See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Political Party Poop
2. Don’t believe the MSM: San Fran is still an illegal alien sanctuary « Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
3. Random-American » 8 crack dealers shielded by S.F. walk away
4. Michelle Malkin » Sanctuary: the San Francisco curse
5. Michelle Malkin » Thanks San Francisco! More of their sanctuary-seeking illegal-alien drug dealers abscond
6. The Four Color Media Monitor

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 am, zorro said:

   I say boycott sanctuary cities.

2. #2
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:48 am, expat said:

   Michelle,

   One of the things I would like to see is the money trail that has to exist as a result of their policies. How much do NEWSOME & Co make as a result of their policies? For that matter how much does Gerry profit from these policies? You know it is not a matter of total stupidity and bleeding hearts that motivate these people. They are cunning and calculating in their quest to enrich themselves.

3. #3
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:56 am, Cameron said:

   I confess to being genuinely surprised at the anger being voiced in SF over this. I had honestly thought the reaction would be yet another version of the “embrace diversity” song.

   It’s too much to hope right now that things are turning around or that the feds will do anything substantial over this, but it’s nice to see this come to light and not be shut down.

4. #4
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 am, Blind_Mule said:

   I can not even watch any more video of this tool, I feel like knocking the smug little grin off his face everytime I see him. They let illegals run rampant in that city but my buddie is arrested in SF for filming a bunch of them in an abondoned building when they should be rounding these a-holes up. When he signature bonded out, he took his belongings and went home to find his video was missing.

5. #5
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 am, ajmontana said:

   MSM hype (the current headline on the WaP story is “San Francisco to Halt ‘Sanctuary’ Policy”):

   wonder how many people will really buy into this?
   What happened to real journalism?
   it’s like reporters going back to their inane reporting from the old west.

6. #6
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 am, Lifeofthemind said:

   We fought a Civil War. Over 600,000 died for the Union. Add in a roughly similar number of Americans (that being the issue in dispute) who died for the South. The Union won. Nullification Acts don’t exist in this country anymore. There have to be grounds that a US Attorney can use to bring charges against SF mayor Newsome.

7. #7
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 am, Dimsdale said:

   The Feds have to enforce the law. Cut off SanFran from any and all federal funds yesterday, and tell California (and Massachusetts etc.) that the failure to enforce the law in their scofflaw cities will result in termination of all federal funding for the state. No fed disaster relief, no fed contracts, no pay for their Congressional reps. Nothing.

   One thing that pols love more than votes is money (to buy votes and fund their lifestyles and retirements). Take that away, and things will happen.

   Let Geraldo cry. I wonder: does he also act as representative for groups of illegals that can’t just walk across a nonexistent border?

8. #8
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 am, twiggman said:

   NO MORE OF MY MONEY FOR THESE IDIOTS>>>NONE>>>PEROID!!!!

9. #9
   On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:49 am, JennyBea said:

   Please go to Congress.org and find the contact information for your “representatives”. You should actually put it in your speed dial, next to Mom and Dad, because we’re all going to be calling them ALOT in the next four years. There’s no question that either Juan McAmnesty or Obambi will give amnesty to these people and screw us and screw the immigrants who came here legally (who we want).

   It’s outrageous and it’s totally depressing, because no one is surprised.

10. #10
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am, Jim M. said:

    Why isn’t Newsome being prosecuted for aiding and abetting drug trafficking? My bet is that his motives here are not entirely altruistic.

11. #11
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am, tmkeith said:

    I take issue with the term “illegal immigrant” in any context.

    An alien (Merriam-Webster):
    relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government

    An immigrant:
    1. Notifies the host country of their intent to immigrate (visa application)
    2. Proves he/she will not be a burden on the host country (has a sponsor)
    3. Proves he/she will not bring disease into the host country (medical examination)
    4. Proves he/she does not have a criminal background
    5. Pays all fees associated with the application
    6. WAITS IN LINE and faces the very real possibility of denial for any reason

    Illegal Aliens have done none of the above, stop calling them immigrants!

