'You cannot eat here': Hawaii café riles residents with ban on Trump voters

Honolulu’s Café 8 ½ gets rave reviews on Yelp for its “Radiatore Verde” and “Italian stir fry,” among other popular dishes at the eclectic mom-and-pop restaurant – but the response to its new 'policy' barring pro-Trump patrons has been decidedly more mixed.
A bright yellow, handmade sign posted on the restaurant's front glass door declares: “If you voted for Trump you cannot eat here! No Nazis.”
A photo of the sign was shared with FoxNews.com. One also is proudly posted on the café’s Facebook page, and was “liked” by some 40 people.
“…The next time you're in Honolulu, eat lunch here, not only are they on the right side of things, the food is delicious and reasonable,” one Facebook user wrote next to the photo.
Others aren’t so charmed.
Honolulu resident and Donald Trump voter Susan Roberts told FoxNews.com she found the sign in “extreme poor taste.”
“It's childish and very unprofessional,” she said in an email. “… The restaurant owner doesn't have to worry ... I will not be stepping foot in that establishment.”
Willes Lee, former chairman of the Hawaii Republican Party and now president of National Federation of Republican Assemblies, told FoxNews.com the sign is discriminatory, and harkens back to “racist and hate-filled” days before statehood.
“Remember when Filipinos couldn't go in certain places, or Japanese wouldn't be allowed [in] many homes? And, it didn't matter who they voted for,” said Lee, who is of Japanese descent.
“People should be able to get food without hearing a political message,” one apparent former customer wrote on Yelp. “I will never go back.”
According to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser, the café was founded by Robert Warner, a former hair stylist for Vidal Sassoon in San Francisco and former restaurateur in Seattle, along with his wife Jali.
Reached for comment Tuesday, Jali downplayed the sign's supposed ban. She told FoxNews.com the restaurant is not actually asking customers whether they voted for President-elect Trump, and said even if they see a customer with a Trump shirt, “we don’t put anything different [in] your food.”
“Robert just wants to express how much he doesn’t like Trump,” Jali said. “If people take it personally or it hurts them, we cannot help. That’s why we say they have [a] choice if they want to come or not come. We don’t force them.”
She said three people called to complain about the sign when it first went up, “that’s it.”
“We don’t want to create trouble,” Jali said. “There is enough trouble in the world.”
While Jali is soft-spoken, Warner, some customers note, is known to channel the “soup Nazi” persona of New York City and “Seinfeld” fame -- “throwing pots and pans,” “telling off customers,” and “hanging not-so-friendly reminders on butcher paper for his customers to read.”
But another Yelp reviewer took issue with the attitude and the sign, writing: “It was funny on Seinfeld, but this place can rot away. Stay away. Hawaii ain't like this. There's a lot of better places on the island than to have deal with extra crap like this.”
Hawaii overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton during the Nov. 8 election, and historically has supported Democrats in local and national races. In fact, just six Republicans are in the 51-member House, and the 25-member Senate is GOP-free.
Now that the election is over, however, Lee said most residents want to just get on with their lives.
“The [restaurant] owners might want to make a better sign,” he said, “since Trump will undoubtedly be in office for eight years.”

San Francisco grapples with growing crime, blight after years of liberal policies

San Francisco doubles down on sanctuary status

San Francisco is earning a growing reputation for more than just its unmatched tech sector – for critics, the city stands as a profound example of the damage ultra-liberal policies can do.
After 20 years of envelope-pushing changes to grow government and ease law enforcement, the once-shining City by the Bay has turned into a place where:

• Property crime runs amok
• An online map is needed to track human feces on city streets
• Discarded syringes are common sightings
• Public urination is so widespread it has damaged subway elevators and escalators, building walls and power poles

