moments.
During public testimony, one speaker told the crowd she wasn’t racist
because she owned a home in Mexico, which did little to impress the group.
Instead, they scorned her.
Notice the disrespect for the college students. Who's the one acting like their privileged?
And there was an incident which occurred toward the end of the evening
as Pedroza commended everyone for their honesty and decorum.
Two members of the public, from opposing views, were standing at the
front of the chambers just off to the side of the dais, trying to outdo each
other by holding their posters side by side and up in the air. The crowd,
noticing the competition, began to laugh.
Raul Rodriguez was holding the sign
But so were other members of We the People Rising:
Final Reflection
I think it's disheartening how desperate the secular left has become in our country.
Then again, it's a lot of fun pushing them into an intellectual corner to get answers from them about what they believe and why!
On January 24, 2017, the
Claremont City Council will decide whether or not Claremont will become a
SANCTUARY CITY. Please attend and tell the council not to declare
Claremont a sanctuary city and to rescind all illegal sanctuary policies.
How this came about:
in December, 25 people spoke during public comment and urged the Council
to declare Claremont a sanctuary city. Their pleas were about bringing
"people out of the shadows" and 'equal treatment for all
people", etc. Their urgency was to have Claremont declared a
Sanctuary City as a rebuff against any action President Trump may take to
withhold Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities.
We are anticipating
those in favor of Sanctuary City status will be at the Council meeting in large
numbers; college professors, students, liberal residents and people not from
Claremont but who are working hard to have as many Sanctuary cities in CA as
possible. They are well organized.
I am asking for your
help in countering the onslaught of liberals and illegal alien
sympathizers who are trying hard to influence Claremont to make this
declaration.
How you can help:
1. Call
Claremont City Council, Mayor and City Manager. (Councilmembers and
Mayor have the same City number, so please call each of them separately, rather
than just using one call for all). The City Manager has a different
number.
2. Please
email each Councilman, and voice your opposition.
3. Lastly, please,
if you can, join us at the meeting on January 24th at:
Claremont City Council
225 West 2nd Street
Claremont, CA 91711
Council Meeting: January
24th, 2017 starts at 6:30p.m. (Arrive early if you can).
Your presence is
important, so please address the Council, let them know of your opposition and
why. If you agree with another speaker, and don't want to say a lot,
simply state: "I just want to say, I agree with the speakers
opposing this Resolultion." Your voice will then be counted, don't
let the Council assume you are supporting the other side.
You don't have to live
in Claremont to speak.
Thank you so much, so
very much. Many of us have spoken at neighboring Councils fighting this
fight, and we have been successful at times. There are some Democrats in
Claremont who are very much against becoming a Sanctuary City, and I am hoping
they will speak up too.
I am grateful for all
your help. Thank you for anything you can do.
NOTE: New article
and poll shows the majority of Californians oppose sanctuary cities and
policies.
