San Francisco Police Department Kicks FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force To The Curb
from the thanks,-but-no-thanks dept
In the wake of President Trump’s travel ban, the San Francisco Police Department has offered up an unprecedented response: it’s breaking up with the FBI.
On Wednesday, San Francisco officers took a bold stance against Trump’s new immigration laws. In response to Trump’s Muslim ban, they are cutting ties between the police department and an FBI task force.
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) has worked with the FBI on a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) since 2007, with the purpose of investigating terrorism threats, collecting intel, and making arrests.
Generally speaking, federal partnerships are forever… especially in Forever Wars. Local law enforcement agencies have been working side-by-side with federal agencies since the Drug War began. The same goes for the War on Terror. Wars keep government agencies in good health, awash in perpetual funding and repurposed military gear. Local governments are seldom interested in ending these lucrative arrangements, whether or not the underlying activity is productive.
But San Francisco already sees its supply of federal funding drying up. President Trump has made it clear he’ll cut off this flow to cities that care more about immigrants than he does. So, there’s some gamemanship in this move — one that sends a message to Trump while expressing some resignation to the eventual fiscal punishment to come. The city of Austin, Texas is doing the same thing, but fighting the battle on two fronts, as its decision to call itself a “sanctuary city” has also earned it the displeasure of the state’s governor.
But the SFPD’s rejection of the FBI’s “assistance” in the War on Terror suggests a couple of things — neither of them complimentary — about the federal agency’s usefulness in this “war.”
The first is explained in the Think Progress article.
[T]he SFPD will no longer work with the JTTF on the grounds that the federal agency will likely increase efforts to surveil Muslims, following Trump’s recent executive order to prevent Muslims from entering the county.
The other part is implied. By telling the feds to beat it, the SFPD is suggesting the FBI isn’t doing much to acutally make San Francisco safer. The Joint Terrorism Task Force seems to be more about expanding surveillance and obtaining perpetual funding than preventing terrorist attacks or uncovering their conspiracies.
This much can be ascertained by the FBI’s counter-terrorism efforts to date. For the most part, the FBI’s terrorism busts have relied heavily on FBI informants being the brains, muscle, and wallet behind supposed future acts of terrorism. Undercover agents have pushed some of the weakest humans in the nation towards acts of violence — acts which would likely never have materialized on their own. The FBI has poked and prodded easily-influenced people — some elderly, some with mental problems — into professing their support for [Current Top Terrorist Organization], helped them plan trips to [Top Terrorist-Associated Foreign Country], and purchased everything from duct tape to latex gloves to weapons for would-be terrorists that seemingly would have difficulty opening a savings account, much less coordinating an act of terrorism.
The SFPD feels it will be fine without the FBI’s dubious assistance, which appears to be mostly limited to trampling civil liberties and ever-expanding surveillance with minimal oversight. The city can apparently handle the terrorism threat without federal intervention — suggesting it’s not much of a threat… and the FBI isn’t much of a counter-terrorism agency.
What the city’s rejection says about President Trump’s orders and directives is pretty damning. What it says about the FBI and its counter-terrorism efforts is even worse.
Filed Under: fbi, joint terrorism task force, police, privacy, san francisco, sfpd, surveillance
Comments on “San Francisco Police Department Kicks FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force To The Curb”
I remember...
When everyone was bitching about Joe Arpaio and how Arizona did not have the power to do their immigration stuff… yet when the opposite occurs, its all fine and dandy.
I did not care much for Arizona’s case on this and I do not care much for SF situation either. I am just noting the obvious double standard I am perceiving here.
TD has made itself clear that it is pro Democrat, but please stop being hypocritical.
“The SFPD feels it will be fine without the FBI’s dubious assistance, which appears to be mostly limited to trampling civil liberties and ever-expanding surveillance with minimal oversight.”
O yea… I am very sure SFPD has a sterling reputation as well. The Police state was here before Trump and even before Obama, now we are just negotiating how hard and where the jackboots come down differently. Not so fun when it hovers over your head huh?