12. #12
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:56 am, aunursa said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 am, zorro said:
    I say boycott sanctuary cities

    A boycott won’t work.

    You must demand that government officials end all federal funding for sanctuary cities or other municipalities that refuse to cooperate.

13. #13
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 9:05 am, sbw999 said:

    Newsome should be impeached and put on trial for treason. I completely do not understand the concept of a “sanctuary city”. Sounds like a BS PC term for a city that aids and abets the violation of our federal law, in which any and all people in government responsible for failure to enforce the laws, should be immediately brought up on Federal criminal charges. Our Country continues its long spiral down the toilet.

14. #14
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am, rambler said:

    I hate seeing those little sob stories about how we are poorly treating illegals. Why do our elected officials want to give this country away to the illegals? I don’t work hard and pay taxes to have the money used for programs for illegals. This madness has to stop.

15. #15
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 9:29 am, Dandapani said:

    “Only here to sell drugs that Americans aren’t willing to sell!” — GWB

16. #16
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am, supersean said:

    Newsome is not the “implementor” of the Sanctuary City policy as it has been a law on the books for over a decade now.

    There have been some grassroots efforts to overturn the law but all of those efforts were labeled racist by immigrant right “advocates”. Prop 187 which passed by a landslide was a step in the right direction but unfortunately was overruled by our friends on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hopefully with the exposure given to the harden criminals and the wasted tax dollars we can reintroduce legislation that will pass judicial muster.

    Like I have said here before… most San Franciscans have common sense and are not on the liberal fringe… its the loon outcasts that converge from all over the world to call San Francisco home that we need to be criticizing.

17. #17
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 am, Wade said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 9:42 am, supersean said:
    Like I have said here before… most San Franciscans have common sense and are not on the liberal fringe… its the loon outcasts that converge from all over the world to call San Francisco home that we need to be criticizing.

    It is a problem for San Francisco to straighten out, and if most San Franciscans have common sense that should be a easy task. I think most San Franciscans either support the current policy or just don’t give a damn. Feds need to step in and no more federal money until this nonsense stops.

18. #18
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:25 am, Truesoldier said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:17 am, Jim M. said:
    Why isn’t Newsome being prosecuted for aiding and abetting drug trafficking? My bet is that his motives here are not entirely altruistic.

    I’ll bet Marion Bary is wishing he had thought of something along those lines back when he was still the Mayor of D.C.

19. #19
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:28 am, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    Nancy Pelosi is from San Francisco and she would block any attempts to enforce federal law against the obvious illegality of the SF politicians. The resident’s of SF have nobody to blame but themselves for their elected officials. (This is like Vermont which has basically imported pedophiles thanks to lax child protection laws. You reap what you sow.)

20. #20
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:47 am, WernerP said:

    That’s one thing I’ll never understand: Why do so many people switch off their brains and refuse to see the facts when immigrants are involved?

    It’s one thing being welcoming to honest and law-abiding people who make their way to another country LEGALLY in search of a new and better life.

    It’s quite another when people are given carte blanche to commit crimes (and, yes, that includes murder, rape, etc.) just because they happen to be from somewhere else.

    In Canada, there are currently approx. 40,000 illegals on the lamb (I know, this number pales in comparison to what’s been going on in the U.S., but still), many of whom have committed serious and violent crimes, but the government, despite having been warned about the situation, fails to take emergency action (nothing less will do).

    And once one of those bastards is apprehended, out come all those bleeding hearts wailing and sobbing over the “rough” treatment administered to a foreign criminal.

    Some people are so dumb — I only hope, at least, that they hurt big time each time they decide to be this stupid.

21. #21
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:48 am, WernerP said:

    Oops, sorry about that typo before. That should have read “lam” not “lamb” (the power of the almighty typing fingers).

