Time to Withdraw Federal Funds from S.F.

If the local San Francisco Supervisor has his way, the city will issue I.D. cards for illegal aliens that will be good at all city agencies and organizations that accept city funding. The Supervisor is also encouraging the city's banks and lending institutions to accept the I.D. card to enable illegals to open accounts.

Supervisor Tom Ammiano is drafting legislation that will create the special I.D. card.

Emphasizing that the card would be available to all people living in San Francisco regardless of their immigration status, Ammiano stated, 'There is a large community who contribute, and there are not a lot of safeguards around their (immigration) status, their peace of mind and their ability to participate.'

San Francisco is already a 'sanctuary city,' defying attempts by the federal government to deport illegal aliens. Within sanctuary cities neither the police nor government agencies assist the federal government in deporting those who break the nation's laws by illegal entry.

As we have stated before on The Liberty Sphere, we strongly urge the U.S. Government to withhold all federal funds from any city in America that defies U.S. law by becoming a 'sanctuary city.' My tax dollars should not be used to fund lawless cities such as San Francisco in its flagrant violations of the laws of the land.

The attempt to give official I.D.s to illegal aliens is simply the final straw. New Haven, Connecticut already has such a program. New York City is considering it.

These I.D. cards do nothing but legitimize law-breakers, allowing them to get free healthcare at city facilities, and making it easier to apply for jobs and bank accounts.

U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado, had the right idea when he introduced an amendment to a piece of legislation that mandated the withholding of federal funds to sanctuary cities. If municipalities within the United States of America are going to ignore the laws of the country to which they belong, then they should be deprived of the benefits of being a part of that country.

San Francisco has also banned ROTC programs from its high schools because it claims such programs promote 'militarism.'

If this is the case, why don't we help San Francisco rid itself entirely of any vestige of 'militarism' and tell them that from now on, they can provide their own security, and if they are attacked by a foreign entity or a terrorist, they can fend for themselves without the help of those 'militaristic' men and women of the U.S. military who will risk their lives to save their sorry asses.

A word of advice to San Francisco: if you are going to be part of the United States of America, then obey its laws and respect its institutions. If you are not, then simply secede. It won't hurt my feelings in the least.

San Francisco Snubs Navy's Blue Angels

San Francisco (TLS). In a tradition dating back to 1981, the U.S. Navy's Blue Angels have put on a spectacular aerial show in San Francisco that has drawn visitors from coast-to-coast, pumping millions of dollars into the local economy.

So-called 'peace activists,' however, are mounting strong opposition to San Francisco hosting the show for yet another year, claiming it glorifies 'militarism' and war.

Blonde Sagacity has written an excellent piece on this yet another example of the anti-Americanism of San Francisco:
http://mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com/2007/06/blue-angels-not-welcome-in-san-fran.html

Hillary, Pelosi Lying About Gas Price-Gouging

Washington, DC (TLS). Two of Washington's premier Socialists, Senator Hillary Clinton and Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have been decrying so-called 'price-gouging' by the big oil companies.

First, it was Hillary with her now-infamous line from her stump speech concerning oil company profits--'We are going to take that money and put it in a fund for the development of alternative forms of energy.'

Spoken like a true Socialist.

Now it is Nancy Pelosi's condemnation of the oil companies this week, reacting to a new national average price of $3.07 per gallon of gas.

Pelosi was incensed by the fact that in her home district of San Francisco, the highest price of gasoline stood at $3.49 per gallon. Thus, she introduced a bill in the House, H.R. 1252, to 'protect consumers from price-gouging.'

Time for a reality check, Ms. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi.

When adjusted for inflation over a 25-year period, the national average for a gallon of gas is actually LOWER today than it was in 1981, just as Jimmy Carter was leaving the White House.

In addition, apparently consumers need protection from GOVERNMENT price gouging rather than gouging by the oil companies!

If anyone would bother to check the actual figures, one would find that the big oil companies make roughly 13 cents per gallon on the gasoline that is sold in America. Out of an average price of $3.07 per gallon, the big oil companies themselves gain a profit of just 13 CENTS PER GALLON.

Would anyone like to guess what THE GOVERNMENT makes on a gallon of gas?

