Monday, January 29, 2018

White Nationalists Hang Sanctuary City ‘Danger’ Sign Over San Francisco Bay Bridge

A white nationalist group hung a “danger” sign over the Bay Bridge on Sunday morning as a warning to commuters that San Francisco is a sanctuary city, reports The San Francisco Examiner. “

San Francisco is a dangerous sanctuary city where the law does not apply to illegal invaders,” the group then tweeted. “Enter at your own risk!”

 What are these nationalists so afraid of?

 I walk the streets of San Francisco at all hours of the night and have never been bothered. The people of San Francisco just aren't afraid of immigrants.

 The dangerous parts of San Francisco are filled with government created homegrown nutjobs and urban primitives, not immigrants.  



  1. So murder, rape, drunk driving deaths, etc. don't bother you?

    1. My I retort Mr. Spock?

      Of the ten most violent cities in Califronia, SF is not on the list.

    2. Mister Spock,

      I have discerned that our esteemed host, gracious though he, is unresponsive to dialectic.

      "Rhetoric is useful because things that are true and things that are just have a natural tendency to prevail over their opposites, so that if the decisions of judges are not what they ought to be, the defeat must be due to the speakers themselves, and they must be blamed accordingly. Moreover, before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
      Rhetoric, Aristotle

      It is unclear as of this moment whether effective rhetoric can sway him. The conclusion will soon enough be inescapable.

    3. Thank for those Mr. Spock. You can't get the dimwitted to see reason. Most of them are low IQ and worthless even in their own societies. I'm doubtful Franco would want them next door to him in his neighborhood, but he likes to virtue signal like the rest of the libertardians.

    4. Re: Mr. Spocked,

      ─ So murder, rape, drunk driving deaths, etc. don't bother you? ─

      Ah, how quaint. Another "You must be for X, then!" Fallacy. Just like everybody's Socialist uncle used to make.

      By the way, links to opinion pieces attacking 'sanctuary cities', which are the majority you included above, do not purport to show crime statistics, only an opinion.

    5. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      ─ Most of them are low IQ and worthless even in their own societies ─

      Seeing how morbidly obsessed you present yourself to be with the IQ of people you never met in your friggin' life, I am left wondering if you possess a deep-seated fear of people finding out you're not as smart as you fancy.

      ─ I'm doubtful Franco[sic] would want them next door to him in his neighborhood ─

      There are plenty of immigrants living next to me in my neighborhood, all working people. I am under no obligation to love them, but I live in peace with them.

    6. To Andrew:

      What a load of crap.

      "Hey, why are you picking on me? Sure, I killed three people, but that guy over there killed ten." What a stupid argument. But it's not true, anyway.

      Your link is more full of crap than you are. "We used data and science to identify the most dangerous cities in the Golden State for 2018." Yeah, right.

      We don't have to go any further than murder. Your link lists Emeryville as the most dangerous city in CA. From this link, ( we see that Emeryville, in the time frame from 2002 to 2016, had one year where they had 3 murders per 100,000 people. (In a town of only 11,000 people - where every one of them according to you must be a criminal.) Two years it was 2/100,000, five years it was 1/100,000 and seven years they had no murders. What a crime wave that is - an average of .8 murders/100,000/year. Note that's point 8 (.8) not even one murder per year/100,000 people.

      In SF, however, we see that the rate in the same time frame ( runs from 45 to 100 out of 100,000 people, averaging 68/100,000 per year. So you are telling us that .8 murders is worse than 68 murders. Go take first grade math.

  2. And as if on cue:

    "The report, from the Crime Prevention Research Center, used a previously untapped set of data from Arizona that detailed criminal convictions and found that illegal immigrants between 15 and 35 are less than 3 percent of the state’s population, but nearly 8 percent of its prison population. And the crimes they were convicted of were, on the whole, more serious, said John R. Lott Jr., the report’s author and president of the research center. His findings also challenge the general narrative that immigrants commit fewer crimes. Those past studies usually don’t look at legal versus illegal populations, …. Mr. Lott said the Arizona data is able to peek behind that curtain, and the differences between the populations were stark.