22. #22
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 am, jeanie said:

    It’s beginning to look as if San Francisco is becoming a city with such skewed policies that it may be difficult if not impossible to re-claim it in the future. What I find surprising is that such a high priced city continues to attract anyone at all to live within it’s limits. There must be a point where it will cross the line from extremely liberal to completely unsafe since law has little meaning there. It’s hard to foresee any other outcome.

23. #23
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am, tpierce2 said:

    Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco Mayor, is apparently putting together an exploratory committee for run for Governor of California. He does have a base. The liberal San Francisco kookabillies. Pretty scary thought.

24. #24
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:21 am, MNUSMCDavid said:

    Blind Mule:

    was he able to retrieve that video, and how do the authorities claim that swiping the video was justified…. amazing… the police state works on your friend, but not the illegal aliens…. the inmates DO run the asylum.

25. #25
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am, Yashmak said:

    Cameron said:

    I confess to being genuinely surprised at the anger being voiced in SF over this. I had honestly thought the reaction would be yet another version of the “embrace diversity” song.

    Don’t be too surprised. San Francisco is a heavily left-leaning city, but a large minority of the city’s residents are conservative. And some of the lefties aren’t totally bereft of pragmatic views either.

    It’s hard for me to imagine ANYONE, left or right, being in favor of offering what is basically a shuttle service to drug dealers. . .no matter HOW liberal they are. Obviously, there are a few who thought it a good idea though. Scary.

26. #26
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am, swmbo said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am, tmkeith said:
    I take issue with the term “illegal immigrant” in any context.

    I could not agree more with that statement. ILLEGAL ALIENS is the correct term.

27. #27
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 am, swmbo said:

    I guess I don’t understand the law. Why aren’t illegals who are caught in a criminal act put in jail. I’m serious here. I think if you break US laws, you should be in a US prison. Am I wrong on this? If we break Mexican laws, we would be put in a Mexican prison right?

28. #28
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 am, cpodug said:

    Yashmak: a large minority of the city’s residents are conservative. And some of the lefties aren’t totally bereft of pragmatic views either.

    Unfortunately, they might not be around long enough to make a difference. San Francisco is paying a very dear price for their contempt for the law.

29. #29
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm, tgusa said:

    I was bored last night and was thumbing through the channels to keep up with what the loons are up to and I came across a fight club documentary on National Geographic. Fight club… San Francisco, geez you should have seen em up there with their toilet seats, tennis racquets and homemade wooden knives tip toeing around the garage in an apparent effort to mimic a street fight. I couldn’t stop watching it had me mesmerized, I couldn’t believe people would allow themselves to appear that pathetic on cable TV. The message was they were really stressed and unable to vent so instead of fixing their city they pretend to beat each other up. It usually took about one punch which I suppose we can consider a good thing if we ever need to teach em a lesson they wont soon forget. That’s leftism for ya, when the authorities fail to do their duty, when you’re so stressed out you can’t function normally anymore, start a club and start beating each other up, well sorta.

30. #30
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm, apacherat said:

