Thread: San Francisco Supervisor Calls for End of US Military

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184951,00.html

Battleship Brouhaha

Wednesday, February 15, 2006



This is a partial transcript from "Hannity & Colmes," February 14, 2005, that has been edited for clarity.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue "Hannity & Colmes" from San Francisco tonight, the board of supervisors here overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan last year that would bring the historic World War II Iowa battleship right here to San Francisco harbor, as a museum and tourist center.

We're now joined by one of the supervisors that voted against that plan, Gerardo Sandoval is with us.

Welcome to the show. You just said something to me as we were coming on the air. You don't want a symbol of war in the harbor. Is what you said to me.

GERARDO SANDOVAL, MEMBER OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: That's right.

HANNITY: I guess this is just a difference in philosophy. That symbol of war that beat back the forces of fascism in imperial Japan and Nazism, that's really a symbol of peace. Why would you see it as a symbol of war when it defended liberty and freedom?

SANDOVAL: Well, it did do that. But also, it's a warship and it's got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can't deny what it is.

San Francisco is where we signed the United Nations charter, the original charter, created the United Nations. There are many, many ways to honor veterans and their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I understand that. But you don't have liberty and freedom unless we win that war.

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: So in that scene — well, then why would you dishonor the men that fought on that ship and preserved your freedom? To say what you want to say?

SANDOVAL: We don't want to dishonor them.

HANNITY: Well, you are dishonoring them.

SANDOVAL: We just don't want to put a 10-story gun on the waterfront where everybody is going to be looking at it every single day.

HANNITY: That gun gives you freedom. That gun ensures your liberty. That gun made this world a safer place.

SANDOVAL: But it could be a flag. It could be a statue. It could be many, many different things.

HANNITY: But is war against the Nazis a good thing? Is war against imperial Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, is that a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Well, sometimes you have to resort to violence.

HANNITY: No, no, no. Is war — was war against the Nazis a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Was war against imperial Japan a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely. We don't have to put a bomb or a warship right on the waterfront. It's going to be 10 stories tall. You know how tall that is? It's half as big as some of the biggest buildings in San Francisco.

HANNITY: You know something? I guess this is just a philosophical difference. Because you know what? I define peace as the ability to defend ourselves. And you seem to look at that as ship as something negative, not something to be proud of. Not something that gave you a great gift. I don't understand that mentality. Can you explain it to our audience?

SANDOVAL: Well, it's also a fiscal issue not just a symbolic or philosophical.

HANNITY: Yes, hurt that's not the reason. Because a lot of people say it's about money. If I told you the money would be there tomorrow, you would still be against it, wouldn't you?

SANDOVAL: We would still be against it. That's right.

HANNITY: So it's not about money, but you're using it as an excuse.

SANDOVAL: No, no, no. But it's a very real reason. In Oakland right across the bay here, where they brought in the USS — one of the wood...

HANNITY: Would you have the freedom to vote this way, had we not used that ship, that symbol of war as you call it, if we had not won that war? Would you have the ability to even make this vote without that ship?

SANDOVAL: Things would be very, very different. No doubt. But that does not mean we have to put a warship on our waterfront.

HANNITY: Warship? Why don't you call it a peace ship? The peace ship gave you the liberty to be who you are today?

SANDOVAL: Why don't we paint war symbols on all schools if that's the way you feel? So we can honor their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I rarely agree with Dianne Feinstein. And she even says this is not the San Francisco that I know. This is — and I guess this is the mentality. Do you think America should unilaterally disarm? Should we give up our weaponry and our war — our tools of war?

SANDOVAL: You know, that's a very complicated question. But I would say yes, we should. We should invest our money in our kids.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don't think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn't have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That's right. What good has it done us...

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: ... in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we're spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not...

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That's correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You've got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn't have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn't have a military. I don't want to give — I'm speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don't want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don't want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn't have a military is absolutely absurd. It's incredible. That's a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That's exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you're saying that we don't have a right to defend ourselves that's different from we shouldn't have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It's called the Coast Guard. There's lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we're attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we're attacked? Cops?

SANDOVAL: You want to send people abroad to start these wars.

COLMES: I don't. Actually, Gerardo, you don't know anything about what I stand for if you can say that. I've been one of the most outspoken people against this administration and the war in Iraq.

But that doesn't mean we as Democrats hate the military or don't want to defend this country. And I'm amaze you could get on national television and say we shouldn't have a military in America?

SANDOVAL: Well, that's the way I think a lot of people feel here in San Francisco.

HANNITY: I've got to tell you, this is a first. You made look Alan look like a hawk.

I'm going to tell you something. If America is attacked, you have no defenses. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You can't think in such a shallow way. You've got to tell me that this is a joke.

SANDOVAL: No, no. Not at all. I think that what you look at where you want America to go, I mean America has got hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years to go.

HANNITY: Without a military, there is no America. Without — it's not a disagreement. It's a fact.

SANDOVAL: We can imagine an America that someday will not have a military. It might take 1,000 years.

HANNITY: OK. And then when Iran bombs you...

SANDOVAL: But that's what you've got to hope for.

HANNITY: Or when al Qaeda attacks you, what are you going to do?

http://www.sfexaminer.com/articles/2006 ... litary.txt

Supervisor: U.S. should not have military

By Justin Jouvenal
Staff Writer
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval was invited on Fox News on Tuesday to discuss locating warships on San Francisco’s waterfront, but he ended up dropping a major bomb with the news channel’s conservative audience when he made the following statement: The United States should not have a military.

Sandoval’s declaration, which came before a national audience on the popular Hannity and Colmes news program, drew a flood of calls and e-mails — some even threatening violence — to his City Hall office. It also provoked surprise and bemusement among Sandoval’s Board of Supervisors colleagues, who have been caught up in their own fair share of verbal snafus.