Re: I remember...
“Arpaio has been accused of various types of misconduct, including abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, improper clearance of cases, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, and election law violations.”
What the San Francisco police are doing here is clearly not the same thing, and it’s not a double standard.
Re: Re: I remember...
The previous posted said "the opposite". They didn’t say what Arpaio was accused of so I’ll take your word on it. The opposite of abusing power and misusing funds—i.e, not doing those things—is OK by me. (And in general, police leaving people alone is much more acceptable, legally, than harassing them.)
Re: Re: I remember...
I am glad SFPD is splitting the bed sheets, but there is clearly a double standard.
Since the Drug War the SFPD has been cooperating with the FBI to commit all manor of unconstitutional acts against civilians like civil forfeiture, harassment, gun running and drug smuggling, but it is all of a sudden not okay when an immigrant is caught in the crossfire? When did they start becoming more important than actual citizens?
come back when you can figure out how the dots connect…
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
When were the other bad things OK?
The way I am seeing it is that when an actual police department gets fed up, instead of taking more power to harass people to themselves, things are pretty bad.
Whose double standard are you noting?
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
You weren’t comparing the police to their past behavior. You were comparing them to Arpaio.
But if a police dept. changes from abusing human rights to not abusing human rights, I’m not going to complain and call it a double standard. I’m going to praise them for getting better, whatever the reason.
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
Would this action not make the fbi more relevant where they would be able to investigate police corruption without influence from the police at all.
Seems like a win win for the citizens.
Re: Re: Re:3 I remember...
Alternative comment?
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
I hate to break it to you, but everyone in the US is either an immigrant or the offspring of an immigrant. What the latest travel ban highlighted for many was the fact that it didn’t matter if you were a US citizen… if you were born* in one of those countries, you could be denied access to the country where you were a citizen.
Ever hear of "the straw that broke the camel’s back?" I’d guess that this active trampling of people’s rights based on nothing more than country of birth/visitation was that straw. Things get to a point eventually where the number of unconstitutional acts begins to affect enough of the citizens you’re trying to protect (not the ones you’re trying to arrest) that it’s time to call a halt.
*North American Aboriginals migrated to the US too, although they did so before the US became a nation.
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
Assuming the theory is correct, they were the first to get here – do0es that count for anything at all?
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
In that case, let’s not bother with immigration laws at all.
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
“immigrant or the offspring of an immigrant”
True for most of whole planet, except some place in Africa. But I assume ancestor fish, amphibians, mammal like reptiles, mammal, and primates probably immigrated to Africa too.
Re: I remember...
It’s not a double standard. Joe Arpaio was overstepping constitutional bounds to harass bloggers, altering deposition transcripts, and more. Joe Arpaio is a case of clear corruption and power tripping.
In SF’s case, they’re just choosing to end voluntary partnerships because they believe the FBI will not help make people safer and are likely to engage in racial profiling trampling over people’s rights.
Techdirt is pro the rights of the people. If you think that means they are pro-democrat, then that seems odd to me that you would reserve being pro-rights for democrats implying that non-democrats aren’t?
Re: Re: I remember...
The democrats no are more pro rights of the people than republicans. Both sides seek to enslave the masses, they just disagree on how to accomplish it.
The double standards is over the REASONS they split the bed sheets even though I like that they did.
I am not a fan of Joe either, I just do not subscribe with cheering one asshole on because they hated another asshole.
Re: Re: Re: Cheering one asshole when they hate on another...
Techdirt policy as much as I’ve observed it has been to cheer on assholes when they do something commendable and censure them when they do something despicable.
Just because people behave poorly sometimes, enough to be regarded as a jerk even, doesn’t mean they don’t do some things right from time to time.
Things are not only shades of gray, but grays evident are merely other shades of gray dithered together.
Re: Re: Re:2 Cheering one asshole when they hate on another...
everything is a shade of gray.
Re: Re: Re:3 Cheering one asshole when they hate on another...