    In California you have Penal Code 834. Sad that most of California law enforcement agencies are breaking the law. In fact, California’s Attorney General, Jerry brown aka former Governor Moonbeam is breaking the law.
    California Penal Code Section 834
    An arrest is taking a person into custody, in a case and in the manner authorized by law. An arrest may be made by a peace officer or by a private person. 834a. If a person has knowledge, or by the exercise of reasonable care, should have knowledge, that he is being arrested by a peace officer, it is the duty of such person to refrain from using force or any weapon to resist such arrest. 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.
    (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
    (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
    (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.
    (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity.
    (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited. 834c. (a) (1) In accordance with federal law and the provisions of this section, every peace officer, upon arrest and booking or detention for more than two hours of a known or suspected foreign national, shall advise the foreign national that he or she has a right to communicate with an official from the consulate of his or her country, except as provided in subdivision (d). If the foreign national chooses to exercise that right, the peace officer shall notify the pertinent official in his or her agency or department of the arrest or detention and that the foreign national wants his or her consulate notified.
    (2) The law enforcement official who receives the notification request pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be guided by his or her agency’s procedures in conjunction with the Department of State Guidelines Regarding Foreign Nationals Arrested or Detained in the United States, and make the appropriate notifications to the consular officers at the consulate of the arrestee.
    (3) The law enforcement official in charge of the custodial facility where an arrestee subject to this subdivision is located shall ensure that the arrestee is allowed to communicate with, correspond with, and be visited by, a consular officer of his or her country.
    (b) The 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Treaty was signed by 140 nations, including the United States, which ratified the agreement in 1969. This treaty guarantees that individuals arrested or detained in a foreign country must be told by police “without delay” that they have a right to speak to an official from their country’s consulate and if an individual chooses to exercise that right a law enforcement official is required to notify the consulate.
    (c) California law enforcement agencies shall ensure that policy or procedure and training manuals incorporate language based upon provisions of the treaty that set forth requirements for handling the arrest and booking or detention for more than two hours of a foreign national pursuant to this section prior to December 31, 2000.
    (d) Countries requiring mandatory notification under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention shall be notified as set forth in this section without regard to an arrested or detained foreign national’s request to the contrary. Those countries, as identified by the United States Department of State on July 1, 1999, are as follows: -> http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/834.html
    Then their is the federal law passed by Congress

    SECTION 287(G) IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
    Section 287(g) originated in the 1996 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act passed by Congress. The initiative is designed to effectively multiply the forces of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through enhanced cooperation and communication with state and local law enforcement. Under 287(g), ICE provides state and local law enforcement with the training and subsequent authorization to identify, process, and when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular, daily law-enforcement activity.
    Section 287(g) is a voluntary program. Individual local or state law enforcement agencies or government departments are free to contact ICE if they are interested in participating. Once accepted into the program, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is created to outline the specific responsibilities and procedures appropriate to a specific law enforcement group’s needs and capabilities. ICE develops a specialized training course (typically five weeks) for that group focusing on immigration law, civil rights, intercultural relations, and the issues and illegalities surrounding racial profiling. When they successfully complete the course and pass all related examinations, the officers receive an official certification from ICE that allows them special authorities regarding immigration violators called 287(g) authority. After certification, ICE continues to provide supervision and support, helping officers to determine the appropriate response once they determine a suspect to be an immigration violator.
    Specific MOUs may authorize slightly different procedures for different law enforcement entities. Generally speaking, under 287(g) authority, when a trained and certified officer encounters, during his regular activities, an individual who is an immigration violator, he or she may question and detain the individual for potential removal from the United States by ICE. Particularly in cases where the individual is deemed to be a flight risk, a repeat immigration offender, or a particular threat to local or national security, 287(g) provides a valuable extra tool to local and state authorities.
    Already 287(g) has achieved numerous successes in cooperative law enforcement. There are 62 trained and certified officers in the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and 21 in the Alabama State Police, with 25 more slated to earn certification in ’06. Within the next few months, ICE will also be training six L.A. County Jail Custody Assistants to process criminal aliens for removal from the U.S. while they are in jail custody. This training is expected to take four weeks, and as with all 287(g) participants, all actions taken by the L.A. County personnel will be supervised and reviewed by ICE officers.
    While enforcing immigration law is primarily a federal responsibility, Section 287(g) provides a mechanism for enlisting the help of state and local law enforcement entities in this effort with minimal impact on their normal daily routines and responsibilities. -> http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/factsheets/section287g.htm

31. #31
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm, Yashmak said:

    cpodug:

    Unfortunately, they might not be around long enough to make a difference. San Francisco is paying a very dear price for their contempt for the law.

