Posts Tagged ‘sanctuary city’

Finger Pointing Over Murdered American Woman: San Francisco, Obama Say It’s Other’s Fault. BOTH Are Utterly EVIL. As Is Hillary Clinton.

July 10, 2015

As we speak, the Sheriff of San Francisco County says it’s all Obama’s ICE’s fault that the illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times before he found his heart in San Francisco and realized he was immune from justice and from whatever you want to call “the law” when liberals are in charge.

And, of course, the Sheriff is absolutely right.  Barack Obama has the blood of Kathryn Steinle – along with at least 121 other murdered Americans – on his hands due to his wicked policies that free vicious criminals because they are illegal immigrants and Obama is the very worst kind of cynical partisan demagogue.

This murderous turd Juan-Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is merely ONE of more than 347,000 illegal immigrant criminals that Obama has released.

We know that Barack Hussein Obama is completely responsible for this vile policy of catch and release criminals whenever they happen to be illegal immigrants for several reasons: 1) is that he’s already done it hundreds of thousands of times; 2) is that he viciously went after the Arizona Law claiming that the federal government has sole and solitary sovereignty whenever it comes to any matter involving our borders, border security or the treatment of illegal immigrants, but there are more than 200 cities, counties and states in America that are considered “sanctuary cities” – and REQUIRE a refusal to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport an illegal immigrant – and Obama has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to go after these lawless liberals the way he made an example of the ONE conservative state that actually tried to stop the flood of illegal criminals from pouring into Arizona; and 3) is this:

The head of ICE, Ms. Saldaña, was very clearly ordered by the Obama administration to completely reverse herself after she made the mistake of representing her agency and her officers as opposed to the partisan political agenda of Obama:

Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, ‘[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can’t comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

The Obama White House refuses to answer questions. They say talk to Homeland Security – having of course ordered Homeland Security not to answer any questions or to pass the buck to San Francisco.

So Obama and his lawless thugs are trying to point fingers at San Francisco, but their fingers, their toes, their heads, and everything else are coated in BLOOD.  And it is not only irrational but immoral for the Obama White House to try to dodge responsibility for their ONGOING SUPPORT OF THESE SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES.

There’s also a 4) and here it is presented by Megyn Kelly:

This sheriff himself a convicted criminal says, he stands by the city’s policy. Kate’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrant, sanctuary cities in crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city’s decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?

And just in case you think I’ve run out of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is entirely to blame for this murderer being released to murder and frankly ought to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony murder, there’s a 5):

Barack Hussein Obama is a lawless criminal thug who has ordered his top immigration enforcement officials to refuse to cooperate with the law. After a judge specifically ordered these officials to stop doing what was illegal, they continued to do their wicked Führer’s wicked and flagrantly criminal bidding. Obama criminally and illegally issued some 2,000 unlawful work authorizations in flagrant violation of federal law and continued to do so even after being ordered to cease and desist.

Which simply is one more example of many examples of a strategy that our lawless thug in chief routinely employs: to only bother with enforcing or allowing to be enforced laws that our naked ideologue fascist thug-in-chief wants to enforce, and to hell with all the laws he doesn’t like.  As Politico reports:

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws
By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT  Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

I hope you notice how prominent a far leftist approach to illegal immigration is to Obama’s lawless criminal thuggery.  I also hope you notice that being a lawless, fascist THUG is the core of Obama.  The Bible calls it “the mystery of lawlessness” that we would see in the very final days just before the ultimate political beast otherwise known as the Antichrist comes.  We were told in advance that wickedness and lawlessness would abound and the righteous would be stunned at the inability to do a damn thing about it.

But I suspect there’s a liberal out there who thinks, “No WAY he’s got a sixth reason to blame Kate Steinle’s murder on my messiah.”  Well, I actually do.  So here’s reason 6):

Obama has said at least 22 times that he didn’t have the power to shield illegal immigrants: and then did in blatant and criminal defiance of the Constitution what he himself said he didn’t have the power to do.  According to Obama’s despicable and treasonous actions – again, not according to me but to Obama’s own previous statements – Barack Obama is not a president, but a KING, he’s not a president of the United States, he’s an EMPEROR.  And he is entirely responsible for the mess that he has created as our tyrannous emperor god-king.

