Twitter

follow Caucus of Corruption at http://twitter.com

Blogs for Bush Team
Matt Margolis, Founder/Editor
Mark Noonan, Editor

News Tips

Guest Bloggers
Leo Pusateri
Princella Smith

Sponsors

Blogroll For Bush


Above are the 43 most recently updated blogs. Click here for the full blogroll

Allies

B4B Coverage Of...
The 2004 Republican National Convention
The Alito Nomination
The Roberts Nomination
The Roberts Hearings
Hurricane Katrina

-->
Recent Posts
What's Next For Blogs For Bush?
Viva El Rey!
Waterboarding Is Not Torture (Bumped)
Hillary Plants Questions
What Did I Tell Ya?
Regarding Dancing With the Devil
Coming in Second and Third on the List...
Joe Lieberman on the Democrats
Mukasey Confirmed
The Desert Conservative
Dark Helmet can teach us a lot about U.S. energy policy
The Latest Democrat Culture of Corruption
Is Failure to Respect Someone's "Gender Identity" Evidence of Homophobia?
Thanks and Praise
Global Warming Update
It Isn't 2006 Any More
More Bush Administration Failures
Will Obama Surprise in Iowa?
A Foreign Service Officer Gives Some Advice
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!


Margolis Media Works

Add to My Yahoo!
CentCom

GOP Bloggers

Thank you, President Bush

Social Security Information



Blogs for Bush Store





Donate to Blogs For Bush to help keep us blogging!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Prime Sponsor

Premium Sponsors

More Sponsors

Subscribe To B4Bcast!


Site Credits
RSS 2.0

Powered by:
Movable Type 3.2

Design by:





Caucus of Corruption: The Truth about the New Democratic Majority

ORDER NOW!!!

On Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or The Conservative Book Club

 

Follow the book on Twitter.

Blogger Reviews.

Matt and Mark's Media Schedule.


April 23, 2007
Yet Another Worthless Liberal Gesture Designed to Make Liberals Feel Good About Themselves

Mayor Gavin Newsome of San Francisco, unable to marry off gay couples due to that pettifogging little annoyance called the laws of the State of California, has decided that if he can't do something illegal, then he'll at least be welcoming towards illegals:

Mayor Gavin Newsom vowed Sunday to maintain San Francisco as a sanctuary for immigrants and do everything he can to discourage federal authorities from conducting immigration raids.

The mayor cannot stop federal authorities from making arrests, Newsom told about 300 mostly Latino members of St. Peter's Church and other religious groups supporting immigrants. But no San Francisco employee will help with immigration enforcement.

"I will not allow any of my department heads or anyone associated with this city to cooperate in any way shape or form with these raids," Newsom declared. "We are a sanctuary city, make no mistake about it."

The Board of Supervisors first declared San Francisco a "sanctuary city" in 1989. The designation, which many U.S. cities across the country took on during the 1980s, has no legal meaning.

I can hear San Francisco hearts beating with joy over this. None of that mean, cruel, imperailistic, homophobic, sexist, racist, Chrsto-fascist border enforcement for them! They are a sanctuary city - so, come one, come all...you'll be welcomed in San Francisco and the liberals will feel that they are just such swell people...that their encouragement of illegal border crossing is having a dire impact on American border communities and the fact that remittances to Mexico from illegals here in the States are propping up a corrupt economic/political regime in Mexico don't matter in the least. The actual effects of liberal policy don't matter and, indeed, shouldn't be mentioned (that would be rude, ya know?) - all that matters is that the liberals of San Francisco get to feel morally superior to those cruel, benighted bigots who think that laws should be enforced.

Posted by Mark Noonan at April 23, 2007 06:09 AM


 Track   del.icio.us   digg it   IM   Facebook


Comments

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that if the Islamofascists were going to target any major city other than NYC or DC, it'd be San Francisco for just the reasons stated above.

Posted by: Macker [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 06:57 AM

I've been to 34 of the United States of America and in my little travels I've seen a lot of stereotypes, and I've seen others that completely change my view for the better.