Nonsense. Saying that everything is a shade of gray ignores all the wonderful blues, purples, oranges, and greens out there. The world is not a continuum between only two poles.
Re: I remember...
TD has made itself clear that it is pro Democrat, but please stop being hypocritical.
I think @theDonald has made it clear that it is a proponent of police states, curtailing civil liberties, and a perpetual state of fear.
Re: Re: I remember...
I do agree with you on that, Trump made it clear from the outset that he was very pro police state, one of the reasons I could not vote for him.
But regardless of trumps own bullshit, I call bullshit on the reasons here. I want to know why the ever honorable SFPD were okay with fucking citizens left and right up until now, drawing the line at fucking over immigrants?
Immigrants are not even afforded constitutional protections but no qualms on fucking over actual citizens? What the fuck is this?
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
where did it say that SFPD was “ever honorable”
what I got from the article was Cali is pushing back against the Trump admin.
This brings up another point though, Republicans are all for those state rights, except when those state’s rights run counter to the republican platform.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
Here’s the difference. Immigrants have not been designated a class of illegal residents. Being an immigrant citizen (or immigrant green card holder, or even a visitor for that matter) does not make you a criminal.
With the drug war/smuggling/etc. the SFPD could at least argue that they were upholding the law (even if they disagreed with it) and let themselves sleep at night knowing that their constitutionally questionable actions helped put “bad” people behind bars.
Swap out “average” for “bad” and it’s got to leave a really sour taste in their mouths.
Re: I remember...
Agreed. I see the State of Washington filed a lawsuit over this EO. Washington says it has standing to sue because Trump’s interference with immigration “affects business in the state”.
Wow! Who knew that states have authority over immigration when business is affected? For the last eight years, every time a state like Arizona tried to enact some kind of immigration-affecting law in the face of complete federal inaction, we were told in no uncertain terms that immigration is solely a federal issue, per the Constitution, and the states have no say about the matter at all.
I’m sure Arizona could make a decent case that the virtually unchecked flow of illegals over its border affects business in that state, but they were told no over and over again. Now suddenly the leftists have discovered the wonders of states rights and federalism. Now suddenly states have a seat at the immigration table after all. Now suddenly it’s not solely a federal issue that the states should stay out of.
The same goes for the mayors and councils of all these “sanctuary cities”. Amazing how they went from “immigration is federal only” to “we have a right to have our own immigration policies” almost overnight.
As for Mr. Cushing:
> President Trump has made it clear he’ll cut off this flow
> to cities that care more about immigrants than he does.
More like, “…cities that care more about illegal immigrants who have committed additional crimes while in the US then he does.”
No charge for the correction.
Re: Re: I remember...
btr1701 wrote:
If you don’t understand the distinction between a state (e.g. Arizona) being prevented from violating the rights of its people and a state (e.g. Washington) defending the rights of its people, I don’t see the point in even continuing a discussion with you.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
Here. Have fun learning about the Incorporation Doctrine.
Re: Re: Re:3 I remember...
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
Just some of them violated mostly brown people’s rights so it’s ok then?
Re: Re: I remember...
Republicans in the south are very scared that trump actually does stop illegals completely as they will see cost rise so much they will not be able to compete in the market place.
It is so funny how a group of people have been so brainwashed that they vote for something that will kill their businesses.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
That’s because when they do it, it’s ok.
Re: I remember...
You’re delusional.
Re: Re: I remember...
I don’t know; I’d say that most of the writers here have shown that they have a Democrat leaning.
Of course, that didn’t stop them from railing against Obama when he did things against digital civil liberties.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
Just because someone suggests that people should not be kicking puppies, does not imply any political leaning.
Trolls come here requesting that TD stop being this and stop being that when it is only the troll drool that mentions left/right bullshit, not what they post in response to.
Then when it is pointed out, they get all huffy and call everyone various names – their creativity used to be somewhat entertaining but has gone down hill and become silly.
Re: Re: I remember...