Again, the day Barack Hussein Obama raised his demon-possessed fingers and took the oath of office, Kate Steinle’s murder became a fait accompli.  Obama and liberalism murdered that woman, straight up.

Now, mind you, the Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is a liberal, and therefore evil, and San Francisco is as evil and therefore as liberal as it gets.  So it should surprise NO ONE that Sheriff didn’t even bother to acknowledge the murdered victim until he was nearly finished with his smarmy lecture – and when he finally deigned to do so, he mispronounced her name.

Realize that the liberal, wicked city of San Francisco ACTUALLY REQUESTED THIS MURDEROUS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TURD FROM FEDERAL CUSTODY JUST SO THEY COULD RELEASE HIM:

A bitter dispute over who bears responsibility for the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kathryn Steinle last week in San Francisco, has taken a surprise twist with the revelation that the San Francisco sheriff’s department asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons for custody of the 45-year-old Mexican national back in March.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the San Francisco sheriff’s department, which is headed by progressive sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Prisons on March 23 asking to be notified “when [Lopez-Sanchez is ready for our pick-up.”

Lopez-Sanchez was at the end of a 46-month sentence in a federal prison in Victorville, Cal. for felony illegal re-entry. But San Francisco had a $5,000 bench warrant from 1995 on Lopez-Sanchez for a marijuana possession for sale case, and the sheriff’s department sought to take custody of him.

And then there is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Right now this cynical political whore who stands for NOTHING but her own naked power and self-enrichment at the tit of big government and the worst kind of crony capitalism is piling on the evil sanctuary city policies that led to this unholy murder. But let’s take a look at the real Hilllary Rodham Clinton who dove into Kate Steinle’s blood and did a “blood angel”:

Hillary Clinton Supports Sanctuary Cities That Protect Dangerous Illegal Immigrants, Would Expand Similar Policies
Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests.
By Taylor Tyler | Jul 07, 2015 10:57 AM EDT

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat from pundits over her previous unabashed support of sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and thereby afford deportation protection to illegal immigrants.

Kate Steinle’s tragic murder could likely have been prevented if the city of San Francisco had notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez’s release from its custody, yet due to the city’s decades-long sanctuary policy, he was released onto the streets without a word, where he went on to kill 32-year-old Steinle. Sanchez had already been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests, notes The Daily Caller.

It was in September 2007 when then-Sen. Clinton said during a presidential debate that she supported sanctuary cities because they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

“If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes,” she said. “You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

Debate moderator Tim Russert then asked Clinton, “You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”

Clinton responded, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re the local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they also think you are going to be enforcing immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton expressed her support again in 2008 in an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News:

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities,” O’Reilly asked, to which Clinton responded, “No, I’m not.”

More recently, in May, Clinton pledged to expand President Obama’s executive immigration actions, which have further legitimized sanctuary cities.

“If Congress refuses to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” Clinton said, reported The Washington Examiner. “I will fight to stop the partisan attacks on the president’s executive actions.”

Jessica Vaughan, policy director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained to The Daily Caller what a Clinton White House could look like.

“Hillary Clinton’s recent public statements indicate that she intends to outdo the Obama administration in dismantling immigration laws, so there is good reason to be concerned that this problem would get worse under a Clinton administration, and that more local governments would either be encouraged or coerced into obstructing ICE,” Vaughan said. “I would expect another Clinton administration to stoop to the same kind of legal hi-jinks, abuse of authority, disregard of safety and security, and then evasion of accountability, much as we witnessed when she was Secretary of State.”