In San Francisco you can definitely see it all - all the absolute weirdness in all its glory. The people are friendly enough (can't drive worth beans) and the multi-cultural differences make everyone feel like they fit in, or even if you don't know one gives you a secon glance.

The flipside is driving through parts of "Middle America". This really surprised me. Things I thought I would find in the "Deep South" (sorry to the Deep South for that comment) were actually rearing their ugly heads in places like Indiana & Iowa?

In one case I stopped in a small town to get gas, and asked for a place to eat. There were three people inside, and seeing as I was obviously not from around "those parts" they gave me an odd look said there was a place in the next town, and so I left hearing them talk about me as I walked out. As I drove out I noticed 3 different restaurants... Needless to say I went to the next town.

In another case I opened a door for a young black girl maybe 10 years old at a small book store, and she was absolutely scared to death. I have a shaved head, and a couple of tattoos, and never thought about my look (if you haven't guessed I live in Los Angeles) - I'll never forget the look on her face. And I felt so ashamed.

This isn't to say all my travels were like this, again it was only the occasional stereotype - but one thing I know for sure... You can knock San Francisco all you want, but the stereotypes there were simply weird. Not hurtful. Not angry. Not judgmental... Just weird.

Personally, I can live with that.

(oh and my personal favorite cities... Milwaukee, San Antonio, and Des Moines.. go figure)

Posted by: walcrowe at April 23, 2007 07:09 AM

I thought you must be referring to the 1 square of toilet paper idea to save the world. Most of the libs on B4B are at least up to eye level full of..., maybe Cheryl Crow has a point? I'm certain she means neocons only should use 1 square and the intellectually superior crowd can buy carbon offsets and plant a tree in China instead of the restrictive 1 square. Many here need 1 roll for a clean wipe.

Posted by: SEW at April 23, 2007 07:48 AM

Well now, if he feels he doesn't have to help enforce the laws of California and the United States, then he and the citizens of San Francisco can easily do without the state and Federal funds that subsidize their comfortable lifestyles.

Need funds for law enforcement? Well, you don't get to pick and choose which laws to enforce; just like citizens don't have the option of obeying which laws they disagree with.

Posted by: Hermie [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 07:55 AM

I wonder what O'Reilly will say about this. You know he's gonna be all over it. I can't wait. I say pull Federal funding from San Fransico! The Mayor is encouraging anarchy!

Posted by: zachster at April 23, 2007 08:27 AM

Perhaps we should just put a wall around San Fan and declare it a sovereign nation (for which they’d have to pay a hefty sum for). And with that, they are removed from receiving ANY subsidies, federal money or other help of any kind from the US. In fact we’ll charge a fee for anyone who enters or leaves including through airspace.

What this mayor is doing is advocating law breaking and should be prosecuted through the full extent of the law. Just to make a point, the federal government should make an example of their commitment to immigrant law enforcement and double their efforts in San Fan until the mayor backs off his rhetoric.

Posted by: DM at April 23, 2007 08:32 AM

What will Mayor Gavin do if this happens in San Francisco?

Posted by: Bigfoot [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 09:18 AM

Where are the liberals decrying the obfuscation of popular will, calling this mayor out for being some despot who may as well have said, "I am the decider!"

Posted by: Morris [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 11:30 AM

Newsome, why not make it an adultery free-zone? It's also rather ironic that they use the word 'sanctuary'.

Posted by: LaMano [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 12:55 PM

What would be really great, after cutting off the federal funding for San Francisco because of such foolish statements, have Homeland Security take over the running of the police. I mean, if the police chief is foolish enough to follow Newsome's order, he is breaking the law. Doesn't San Francisco still have a major port? That could set up all kinds of problems if it is not properly policed.

Posted by: kjstrouble [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 01:28 PM

After a short Google search of "sanctuary cities", I compiled the following list of 106 entries. My criteria was a city that either officially declared themselves as such or which had a broad municipal "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place with regard to immigration status.