TD is definitely pro Democrat. When the Obama administration was in charge and the police, FBI, CIA, DHS and all the rest of the alphabet soup, were all out of control no one made one comment about it. When he hired the Queen of Civil Asset Forfeiture to head the DOJ, again, no problem. Shh. It’s a Democrat. All of this hoopla over Trump when Obama was guilty of egregious acts against the people. The NDAA that unconstitutionally authorizes indefinite detention without charge or trial, re-authorization of the expiring provisions of the patriot act. Those are the kind of things people should be up in arms about. But when a Democrat is in office its press hands-off. This Democrats are good and Republicans are evil is just a stupid game being played on the ignorant. And all this “leftist” weeping in the street is an example of how the much the populace has been Jim Jonesed by the media. Techdirt not exempt.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
tunnel vision
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
That’s what you have.
Re: Re: Re:3 I remember...
Such a well thought out retort, how do you find the time?
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
TD is definitely pro Democrat. When the Obama administration was in charge and the police, FBI, CIA, DHS and all the rest of the alphabet soup, were all out of control no one made one comment about it.
You clearly do NOT read Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:2 I remember...
Confirmed correct.
Mike and the team bash any individual or group that messes with or threatens to mess with the people’s rights.
Dems are as guilty as the GOP (the degree to which this is true appears to be in the eye of the beholder) of abusing our rights because the Neocons and neoliberals have taken over the leadership of the party, pushing people on the actual left-ish side to the fringes where they don’t have much power to effect change.
What we have now is radical right wingers of various kinds: anarcho-capitalists, religious authoritarians, white supremacists, etc., [~ruining~] running the government. This is why we’ve got unqualified, inexperienced people in charge of state departments when they don’t know how the administrative functions of those departments work as part of the three branches of government. And since they’re anti-government, they’re not too interested in finding out about it. Turns out you can’t do governance without government.
Stop working from a left/right axis, work from a freedom/tyranny one. Then you’ll understand Techdirt and where the writers’ biases really are.
I remember when "liberal" wasn’t such a dirty word.
Re: Re: Re: I remember...
If there’s something out there you don’t think TechDirt is talking about, they have a handy little button at the top to submit a story.
Re: I remember...
I’ll bite.
Explain how the two things are remotely similar.
And explain it to me like I’m a Maricopa County native. Because I am.
Re: Re: I remember...
They are not even close, but hey – the trolls gotta make a living some how.
Re: I remember...
Yes, SF just painted a big target on itself. I bet they dont run their own counter terror organization like NYC did. Probably for them terrorist organization are solely “right wing”
Re: Re: I remember...
Yes, because NYPD’s counter-terrorism programs were so damn effective.
So I see state’s rights is now in season.
Re: Re:
Exactly, another addition to my bitching about the double standards that like to go around… like all over the damn place.
Re: Re:
Maybe there’s more than one issue at play.
Sure, maybe it’s a case of state’s rights good/bad or red/blue president good/bad, but perhaps not everyone’s political inclinations can be neatly pigeonholed into one of two options consistently across all topics.
…Hmm, I guess that is pretty far fetched.
Re: Re:
Has nothing to do with states’ rights whatsoever.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I’m a little confused by your argument.
Arizona passes a law that is ruled unconstitutional.
Washington state argues that an executive order is unconstitutional.
It seems like the constitution is backing up both of these positions?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Nonsense.
Just because it’s unconstitutional for that reason doesn’t mean it’s not also unconstitutional for other reasons.
Do you think if Al Capone hadn’t been convicted of tax evasion, that would have proved he wasn’t guilty of any other crimes?
Re: Re: Re:
An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn’t just contradiction.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No it isn’t!
For those not getting the reference…
Re: Re:
Since when do states have “rights”? They have powers, but not rights.
Matter of fact, the way our Constitution is set up, no government, be it local, county, state, or federal has a right to anything. They have powers enumerated to them in the Constitution that allow them to restrict rights of the people, and if it’s not spelled out that they have that power then they do not have the power.
