Other things in the news...

Related to the story I just posted, it's also been reported that 3 more illegal immigrant drug dealers have escaped from their group homes. No doubt, liberals may look at this as a bit of justification for the previous practice of shielding the felons, since, some of the escapees were apparently tipped off that they were now in danger of deportation.

"Newsom said city officials suspect that the latest two escapees left the Tulare County group home after being tipped that they could be deported, although the city had not reported them to federal immigration officials.

"In many respects, this is a consequence of the policy change," Newsom said. "It goes without saying, there is an arrest warrant out."

The fact that they've run away because they might face deportation just further reinforces an important part of the justice system: punishment for criminal behavior is supposed to be a deterrent for engaging in criminal behavior. While we need a long-term solution for the problem of illegal immigration in America, one can only hope that fear of deportation may at least give a few would-be criminals a bit of pause before they spiral into a life of crime.

In a different kind of Sanctuary City news, there's a measure on the November ballot to decriminalize prostitution. Who knew (maybe I'm the only one in dark here), there's an "Erotic Service Providers Union"! Sheesh, everyone has a union today. (Except mothers. You don't see Mom Unions sprouting up all over the place demanding that super markets provide free juice and crackers and refrain from putting balloons and toys in the check out lanes. But that's totally an aside.) Anyway, supporters say the main concern is protecting the safety of the prostitutes.

"Workers would like it if crimes like rape, robbery theft and coercion were vigorously investigated and prosecuted," Maxine Doogan, a founder of the Erotic Service Providers Union, wrote in an e-mail. "We want the right to make reports of crimes against us without being retaliated against by the Police Department."

Honestly, my somewhat sheltered little mind is a bit at a loss as to where to start with all the things wrong with this idea. Essentially they're asking SF to be a sanctuary city to another special group (homeless, illegal immigrants, now prostitutes). It's just a new example of how morally permissive our city is...or maybe an old example, apparently this debate has been raging on for years. Still, narrow-minded me cannot help but notice that this is not just a practical issue about the "safety" of prostitutes. Laws are always statements of morality, one way or another, and a law that decriminalizes the sale of sex states that our society doesn't care about the sanctity of sex. Of course, the lack of concern for that issue is a disease of epidemic proportions in this world. Nevertheless, I think our kids shouldn't be sent the message that selling sex (your body) to anyone willing to pay is a legitimate career choice.

Even Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris oppose the measure (possibly the only bright spots on two very dismal careers), rightly pointing out that it will make investigating sex trafficking much more difficult (the measure has language that will ban investigations that are based on racial profiling, so, what, we can't investigate a massage parlor because it's owned by Asians?). There are so many things wrong with this whole thing...but I'm sure it will continue to bring out much hand-wringing about the second-class citizen prostitutes who are persecuted for their career choices. After all, in this world, how do we dare make judgments about any choices made by consenting adults (as long as they're not voting Republican)?

The Hits Keep on Coming

Ever since this story broke, I've been wondering when we'd hear this...it was only a matter of time before it came out and Jaxon Van Derbeken over at the Chronicle gets major props for his continued dedication to bringing these facts to the attention of San Franciscans.

Turns out, Edwin Ramos, who is being charged with the murder of a father and his two sons (almost a month ago today), is one of the juvenile illegal immigrants who was shielded from deportation by the San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department.

"Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors say is a member of a violent street gang, was found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile - a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman - according to authorities familiar with his background.

In neither instance did officials with the city's Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency's policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender. Had city officials investigated, they would have found that Ramos lacked legal status to remain in the United States."

Attempted robbery of a pregnant woman! Nice. I wonder how the mother of his child feels about him assaulting pregnant women (Ramos has a baby girl with some bright spot in the female community). And he committed that crime literally within days of being released for his first offense (a gang-related assault on a MUNI bus).

Update - after a little research, it turns out he's married to a girl who is (how convenient!) a U.S. citizen and had a request to become a permanent resident pending when he shot Tony Bologna and his two sons.

I guess I should include that his prior juvenile convictions occurred before Gavin Newsom took office in 2004 and we already know that the policy of shielding illegal immigrant felons predates his administration (confirming another well-known fact: San Francisco has been run by misguided liberals and outright idiots for a very long time). Still, his administration should have stopped this policy immediately upon taking office instead of jumping right for issuing illegal marriage licenses to gays and lesbians. I mean, clearly, his priorities have been way off track from day one!

