Unfit to Publish; San Francisco Bay Guardian’s Bruce B Brugmann’s Still Peddling Sex and More Leftwing Pro-Criminal Illegal Aliens Vitriol:

Unfit to Publish; San Francisco Bay Guardian’s Bruce B Brugmann’s Still Peddling Sex and More Leftwing Pro-Criminal Illegal Aliens Vitriol:
By Marc Chamot

Yeah, yeah, I know old Bruce B Brugmann, the publisher and owner of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, commonly known as the San Francisco “Gay” Guardian and he knows me well too.

Bruce B Brugmann is that zany, loony, and idiotic psychotic left-wing liberal that tries to make some sense about politics goings on, and when he comes out with his publication he makes as much sense as a drugged up poodle.

Bruce B Brugmann launched his Bay Guardian publication around 1966. It is known for reporting, celebrating, and promoting left-wing and progressive issues within San Francisco.

And on his wikipedia page it also mentions; “This usually includes muckraking, legislation to control and limit gentrification, and endorsement of political candidates and other laws and policies that fall within its political views. It also has comprehensive movie and music reviews, an annual nude beaches issue, and an annual sex issue.”

If people are wondering as to why San Francisco is the laughing stock of America? There is no doubt that Bruce Brugmann and his publication was a big part of it. He’s the one that had influenced the San Francisco elections, and helped place the majority of these left-wing loony-tunes as board members since 1999.

San Francisco politicos and his mostly San Francisco gay followers, all consider him a San Francisco publishing extraordinaire. Imagine that folk?
But the truth about Bruce B Brugmann is that he’s definitely not a publishing extraordinaire like what some people want to perceive him as. He’s not even a publisher of any publication, his publication is more like a left-wing agenda driven rag, and it is also being used as an activist organization (Community Organizers), made up of numerous left-wing organizations from bike nuts to lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender (LGBT’s), promoting their ideals and for more rights. But there’s nothing really wrong with that, right? No I don’t think so.

But wait! It doesn’t stop there; this psychotic left-wing liberal is trashing mediums, those who bring up anti-immigration issues, and calls them as "nativists." He is now into promoting rights for San Francisco’s illegal aliens’ prostitutes, by criticizing city’s enforcements on their criminal massage parlors operations, and on criminal illegal aliens who are running amuck committing crimes in San Francisco. He says it's okay for them to do that, don't stop them, because it's pretty mean. No, I kid you not.

The massage parlor mistake
OPINION "Taking advantage of the recent turmoil over the huge city budget cuts, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Sup. Carmen Chu, have pushed though malicious legislation imposing criminal charges and restrictions on massage parlors. Many are outraged that this costly legislation was prioritized — we want to know why it was, and how much it will cost to implement. Lawyers are questioning its legality.

Under the guise of concern for women's safety, Chu and Newsom falsely claimed that the law would stop sex trafficking. We've heard these lies before. Politicians who want to increase the criminalization of sex workers confuse prostitution, which is consensual sex for money, with trafficking, which is forced and coerced labor, sexual or otherwise. The reality is that most parlor employees work consensually and often collectively, without force or coercion. In Rhode Island, where indoor prostitution is legal, similar legislative maneuvers are in the works, also using the pretext of trafficking to make criminals of women working indoors.
Chu and Newsom claim they are targeting parlor owners, but by pushing the industry further underground, their legislation makes workers, many of whom are immigrant women, more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

Workers will suffer most from the increased raids, arrests, and criminalization. Fearing arrest and/or deportation will mean fewer women will report rape or other violence and exploitation when they occur.

What is the real political agenda here? Chu and Newsom have said that the proposals "could make it easier to close the 50 or so city-licensed parlors suspected of selling sex." If and where sex is being sold, parlor closures would force women onto the streets — where it is 10 times more dangerous to work. Those who are arrested are likely to end up in prison — to the devastation of their children — or deported. What good reason is there to endanger women's safety and break up families this way, especially during hard economic times?

San Franciscans question why, when most trafficking cases occur in the agricultural, construction, clothing, and domestic industries, anti-trafficking measures target immigrant sex workers working of their own free will. We suspect racist gentrification policies are behind this legislation. Developers will be allowed to seize land in the Tenderloin and downtown areas if massage parlors are forced to close. This deceitful, profiteering law imposes huge fines, criminal charges, and has a punitive clause making the parlors pay for unspecified enforcement charges against them.

Considering that not long ago, police were exposed for taking thousands of dollars from massage parlor workers, involving them in the licensing process creates fertile ground for increased corruption.