Re: Re: Re:
idk, something in the constitution says something like … all stuff not mentioned here in belongs to the states … or some such words that have lost their meaning.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That would be the 10th Amendment you’re referring to, which states
I don’t see the word rights mentioned anywhere in there, do you?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I don’t see the word “rights” mentioned anywhere in the post to which you responded, do you?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
I replied to a comment about states rights, and another user replied to me about what the Constitution says which prompted my 10th Amendment quote.
I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me how states have rights.
Re: Re: Re:
The US Constitution was written to enumerate and RESTRICT the power of the Federal government.
Ah, all you lefty liberals bias terrorism haters of our Glorious Leader terrorism LOCK HER UP mainstream ELECTION WAS RIGGED terrorism LIES traitors who want the terrorists to win! DRAIN THE SWAMP!!!
>President Trump has made it clear he’ll cut off this flow to cities that care more about immigrants than he does
Sanctuary cities do nothing to help legal immigrants. When did being pro-immigrant include those who violated our laws?
Re: Re:
Many in law enforcement — including police chiefs in major cities — as well as mayors and others concerned about public safety agree that when victims of or witnesses to crime are afraid to come forward (as they might be if they or their family members are undocumented), the community suffers. Cities are made less safe.
This affects everyone.
L.A. Times: LAPD will not help deport immigrants under Trump, chief says
Washington Post: Big city police chiefs, mayors troubled by Trump immigration order, police union and sheriffs untroubled
NPR: Why Sanctuary Cities are Safer
Re: "those who violated our laws"
You understand that you likely violate more US and state laws than undocumented immigrants do, yes? That by implying they are illegal you are being completely, if unwittingly, hypocritical.
They may get deported for being here without proper documentation (what is not required of those of us who appear to belong) But if some of the laws you’ve broken were enforced, you’d be in prison for twenty-five years plus. More likely they’ll let you plead to five.
Remember that prosecutory discretion is still a thing, that our attorneys general choose what laws to enforce, and when to enforce them. And it is only by their grace that you (and the rest of us) remain free. If one of them doesn’t like you (say if you’re the wrong color), then it’s off to Sing Sing for you.
So do be careful when invoking law for law’s sake.
Re: Re:
You make a great point. When did New York or San Francisco ever do anything for legal immigrants?
Re: Re: Re:
…/s, just in case that wasn’t clear.
Re: Re: Re:
Nyc does a lot. Like financing anchor babies no questions asked. 3-4 per single illegal women. Big business.
Re: Re: Re: "Anchorbabies"
Way to reduce human beings to a legal exploit.
Are you a three fifths of all other persons sort of fellow?
Re: Re: Re:2 "Anchorbabies"
just a talking points troll
Re: Also...
In the case of Miami, FL undocumented inhabitants make up about 11% of the city’s economy, which documented immigrants would certainly feel, if they were all rounded up and deported.
And that’s before regarding that some legal Americans and legal non-American immigrants are related to undocumented immigrants, and breaking up families is very messy.
There are good reasons that most major cities are sanctuary cities, and some of them are obvious enough to regard Trump’s contempt for them as direct aggression on urban America.
You might want to read up a bit on why the law’s the law doesn’t work very well when (as Madison put it) the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
Re: Re: ugh. Dangling participles.
In the case of Miami, FL undocumented inhabitants make up about 11% of the city’s economy, which documented immigrants would certainly feel, if all those undocumented people were all rounded up and deported.
I’m sure I could rewrite this to be clearer still, but I’m lazy.
Re: Re: Also...
Re: Re: Re: Also...
We bomb their cities and then wag fingers at the refugees … and do not even bother attempting to say that refugees are not being targeted just like illegals.
and – btw illegals in this country are not mostly from Mexico and many illegals did not cross the border illegally, they over stayed. But yeah, let’s focus on some side issue.
[q]…cities that care more about immigrants than he does[/q]
I believe that should read “…cities that care more about ILLEGAL immigrants than he does”.
Somehow, that one adjective keeps getting left out.
Re: Re:
Maybe because Trump’s executive order did not touch the status of illegal immigrants at all?