Remember, a huge chunk of what you and I pay at the pump is for TAXES, both state and federal. Thus, for each gallon of gas sold, the federal government makes 18.4 cents per gallon. That is 5.4 cents per gallon higher than what those 'price-gouging' oil companies make!

On top of that, in the state of California, 40.2 cents per gallon goes to the state government. In other words, the state of California makes THREE TIMES the amount of profit the oil companies get from a gallon of gas.

And we are not through yet. Let's look at Pelosi's district alone, shall we? In the San Francisco Congressional district, which Pelosi represents, consumers pay a LOCAL tax on top of the state and federal tax. San Francisco residents pay another 8.2% in local sales taxes for their gasoline.

Thus, for every gallon of gasoline you purchase, you are going to pay at least 58.6 cents per gallon in federal and state taxes, plus 8.2% of the total for your local taxes.

For one gallon of gas, the government gets 58.6 cents plus 8.2% as compared to the 13 cents in profit that goes to the oil companies.

So who is actually doing the gouging here?

This is why I say that Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are lying, deliberately attempting to deceive the American people.

Let's do the math in a hypothetical situation. Let's say you pull up to the pump in San Francisco in your eco-friendly hybrid, and it so happens you have found one lone gas station selling gasoline at the national average of 3.07 per gallon. Let's say you purchase ten gallons of gas for the total price of $30.70.

Out of that total price of $30.70, the oil companies make a whopping $1.30 in profit. ONE DOLLAR AND THIRTY CENTS out of your tank of gas.

The federal government makes $1.84 in federal taxes...54 cents higher than the 'profit' the oil companies make.

As for the state of California, out of your $30.70 purchase, the state government will get $4.02. Don't let this one escape your attention. The oil companies make one dollar and thirty cents' profit out of your purchase, but the state of California makes FOUR DOLLARS AND TWO CENTS.

We're still not finished yet. We still have to add two dollars and forty-eight cents for the 8.2% local sales tax for San Francisco.

Thus, out of your purchase of $30.70 in gasoline, you will pay $8.34 in federal, state, and local sales taxes. Yet you have paid the big oil companies a mere $1.30 out of your purchase.

And this brings us back to the central point. Why would Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi lie to the American public about so-called 'price gouging' by the big oil companies? In fact, they really do have a great amount of gall to suggest such a thing when the government will get over SIX TIMES that amount per gallon of gas sold.

Naturally, neither Clinton nor Pelosi would view such a thing as highway robbery. As long as the government does it, it is automatically for the 'greater good.' But the minute you let a corporation make a profit--and a tiny one at that--then that company is automatically a price-gouging, evil, corrupt, and malevolent example of capitalism.

Do you want to pay lower prices at the gas pump? Well, you are targeting the wrong people if you strike out at the oil companies. Get these gasoline taxes either lowered or eliminated, and you will automatically save 8 bucks per tank (10 gallons) in the state of California.

If you drive a large vehicle you will save about 16 bucks per tank.

Thus, when you feel the pain at the pump, be sure to remember just what is the biggest source of that pain--the government and not the oil companies.

What's Going on with Cities that Defy U.S. Law?

Washington, DC (TLS). First it was San Francisco. Now Oakland. And of course, Virginia Beach has been caught red-handed doing the very same thing.

What do these and other U.S. cities have in common?

They are breaking the law. In fact, they are committing felonies.

The Mayor of San Francisco stated earlier this week that his city would be a 'safe haven' for illegal aliens and would defy any federal order to stop the practice. Today, we received word that Oakland will do the very same thing.

Several weeks ago, Virginia Beach, Virginia was exposed by Bill O'Reilley for being a town that defies U.S. law by granting safe haven to foreign law-breakers.

There are several salient points we need to remember about this practice.

First, if the federal government allows these cities to get away with this, then George Wallace and the cities of Birmingham, Montgomery, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama were correct in defying de-segregation orders from the federal government during the Civil Rights era.

In short, if Constitutional law is not the prevailing law of the land--the entirety of the land--then those towns in Alabama had as much a right to defy the law by continuing segregation as San Francisco has to defy the U.S. Code in aiding and abetting illegal aliens (which is a felony).

Second, if these cities persist in defying federal law, then the rest of the country should demand that Congress immediately withdraw the funding of millions of dollars' worth of projects that benefit those cities, using our tax dollars. I don't want my tax money being used to support a municipality that willfully and openly defies the law of the land. And, to be fair, these cities should not even expect the government to give them any money, since they obviously have no respect for its Constitution and laws.

