Thread: San Francisco Values

Who is "Reagen", another history changing yank I haven't heard of?

Originally Posted by stroller

Who is "Reagen", another history changing yank I haven't heard of?

OK... so it's Reagan...btw, sadly, there's nothing of his caliber out there right now...

Originally Posted by stroller

It was my good friend Klaus Obermeier who singlehandedly tore down the Berlin wall, events accelerated after his speech at Saarbrucken Student Union.

5555 Got the autograph and photo too no doubt.

The Berlin Wall was merely a symbol of the Cold War -- four decades worth.

Don't much matter who tore down the poxy wall. Reagan spent the Soviets into oblivion.

Neither Gorbachev nor "those responsible" listened to him though.

Check out the latest Monnbattery from, where else...



Iraq War Fifth Anniversary Protest, San Francisco, March 19, 2008

Too good to let die...howza 'bout more evidence of SF Values, eh?

3 suspended for not standing for Pledge of Allegiance

Shouda expelled the little tossers...

^Is that a man or a woman, or one of the 3rd sexes?

Originally Posted by chinthee

^Is that a man or a woman, or one of the 3rd sexes?

In SF you never know, eh?

Originally Posted by chinthee

^Is that a man or a woman, or one of the 3rd sexes?

Big Boned Gal, from southern Alberta.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

There were dozens of 'official' endorsers of the Nakba-60 event, including one called, Queers for Palestine.

The one in the black don't look "gay" at all.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by chinthee

^Is that a man or a woman, or one of the 3rd sexes?

Big Boned Gal, from southern Alberta.

Love the nose on her, eh?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Love the nose on her, eh?

Looks very, ya know...err.... Nevermind. Don't want to bring racial slurs into Issues forum.

Those Queers for Palestine have forgotten what happens to turd burglars and carpet-munchers in the Arab world.

the pussy christians on this forum are really showing their desperation.

not speaking of anyone specifically....just in general.

^
Pussy Christians?

Desperation at what/whom?

...that's right, forgot - according to redcarey, ya gotta be a Fundamental Christian to believe in G_D...heh

Time to update Boon's colossal topic concerning the lunatics of San Francisco.


The city of San Francisco refuses to cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to identifying and deporting juvenile illegal immigrants who have been arrested for criminal offenses. In the case of Ramos who eventually murdered three people, there was some sort of mix up between the SF police and the Feds. Ramos' arrests were never communicated to the Feds.

Ramos' criminal time spent in the United States reached it's zenith when he gunned down a father and his two sons over a traffic incident. The family's car blocked Ramos' car for a period long enough to incense Ramos to the point that he killed all the passengers in the other vehicle.


I hope the surviving wife and mother sues the Hell out of San Francisco and the mayor and council members too. And the Police Chief.

Another thing to note in the article, the city of San Francisco spends taxpayer's money to advertise that it is a sanctuary city. Illegal immigrants are welcome there. But when it comes to housing young illegals who become criminals the city dumps them off in group housing in the surrounding counties. They say they welcome illegals but then they dump the problems generated by young illegals on to others.

A person could argue that SF leadership is more concerned with ideology than public safety but then remember criminals are taken from the city and dumped in the outlying counties. I seldom use the word hypocrite. What other term can explain a group of individuals who declare their compassion and when consequences from their actions arise they dump the criminals off on others thus retaining the sterling image of their ideological pursuits?


San Francisco: Sanctuary City Gone Awry


Cinnamon Stillwell
Wednesday, July 16, 2008




San Francisco's political establishment has long prided itself on providing a haven for illegal immigrants. Mayor Gavin Newsom even launched a taxpayer-funded $83,000 "public awareness campaign" earlier this year assuring illegal immigrants that the "sanctuary city" by the bay was in their court.

And indeed it is. Under the city's 1989 voter-approved sanctuary ordinance, police officers and other city employees are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status. In addition, the city will not direct municipal funds or employees towards assisting federal immigration enforcement, unless such assistance is required by federal or state law or a warrant.

No doubt such protections warm the heart of the city's liberal leadership. But San Francisco's status as a sanctuary city is having unintended consequences.

