SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
February 10, 2010· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

My sentiments exactly

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

From today’s Signal report on the out-of-town illegal immigrant advocates who appeared at City Hall last night:

A woman driving a white car stopped in front of City Hall and yelled at coalition members: “Get the freak out of my town! … What’s wrong with you people?”

A sheriff’s deputy walked over to tell her to keep driving.

While the coalition was holding its conference, Randy Thompson, 47, of Saugus yelled in coalition members’ faces.

“I don’t want to hear what you have to say because you’re here supporting illegal immigration,” Thompson barked. “Not one of you lives in Santa Clarita.”

Funny how they want people from out of town who disagree with them to leave, but won’t say a word when Roger Gitlin and his posse encourage every wackjob within a 200 mile radius to set up camp on one of the busiest intersections in town.

I guess it’s okay if the out-of-towners agree with Bob Kellar, right?

Comments (41)

  1. GangFangFebruary 10, 2010 at 10:19 am
    Spot on. Might I add that I indeed AM from the SCV, and when I mentioned it to Mr. Yelly Pants he quizzed me on local facts. When I got them all right while giggling, he stated: “Well, you must have gone to school somewhere else”. When I asked him what that meant, he said “I don’t have to explain myself to you!”. And that was that. Quality exchange.
  2. lvogelFebruary 10, 2010 at 11:20 am
    Besides Gitlin and Kellar, who else from this valley attended the ‘notorious’ minute-man rally on the 16t of Jan? It seems as though everyone speaking was from the AV, including the ‘evil’ hat’n pastor! Don’t know if I missed this, but did anyone posting from SCVTALK attend?
  3. SamFebruary 10, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    I would like to invite Berta Gonzalez Harper to ride in my car as a front seat passenger during the rally on Feb 27th. The car windows will be rolled down while waiting for a red light to change green. Sorry no flag waving or yelling or gang signs coming from my car. I live in Circle J Ranch and wouldn’t mind in picking up Berta anywhere for the event. Will not be a two hour drive just a couple times around the block. Someone can ride in the back seat with a nice camera. How about it? I will even wait for you if you choose to attend the rally and buy you lunch if you get hungry. Let’s carpool.
  4. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    @ GangFang: I don’t know who you are referring to as “Mr. Yelly Pants” but f you are speaking of me (Randy Thompson) I’m here to call B.S. I never “quizzed” anyone on local facts nor did I say anything about someone attending another school. Additionally, I’d have been more than happy to explain myself to you! Since my name has been the only one associated with Yelling, Barking and any other colorful descriptions, I can only assume I’m the one you are talking about ….. With that assumption (since it is how you’ve presented it), I can only state you are flat out being dishonest!
  5. blazingmonkFebruary 10, 2010 at 2:46 pm
    ItzRandy you are assuming he is talking about you…
  6. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    @ Blazingmonk: Yes, it is an assumption. But, I can only find my name listed anywhere are “yelling” or “barking” therefore his reference to “Mr. Yelly Pants” would be a fairly concise assumption. If it isn’t me, then I stand duly corrected!
  7. Berta González-HarperFebruary 10, 2010 at 3:04 pm
    Ivogel: as I have commented several times, no one posting on this site attended that rally so anything anyone has said, including me, is speculation, which is why I challenged several assumptions and posited another possible scenario. Sam: I have also said in previous posts that I am brave, not stupid. I do not know who you are so I am not riding with you anywhere. If Sam is a pseudonym and I do actually know you, contact me so we can discuss. In any event, I have no problem driving by with my windows down since I would not incite anyone from either side of the issue, other than you guys here of course. Either way, I have been giving serious thought to attending as an OBSERVER since much has been said by many without any of us able to provide eyewitness accounts. If anyone else would be interested in attending as an OBSERVER, please let me know. If I do attend, I will say right now, my attendance at this rally does not indicate I am in agreement with any actions, comments, or anything else of any other attendees present. I would like to see and hear for myself what happens. Jeff: As to your implication regarding hypocrisy in telling outsiders to go home, I see a vast difference between outsiders, yes some are over the top, coming and stating their beliefs at a rally, whether I agree with them or not, and outsiders coming in and suing us and DEMANDING that we censure our elected Councilman. Making accusations that Bob is supposedly a racist and violating the Code of Ethics and Conduct when the issue has already been addressed. Mr. Kellar was speaking as an individual and I have stated ad infinitum is not a racist. These guys don’t know Bob, don’t care about our community, are looking for free publicity for their “cause” advocating for ILLEGAL ALIENS, and could give a rats a$$ about ethics. They have no right to DEMAND that WE do anything. Besides Bruce and TBB already tried that tactic unsuccessfully. At least they are locals. If you do not see any difference, I cannot reason with you on this issue.