In addition, we should also make it clear to these towns that they will no longer be afforded the
protection of the U.S. military in the event of a terrorist attack or any other siege upon them.

If they don't play by the same rules that the rest of us are forced to play by, then they don't get the defense of the military I proudly support--particularly a place like San Francisco, which is unabashedly anti-military.

They can fend for themselves if they are attacked.

Third, it is time we began to demand that our elected officials enforce the provisions of the U.S. Code, which clearly states that aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a felony that carries with it certain punishments determined by the courts.

City government officials who defy the law and openly encourage others to do so should be immediately arrested and sent to jail. Once they are charged with the felonies they have committed, they can then argue their case in a court of law.

So, what, exactly, is preventing the immediate arrest of the Mayors of San Francisco, Oakland, Virginia Beach, and other so-called 'safe haven' cities? They have openly stated before all of America that they are defying the law and will continue to do so. We have them on tape stating these things. It should be fairly easy to prove in court that they are guilty of felonies.

Why are we not enforcing the rule of law in this country?

As it stands now, these are renegade cities that are run by renegade, out of control Mayors and other city officials. If we let them do this, then how can we with any integrity enforce ANY federal law ANYWHERE?

What if my town down south decides that it is going to be a 'safe haven' city for members of the Klu Klux Klan who are on the run from the FBI?

If San Francisco can pull this shameful, in-your-face defiance of the rule of law, then what is to prevent any town in America from doing the same thing with OTHER issues?

Until this practice is stopped cold by placing city officials under arrest and charged with felonies, then this nation is on the brink of imploding from the lack of the moral authority to govern. Without the rule of law as established by the Constitution and the U.S. Code, then we are stuck in a time-warp prior to the Civil War when some of us thought that local governments could defy federal law.

We already fought one war over that issue. We don't need another one. Put the perpetrators in jail where they belong.

Court Says 'Family Values' is Hate Speech

Washington, DC (TLS). The infamous, ultra-Leftwing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the term 'family values' is hate speech and can thus be banned by the City of San Francisco.

The circumstances that led to the ruling had to do with the City of San Francisco banning certain forms of speech among its employees. The City had contended that terms such as 'marriage,' 'natural family,' and 'family values' are forms of hate speech that could scare certain employees. Thus, these terms should be banned.

When the Commie speech police that runs San Francisco faced opposition, they took their fight to the infamous 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because it contained the words, 'One nation under God.'

Many of us wondered at the time if the 9th Circuit Court would also rule that the Constitution itself is unconstitutional.

When the Commie Circuit Court of the People's Republic of California got this particular case, it ruled that all of the terms mentioned above constitute 'hate speech' and could thus by banned by the City of San Francisco.

How's THIS for some speech you might not like: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is a loony-toons kangaroo court that is occupied by mindless clowns of the Leftwing lunatic fringe who don't even BEGIN to know the definition of the term 'constitutionality.'

Read the entire story of their idiotic ruling here:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/Circuit%20endorses%20censoring%20Christians2.html

Jewish Scholar Attacked in San Francisco!

Washington, DC (TLS). Holocaust survivor and scholar Elie Wiesel, professor at Boston University, was attacked in San Francisco after his participation in a peace conference. Wiesel, who is author of 40 books and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, was dragged out of an elevator at a hotel by a person who identified himself as a 'Holocaust Denier.'

The perpetrator claims he merely wanted to interview Wiesel in his hotel room and get him to 'truthfully answer questions related to the Holocaust.' The attacker claimed that Wiesel's own first-hand account of the Holocaust at Auschwitz is a 'piece of fiction.'

As a result of the attack, Wiesel had to be escorted by police officials to the San Francisco airport to catch his flight back to New York.

As reported to you by The Liberty Sphere on numerous occasions, attacks against Jews around the world is on the sharp increase. Reports from Europe indicate that in several European nations Jews are afraid for their very lives, including France, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands. Apparently the march of anti-Semitic groups, including Muslim extremists, has brought their violence against Jews to the United States.

Read about the attack on Professor Wiesel and his attacker here:
http://www.examiner.com/a-556256~Author_attacked_in_S_F__hotel.html