The Curley Effect....

...enact policies that drive off people who aren't going to vote  for you.

Unfortunately, that means taxpayers and business owners.

But the good news is that you get 50 years of Democrat governance over a crime-ridden cesspit.

What part of "Freedom of Religion" don't our intolerant wannabe dictators not understand.

San Francisco Board of Supervisors of San Francisco have unanimously approved a resolution opposing Catholic moral teachings.

If you are keeping track, this is another San Francisco resolution against Catholicism.

I like San Francisco, but it is time to organize a boycott.

Catholic Archbishop courageously stands up to government-theocratic attempts to control his freedom.

Abp. Cordileone responds to letter from rulers of California that he should boycott "March for Marriage" because of contamination by association with people who engage in the thoughtcrime of holding to a view of marriage that is 2,000 years old.

//It gives me assurance that we share a common disdain for harsh and hateful rhetoric. It must be pointed out, though, that there is plenty of offensive rhetoric which flows in the opposite direction. In fact, for those who support the conjugal understanding of marriage, the attacks 
have not stopped at rhetoric. Simply for taking a stand for marriage as it has been understood in every human society for millennia, people have lost their jobs, lost their livelihoods, and have suffered other types of retribution, including physical violence. It is true that historically in our 
society violence has been perpetrated against persons who experience attraction to members of the same sex, and this is to be deplored and eradicated. Sadly, though, we are now beginning to see examples, although thankfully not widespread, of even physical violence against those who hold to the conjugal view of marriage (such as, most notably, the attempted gunning down of those who work in the offices of the Family Research Council). While it is true that free speech can be used to offend others, it is not so much people exercising their right to free speech that 
drives us further apart than people punished precisely for doing so that does. 

4. Please do not make judgments based on stereotypes, media images and comments taken out of context. Rather, get to know us first as fellow human beings. I myself am willing to meet personally with any of you not only to dialogue, but simply so that we can get to know each other. It is the personal encounter that changes the vision of the other and softens the heart. In the end, love is the answer, and this can happen even between people with such deep disagreements. That may sound fanciful and far-fetched, but it is true, it is possible. I know it is possible, I know this from personal experience. When we come together seeking to understand 
the other with good will, miracles can happen. //

Of course, where we these people when a resultion was passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors defining the the Catholic Church as "subversive" and "anti-San Francisco values"?

Here is the Archbishop's response in full.

Bishop Cordileone appointed to San Francisco...

...which is important because he headed the Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage:

In a significant departure for the archdiocese of San Francisco, the Holy Father today named Bishop Salvatore Cordileone as the ninth archbishop of the archdiocese of San Francisco. Bishop Cordileone succeeds Archbishop George Niederauer, who was appointed in 2005. The event has truly been described as “a bombshell.” Best known as the chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, His Excellency will shepherd the Church at ground zero of the “culture war.”

This might be entertaining to watch.

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.

San Francisco Occupiers Attack Catholic Property.

Fund 47 documents the idiots in the Occupy Movement going into property owned by the Catholic Diocese of San Francisco and claiming it as the headquarters for the grand vision of society.

I highlight the Catholic connection for a reason. Within recent memory, the San Francisco City Council passed a resolution branding Catholicism/the Catholic Church as being an enemy of the mores and values that make San Francisco great. Is this attitude a part of the reason that property owned by the Catholic diocese was stolen? Certainly, the property in question represens a large chunk of empty space, but was there more to this action than that.

"Hmmmmm. Blonde superhero. An evil rabbi before a baby, a glass and a bottle of wine."...

...A wild idea, but could there possibly be something...I don't know... anti-Semitic in San Francisco's anti-circumcision initiative?

Wesley J. Smith links to a post from the "Token Conservative" column at the S.F. Chronicle which demonstrates an exuberant usage of anti-semitic tropes that haven't been seen since the Nuremberg Trials.

For example:

                        

                                       

Wesley J. Smith observes:

This is really vile stuff, classic–and dangerous–anti Semitism. Or in the modern vernacular, it is unmitigated hate speech. Is it any wonder there were no religious exemptions allowed in the proposed law?

It is also worth noting the linking of the Foreskin Man Website from the main MGMbill Website isn’t an innocent mistake: Matthew Hess, the president of MGMbill, a non profit organization that pushes anti circumcision statutes nationwide, is also the author and prime mover behind the SF referendum, who also just happens to be the big cheese at the anti Semitic Foreskin Man site. There are other anti Semitic “trading cards” too. Awful. Just awful. This kind of advocacy has no place in a free and diverse society.

Also, as it isn't an accident as a matter of the historical dynamic of liberalism/progressivism.

In the words of German Liberal leader Eduard Windthorst, "Freedom protects everything except unfreedom, and tolerance endures everything except intolerance."

Update:

Here are some more frames playing on clearly anti-semitic tropes.

And from Pajama Media:

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal on San Francisco's Anti-Catholic Resolution.

According to CNS:

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal challenging a San Francisco Board of Supervisors’ resolution which condemned Catholic teaching on adoption.


Bill Donohue of the Catholic League called the decision “regrettable” but said that the case has helped blunt negative comments towards Catholicism in the city.

“I’m delighted that ever since this lawsuit came down, we’ve seen a pivot. Catholics are not treated with the same sort of invective and vitriol that were thrown at us in San Francisco before this lawsuit began,” Donohue told CNA on May 3.

“So I think the message was delivered. I’d like it to be delivered in a legal way as well, but there has been a taming there. I think they realized that perhaps they overstepped.”

Several individual Catholics from San Francisco and the Catholic League accused the city supervisors of expressing hostility to Catholicism and violating the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward religion.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution in March 2006 that attacked the Catholic Church’s opposition to the adoption of children by homosexuals. It reacted to Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith head Cardinal William Levada’s instruction that Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco stop placing children with same-sex couples.

The board’s resolution referred to the Vatican as a “foreign country” interfering in the affairs of the city. It deemed the Church’s teaching on homosexuality to be “insulting to all San Franciscans,” “hateful,” “insulting and callous,” “defamatory” and “insensitive and ignorant.”

Following several court decisions, in October 2010 11 justices of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco split several ways. Only three sided with the plaintiffs outright while five justices held that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

On May 2 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

Strangely, the RealClear Religion entry on this is "Court denies appeal on Catholic adoption."

Connecting the dots.

Sparx401 posits a connection between child-hating narcissists and the fact that the cities where child-hating narcissists can be found don't seem to be having children.

It's such a crazy idea that it might just be true.

Jeeper's, they promote abortion and gay-marriage and then they are surprised when this happens?

San Francisco becoming a child-free zone as youth population declines.

Despite efforts to stem the tide of family flight, the population of children in San Francisco continues to ebb.


Families that remain in The City are bucking the trend that has plagued San Francisco for years as the number of children — defined as people up to 17 years old — has dropped from 181,532 in 1960 to 107,524 today, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures. The 2000 census counted 112,802 youths.

The decrease is disappointing news for city officials, who have attempted to counter the family-flight trend by creating more affordable housing, improving schools and cutting costs, such as a college savings account for kindergarten enrollees.