The brutal and senseless murder last month of Tony Bologna and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, at the hands of Edwin Ramos, a native of El Salvador and known member of the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) street gang, was a reminder that inviting illegal activity can turn deadly. The Bolognas were on their way back from a family picnic when they inadvertently blocked Ramos' car from making a left turn in the Excelsior district. When Bologna politely backed up to let the other car past, Ramos responded by opening fire and killing all three passengers. Ramos has been charged with three counts of murder, with the added penalty of street-gang involvement.

So far, much of the outcry surrounding the case has centered on San Francisco district attorney Kamala Harris' policy of not seeking the death penalty, in this case, against the wishes of widow, Danielle Bologna. But in the process, Ramos' immigration status has largely been overlooked. Ramos' original lawyer, Joseph O'Sullivan, claimed that his client was in the country legally and applying for permanent residence, but federal immigration authorities insist otherwise and promise to deport Ramos if he is convicted. O'Sullivan has since asked to be removed from the case, claiming a connection via a previous client. Thus, he has never had to explain his assertions regarding Ramos' immigration status.

This certainly wasn't Ramos' first brush with the law. He was booked both on felony weapons charges and for being a member of a criminal street gang earlier this year, but escaped prosecution for lack of evidence. However, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Police Department "cited 'numerous documented contacts' that officers had with Ramos and [his companion] Lopez, and said both were active members of the MS-13 street gang.'" But thanks to San Francisco's sanctuary city status, instead of being reported to federal immigration authorities and deported, Ramos was allowed continue to roam the streets of San Francisco until his arrest for the Bologna killings.

San Francisco's sanctuary policy has also taken a statewide toll. While adult illegal immigrant felons are not protected by the ordinance, no such stipulation exists for juvenile offenders, and city officials have used that loophole to dump the problem onto other counties. Earlier this month, San Bernardino County officials threatened to sue the city of San Francisco for sending a group of Honduran, illegal immigrant, juvenile crack dealers to group homes in the city of Yucaipa without notification. Eight of them simply walked away from the unsecured group homes and only one has been recaptured. Officials later acknowledged that this wasn't the first time San Francisco had unloaded criminal illegal immigrants onto San Bernardino County. In fact, Yucaipa has seen a rise in violent crime in accordance with the influx of foreign offenders to its group homes in recent years.

This time around, the outcry from San Bernardino officials caused Mayor Newsom to alter the city's approach to juvenile offenders. No doubt, Newsom's interest in running for governor of California, which he announced just before the controversy erupted, influenced his decision. While Newsom may find a sympathetic audience in San Francisco to his former commitment to sanctuary protections for illegal immigrants, it could prove a liability on the statewide level.

Even on a local level, there's some indication that people are getting fed up with the city's insistence on emphasizing ideology over public safety. In a local CBS poll, 79 percent of respondents agreed that San Francisco should "turn over convicted illegal immigrants for deportation."

Monetary concerns are another factor. It doesn't help that Mayor Newsom and other officials bemoan the city's $338 million budget deficit, even as funds continue to pour into sustaining San Francisco's sanctuary city policies. San Francisco has spent millions of dollars housing juvenile, illegal immigrant offenders and hundreds of thousands of dollars flying them back to their countries of origin in recent years, instead of turning them over to federal immigration authorities as federal law requires. In the wake of the furor over the Honduran case and federal authorities' demand that San Francisco end the flights, the city started housing some of the dealers in youth rehabilitation centers, costing taxpayers $7,000 per month, per person.

Then there's San Francisco Supervisor and State Assembly candidate Tom Ammiano's brilliant plan to provide municipal identification cards to those who either cannot or will not obtain a state-issued driver's license – or in other words, illegal immigrants. Set to go into effect next month, the ID program could cost up to $2.86 million in the first three years, according to a County Clerk estimate. As it turns out, Newsom's aforementioned $83,000 taxpayer-funded love letter to illegal immigrants was just the icing on the cake.