The order did not even bother about immigration, either: it just declared every citizen of a number of countries as undesirables in the U.S., never mind whether they had acquired legal papers, a job, work or visiting visas or whatever else.
A move unparalleled since the internment camps for Japanese in WWII.
Re: Re: Re:
Can you really call it Trump’s executive order ?
Apparently he does not write them, does not read them and has no idea what is in them … but signs them anyway.
Should they be called Bannon’s executive orders?
Re: Re:
It’s being left out because it has nothing to do with illegal immigrants. Syrians are not sneakily boating up to our shores. With valid visas. From airports…
The build-a-wall (expensive, porky, complete failure, economic and environmental disaster) conversation is somewhere else.
Re: Re: Re:
You can’t really separate those issues. Once the first muslims crack their head open while trying to write upside-down graffiti (you know muslims write the wrong way round, yes?) on the Mexican wall, we’ll have terrorists flooding the States in search of revenge.
It takes foreskin to prevent this kind of attack on American core values. You can’t let the bad people win. Just ask the Native Americans how immigration worked out for them.
Orange is the new red.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“you know muslims write the wrong way round, yes?”
Wow. Just wow. That is some serious narcissistic ethnocentrism you’ve got there. I think you’re referring to the Arabic language rather than Muslims considering that there is no Muslim language. Many Muslims speak and write Arabic, but many do not. And there Christians who read and speak Arabic.
Secondly, it’s not “the wrong way round”, nor is it upside-down. They write and read right to left rather than left to right. And the fact that we write and read left to right rather than right to left is almost entirely a matter of convention. There’s some amount of argument to be made that writing left to right means you aren’t smudging up what you have just written with your hand, but that’s only true for people who are right handed. Does that mean you think people who are left handed but write left to right are also “doing it wrong”?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“It takes foreskin to prevent this kind of attack on American core values. You can’t let the bad people win. Just ask the Native Americans how immigration worked out for them.”
You do realize most men in America are circumcised, yes?
Given that circumcision is an integral part of Judeo-Christian religious dogma, where do you propose we find sufficient quantities of uncircumcised men to protect us?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seriously – wtf is your problem
Re: Re:
Nope, pretty sure it’s fine the way it is.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And therefore, Trump cares about immigrants? I’m not quite sure I follow your reasoning.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
In other words, Trump doesn’t care about immigrants.
I’d say "explain the part where I’m wrong, then," but I actually would rather you just quit gibbering your nonsense.
Cool avatar/comment synergy, but it could use more 1930’s slang.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
So you’re in L.A. too? Christ, how embarrassing.
Oh, and there’s this:
Research shows immigrants are substantially less likely than native-born Americans to be involved in bad behavior
And this: An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories (Abstract available, full article paywalled)
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here– gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder."
Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder or other serious crimes. I can’t believe that has to be explained.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Who Kicked Whom?
> San Francisco Police Department Kicks FBI’s Joint
> Terrorism Task Force To The Curb
Since the JTTFs are run by the FBI out of FBI offices, it would be kind of hard for the local PD to “kick them to the curb”. More like they packed up their desks and kicked themselves to the curb.
Of course not being on the JTTF means they won’t be in the loop anymore regarding intel sharing. It’ll be interesting the next time something significant happens in SF and the mayor starts screaming about why she wasn’t informed, etc. etc. And the FBI says, “Well, you picked up your ball and went home in a snit, so you only have yourselves to blame.”
Re: Who Kicked Whom?
btr1701 wrote:
Yes, poor SFPD is going to be so sad when the FBI leaves it out of its next FBI-initiated, FBI-planned, FBI-executed "terrorist plot".
And did you miss this part of the article?
Re: Re: Who Kicked Whom?
Re: Who Kicked Whom?
Well I’ll say this the JTTF has kept Dodge fleet sales in business. They do love the grunt appeal of the Dodge 300’s. I used to count 10 plus a day on a 12 mi. round trip back and forth to work. Incidentally, do you consider San Bernandino significant? Or is there no JTTF operating there?
muslim ban? where did you get it, mr. cushing?
