Friday, April 06, 2012

Is the City of San Francisco engaged in a guerrilla "war on Catholicism"?

This is a follow-up on the post about the Occupy Movements attempt to steal property belonging to the Catholic Church. What I didn't notice was the fact that the San Francisco police escorted the Occupiers to the property and then backed off while the Occupiers broke into the building and tried to set up their commune.

Fund47 wrote:

Wrap-Up

The mainstream media picks up this story at the point the police surround the building, with competing quotations from the Archdiocese, Occupy and the police, fears that the building had been fortified, and the arrest of 75 Occupiers.

The media does not ask several important questions:

Did the SFPD know that Occupy intended to break into and take possession of a privately owned building?

Was the march unpermitted and illegal?

Why did the SFPD provide Occupy with an elaborate escort, involving at least 25–35 officers across 13 city blocks, closing each block to regular traffic, including the Van Ness thoroughfare? What did this cost San Francisco taxpayers?

Did the SFPD know Occupy’s destination and target?

Did the police withdraw in the final two blocks of the march, immediately prior to the violation of Archdiocese property? If so, why?

Is it police protocol to take no action when an incident like this is in progress? Why?

The PJ Tattler observes:

“Larry in SF,” the author of Fund47′s excellent photo essay, goes into great detail speculating as to why the San Francisco Police at first escorted the unpermitted march, facilitating their illegal blockage of street traffic, and then backed off and allowed the protesters to seize the unprotected building.

Since OccupySF did not publicly announce their destination ahead of time, it could be that they simply tricked the police and got inside the building before the cops knew what was happening. But the local rumor mill is speculating that the police stood down at the behest of the San Francisco City Council, who are on record as being actively hostile to the Catholic Church.

Here is a post on the SF's council's anti-Catholic Resolution.

Hmmm....since I posted at the original Fund47 site with my question about anti-Catholic prejudice, I wonder if I am the "local rumor mill" mentioned in the Pajama Media report. If so, then I may be in an "echo chamber," which doesn't make my question about the connection anti-Catholic bias of the San Francisco City government and the anti-Catholic actions of the San Francisco Occupy movement any less pertinent.

No comments:

 
Who links to me?