    "Among nearly 4,000 first- and second-degree murder convictions, undocumented immigrants accounted for nearly 13 percent — significantly higher than their percentage of the population. Legal immigrants, by contrast, were less than 1 percent of convicts. Native-born made up the rest. Undocumented immigrants also accounted for five times the rate of convictions for money laundering and kidnapping, and were three times more likely to be convicted of drive-by shootings."

    Illegals commit serious crimes way out of proportion to their numbers. Quelle surprise. I wonder if this will change any minds. I doubt it.

    1. Arizona is right in the middle of the battlefield in a War On Drugs pursued by a government that believes it knows what's best for you. Most of those incarcerated "illegal immigrants" are not immigrants at all. They weren't invited by the Market nor are they job-seekers. Taking Arizona as an example will skew the data considerably because of the War On Drugs. Lott should know better than using skewed data to make sweeping generalizations, which is the kind of thing the left does to attack gun ownership.

    2. Francisco, do you mean to say that reasonable restrictions should be put in place or not? Should those unsavory types be kept out, by force if necessary, or not? What is it about the war on drugs that makes illegal immigrants be involved way in criminal acts way out of proportion to their numbers? White privilege?!

    3. Re: Shimshon,

      --- Francisco, do you mean to say that reasonable restrictions should be put in place or not? ---

      Yes. Reasonable. Rational.That is spelled "M-A-R-K-E-T".

      ***Your*** favorite restrictions are not going to be rational only because you ***believe*** they're rational.

      --- What is it about the war on drugs that makes illegal immigrants be involved way in criminal acts ---

      In Arizona? What it is about is increasing the reward-vs-risk of bringing drugs to the US. It entices criminals with no interest in migrating to the US to work and look after their families. Those are the people being arrested, not "immigrants". Lumping together those opportunists with immigrants serves only one purpose and that is to deceive.

      It's also very surprising that an economist like Lott would conflate these numbers and make such a dishonest extrapolation, especially when the incentive to migrate to work and improve one's lot is much more poweful than the incentive to migrate to commit crimes.

    4. I think you are grasping Francisco, I am not sure where you get the idea that the illegal immigrants in AZ are not coming to work in jobs. Sheriff Joe, who was an idiot I'll admit, was famous for raiding businesses that hire illegal immigrants to work. There is a difference between people who seek to move somewhere to make an honest living and those that don't care about the honest part, and those two groups should be treated differently. There is nothing immoral or against NAP about this belief.

    5. If the War on Drugs applies equally to all citizens, how come Hispanics and Blacks get arrested more? Is it perhaps because they are more likely to turn to crime?

    6. There's some chicken and egg stuff going on here. Allowing illegal immigration makes a second-tier class of people that may have to turn to crime if they want to "succeed" and also some deep seeded hatred by both groups. So does welfare, jim crow laws, etc.

  3. Libertardian who support open borders stupidity need to be raped and beaten sometime or often by these fine 'peaceful' citizens of the world. San Fagfriso has seen an uptick in car breakins. You don't think that is because of the increasing hobo population and those wonderful peaceful illegal immigrants looking for some quick cash and defecating all over the place?

    1. I live here and i can tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. The car breakins and the dumps are not being done by undocumenteds. Not a one.

    2. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      ─ Libertardian who support open borders stupidity need to be raped and beaten sometime[...] ─

      Oooh, how rational of you. Is that the best your "IQ" can offer the world, Mismanager?

    3. @RW, 'undocumenteds'. But they have documents, just not the right ones. You have to use a more PC term than that to swim with the SPLC crowd.

    4. Re: PH,

      --- But they have documents, just not the right ones. ---

      There are no "right ones". Government-issued documents are not and will never be legitimate. Violence does not confer legitimacy.

      And I don't use PC terms. I use accurate terms.

  4. Reverse immigration! Yay! Man, if we could get most American blacks to move, it would be a net positive for America:

    Now if we can get all the brown people who want to make America Mexico again and get them to move south. How can it be done?

    1. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      --- How can it be done? ---

      We could ask them "How would you like your daughter to go out with some bitter white mediocrity like Lab Mismanager?" That should at least keep many of them up an night.