    I’ve lived in California my whole life (except for a 5 month stay in Germany). Variations on the article you linked have turned up in the news off and on that entire time. Several years ago, there were whole articles about the firemen and policemen, and their inability to afford housing in the city (SF) they serve. Several years before that, it was the elderly on fixed incomes who were leaving in droves.

    But SF never seems to run out of elderly folks, firemen, or police officers who live in-town. I don’t know how they can always be bleeding people, but never run out of people. There are WAY too many nice cars and nicely dressed folks in town for me to believe that the entire city is populated by people living below the poverty line on some sort of subsidy.

    But you’d think, by now, that’s all that would be left.

    It’s a mystery. . .just like the thought processes of SF’s city govt.

32. #32
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm, cpodug said:

    Yashmak, I concede. I’ve only lived in the Bay Area for 24 years, since moving up from San Diego when I retired from the Navy. I do have friends who live in SF, and I don’t know how they manage to put up with it. I, personally, won’t go there on a bet anymore. I’ve just had it with the Sanctuary by the Bay.

33. #33
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pm, greenfairie said:

    God help us if this schmuck succeeds the Governator.

34. #34
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pm, Wade said:

    Yashmak said:
    But SF never seems to run out of elderly folks, firemen, or police officers who live in-town

    Can you substantiate that with facts over the past 25 years?

35. #35
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    Believe the MSM? If there IS anyone on this blog who thinks they may be starting to believe the MSM GO IN THE HOUSE NOW. Drink plenty of fluids and cover your forehead with a wet towl.
    If the condition persists call 9-1-1–you are having a heat stroke.
    lgm excepted of course.

    And may both real Americans in San Francisco be on vacation when that city falls into the GayBay.

36. #36
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 1:00 pm, Chief RZ said:

    Illegal criminal aliens who are even worse. Felons who have been allowed by misguided liberals to become murdering drug dealers.

37. #37
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pm, vickisoup said:

    Newsome is the most audacious person around, IMHO. To play dumb on this, and to now be exploring a run at the governorship, does it get any more audacious than that????
    He’s a scofflaw.
    Emboldened by the CA Supes support for his position on gay marriage rights (however flawed, of course), he expects everyone to ignore the fact that he does not uphold the laws with which he disagrees.
    Now he wants to run the helm of the State? Arrogant piece of cr*p. I can’t stand that man.
    

38. #38
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm, cpodug said:

    Hey - even the Comical blasted him in an editorial - hard to believe, but true, nevertheless!

39. #39
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm, tgusa said:

    They will go to any lengths to smear their opponents. There’s big trouble on the alien front and they know it they are grasping at straws, flailing about wildly in an effort to put the monkey on someone else’s back. Now keep in mind that you never, I mean never, hear a description of a suspect by race here, well until today. They are searching for a murderer, he gunned down his wife and he ran off with their kid after the shooting, according to the mmm he’s a forty something white guy named Ramos. This is becoming ridiculous. Remember this police and district attorneys, when these pols are caught with their pants down they will drop a dime on you in a heartbeat, you will be the scapegoat, so watch out and cya.

40. #40
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 pm, fred5676 said:

    Call your Senators and Representative - NOW.

    Not this afternoon, not tomorrow. NOW!!

    Demand that they tell (not ask) our President to enforce the GD law - you know, the 1996 law that outlaws sanctuary policies.

    Tuesday I personally visited the local offices of my three elected representatives, composed notes in their offices while I was there, and had them FAX to their bosses in DC.

    DO IT!

    For example, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) states the following without equivocation:

    Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

    — Section 642 (a) of IIRIRA, 1996, and Section 5434 of the Welfare Reform Act 1996; extended 2003

41. #41
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 2:07 pm, tgusa said:

    Maybe Attorney General Brown could solidify support for his candidacy by indicting and arresting Mayor Newsome. It’s a legal twofer, he does his job and he eliminates the competition. Just sayin.

42. #42
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    I don’t even listen to MSM much anymore on anything because I can’t stand it.