What is wrong with selling or buying sex if both parties consent? After all, 42 percent of San Franciscans voted last November for Proposition K, which would have decriminalized sex work, despite a campaign of fear mongering and misinformation by the mayor and district attorney. New Zealand successfully decriminalized prostitution six years ago to "promote occupational health and safety" and "protect from exploitation." There has been no increase in prostitution, pimps, or traffickers, and women are more able to report violence and insist on their rights. It's time for San Francisco to do the right thing and stop criminalizing sex workers."

Harris, Newsom duck on immigration
Harris and Newsom ought to be defending the Sanctuary Laws, not running away from them

GUARDIAN EDITORIAL“A handful of the people who went into the program were undocumented immigrants. Some completed the program successfully and were allowed to graduate.

This is a problem? Apparently so — because between them the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner have devoted at least five major stories, one horrible column and at least one editorial to exposing the fact that some people who otherwise would have been jailed and deported for minor nonviolent crimes have been allowed to stay in the country, with new skills that might help them find jobs that don't involve selling drugs on the street.

And Harris, who is running for state attorney general, is scrambling to cover herself, announcing that undocumented immigrants will no longer be allowed to go through the program. In other words, to get rehabilitation instead of jail time in San Francisco, you now have to submit proof of citizenship.

There's a whole lot wrong with this picture. The critics attacking Harris claim that undocumented immigrants don't deserve job training since they can't work in this country legally anyway. That's just silly — tens of thousands of immigrants who lack legal documentation are working in San Francisco right now, and tens of thousands will continue to work in San Francisco. And they're generally a productive part of the economy and community. These immigrants already face barriers to attending college. The only thing that denying first-offenders job training does is increase the chance they will return to crime.

Yes, the L.A. Times was able to find one person enrolled in the program who went out and committed robbery and assault. He was the only one of seven undocumented people in the program who had legal problems while attending. The others were allowed to graduate, had their criminal records erased, and, given the overall results of the program, were far less likely than people who had served jail time to re-offend.

Unfortunately, the daily newspaper stories are just the latest attack on San Francisco's Sanctuary City policy, which is supposed to bar local law enforcement from turning people over to federal immigration authorities. Mayor Gavin Newsom has backed away from the sanctuary policy — and now Harris is backing away, too.

The district attorney says that allowing undocumented immigrants into her program was a mistake, and that it's been "fixed." That's the wrong approach. Prisons and county jails in California are jammed beyond capacity. The cost of incarcerating all those people is staggering and helping to bankrupt the state. And the threat of deportation has created a climate of terror and desperation in immigrant communities, where families are being ripped apart and lives shattered by overzealous federal agents.

And the weak responses by San Francisco city officials are just empowering the radical nativists, who want to blame all of society's problems on immigrants.

Harris did nothing wrong and has no need to apologize or change her program. Job training as an alternative to jail is good public policy — for citizens and noncitizens. She and Mayor Newsom ought to be defending the Sanctuary City laws instead of running away from them. If this is what it takes to seek statewide office, the mayor and district attorney would better serve their constituents by staying at home.”

So what’s next in Bruce’s agenda? Giving more rights to rapists and child molesters? That is the path he’s heading to. Bruce Brugmann is the most definitive poster child as to why moderates and conservatives despise left-wingers, without a doubt.

Now through his thick liberal skull, this man couldn’t fathom as to why so many national and major advertisers have cut and run from his newspaper. The S.F. Weekly, his main competitor had told him through editorials that it was his politics, advertisers usually want to shy away from controversial agenda driven political rags like his.

But oh no! Bruce Brugmann wouldn’t have any of it! So he concocted a lawsuit against his competitor for predatory pricing. When I say concocted, I mean it was a la 1994 Fang vs. Hearst Examiner type of a lawsuit gem, which Bruce Brugmann was a part of, where lawyers immediately prejudices the judge and jury against the opposing party, simply by painting them as “the typical dreaded, wealthy, and a white owned corporation that want to put us out of business.” It’s those evil racists and their big money that want to hurt us little people, a newspaper like ours that helps gays and other minority groups.

And this type of lawsuit worked for Bruce.

From Wikipedia: “In March, 2008 the Guardian won a predatory pricing lawsuit against its local rival, the SF Weekly, based on allegations the Weekly undercut the Guardian by selling display advertisements below cost while supporting itself on cash infusions from its parent, Village Voice Media, in an effort to force the Guardian into bankruptcy. In May, 2008 the judge in the case awarded punitive damages, raising the jury's $6.3 million award to $15.9 million, and issuing an injunction prohibiting the Weekly from selling advertisements below cost.[2]”

As of late, the S.F. Weekly have appealed the lawsuit to have it dismissed on technicalities and on poor judiciating from the judge.