In the two weeks (it's about two weeks, maybe a little more) since Gavin Newsom terminated the idiotic policy of not referring these felons to ICE at least ten juvenile offenders have been referred to federal authorities. That's almost one per day! Can you imagine how many have slipped through the system in the years since this policy started? How many heinous crimes could have been prevented by simply abiding by federal law? I'd like to know what the repeat-offense rate for these criminals is...how many of them go on to commit progressively more violent crimes as Mr. Ramos has?

Oh, and speaking of Gavin Newsom, he hasn't clarified whether or not he ended the policy in May as he claimed on CBS or in July when it was brought to the public attention.

All I can say is it's more than time for some serious accountability for the leaders of San Francisco. At every turn they have had ample opportunity to right the wrongs that have ruled this city for decades and at each turn they've chosen WRONG. As one SFGate commenter put it: "Grab your pitchforks and light your torches. Time to take back our city."

(Speaking of pitchforks and torches, go to recallmayornewsom08.com and email them to show your support!)

More on the JROTC Ban

C.W. Nevius at the Chronicle spoke out against ousting JROTC in SF public schools. I'm glad to see him pointing out that two of the school board members supporting the measure are running for supervisor seats in November and are therefore, trying hard to increase their liberal street cred.

Of course Gavin Newsom had to show up to the pro-JROTC rally (probably still nervous about his little "slip-up" with the illegal immigrant shield). No doubt he took a poll and found out that people from SF are supportive of the program.

Also in the article:

"It's also red meat for those conservative blogs and news outlets that want to paint San Francisco as a nutty outpost that tries to impose its views on everyone else."

Newsflash: San Francisco *is* a nutty outpost. Has this guy ever seen what goes on at the Folsom Street Fair or Pride Parade every year? That is not normal behavior to the rest of the country. In fact, probably a lot of it violates laws on the books in SF (see previous post about quality of life crimes being overlooked). Also, gay marriage anyone? And in the beginning of the article, Nevius lists "universal healthcare" as an issue that allows people to express themselves and control their own life. Clearly, he hasn't been to the DMV in awhile.

San Francisco: Best California City for Criminals

Go us!

This is a year old, but no doubt much of it still holds all too true.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, roughly 4 of every 100 arrests result in prison terms in San Francisco, compared with 12.8 out of 100 in Alameda County, 14.4 of 100 in Sacramento County, 21 of 100 in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, 26.6 of 100 in Fresno County, 38.7 of 100 in Los Angeles County and 41 of 100 in San Diego County."

And when it comes to murder, statistics show that San Francisco prosecutors have had ample opportunities to keep criminals off the streets. The Chronicle reports that fully "83 percent of people identified by police as suspects in San Francisco killings in 2004 and 2005 had criminal records. The identified suspects had an average of 11 arrests apiece."

I can personally vouch for the fact that this is definitely still true:

It is well known that drug dealers commute to San Francisco from Alameda county because they know there is a low likelihood of arrest in San Francisco, much less actual jail time for the crimes if they're caught. Consequently, there seems to be little enforcement of most quality of life crimes in the city. Visitors strolling around the city are more than likely to see open drug use and drug dealing and rampant graffiti vandalism.

Just off the top of my head I can think of about four incidents where the police where around people using drugs openly and did nothing to stop. Once, at Ocean Beach, Mr. Urb and I (and Baby Urblette, too!) noticed two young-looking kids lighting up a joint, totally polluting the air around (personally, I hate the smell of pot, but that's just me). Luckily (or so we thought) a cop was patrolling the walkway on his motorcycle. Guess what happened? Did he arrest them? No. Let them off with a warning? No. He mosied right on past them and the obvious stench of illegal substances and began flirting with a female jogger nearby.
Another time, I saw three of the local bums (one couple, they always panhandle together, and then another bum friend), sitting on a park bench, smoking (that's pot, not tobacco) away their hard-begged money. And the police officer, patrolling the park in close enough range to know what was going on, ignored it.

Here in SF, we're big fans of selective law enforcement. And usually, the people who feel the long arm of the law are the ones who can pay the most - parking tickets, people who leave their garbage containers out. You know, those evil people who dare to be wage-earners. Chances are, if you're homeless or part of a select group of special classes (gay, illegal immigrant, etc), the liberals in San Francisco will be more than happy to overlook your illegal activity.

Oh hey, speaking of bums...

As promised, a picture of a homeless guy on his Blackberry.

I know, it's a little fuzzy, but if you're ever in Golden Gate Park around 19th Avenue, you'll probably run into this guy. You might mistake him for a normal guy because he's (so far) maintained a clean shave by camping out by one of the public restrooms. His favorite spot is right near a children's park and I have (paranoid mother that I am) called the police on him before only to see him get the usual "You'll have to move somewhere else" speech and return again in a few hours.