TLDR version:
The FBI will be forced to create it’s own terrorism plots to foil without the SFPD’s help.
Rather funny how the trumpettes think they can coerce California into compliance via cutting off federal funds.
Perhaps they did not look at how much California contributes to the federal coffers. Like many blue states, their net flow is positive wrt the fed – that is they contribute more than they get back. How do they think this strategy will work?
Hopefully the trumpettes can be convinced that a civil war is beyond stupid and knock it off with this ridiculous bullshit.
Re: Re:
The amount of headache CA creates for the rest of the country is not worth any net gain. There is a reason very few are trying to prevent CA from seceding. I dont live there and would gladly donate to their cause. Happy to see them go.
Re: Re: Re:
I think many share your opinion, but I doubt there is any substance to it. For example, I doubt a scientific opinion poll would show a majority of people across the nation agreeing with you that California creates headaches, literally or euphemism. Also, I doubt CA seceding is anything other than water cooler talk. Now if the trumpettes push things to the ridiculous … everything changes and we are all very screwed.
Re: Re: Re:
We’re not leaving.
Re: Re: Re:
“The amount of headache CA creates for the rest of the country is not worth any net gain. There is a reason very few are trying to prevent CA from seceding. I dont live there and would gladly donate to their cause. Happy to see them go.”
Yup. Because all those shipping ports with direct access to the Pacific, including being a major shipping lane for good to and from Asia, are just a tremendous drag on the US Economy.
Nothing bad at all would happen to the US economy if the US were to lose direct access to those ports.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I’ve heard this “everyone with money will move” story before, where/when was that … hmmmmmm
Oh yeah – it was when California was going to raise taxes, did everyone move, did a few move, any big names with lots of money?
Didn’t think so
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
There’s a big difference between a tax hike and stripping someone of their American citizenship.
Oh, and businesses and citizens are fleeing California like rats from a sinking ship. California had a net population gain last year, but not in the demographics that provide a positive economic benefit to the state.
When it takes a year and a half to jump through all the legal and regulatory hoops just to open a simple burger joint (as opposed to three months in Texas, for example) and then once you start operating, you’re taxed at the highest rate in the nation, it’s no wonder California has been rated the most business-hostile state in the country and why businesses that can relocate to friendlier climates like Texas and Nevada are doing so in droves.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Oh, and there’s this:
California receives about 20% of its water from the Colorado River, which comes from out of state. If it secedes, it will no longer have access to that water and its already-extreme drought will suddenly become a national emergency. Losing access to the Colorado River would put a tremendous strain on Southern California municipal and agricultural water districts, not to mention the vast farmland in the Imperial Valley.
Then there’s the matter of defense. California would have to start funding it’s own national defense by itself. Other than the state national guard, the federal government would remove all of its troops and equipment long before secession would be official, so it would have to hope that its exes in the American government would allow it to contract with the American defense industry to buy replacement equipment and/or that America will continue to defend California the way we do Canada. Either way, it’s no small problem to solve.
status quo. more quo? i'm fine for now, thanks.
[Margret Thatcher](1) on TV shocked by the deaths that took place in [Beijing] (2). It seems strange that she should be offended, the same orders are given by her. (Sinead O’Conner 1990)
(1) Replace with current politician’s name.
(2) Replace with current war zone, or place of unrest.
Rinse, repeat. Nothing changes but the names.
Enough with the party-based hypocrisy. According to ABC Obama deported more people than any President in US History, more than 2.5 million through immigration orders.
How many sock puppets can one guy have?
Sheesh
The City of San Francisco is the most looney left in the entire country, so this should not be too surprising.
Re: "San Francisco is the most looney left"
Oh, do elaborate! You can’t really just toss a comment like that out there without being specific. Or were you just duckspeaking?
Re: Re:
you seriously need to get out more
FBI Survillance
Is that why I have rush hour in front of my house when I’m in the yard or when my wife drives in … on an otherwise very quiet, residential stree, in a very sheltered community?