“There’s a very tolerant attitude, you can very much do anything on the streets you want,” said Marc Joffe, director of research at the California Policy Center think tank. “As members of a civilized society, there are things you should ​not accept. But we have ignored that … and there is nobody on the other side setting limits.”
San Francisco’s lax attitude is nothing new and has served as a beacon for the American counter-culture dating back to the Beat Generation. But the city’s embrace decades ago of free love and drugs has morphed into something else.
Depending which list you read, San Francisco has the dubious honor of being at or near the top of numerous national surveys tracking homelessness, the cost of housing and other issues. One distinction is not disputed: it has the most property crime in the nation, according to the FBI. The city also has crafted defiant sanctuary city policies and is preparing to battle the incoming Trump administration on the issue.
And in the media, San Francisco’s brand has taken hits, with headlines such as “Why San Francisco is the Worst Place Ever,” “34 percent of Bay Area Residents are Ready to Leave,” and “Complaints of Syringes and Feces Rise Dramatically in SF.”
Local officials defend their ‘sanctuary’ policies as critical for the thousands of undocumented people who live there. And they contend the city as a whole, with its iconic landmarks and top-notch dining and steep surreal streetscapes shrouded in fog, has not lost its luster.
“San Francisco is a world-class city with tremendous natural beauty and diverse progressive residents,” said Democratic state Rep. David Chiu, of San Francisco. “We value inclusiveness and innovation, which is why so many social justice movements and tech companies have started here. We must be doing something right when 25 million visitors came last year and our economy is thriving.”
Chiu admitted the city faces challenges, which are being addressed with a $300 million bond measure for affordable housing and hundreds of millions more spent to combat homelessness.
Housing indeed represents one of the biggest challenges.
In an election year where Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both highlighted the gulf between haves and have nots, San Francisco ironically captures that divide better than perhaps any city.
It is among the wealthiest places in America, where median home value and yearly income are $1.1 million and $84,160, respectively. In other words, few can afford to live there.
This bubble dates back years.
California as a whole has long put a premium on clean air, open space and modern buildings. But in 1996, San Francisco took a hard left turn with the mayoral election of former state speaker Willie Brown. His ensuing policies increased government, taxation and building regulations while shying away from creating more affordable housing. Brown worked with developer lobbyists he knew from his legislator days to demolish single-room occupancy hotels and other low-income homes, making room for well-heeled dot com workers.
“If you don't make $50,000 a year in San Francisco, then you shouldn't live here,” he reportedly said on television. When he was challenged on this by Ariana Huffington, Brown remarked that the statement was untrue “since San Francisco will always need waiters and waitresses.”
Within three years, Brown had increased the city budget by $1 billion, or 33 percent. This included new programs, 4,000 new employees, and pay raises to make the existing city workers the highest paid in the state.
He then did away with ordinances against sleeping in public and blocking sidewalks, while counterpart Rudy Giuliani was doing the opposite in a drive that ultimately reversed New York City’s growing crime and blight.
​​San Francisco District Attorney Terence Hallinan -- who had taught Marxist seminars and helped run the Communist club at UC Berkeley, an investigation by City Journal Magazine showed – also refused to prosecute “victimless” crimes involving drugs and prostitution, saying his focus was on violent crime. The DA’s resistance to taking a hard line against drugs prompted dealers to flood into the city from across the nation, City Journal reported.
Years later, the mindset remains. Smash-and-grab thefts from locked cars are so common that car repair shops have waiting lists. The city does not want to install surveillance cameras, and its aversion to tougher law enforcement had until recently left its police force at 1980s staffing levels.
And there's this: “With a crime rate of 70 per one thousand residents, San Francisco has one of the highest crime rates in America compared to all communities of all sizes,” says the data collection site Neighborhood Scout. “One's chance of becoming a victim of either violent or property crime here is one in 14. Within California, more than 98% of the communities have a lower crime rate than San Francisco.”
On the hazardous waste side, the city is reporting an increase of syringes and feces sightings at 41 and 39 percent, respectively, over 2015 levels​. That's just an average. The hardest-hit area reported a 77 percent rise in discarded syringes and a 140 percent rise in feces. The city spends about $2 million a year on urine and feces cleanup.
Despite $9 billion in tourism revenue and $4 billion in tax revenue last year, San Francisco faces a perennial budget deficit in the billions factoring in generous pension costs, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The city, meanwhile, is proposing to spend $5 million on lawyers to defend illegal immigrants against Trump's push to deport criminals. This doesn't take into account the tax dollars Trump is threatening to withhold if the city doesn't comply.
“No one here wants to see the Trump administration rip apart our families and deport our neighbors,” Chiu said.
He says every San Francisco lawmaker is dedicated to solving its problems.
“It's unfair to just say this is a San Francisco thing,” Chiu said. “These are the same issues across the state and the nation.”