  8. janeFebruary 10, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    The issue with the code of ethics has NOT been addressed. Our city attorney did what he always does with one of the boys, found no wrongdoing. Did loudmouth say that he was not representing the city before speaking…what’s that? I can’t hear you Berta, did he say he was speaking as an individual? He didn’t and he is in violation. Just censure the fool and let’s get on with things that matter. I’m sick of seeing our city made to look like a bunch of hillbilly fools because of one jackass.
  9. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 3:36 pm
    @ Jane: Did you preface you comment with the fact that you are speaking on behalf of all women? Since you mentioned “city”, does this mean you are speaking on behalf of the city and thus using “jackass” in your commentary? No you didn’t, yet not one of us is not intelligent enough to figure out you are ranting for your own purposes. Just because someone holds a position in a public entity, corporate entity or a non-profit does not, in itself require a disclaimer before anything is stated. There is nothing to censure in this matter! Some ignorant spectator suggested that supporting immigration laws somehow makes you a racist. Kellar simply stated that if that is how this individual defines a racist, then he must be a proud racist. Seriously, get over yourself! By the way, the name calling only solidifies your clear inability to hold a civil discussion on the matter. Grow up!
  10. BrianFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Elected officials are always on duty. Really. It’s part of the job and if you don’t like the 24/7 nature of it, don’t run!
  11. Vince HansFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:18 pm
    ItzRandy – Kellar was pointed out as a city council member before he spoke. Therefore he was speaking on behalf of the city unless he made the correction before he spoke.
  12. OlenkaFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    I’ll bring the popcorn.
  13. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    If someone introduces me as a former Sheriff’s Deputy it doesn’t mean I am speaking on behalf of a Sheriff’s Department? Of course not! They probably also stated Bob was a local Realtor and former Police Officer …. does that imply he is speaking on behalf of all Realtors and Police Officers? Kind of thin people! Plus, in the end, he was speaking out against illegal immigration …. he doesn’t represent illegal immigrants and they therefore have no status in filing a complaint! By the way, I’ve been on television before so allow me to state I’m not speaking on behalf of all visual media conglomerates, their employees or families of said employees! It’s getting a bit ridiculous!
  14. mikeFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:44 pm
    Randy, You should read the code of ethics and watch the whole video. He’s accountable to a code of ethics that require him to make the affirmative distinction that he’s speaking for himself and correct anyone that suggests otherwise. There are not built in penalties, so I don’t see what the worry is. It’s a clear violation. If Bob was the Bob I thought he was, he would have accepted the admonition at the next council meeting.
  15. Vince HansFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:52 pm
    ItzRandy – there is a code of ethics that need to be adhered to by city council members. It is the belief of some that Kellar might have violated that code by not distancing himself from the city before he made his comments. That’s all. It’s not an issue of whether or not he was speaking for or against illegal immigration. For the same reason, two scheduled speakers pulled out of the Tea Party convention last week – they felt it might go against the House of Reps code of ethics. Many Kellar supporters are trying to win public opinion by stating this is over an issue that it ISN’T. Plain and simple – Did Kellar violate the city’s code of ethics? From what I understand, that is the basis of the complaint and/or lawsuit that is being filed.
  16. Vince HansFebruary 10, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    Mike – yes I agree. I once had some respect for Kellar, but he threw that out the window by his actions during the aftermath. Now he just comes across as a big cranky egomaniac to those who don’t know him. And posing as he did in the LA Times – that CAN’T be good for his real estate business. Not very welcoming to those who might google him as they look for a good realtor in the SCV
  17. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 6:23 pm
    Well Vince, if code of conduct is the only issue then I’d say the issue is now moot. The City Attorney, as I understand it, has stated he finds no issues as presented by the protesters. Additionally, they’d have a difficult time showing “standing” in a civil suit as none of them are residents of the city and cannot show any harm caused. Issue dead as far as I’m concerned!