    We need to have more regulation with immigrants, but it just seems to be like its people who have families who get deported.

    Naturally, all the sympathy from the left goes to the crooks because they’ve had a “hard life.”

43. #43
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm, Yashmak said:

    cpodug -

    I do have friends who live in SF, and I don’t know how they manage to put up with it. I, personally, won’t go there on a bet anymore.

    I know what you mean. My little brother lives there. I’ve been trying to talk him into leaving the city since he moved there. . .it’s caused him nothing but financial woes (and he makes slightly more money than I do!).

    Wade said:

    Can you substantiate that with facts over the past 25 years?

    I suppose I could, if I was willing to spend the hours poring over tedious census info. Unfortunately, I’m at work.

44. #44
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 pm, publiuswarmac9999 said:

    At some point in the not too distant future, SF will suffer the predicted earthquake. Then all the wackos will either leave or scream that the feds need to step in to help. At that point, some future President may have the guts to say something about SF being an American city and acting like an American city should.

    Until the SF citizens get enough of a shake-up to get rid of these bozos, they will compete with the State of Vermont for the capital of perversion and stupidity.

45. #45
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 2:57 pm, tgusa said:

    If having a family is the criteria that’s illogical. Every criminal that has ever been executed had a family. Can you imagine a hundred or so years ago people saying, well we can’t hang that horse thief he has a family after all? Here’s a question, when you have guests over, temporarily or permanently, do they come through the front door or do they come in the back window? Immigrants come through the front door they want above all else to become Americans. This latest batch that have come in the window have brought their homelands with them. In many cases they left because of squalid conditions, hunger and disease yet they get here and miss it, diagnosis…insanity.

    If you listen to conservative radio you are listening to the mmm. Those station breaks with their public service announcements (news updates) are the mmm. It’s the stealth fairness doctrine and I will bet Rush and the others don’t even know its happening. I listen to the mmm in the same way that the military might monitor enemy communications, its a lot like that, complete with code words and subterfuge.

46. #46
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm, Beukeboom said:

    It’s long past time to withdraw all federal finances, subsidies, etc. targeted to San Francisco for openly violating federal laws. If they can subsist on local and state finances, fine but no federal monies should be given to them any longer.

47. #47
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 3:35 pm, havok said:

    Michelle,

    How about keeping a list of santuary cities on your site so we all know who to boycott. I don’t get to travel often but would certainly not spend a dollar in San Fran or any other place that defies our laws and spends tax-payer money hiding illegal aliens.

    Also…Gavin Newsom, at the very best, is a colossal joke. I sort of hope that he does win the Guv spot so he can finish bankrupting the state then sell it to Mexico for $8.00, a bag of Honduran smack and a hooker.

48. #48
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm, tgusa said:

    Yeah and then China or Dubai would own it shortly thereafter. What kind of an American are you that you would surrender territory without even a fight? If you run for your life at the thought of Newsome do you really think we can use you when we face the fanatics? What’s your plan regarding the islambergs sprouting up all over the country? How much are they worth? We can handle the Newsomes you go ahead and stay inside and don’t make any sudden moves and you will be alright. The future is going to require backbone that will make Valley Forge look like a company picnic. With a moniker like havok, I expect more.

49. #49
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm, bananny said:

    A ray of hope may be on the way for California:

    http://tinyurl.com/44ogrn

    La Raza, Maldef, Lulac, and all of ‘em will squeal like pigs the whole way, but won’t it be a magnificent thing if it gets on the ballot?

50. #50
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm, John Ansell said:

    We need to elect Politicians like THIS ONE

51. #51
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm, havok said:

    We can handle the Newsomes you go ahead and stay inside and don’t make any sudden moves and you will be alright. The future is going to require backbone that will make Valley Forge look like a company picnic. With a moniker like havok, I expect more.

    tgusa…chill…my sarcasm did not come across so well. I was slamming Newsom more so than California. Hell…I’ve posted in the past that we should take over Mexico for the oil and beaches…that would be sweet!