Yes, there was a time when Hillary Clinton took the exact OPPOSITE view, just like she took many other exact opposite views such as leading the support for the Iraq War before being one of the most hypocritical turncoats on the very war that she supported to the betrayal of the American serviceman who had to continue to fight the war she betrayed.  Here she is saying she was opposed to sanctuary cities because as a liberal progressive NAZI all Hillary Clinton really gives a damn about is her own power and she will betray any one or any thing or any principle to grab that power:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

Note that when it was politically expedient to do so, Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “adamantly against illegal immigration,” NO: she was against IMMIGRANTS.  The leftist propaganda media loves to frame Republicans as “anti-immigrant,” but here’s the POSTER BITCH for being “adamantly against immigrants.”  Further, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are only “adamantly against” anything that would get in the way of their god Lucifer taking over the United States of America after they’re finished kicking Jesus Christ to the curb; that’s the ONLY thing they’re “adamantly opposed” to.  For anything else, they’ll be adamantly against it before they’re just as adamantly for it before they’re adamantly against it again.  And all that matters to them is that they can lie, lie, lie their way to power and to more power.

Basically, liberalism is evil.  Liberals are evil.  And every resident of San Francisco and frankly every single American deserves to die because the people we put in power are fascist cockroaches from hell.

Here’s an idea: make sanctuary cities the next Confederate flag: ban them, ban anyone who now does or ever HAS supported them, burn them all down to the ground.  Or just wallow in your disgusting hypocrisy.

NBC Discovers That Illegal Immigrants Are Leaving Arizona. And That’s Supposed To Be A BAD Thing

July 13, 2010

NBC pulled out every single propaganda bomb in its massive propaganda arsenal to depict this as a tragic story of unparalleled human suffering in the face of an immoral state government enacting an immoral law.

The problem was, I kept reading the transcript and thinking, “My goodness, the illegals are actually leaving on their own!  How wonderful!  What a fantastic law!”

The other thing I thought was, “Finally.  A sanctuary state!”  By which I mean, a state finally taking the measures to free itself from the oppression and burden of illegal immigration.

NBC Reporter Discovers New Immigration Law Causing Illegals to Leave Arizona
By Geoffrey Dickens
Fri, 07/09/2010

NBC’s Lee Cowan, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams, discovered a stunning result of Arizona’s new immigration policies – illegal immigrants are now leaving the state. Cowan opened his piece noting a long line now “stretches around the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix every day” but noticed a twist, as the line was full of “immigrants trying to figure out not how to stay in Arizona, but how to flee it.” Cowan peppered his story with anecdotes of local businesses losing customers “A look around this once-bustling barrio is telling. The local hair salon has more empty chairs now than customers” and schools losing students as he claimed “School numbers are dwindling, too. This one is 75 percent Hispanic. Since the immigration law passed, they’ve lost more than 100 students.” Cowan even punctuated this factoid with the sob story of a boy being taken out of school by his father to go back to Mexico:

LEE COWAN: For the Bolanos family, they stayed as long as they could.

MARCIAL BOLANOS, ARIZONA RESIDENT: Arizona is a good state, but no more now.

COWAN: He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?

HUGO BOLANOS: Yeah.

While Cowan did air a soundbite of a Republican state senator who pointed out that it was “kind of a novel idea” that people were “actually worried they may be arrested for breaking the law” he concluded his piece by emphasizing the economic cost of Arizona’s new immigration policy: “It may be months before anyone knows for sure just how many illegal immigrants and their business the law has scared away. Supporters say good riddance, but critics fear the damage has already started.”

The following is a transcript of the Cowan segment as it was aired on the July 8 edition of NBC’s Nightly News with Brian Williams:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Now we turn to Arizona, where the federal government is challenging the state’s tough new immigration law. Arizona’s governor set up a fund to defend the law. As of today, 9,000 people, mostly from out of state, have contributed a half a million dollars to the effort. Some of those targeted by the new law are not waiting for it to take effect later this summer. They’re leaving the state now. NBC’s Lee Cowan has our report.

LEE COWAN: One way to measure the effect of Arizona’s pending immigration law is the length of this line. It stretches around the Mexican Consulate in Phoenix every day, immigrants trying to figure out not how to stay in Arizona, but how to flee it.

LUIS BALENCEA, ARIZONA RESIDENT: There’s a lot of people already leaving for New Mexico, leaving something else, you know.

COWAN: Anywhere but here.

BALENCEA: Anywhere, yeah. Nobody want to stay here.

COWAN: A look around this once-bustling barrio is telling. The local hair salon has more empty chairs now than customers. The owner is even losing two employees.