The statement came after Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes grilled Sandoval for voting against stationing the USS Iowa on San Francisco Bay. Sandoval, who sided with the majority of his fellow supervisors, said he felt it was inappropriate to put a 10-story symbol of war on the Bay. But then, after saying he supported the battle against Germany and Japan during World War II, Sandoval was asked whether the United States should have a military.

His response: “I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely,â€

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zieve/060216

San Francisco needs to leave the US


Sher Zieve
Sher Zieve
February 16, 2006


Although there have been many — many — others, one of the most telling comments as to why San Francisco really and truly needs to consider officially leaving the United States of America occurred on Wednesday. One of its typically vocal leftist supervisors (there is no other kind in San Francisco) made the typical leftist, dangerous and anti-US comments.

Leftist Democrat San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval, on Hannity's Wednesday radio program, said "we don't need the US Military" and "I am not in favor of a standing army." Sandoval also said that the majority of his colleagues think and believe the same way. He and his "colleagues" want to do away with the US military — altogether. Sandoval said the local police and fire departments could handle attacks against his city. Huh? With the anti-military and anti-police attitudes prevalent in San Francisco (the San Francisco Chronicle has written and continues to write multiple articles blasting the SF police), coupled with the obvious fact that "local police" and most certainly "fire departments" have no military training as to how to handle terrorists (I doubt that's in their job descriptions), how do the "leaders" in San Francisco expect locals to protect it? The fact is San Francisco leaders haven't even begun to think this out. But, the people living in the City by the Bay don't seem to be thinking much — at all — recently. If they did, they wouldn't have elected these buffoons. Sandoval also reiterated something most of us already knew. He said San Francisco is an "anti-war city."

Then, we have the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voting 8-3 to stop the USS Iowa from 'setting up shop' and even docking in "its city." Previously, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) had arranged to have the USS Iowa come to San Francisco in order to be used as an educational tool and to bring in tourist dollars to the city. Suffice it to say, Sen. Feinstein's plan was shot down. Although Feinstein is a liberal Democrat, she is apparently no longer liberal enough for this ever-moving-further-to-the-left-and-oblivion city. Besides, with its current "we're an anti-war, anti-military, anti-police city" attitude (I think "complex" might be more appropriate), it's no wonder that this city views one of the US' tools that helped to protect our country and the countries of our allies from destruction with inordinate disdain. Those making these decisions are comprised of the lunatic fringes that are, tragically, now in power.

The San Francisco Chronicle, one of the left-wing organs that continues to promulgate the anti-war, anti-military, anti-police agenda of the far-Left, has attacked the local SF police with merciless abandon. Instead of using computer systems to track criminals, the Chronicle has pushed for new $800K computer system that will track police officers suspected of abuse and the complaints against them. Out of 2,200 SF police officers, 100 have been identified as 'suspected of abuse.' But, the vast majority of these have not even been charged. Appearing on The Factor, Lawyer and former SF Supervisor Angela Alioto said there have been "28 prior incidences of excessive force." Twenty-eight? Good grief, woman! We'd all like perfection in our lives but, that's not possible. Out of all of the police officers' daily incident calls, twenty-eight seem beyond laughable — if not embarrassing to even bring up.

However, even far-Left SF Mayor Gavin Newsom has requested the addition of 620 new police officers. Question: Why would any police officer choose to work in a city that denigrates them and places them on a much shorter leash than it does its criminal element? Guess masochism is a strong San Francisco trait, too!

To top things off, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors has called for the impeachment or resignation of President Bush. For this left-of-left city, this should come as no surprise. In response to Bill O'Reilly's question to Alioto "Doesn't it make your City look stupid to have the Board of Supervisors say President Bush should be impeached?" Alioto responded: "You know that is so San Francisco. With all due respect I wrote the first smoking ban in 1993 and Ireland just copied us. You will see that the rest of the country will follow us once we do this. It is extremely important to note San Francisco believes this is not a justified war. We should not be in Iraq. We should bring home all of our men and women from Iraq."

The final questions are "Do we the people actually want San Francisco to decide policy for the rest of the county — and the rest of us? Or, is it time that it began its own separate and very-small country that will protect itself with the infamous Zell Miller spitballs?"

I vote for the latter. What about you?

http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4506334&nav=9qrx

http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/new ... 0213.shtml

http://www.officer.com/article/article. ... 1&id=28554


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sher Zieve is an author, political commentator, and staff writer for The New Media Alliance (www.thenma.org). Zieve's op-ed columns are widely carried by multiple internet journals and sites, and she also writes hard news. Her columns have also appeared in The Oregon Herald, Dallas Times, Boston Star, Massachusetts Sun, Sacramento Sun, in international news publications, and on multiple university websites. Ms. Zieve is currently working on her first political book: "The Liberal's Guide To Conservatives."

What a blooming idiot.

I'll bet he has the same opinion of the border patrol.

Originally Posted by Brian503a

I'll bet he has the same opinion of the border patrol.

I expect you are right.

I thought I was reading a script from Saturday Night Live! (Its a comedy show) What a MORON!

QUOTE:
SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It's called the Coast Guard. There's lots of things different.
-------------------------------------
IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT TO EXPECT FROM LEADERSHIP IN AMERICA FOR NOW ON?! GIVE ME A BREAK!!

A call for immediate help

We need to organize a search party......

to find San Francisco Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval's gonads.....

they seem to be missing........

OOPS...

he is in San Francisco....

never mind......

When they passed out brains, he thought they said trains and he didn't want to go anywhere so he hid behind the door.