He's also seen trolling around the local Starbucks and you will almost always see him with a Venti-something in hand. I'm sure it's a refilled black coffee, still, the idea of a bum talking on a Blackberry with his venti-coffee in hand is just too much.

Of course, equally annoying is the chance that the PDA was swiped from some unfortunate citizen (wouldn't be the first time a bum stole something - strollers seem to be a popular item. Guaranteed that one guy in the cowboy hat didn't *buy* that Phil & Ted jogger he's been pushing around lately)...

The papers mostly seem willing to put this whole immigrant shield business behind them and move on as Newsom's mostly-faithful lapdogs, but one there was one semi-enlightening blurb in the Chronicle today:

For the past two years, Gavin Newsom's advisers have been telling the politically ambitious mayor he has to make a choice: Stay "governor" of San Francisco, or start acting like the governor of California.

The importance of making a call became clear last week when Newsom found himself in the national spotlight for shielding juvenile crack dealers from immigration authorities as part of San Francisco's sanctuary-city policy.

As luck would have it, The Chronicle's Jaxon Van Derbeken broke the kid crack dealer story just as Newsom was announcing he was setting up an exploratory committee for a run for governor. Suddenly, the would-be statewide candidate ran the risk of being pilloried as being soft on not one but two hot-button issues: crime and illegal immigration.

But within his own administration, there was no clear consensus on what he should do.

At his regular weekly think tank gathering, the division became clear - with one side urging Newsom to hold true to the sanctuary city ideals and show "compassion" for the crack kids, and the other side telling him that shielding drug dealers, of any age or immigration status, was political suicide.

"Not only for someone running for governor," said one source who attended the meeting. "Even here in San Francisco, it was a 80-20 loser."

The next day, Newsom made the call to end the sanctuary shield and start cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

But, Newsom claimed last week in that Hank Plante interview that he ended the policy a month before it hit the news...so...again Mayor Newsom, were you lying then or now?

More Inconsistencies from Mayor Photo-Op

Gavin Newsom's taking it hard on all sides after revelations that San Francisco has been involved in a criminal shield of illegal alien drug dealers. Yeah, you've probably already heard about that.

Then we heard about dumping some of those detainees being dumped (to the tune of $7000/month) in a San Bernadino group home. Oh hey, they also escaped. Embarrassing much?

Then we had the denials. "I don't have the authority here."

Then we had the simultaneous reversal and the whole exploratory committee announcement. Timely, I know.

Today, we're hearing a bit more from San Bernadino. Big surprise, they're more than a little hacked off about SF dumping our criminals into their community. Gee, total shocker - apparently other communities are actually concerned about protecting their citizens.

"This is a virtual assault on our communities," [County Supervisor Gary] Ovitt said Thursday at a news conference. "Our county will not serve as San Francisco's dumping ground."

"But what the city of San Francisco and its rock star Mayor Gavin Newsom did to poor little Yucaipa and the county of San Bernardino is a crime - really. And they should be ashamed of themselves. Sending eight crack-dealing street criminals to a nonsecure home in Yucaipa to serve out their sentences in a lock-free come-and-go at-will environment is beyond the pale. Their motive was to shelter these crooks from the feds because they are illegal immigrants from Honduras. Where did they park their brains? It was wrong, wrong, wrong." (Wes Hugh)

San Francisco didn't really need any help building a bad reputation with the rest of the state. There's already plenty of resentment about San Francisco values and the fact that we spell city with a capital "C" because we are just that darn important. This scandal is not helping. It definitely won't be a boon to Gavie's campaign for guv in 2010.

Tonight's 10:00 news featured a tasty piece of journalism from Hank Plante. You can read the article but I seriously urge you to view the video. Among other things, Newsom claims that he ended the policy of dumping illegal immigrant felons on May 16th, the date he claims to have found out about the practice.

So was he lying when he said that he didn't have the authority to change the practice on July 2nd? Or when he said that he that he didn't know "until recently" about the policy and that it was changed on July 3rd? Or tonight, was he lying when he told Hank Plante that he terminated the policy a month before the press got wind of it? Because, Mayor Newsom, I'm sure even you can see that all three of these things cannot be true.

I'm sure that behind closed doors this guy has the worst temper (in my head, I'm thinking Patrick Bateman-style rage...my imagination could be considered a little colorful). At any rate, it's probably a good possibility that a few walls of his office (or home) had a good bit of contact with his fist when all of this hit the fan.