ROSANA QUINTERO, SALON OWNER: People look very sad. And we feel sad, too.

COWAN: The café next door is even emptier.

MARIA SIERRA, BUSINESS OWNER: I ask the people, and they say they afraid to come out.

COWAN: School numbers are dwindling, too. This one is 75 percent Hispanic. Since the immigration law passed, they’ve lost more than 100 students.

JEFF SMITH, BALSZ SCHOOL DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT: This is sort of the tip of the iceberg. More are waiting until the law goes into effect, and then we’ll see more people leaving during the summer.

COWAN: To the authors of Arizona’s tough new immigration stance, if there is a mass exodus of illegal immigrants, so be it.

REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR RUSSELL PEARCE: Kind of a novel idea, you know, people actually worried they may be arrested for breaking the law.

COWAN: The problem is there really are no hard numbers on the issue. So the question critics are asking: Is this exodus a myth or a fact?

BILL HART, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: We think it’s fact. We don’t exactly know what’s happening, but we know something’s happening on a large scale.

COWAN: For the Bolanos family, they stayed as long as they could.

MARCIAL BOLANOS, ARIZONA RESIDENT: Arizona is a good state, but no more now.

COWAN: He took his 15-year-old son out of school and is headed back to Mexico, which brings Hugo to tears. But you’re really going to miss your friends?

HUGO BOLANOS: Yeah.

COWAN: And your school?

(Hugo nods head)

COWAN: It may be months before anyone knows for sure just how many illegal immigrants and their business the law has scared away. Supporters say good riddance, but critics fear the damage has already started. Lee Cowan, NBC News, Phoenix.

I mean, we’ve continually been told, “You can’t arrest and deport 12-20 million people!”  We’ve been told that we used to be able to put a man on the moon, but now we can’t put a wall on the border.  What this shows is that we don’t have to arrest and deport 12-20 million people.  We can simply start actually enforcing our laws, and watch illegal immigrants deport themselves.

And you know what would be an even BETTER deterrent?  We could adopt Mexico’s immigration laws.

It’s funny how Mexicans and Hispanics call the Arizona law “racist,” when it doesn’t even begin to be as strict as the Mexican immigration law – which is clearly intended to keep Central American Hispanics out of Mexico.

Which is another way of pointing out that the actual racists are the ones who are attacking Arizona.

The people who are opposing the Arizona law – which is nothing more than Arizona making what is already a federal crime a state crime – do not want ANY enforcement of our borders whatsoever.  They want America to be a borderless socialist utopia.  As in “Communists of the world, unite!”

As one example, read the transcript or watch the debate between Bill O’Reilly and Jorge Ramos.  Ramos simply refused to produce any answer whatsoever about what to do with even violent illegal immigrants.  At one point, O’Reilly pointed out, “You’re just dodging the question entirely!”  And later said, “It’s like I’m not even here.”

And it’s the same on the left from the Marxist-in-Chief on down: nobody is saying, “We’re going to secure our borders.”  Rather, at best, we see Obama demagoguing the issue and holding border security – his sworn duty to uphold as president – hostage to his leftists political agenda.

While his Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, does infomercials vowing to protect illegal immigrants in every way she can.

That the Obama administration is doing everything it can to prevent our federal laws on illegal immigration from being enforced, consider that Obama has shut down workplace enforcement to an astonishing degree.

I would love to see someone start offering free travel to sanctuary city San Fransisco, under the theory that if the city of San Fransisco really wants illegal immigrants, let it have them.  But if someone were to offer free transportation for illegal immigrants to San Fransisco, NBC and the rest of the mainstream media would depict it as analogous to the freight cars that hauled the Jews to their deaths in Nazi Germany.  Even though San Fransisco is supposed to be a socialist Utopian paradise, rather than a death camp, and even though the illegal immigrants would be traveling voluntarily.  Because propaganda is what they do.

And, even funnier yet, the driver of the van heading for San Fransisco would be arrested – on the demand of the left – for transporting illegal immigrants.  The illegal immigrants would be set free; the driver would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the laws of California.  While the media covered every sordid detail to cut and edit into their slanted narrative, of course.