52. #52
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm, Yashmak said:

    Also…Gavin Newsom, at the very best, is a colossal joke. I sort of hope that he does win the Guv spot so he can finish bankrupting the state then sell it to Mexico for $8.00, a bag of Honduran smack and a hooker

    - havok

    If Obama wins the election, I’d rather be governed by the Mexicans anyway.

53. #53
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 4:54 pm, tgusa said:

    Ok maybe I was a bit harsh I suspected sarcasm but I wanted to find out for sure, now I can call you havoc and believe it.

54. #54
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm, havok said:

    tgusa…

    It’s hard to read my usual smart-arse remarks at times. I still think we should take Mexico over in a reverse invasion. After we run the corrupt gov’t off we could have that place rebuilt in 25-50 years, have the oil and control the gulf. Not to mention the Southern border is much easier to control.

55. #55
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

    If Obama wins the election, I’d rather be governed by the Mexicans anyway.

    It is early, but I think I’ll have a couple of drinks. )o:
    Jack Daniels (o:

    What’s your plan regarding the islambergs sprouting up all over the country?

    Ask me!
    .223
    .308
    7.62×39 & 54
    30-06
    .270 Remington
    9 mm
    38 cal
    40 cal
    45 Long Colt
    Feel free to jump in here.

56. #56
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm, tgusa said:

    havok I have to agree with you as a matter of fact I sometimes wonder if that’s what they are trying to get us to do.

    ArizonaNeanderthal, what no pigs and dogs? As you know we Americans love dogs, we like pigs too, they eat our leftovers and then we eat them as it should be. I’m having a pig over for Independence day you might say it’s the guest of honor.

57. #57
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:19 pm, Dimsdale said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 11:40 am, swmbo said:

    On July 3rd, 2008 at 8:41 am, tmkeith said:
    I take issue with the term “illegal immigrant” in any context.

    I could not agree more with that statement. ILLEGAL ALIENS is the correct term.

    I prefer the more Malkinesque “invaders” myself!

    Things are pretty screwed up here in the land of Kennedy, Kerry, Frank et al. too!

    Remember smarmy MA Gov. Mike Dukakis? He tried to issue fake social security numbers to illegal invaders to get them on the welfare rolls.

    When caught, he called it an “oversight.” Did you ever notice that when caught, a Dem always says it was an oversight, a mistake, or “give it to the 9th circuit court of appeals?”

    Of course, weasely Dems in New Haven, CT have issued municipal identification cards that allow access to city services such as libraries and a chance to open bank accounts. Nice.

    If you break the rules and you are a Republican, you are vilified and run out of town. If you do the same as a Dem, you are given a choice spot on some commission, like the Banking Commission (shot across Dodd the Fraud’s bow).

58. #58
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 6:46 pm, Rob said:

    WOLVERINES! ! ! ! !

59. #59
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm, PMain said:

    Called my local San Diego Council Woman, Toni Atkins & wrote her as well. They stated that La Raza was a trade organization & that the actions were also sanctioned by the Mayor, Jerry Sanders - making everything alright. Toni is out of town for the weekend, but will be in Monday.

60. #60
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 pm, havok said:

    Nice one Rob…

61. #61
    On July 3rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm, ChristmasGhost said:

    And don’t forget that San Francisco under Gavin “king of the elitist idiots” “rule” was also buying bus tickets for bums and shipping them [many who were dangerous mental patients] up here to Humboldt county to burden this already struggling rural community. Hey…he didn’t care…that way he didn’t have to look at them…
    Isn’t it interesting that he didn’t choose Napa or Sonoma county where his winery is,?
    N-I-M-B-Y ULTRA.
    What a tool…….

62. #62
    On July 7th, 2008 at 1:34 am, Alphonse said:

    San Francisco is just following unofficial national policy as laid down by the Coyote-in-Chief.