The United Nations Cartoons

The United Nations bites the hand that feeds it

The United States gives out $13.3 billion tax dollars in direct Foreign Aid annually. The United States is above and beyond the single most generous benefactor of the United Nations, donating $2.4 billion dollars of YOUR money, to primarily third-world dictators. This amount is 25% of the United Nations budget. In addition, the United States also gives another $1.4 billion tax dollars to United Nations' programs and agencies. The American taxpayers fund more for the United Nations than ALL of the other 177 member nations COMBINED. What most Americans do not realize is that the vast majority of the recipients of the of US Foreign Aid routinely vote against the wishes of the United States in the United Nations at an average rate of 74%. In other words, of the $13.3 billion tax dollars invested in direct Foreign Aid only about 26% or $3.5 billion went to support people who endorsed American initiatives or causes. A staggering $9.8 billion tax dollars went to causes and people who were and are in open and direct opposition to the United States' interests and objectives. Listed below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations' records: Kuwait votes against the United States 67% of the time. Qatar votes against the United States 67% of the time. Morocco votes against the United States 70% of the time. United Arab Emirates votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. Jordan votes against the United States 71% of the time. Tunisia votes against the United States 71% of the time. Saudi Arabia votes against the United States 73% of the time. Yemen votes against the United States 74% of the time. Algeria votes against the United States 74% of the time. Oman votes against the United States 74% of the time. Sudan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Pakistan votes against the United States 75% of the time. Libya votes against the United States 76% of the time. Egypt votes against the United States 79% of the time. Lebanon votes against the United States 80% of the time. India votes against the United States 81% of the time. Syria votes against the United States 84% of the time. Mauritania votes against the United States 87% of the time. US Foreign Aid to those that hate us: Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States , still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid. Jordan votes 71% against the United States and receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Pakistan votes 75% against the United States receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. India votes 81% against the United States receives $143,699,000 annually in US Foreign Aid. Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes. If you agree, send these facts to all your representatives and friends.

Krauthammer on UN Israel Resolution: 'This Was a US Operation All the Way'

In the continuing fallout from the UN resolution on Israeli settlements, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer joined a panel on "Special Report" Monday to discuss his take.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hammered the Obama administration for failing to record a veto against the resolution condemning West Bank and East Jerusalem settlements. He went a step further in saying that President Obama himself initiated the motion.
"This was a U.S. operation all the way," Krauthammer said.
"This is very serious damage that cannot be undone because you can't change a Security Council resolution without the acquiescence of the Russians and the Chinese, and you're not gonna get it."
Krauthammer especially questioned the mention of "East Jerusalem" in the resolution.
"It's as if the UN passed a resolution declaring Mecca and Medina to be sovereign Jewish or Christian territory," he said. "It's absurd. It's an insult to the intelligence of the world and is supremely damaging to the Israeli claim to its own holy places."

The Difference between Women in America and in Israel

Israel suggests US should consider cutting funds to UN after Security Council vote