  18. mikeFebruary 10, 2010 at 6:33 pm
    The City Attorney isn’t the finder of fact under the law. All they need is a plaintiff that resides in the city. Won’t be hard to do.
  19. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    Okay, so you get someone local to file a civil lawsuit ….. then what? File a suit because someone supports enforcing immigration laws? I’d bet you could actually use a stopwatch to time how fast that would be dismissed. Then I’d love to see how damages sustained are articulated. Let’s face it, this will be a dead issue shortly and we’ll be able to move on to the next matter that results in racism being shouted from the highest rooftops! This is almost tiring at this point!
  20. Berta González-HarperFebruary 10, 2010 at 7:14 pm
    ItzRandy thanks for posting. Frankly, I was getting tired of trying to talk to these folks. It feels like I live in a parallel universe or something. Bob was introduced by someone else as Councilman…He did not say “Hi I’m Councilman Bob Kellar. I’m here representing the City of Santa Clarita as a ….” Every one of the other Council members are introduced as Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and Councilmember as a method of identification. Whether at a rally, church function, vacation luau or whatever simply being identified by someone as Councilmember…does not indicate they are there in an official capacity. Bob Kellar spoke as an individual, period. If you want to go after Bob you had better go after everyone who is ever introduced as …including all of the past and current Council members. While you are at it all the current and former Presidents, Governors, Senators, Assembly members, Police Chiefs, etc. I know I am a member of several committees, am female, Hispanic, and a Canyon County resident. Each time I speak as an individual, do I say I do not speak for (list each committee or group) committee members, females, Hispanics, Canyon Country residents, family members and so on. That will use up my three minutes right there! You are not that lucky… There is no one in his or her RIGHT MIND who could deduce that Bob Kellar was representing the City of Santa Clarita or the City Council at that rally. To continue to insist differently is ridiculous. This out of town group suing an individual for expressing his guaranteed right to free speech and DEMANDING his censure should be what gets you angry. Squelching individual freedom guaranteed by the Constitution sounds like a dictatorship in the making to me. This witch-hunt is over boys and girls!
  21. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    @ Berta … I feel your pain! Some of the comments on here and as follow up to “The Signal” article are simply mind numbing to try to decipher into some form of a logical thought process. I think we simply have to face the fact that some people are going to find any way they can to turn that mole hill into a gargantuan mountain! Randy (The Yelling, Screaming, Barking, Yada Yada Yada Guy)
  22. mikeFebruary 10, 2010 at 7:45 pm
    Berta, It’s our code of ethics and it applies only to city councilmembers, not to assemblymen and whatnot. Also, the facts, as you recite them, violate the code of ethics, as it’s written. You would read it in half the time it takes to write one of these posts.
  23. spineflower2February 10, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    “The City Attorney isn’t the finder of fact under the law.” But Mike, HE thinks he is!
  24. Berta González-HarperFebruary 10, 2010 at 8:33 pm
    Mike I have read it and probably before you ever did. My statements stand and frankly I don’t give a poop if you read my posts or not since you have made it perfectly clear TIME AND TIME AGAIN you are not interested in my “lengthily autobiographical” posts. Your insults are getting BORING. Find a new tune darlin’.
  25. Vince HansFebruary 10, 2010 at 9:14 pm
    ironically, it’s folks like Kellar, Berta and ItzRandy that have turned this mole hill into a mountain – by the way Berta, just as I predicted, what, 3 weeks ago??? You’re welcome, Berta
  26. Vince HansFebruary 10, 2010 at 9:36 pm
    Berta, you must have missed this part of the Code of Ethics: “When presenting their individual opinions and positions, covered persons shall explicitly state they do not represent their body of the City of Santa Clarita nor will they allow the inference that they do.” http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dUOn-Bi9S4sJ:www.santa-clarita.com/cityhall/agendas/council/print_attachment.asp%3FID%3D7043+city+of+santa+clarita+code+of+ethics&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbQZhWTpln628j3KewwRyXxkq7R4oQ
  27. ItzRandyFebruary 10, 2010 at 10:03 pm
    Vince … Just my opinion here (nothing to legally qualify such), but nobody should have to qualify or in this instance offer a disclaimer when they speak in support of existing laws of our country. You may not appreciate the wording of such and as I have stated, clearly a better choice of words could have been utilized (hindsight) …. but simply supporting the laws of our country should never constitute a code of ethics violation! Support of our laws, I wouldn’t think, can be construed in any legal forum as expressing an opinion or position. It’s simply stating fact. No apologies necessary and as the city appears to be concerned, no violation of the code of ethics! Now, will someone please stand that dead horse back up so we can all beat it some more?