    2. You know who is mediocre. You Franco. You are lying dishonest leftist troll who has not once addressed the very real issues of IQ and culture.

      I'm not ashamed to say that on the average, white European male are the most awesome creations on this earth. White Christian European males have given the world every technological advance in the last 500 years or so.

      But hey, if you really believe your own libertarian BS, you would move to the African Congo and work with the apes there to perfect that libertardian society.

    3. Bwahaha! So the white man’s culture is so “superior” that it’ll melt away if it has to share a continent with some brown people?

    4. Evan, are you stupid or intentionally obtuse. We don't like the increased crime that illegals drag in their wake. Nor do we like the inevitable cultural shift they push for, even when individual illegals are not criminal in other ways.

      Do you disagree with Bob's own assertion, on this very site, which is entirely correct, that Californication exists?Mexifornication is just as real.

    5. Re: ShimshonS

      --- We don't like the increased crime that illegals drag in their wake. ---

      "Illegals" are people who don't happen to have the goverment-issued transit papers. That fact does not confer immigrants with any special characteristics. In other words, you're engaging in fantasy.

    6. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      --- You are lying dishonest leftist troll who has not once addressed the very real issues of IQ and culture. ---

      Blah, blah, blah. I'm not the one hiding behind a made-up metric (IQ)

    7. The only imaginable way that immigrants could cause white people to stop practicing their culture is through the use of the state, which ironically is the very institution that restrictionists seek to empower.

    8. And guess what post-1965 immigrants and their descendants do, Evan?

      Vote hard left at a 80-20 split.

    9. Evan, you are obviously stupid, as the state is hardly the sole means to change the culture. Politics is DOWNSTREAM of culture. We have far more government today because of the cultural shift taking place.

      Maybe Bob's memory is failing him. I remember a time when California was the reddest of red states. It went for FORD in 1976! When, after a large budget surplus, the Republican governor issued a tax rebate rather than find a way to spend it.

      How, perchance, did California go from this to Mexican-like basket case? I wonder...

      In fact, it is clear, after the failure of Soviet Russia, that the state has very little effect on the culture, even after 70 years. Former KGB officer Putin considers himself a defender of Christendom.

    10. You wackos really still equate voting Republican with wanting smaller government?

    11. You're the wacko. Just because reality doesn't always comport with desire is irrelevant. It is certainly a good proxy for cultural leanings. Are you really saying that voting Democrat doesn't equate with wanting larger government? That's wacko.

      California not only reliably voted for Republican, it even voted for the Republican loser, time and again.

      Only an idiot of the losertardian variety would insist that the massive influx of immigrants to California, even legal ones, even law-abiding ones, has nothing to do with the equally massive political (as well as cultural) shift in that state, along with many others. Why are other formerly Republican stalwarts like Florida and Texas now battleground states?

    12. Shimshon,

      The lowest level of foreign-born population was during the 1960’s, the same decade the Great Society expanded the welfare state to unprecedented levels. Immigrants are a poor scapegoat for big government. The natives, for the most part, are every bit as statist.

      And I actually agree with the restrictionists that it’s not fair that foreigners get to move in and have a say, via the state, in how everyone else lives their lives. But that’s a fundamental issue with democracy. It’s not fair for ANYONE, no matter where they were born, to rule over another. And that would include dictating who people are allowed to employ, rent to, trade with, etc. It’s just so incredibly self-defeating to complain about the growth of the state, and then turn around and advocate the use of state power as a supposed remedy.

    13. And? Bring more immigrants to tilt the balance in the direction of more statism? The ones who pushed the hardest for the act were themselves immigrants (or descendants thereof). Hart (Irish) and Celler (Jewish). The latter who agitated for over 40 years to open the floodgates. Talk about monomania. Migrations as large as America has welcomed, especially post-1965, have historically never ended well, no matter how meaning.

  5. Bob: "I walk the streets of San Francisco at all hours of the night"

    Do they play that cool music from the TV show when you do? :-)

  6. Nope, could not have been black nationalits. If course not. Because Latinos do not displace blacks in Cali.

  7. More immigrants = more crimes.