Israel's ambassador to the United States on Monday slammed the United Nations Security Council's adoption of a resolution opposing Jewish settlements in occupied territory, suggesting the incoming Trump administration and Congress should take a close look at how much money the U.S. hands over to the U.N.
RABBI RIPS OBAMA UNITED NATIONS MOVE AT DC MENORAH LIGHTING
Speaking on Fox News' "Special Report," Ambassador Ron Dermer also doubled down on Israel's claim the U.S. orchestrated the resolution vote before abstaining last week. Still, he gave few specifics. "We have that evidence... we're going to present it to the new administration, and if they choose to share it with the American people, that'll be their choice."
Dermer called the U.N. a "cesspool" of anti-Israel and anti-American activity, and said Israel appreciated that President-elect Donald Trump called the vote a mistake. After the vote, Trump vowed that "things will be different after Jan. 20th."
NETANYAHU SUMMONS AMERICAN AMBASSADOR TO PROTEST UNITED NATIONS VOTE
The ambassador responded to calls from some prominent Republicans to stop all U.S. funds bound for the U.N. "I think a new president and Congress that wants to make sure that every penny of your money is going to something that protects and defends and advances U.S. interests -- I think there's a lot of changes that could happen at the United Nations," Dermer said.
The U.S. pays 22 percent of the world's contributions to the U.N. budget, much more than any other nation, a 2014 report showed.
The resolution said the settlements had "no legal validity" and constituted a "flagrant violation" of international law. It also urged all states to distinguish between Israel and "the territories occupied since 1967."
In the short term, the resolution was largely symbolic. It did not include talk of sanctions or any other measures to punish Israel.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said "it is because this resolution reflects the facts on the ground -- and is consistent with U.S. policy across Republican and Democratic administrations throughout the history of the state of Israel -- that the United States did not veto it." She cited a 1982 statement by then-President Ronald Reagan that the United States "will not support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements" and that "settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel."
Speaking to Israel's Channel Two on Monday, White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said Secretary of State John Kerry planned to lay out a "comprehensive vision for how we see the conflict being resolved."
David Keyes, spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told Fox News on Sunday, "We have rather ironclad information from sources in both the Arab world and internationally that this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place."
"The Egyptians, in partnership with the Palestinians, are the ones who began circulating an earlier draft of the resolution," White House spokesman Eric Schultz responded. "The Egyptians are the ones who moved it forward on Friday. And we took the position that we did when it was put to a vote."
Netanyahu's office told reporters he looked forward to working with Trump "to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution."

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham were among the Republicans calling to defund the United Nations. Cruz said the U.S. should withhold money until the Security Council vote on Israel is reversed.

Trump calls UN club for people to 'have a good time'

President-elect Donald Trump lashed out at the United Nations on Monday days after the Security Council voted to condemn Israeli settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem.
Trump took to Twitter said the U.N. was just a club for people to “have a good time.” He added that the U.N. has “such great potential,” but has become “just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”
Trump gave a stark warning to the U.N. after Friday’s vote, saying “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th," referring to the day he takes office.
The president-elect has taken a more pro-Israel stance since telling the Associated Press in an interview last December that he wanted to be “very neutral” on Israel-Palestinian issues. However, since getting into the thick of his presidential campaign, he had moved toward favoring Israel. He has spoken disparagingly of Palestinians, saying they have been "taken over" by or are condoning militant groups.
The Obama administration abstained from Friday’s vote, brushing aside Trump’s demands that the U.S. exercise its veto power and provided a climax to years of icy relations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. slammed the resolution on Monday, suggesting the incoming Trump administration and Congress should take a close look at how much money the U.S. hands over to the U.N.

More on this...

• Israel suggests US should consider cutting funds to UN after Security Council vote

• Israel accuses Obama administration of helping craft, push UN censure

• Trump sees moving US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem as 'big priority'

Ambassador Ron Dermer doubled down on Israel's claim the U.S. orchestrated the resolution vote before abstaining last week in an interview with “Special Report.” Still, he gave few specifics. "We have that evidence... we're going to present it to the new administration, and if they choose to share it with the American people, that'll be their choice."
The ambassador responded to calls from some prominent Republicans to stop all U.S. funds bound for the U.N. "I think a new president and Congress that wants to make sure that every penny of your money is going to something that protects and defends and advances U.S. interests -- I think there's a lot of changes that could happen at the United Nations," Dermer said.
This year the U.N. Security Council has approved over 70 legally binding resolutions, including new sanctions on North Korea and measures tackling conflicts and authorizing the U.N.'s far-flung peacekeeping operations around the world. The General Assembly has also approved dozens of resolutions on issues, like the role of diamonds in fueling conflicts; condemned human rights abuses in Iran and North Korea; and authorized an investigation of alleged war crimes in Syria.
Trump's criticism of the U.N. is by no means unique. While the organization does engage in large-scale humanitarian and peacekeeping efforts, its massive bureaucracy has long been a source of controversy. The organization has been accused by some Western governments of being inefficient and frivolous, while developing nations have said it is overly influenced by wealthier nations.