On any issue you want to name, the mainstream media will select the leftist side of a story, and only show the “facts” that support that side.  That’s just who they are.

For instance, the story talks about the hit that some small businesses may take due to illegal immigrants leaving.  But they entirely  omit the huge sums of money that will be saved by the overwhelmed health care system, by the overburdened public school system, and the like.  They also fail to mention that many jobs abandoned by illegals will be taken by people LEGALLY in the country.  Just for a couple quick examples.

The funniest thing of all is that these people – whom NBC depicts as such oppressed victims – are themselves ultimately victims of the media.  It’s not a bad law that’s making them leave; it’s a bad media that is falsely and demagogically depicting the Arizona law as something it isn’t in order to stir up still more fearmongering.

Who’s the Real American in This Picture?

May 26, 2009

We’ve got a little movie for you today.  There’s a hero and a villain.  And your job is to decide which is which, boys and girls.

[Youtube link]

So here’s the plot.  A business in Reno is flying a Mexican flag above the American flag which, among other things, is a violation of the law in the United States.  As the local media begins to report on the story from the scene, a large bearded man (that would be Jim Brossard) walks up to the flag pole, pulls down both flags, and cuts the American flag off the pole (with what he wants to make sure everyone knows is an American Army knife).

Brossard says – and I’d very much like to quote him:

“That is what happened.  Right there.  I’m Jim Brossard.  And I took this flag down in honor of my country.  With a knife from the United States Army.  I’m a veteran.  I’m not going to see this done to my country.  If they’re going to fight us, then they need to be men.  And they need to come and fight us.  But I want someone to FIGHT me for this flag.  They’re not going to get it back.”

And with that Jim Brossard, turns and walks away from the camera – and right past the Mexican (let’s just agree to assume that he’s a Mexican due to the whole, ‘I think I’ll fly the Mexican flag above the American flag today’ thing) business owner and his amigo.

The reporter approaches the business owner – who is still watching Jim Brossard walking away with his flag – and asks, “So what do you think of that?”  The Mexican business owner walks over to the flag pole and retrieves his Mexican flag – which big bearded guy had tossed on the ground – and picks it up as the reporter asks, “No comment?  What do you think of that?  What are you trying to accomplish, at least?  Anything?”

And the Mexican business owner wordlessly goes into his place of business with his remaining flag and shuts the door, which features a sign bearing the words, “No persons under 21 allowed.”

I’ve reported.  You decide.  Who’s the Real American?  Big bearded guy or Mexican business owner, with his interesting choice in flag-order?

Who is the hero and who is the villain?

I didn’t have to ponder this one for very long: Jim Brossard, big bearded guy, I salute you!

I would offer to buy you a drink, Mr. Brossard, but I see you’ve already got that big can of whoop-ass in your hand.

MARKETING TIP: SOMEBODY FROM HARLEY-DAVIDSON SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO GIVE THIS MAN A ROAD KING AND SIGN HIM AS THEIR CORPORATE SPOKESMAN.

Jim-Brossard2

Now, all of this said, this story is also part of a larger debate: which group of politically-active people is one the side of big bearded guy, and which group of politically-active people is on the side of Mexican business owner?

Let me just take a wild guess and suggest that he AINT on Nancy Pelosi’s side of the argument.

You can almost hear the cries of metropolitan liberals:

“That great big mean bully!  He’s got a knife.  He’s got a knife! HE’S GOT A KNIFE!!! Somebody call the police and have that terrible man arrested!

That awful man is a racist, and he’s bitter, and he hates immigrants just like President Obama said!  He’s probably got guns, too!  What’s that?  He’s a veteran?  See?  HE’S ONE OF THOSE RIGHTWING EXTREMISTS just like the DHS said!

He’s why we need sanctuary cities!  To protect poor immigrants from hateful men like THAT!”

Conservatives are routinely told that they’re losing Hispanics.  But if Hispanics are going to support one of their own proudly flying his Mexican flag over the American flag on American soil over Jim Brossard’s righteous outrage, I frankly don’t give a damn.

I’ll take Jim’s side any day.

I sure get the sense he’d take mine.