Despite his adamant insistence that this has "nothing to do with anything political" - Newsom can be sure that to the rest of California, especially San Bernadino, this is going to be very political when they go to the polls in 2010.

Heads Up California: SF Values Coming to a Town Near You!

San Francisco has a rich history of tolerance...for political corruption and tyranny, that is. These days, our favorite past time seems to be looking the other way while Gavin Newsom and his cronies on the board of supervisors, the chief of police, the district attorney and many others run the city into the ground. They focus on politically correct pet projects, pander to special interests (namely: gay rights, global warming, social controls, and protecting criminals) while neglecting their basic duties as public servants.

Gavin Newsom has been more concerned about green initiatives like solar panels and ending city spending on bottled water(!) and anti-gun programs than he is about enforcing local and federal laws, fixing the streets, or making San Francisco a hospitable place for middle class families.

He and his supporting cast of supervisors and attorneys and law "enforcement" (what a joke!) operate as though they are entirely above the law. Given his national notoriety for the whole gay marriage debacle back in 2004, this should be an obvious point. However, that was just one out of many incidents showing the utter disrespect that Newsom has for the law.

San Francisco's Sanctuary City Policy is a prime example of this disrespect. While the policy was created back in 1989, Gavin Newsom recently spent a pretty penny to advertise this policy across the city. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, and the Sanctuary City Policy is chock full of good intentions. It's supposed to help illegal immigrants feel safe while seeking city services such as health care without fear of reprisal from immigration enforcement. The abuses of the policy have been widespread, as a recent series of articles from San Francisco Chronicle reporter Jaxon Van Derbeken show.

The San Francisco Chronicle recently reported that San Francisco juvenile probation officials are shielding Honduran drug dealers from deportation, citing SF's sanctuary city status. There is now a federal criminal investigation of the matter. According to the story, Honduran immigrants caught dealing crack cocaine claim to be minors when arrested and city authorities take them at their word (even with three days' beard growth in some cases) and allow the cases to be handled in Juvenile Court away from the prying eyes of the public. ...Read More...

Too Little, Too Late?

Over here in the category of absurd:

S.F. mayor shifts policy on illegal offenders.

Practicing his best "I was for it before I was against it" impression, Mayor Newsom announced today that the juvenile illegal immigrant felons will be turned over to the feds for deportation. Amazingly, he managed to conjure up the "authority" to make this big policy decision just one day after proclaiming that such decisions were entirely out of his power.

Let's review, shall we?

Yesterday:

"I don't have the authority here," Newsom said at a City Hall news conference as he stood beside his handpicked juvenile probation director, William Siffermann. "I have a bully pulpit. The courts have the authority here. [...] The question you need to ask is why the courts, the D.A. and the public defender are directing (the Juvenile Probation Department) to do that, [...] [Juvenile Probation Department Direction William Sifferman] is told by the courts to do this. ... The D.A. and judges and public defender all tell chief Siffermann what to do."

Today:

"All I can say is, I can't explain away the past," Newsom said. "I take responsibility, I take it. We are moving in a different direction.[...]There has been a lack of clarity, however, on our policy toward juveniles who commit felonies. ... I have directed my administration to work in cooperation with the federal government on all felony cases."

So, I'm confused. Authority or no authority? Which is it, Mayor Newsom?

Oh hey, also, way to through your man Sifferman under the bus:

He said the decision to send the juveniles to the unlocked group home in San Bernardino County "was wrong. It was a mistake, and he (Siffermann) needs to answer for that. I'm not pleased about any of this."

Yes, he's definitely ready for higher office.

No matter what, this is not the kind of management that California needs. A plea of ignorance doesn't undo the $2.3 million (yes, million) spent on inappropriately detaining illegal juvenile felons. Newsom should have put a stop to the entire Sanctuary City policy ages ago, especially if you consider our city's $338 million dollar deficit. I'm guessing (and I have to research this further) that eliminating spending on illegal aliens would alleviate a considerable amount of our budget woes.

No Comment?

Right around the time he was passing the buck on the whole illegal immigrant crack dealer scandal, Gavin Newsom also announced the formation of his exploratory committee for a possible 2010 gubernatorial campaign.

With all the outcry about the crack dealer debacle, you can imagine a lot of people had opinions about Mayor Newsom running the whole State (um, how about NO?). At last count, there were around 78 comments on the article. But then, *poof!* comments = gone.

"Comments have been removed from this article.

Back to Article."

I've emailed the author of the article, Carla Marinucci...we'll see if there's a response.

Update: I received emails both from Carla Marinucci and someone from SFGate's web people, they both said it was basically a "technical error" and comments are now open. All original comments were "lost."