Supporters of San Francisco's sanctuary city policies, which include members of the local faith community who inspired the original ordinance, argue that the current approach is the only humane solution. In its 2007 pledge, the New Sanctuary Movement, describing immigration raids, stated that "We cannot in good conscience ignore such suffering and injustice." But where is the compassion for the injustice inflicted upon American citizens? Others argue that juvenile illegal immigrants deserve special treatment because they are minors. But this ignores the fact that criminal illegal immigrants and the drug cartels for whom some of them work, are aware of San Francisco's former sanctuary loophole and have taken to falsely claiming juvenile status as a result. Still, others argue that police departments need to work with illegal immigrants in the community in order to effectively tackle crime and that fears of deportation get in the way. But extending the current, chaotic state of affairs will only lead to further crime and misery, even for those within such communities.

While San Francisco's sanctuary city ordinance may have been well-intentioned, it has resulted in an untenable and anarchic situation that is taking its toll on city residents and surrounding counties alike. Providing sanctuary for law-breakers at the expense of law-abiding citizens is neither a compassionate nor a moral approach. The issue is not one of callousness towards illegal immigrants, but rather, the duty owed American citizens by their government. In some respects, every layer of the government has failed this test, but in this case, it's the local government that is absconding on its duties. And all San Francisco officials can seem to offer up is more of the same.

They don't call it the Wild West for nothing.

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell[at]yahoo.com. She also writes for the blog at campus-watch.org.

These so called criminals are victims! Much like the fine boys at Gitmo.

Can you say V-I-C-T-I-M?



Those that support this kind of absolute nonsense are intent on destroying what's left of America.

And the Loonies-Abroad campaign are encouraging it because misery loves company. Thankfully, most of America sees it for what it is.

In the "loonies abroad" catagory, I wonder who we can include aboard here?

...heh

From some above posts: yes, the "Sanctuary" concept seems not only stupid, but a reason I wouldn't bother living in the Bay area, nor LA area, for that matter. What a joke. Please secede, CA.

Well firstly attaboy, would you provide a Link for those articles please.
Several of you are getting very lax on this lately- and it is an important issues rule.

So SF does not voluntarily co-operate with Fed authorities on the Immigration status of offenders? Well that seems pretty crazy to me, and I kinda wonder why.

Is it as simple as ideological issues? I mean, what ideology- that illegal immigration should be encouraged? No matter how liberal the council may be, that doesn't quite ring true.
Or is it more grounded in pragmatism- SF is an expensive city, and most of the residents are pretty affluent (except for the legions of Homeless folk there). So it must be damn hard to get burger flippers, cleaners and so on that are willing to work for stingy minimum wages. So maybe the local municipality just chooses to turn a blind eye, and has institutionalised the policy. That rings truer to me.

Either way, I reckon not getting an II felon who commits a serious offence like this deported (after his jail term) is Lunacy.

When did Jews start becoming targets of the radical left? Used to be it was completely not PC to support the Nazi program of mass murder and only racist kooks did so. But now the radical left seems to be getting on the bandwagon as well. Is this to show how European-thinking they are? (Europeans are not known for religious tolerance and mass murder of jews is a constant part of European history). Or is it to show how much the radical left supports the islamic terrorists as Israel is also a common target?

funny how these things go in cycles. Far right (at least the far religious right) used to consider the jews as the enemy, now they are close allies while the radical left used embrace the jewish community has now switched sides and has joined forces with all enemies of Judaism.

Amazing how the people of the left will uncritically change their views to keep in lockstep in opposition to their perceived enemy.

I'm confused what you mean by that AA.

If you mean support for the establishment of a Palestinian state ('Land for Peace'), that is basically a Centrist philosophy, indeed a majority opinion worlfwide and within the US. That is not the preserve of the Far Left at all, although large elements of the Far right are resolutely opposed to it.

If you mean the elimination of the Jewish state, well that is a lunatic fringe philosophy shared by some fringe groups on the Far Left, Far Right, and some Fundamantalist, Messianic Jews.

Either way, I'm still uncertain how that fits into SF values- unless you are referring to the fact that 'Queers for Palestine' or whoever are allowed to hold a public rally there. Unless I'm very mistaken however, the 'for Palestine' is referring to the establishment of a Palestinian state- not the destruction of the state of Israel.