Anchorage, AK
Fairbanks, AK
Alabaster, AL
Chandler, AZ
Phoenix, AZ
Bell Gardens, CA
City of Industry, CA
City of Commerce, CA
Coachella, CA
Cypress, CA
Davis CA
Diamond Bar, CA
Downey, CA
Fresno, CA
Huntington Park, CA
Lakewood, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Long Beach, CA
Lynwood, CA
Maywood, CA
Montebello, CA
National City, CA
Norwalk, CA
Paramount, CA
Pico Rivera, CA
Pomona, CA
Sonoma County, CA
So. Gate, CA
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Vernon, CA
Wilmington, CA
Aurora, CO
Commerce City, CO
Denver, CO
Federal Heights, CO
Thornton, CO
Westminster, CO
New Haven, CT
DeLeon Springs, FL
Deltona, FL
Miami, FL
Sanford, FL
Evanston, IL
Chicago, IL
Cicero, IL
Cambridge, MA
Orleans, MA
Portland, ME
Baltimore, MD
Takoma Park, MD
Ann Arbor, MI
Detroit, MI
Minneapolis, MN
St. Paul, MN
Camden, NJ
Fort Lee, NJ
Hightstown, NJ
Jersey City, NJ
Newark, NJ
North Bergen, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Union City, NJ
West New York, NJ
Bay Shore, NY
Brentwood, NY
Central Islip, NY
Farmingville, NY
New York City, NY
Peekskill, NY
Riverhead, NY
Shirly/Mastic, NY
Uniondale, NY
Westbury, NY
Charlotte, NC
Durham, NC
Raleigh, NC
Winston-Salem, NC
Albuquerque, NM
Aztec, NM
Rio Arriba, County, NM
Sante Fe, NM
New York, NY
Oklahoma City, OK
Tulsa, OK
Ashland, OR
Gaston, OR
Marion County, OR
Austin, TX
Brownsville, TX
Dallas, TX
Denton, TX
El Paso, TX
Ft. Worth, TX
Houston, TX
Katy, TX
Laredo, TX
McAllen, TX
San Antonio, TX
Provo, UT
Salt Lake City, UT
Virginia Beach, VA
Burlington, VT
Seattle, WA
Madison, WI
Jackson Hole, WY

There are probably more -- I didn't look very hard.

The bottom line is: San Francisco is not unusual at all. Not in the stated respect anyway. So, as is the case with most difficult issues, the question is: what's really going on and how do you fix it? San Francisco might be an obvious target, but it is by no means unique.

Mark may find some solace in the fact that Las Vegas isn't on the list. So, how are things going there? It sounds to me like Sin City might be joining it pretty soon.

To be perfectly blunt, I find topics like this shameful. First of all, they are designed to divide, not unite. And while that in itself is fine -- there are, after all, issues upon which people honestly disagree. But this topic is predicated upon a staggering level of ignorance which almost seems willful given how quickly it could have been placed in better context with a rather simple, short Google search. Maybe I'm wrong, but I honestly don't believe this kind of crap serves the GOP well -- and especially the B4B wing of it. It makes us look like idiots. And I, for one, am getting tired of it.

Posted by: Ricorun [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 03:16 PM

Ricorun,

Clarify: it is making us look like idiots, or is it making liberals who pass these sanctuary laws look like idiots?

Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 23, 2007 11:56 PM

Mark: Clarify: it is making us look like idiots, or is it making liberals who pass these sanctuary laws look like idiots?

First, the way you worded your piece makes it sound like San Francisco is somehow unique, when it obviously isn't. Had you gotten so far as to realize how wide-spread the phenomenom is you might have asked the question... why? Are they really just a worthless gesture designed to make liberals feel good about themselves? What exactly do they entail and are there perhaps valid reasons for them? And what would likely happen if such policies were not in place? Perhaps most importantly, how do the police feel about them?

What is idiotic is offering up knee-jerk, simple answers to complex questions just to score some cheap political points. Very often when you do that you end up cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Posted by: Ricorun [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 24, 2007 10:19 AM

I wonder what O'Reilly will say about this. You know he's gonna be all over it. I can't wait. I say pull Federal funding from San Fransico.

Posted by: Andy Roll [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 28, 2007 03:34 AM

Order Matt and Mark's book on Amazon or Barnes and Noble