  28. Berta González-HarperFebruary 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm
    Vince: I offer no apology since I never said what you continue to imply. I have explained more times than would be necessary if I were talking to my potted plants, so give it a rest. If you really want to hang your hat on the Code of Ethics and Conduct (which I directed you to, I might add) show me where it says a Councilmember gives up his/her right to free speech, or must step down, or be censured!
  29. GangFangFebruary 10, 2010 at 11:19 pm
    Yo ItzRandy: It wasn’t you that was asking me questions. You were obviously the person who was looking to “get into it” with anyone who has a different opinion than yours. Which is boring,obvious, and brings out the ignorance in you and your buddies for all to see. Love watching you guys dig yourselves a deeper grave with every sentence! The yelling douchnozzle I speak of was a younger gentleman, with wraparound Oakley blade sunglasses. (White power AND stylish!!) Sorry, pal. But hey……YOU have all those articles in the local paper to put in your fancy scrapbook! Way to go champ!
  30. blazingmonkFebruary 10, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    ->”You would read it in half the time it takes to write one of these posts.” HAHA nice one Mike!
  31. blazingmonkFebruary 10, 2010 at 11:53 pm
    I second that ND…
  32. mikeFebruary 11, 2010 at 12:29 am
    BGH, there’s a word for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness
  33. blazingmonkFebruary 11, 2010 at 12:40 am
    I think most disturbing is the City Council members silence on the crucial issue of people having mullets in 2010… they just let anyone with a mullet get behind the podium and talk like they have equal rights or something! What kind of message is that?
  34. Vince HansFebruary 11, 2010 at 2:55 am
    hahahahahahha Berta!!!!! >>>>>>show me where it says a Councilmember gives up his/her right to free speech, or must step down, or be censured!<<<<<< you are right, nowhere does it state what the "penalty" should be for such a flagrant misuse of one's position. It's up to the courts the city council to determine what his "penalty" should be. I REPEAT BERTA – this is NOT an issue of illegal immigration, free speech or anything such – it's simply a matter of if a council member violated their own code of ethics. And again, as I stated from day one – Kellar should apologize or this mole hill will become a mountain (which it obviously has). And NOT because thoughts on illegal immigration are "right" or "wrong."
  35. ItzRandyFebruary 11, 2010 at 8:53 am
    @ GangFang: Well then, I apologize for the misguided assumption! I do take issue with the “get into it” allegation as I was merely looking for some voracious debate on the issue. As an aside, purely an observation, but when you resort to comments like “douchnozzle” you severely impugn your credibility! When you keep it civil, people will actually consider your position!
  36. Spineflower2February 11, 2010 at 8:55 am
    I think Kellar should take the Hollywood Road To Redemption, and go into a Racism Addiction Program at some pricey coastal retreat with “Rainbow” in its name. You know, like Tiger and Britney have done.
  37. navigatorFebruary 11, 2010 at 10:35 am
    SF2 – If you’ve noticed the real estate market lately you’d know that a pricey retreat is pretty much out of the question.
  38. GangFangFebruary 11, 2010 at 1:28 pm
    I’ve tried civil. Doesn’t work with certain types. You’re telling me that if I calmly stated my position on the immigration/human rights issue, that those Minutemen freaks would “consider my position”? No way. Thanks to fiery media types, and the constant alignment of US vs. THEM, there doesn’t seem to be much room for civil discourse any more. I tried. Voracious debate? You need a hobby, twinkletoes.
  39. ItzRandyFebruary 11, 2010 at 1:34 pm
    Civil debate with the Minutemen? Okay, I’ll give you that one … probably not too much room for that with most of them ( I wasn’t there for the MM farce). As for needing a hobby …. this one has become almost fun! Twinkletoes? Maybe 40 pounds back! More closely aligned with needing Jenny Craig these days (especially if I could land Valerie Bertinelli as a coach)!
  40. SCV GuyFebruary 11, 2010 at 5:18 pm
    For the record, Mr Kellar was introduced as a City Council Member, not Speaking on behalf of the City. English must be very hard for many of you. Also, look at the way Mr Kellar was dressed. He was obviously there on his own behalf. Mr Kellar would not show up to an event as a spokesperson for the City dressed casually. Its time to let it go. Its over and the debate has shifted to the real story of illegal immigration. Anyone pulling us back to the other corner is just trying to avoid the real topic.
  41. Berta González-HarperFebruary 11, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    SCV Guy: Agreed!!!!!!!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support