Honduras For Dummies

Click on video #1...

Sotomayor's Confirmation May Not Be Total Disaster After All

A nice bit of perspective here from the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel...


The Week Judicial Liberalism Gave Up by Patrick McIlheran


Sonia Sotomayor, all concede, will be confirmed. Since Democrats hold an unassailable majority in the Senate, the appointee of a popular Democratic president would ascend to the Supreme Court even if no Republicans were seized by senatorial courtesy or deference to the Latino vote. She will be confirmed.

So who cares that Sotomayor's sudden conversion away from any previous "progressive" views is so transparent? Republicans suspect she's not really past all that wise-Latina stuff, but does that matter?

Yes. Quite a bit, actually.

It's worth pointing out, first, just how noticeable has been Sotomayor's switch. Take the infamous matter of her 2001 speech in which she argued against the observation that a wise woman and a wise man would reach the same conclusion. Sotomayor argued not merely that ethnic and sex differences shape a judge's perspective, an uncontroversial view. She argued that they actually make some judges inherently superior: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said.

This week, she said that was "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat." Yet it was a rhetorical flourish she'd used at least six times over the course of a decade, suggesting it was her deliberate and considered view. Why shouldn't it be? Such notions that white maleness is a handicap apparently are found regularly in legal scholarship. Her disavowal of the idea in Senate hearings drew outright scorn from some liberal legal scholars.

So, too, on other issues. Sotomayor kept her head down on abortion, arousing complaints from abortion-rights groups. Law professors complained to journalists that empathy "went out the window," that they were "completely disgusted" by Sotomayor giving answers indistinguishable from what John Roberts and Samuel Alito might have said.

The interesting question is why she did this. She does not have to please Republicans. She could have answered them by standing and singing "The Internationale," and she'd still end up on the court.

Yet she went out of her way to spurn President Barack Obama's view about empathy: "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart," she said. She's disavowed that moral superiority is granted by being part of a minority. "I do not believe that foreign law should be used to determine the result under constitutional law or American law," she said Thursday, throwing overboard the progressive dream of correcting our bad habits in the court of world opinion. Asked whether the Constitution is a living, breathing document, she replied it is "immutable" but for amendments. "It doesn't live other than to be timeless," she said.

Antonin Scalia must have wept at the beauty of this statement.

Why such a thorough repudiation of all that progressives feel? Why must Sotomayor be portrayed as identical to a George W. Bush appointee before Democrats can vote for her?

Because, apparently, that's what Democrats suspect the public wants. On some level, the president and his congressional allies believe the public would not stand for a justice who thinks the Constitution must breathe modern air, that world opinion must inform our law, that abortion is a constitutional right if not a sacrament and that who you are should matter to how the law treats you.

The Democrats might be right. The Rasmussen poll Wednesday said that while 90% of respondents figured Sotomayor is going to be confirmed, only 37% favored it, while 43% were against. And 83% of them said the legal system "should apply the law equally to all Americans rather than using the law to help those who have less power and influence."

So much for the empathy gambit.

From this, two possible outcomes emerge. One, Sotomayor is confirmed, and it turns out her conversion is real. Wise Latina? Nah, she's an umpire in the Roberts mold. Result: Conservatives win.

Two, she's faking. She's confirmed and becomes a reliable liberal vote to mutate the Constitution into what she's sure the writers would have made it had they been as smart as modern liberals. Result: No change from the man she replaces, David Souter, and Obama loses more credibility with independent voters.

Either way, what's become clear is that the week that was supposed to be the humiliating rout of old white guys in the Senate has turned into the surrender of judicial liberalism. That has become the philosophy no potential justice can admit to, even when her president owns the Senate. Whoever in the administration coached Sotomayor knows this: A conservative Supreme Court is not at odds with America. It is its reflection.

via ChronWatch

Do You Have The "Right" To Defend Yourself? Sotomayor Says Maybe Not

I'll admit that I am not following the Sotomayor confirmation hearings as closely as I should - mostly because it seems to be a done deal - but even I was floored at this little nugget from the hearing room, brought to you by Debra Saunders...

The most interesting exchange thus far occurred when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion, which she signed, that found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Coburn wondered how courts cannot see the explicitly stated Second Amendment "right to keep and bear arms" as fundamental, yet can hold as fundamental the unexpressed right to privacy. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

For eight years, Democrats attacked the Bush administration for giving short shrift to personal liberties. As Obama wrote in "Audacity," the Bush picks "showed a pattern of hostility toward civil rights, privacy and checks on executive power."

Now the Obama pick for the Supreme Court can't think of a right to defend yourself. That is arguably extraordinary.

... and more than a little frightening.

I've said this before and I'll say it again... there are some things in life that you simply don't need the government's permission to do.

Breathe. That's one.

Decide whether to pour shampoo directly on your head, or into your hand first and then transfer. That's another.

Defend yourself when you are attacked. That's another.

Why is it, you may ask, that the founding fathers - who apparently thought of everything - did not expressly put into the 2nd Amendment the right to bear arms in the purpose of self defense?

The answer is simple. Because it is so basic, so obvious that they didn't feel the need to.

I mean, who in their right fucking mind would argue that a human being does not have the right to defend themselves?!?

The right of self-defense is a basic fundamental element of being to any living entity - or, at least, any living entity that wants to keep on living. To argue otherwise is beyond insane. To argue otherwise is to harbor a death wish for humanity.

I'm going to follow more closely because clearly this bitch is nuts.

What Is "Cultural Marxism" Anyway?

While researching the GSLEN for the previous post, I came across this great archived piece from Linda Kimball.

Read on... it's worth the effort...

Cultural Marxism

Linda Kimball

Conservative Underground

There are two misconceptions held by many Americans. The first is that communism ceased to be a threat when the Soviet Union imploded. The second is that the New Left of the Sixties collapsed and disappeared as well. “The Sixties are dead,” wrote columnist George Will (”Slamming the Doors,” Newsweek, Mar. 25, 1991).

Because the New Left lacked cohesion, it fell apart as a political movement. However, its revolutionaries reorganized themselves into a multitude of single-issue groups. Thus we now have for example, radical feminists, black extremists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, and ‘gay’ rights groups. All of these groups pursue their piece of the radical agenda through a complex network of organizations such as the Gay Straight Lesbian Educators Network (GSLEN), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), People for the American Way, United for Peace and Justice, Planned Parenthood, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), and Code Pink for Peace.

Both communism and the New Left are alive and thriving here in America. They favor code words: tolerance, social justice, economic justice, peace, reproductive rights, sex education and safe sex, safe schools, inclusion, diversity, and sensitivity. All together, this is Cultural Marxism disguised as multiculturalism.

Birth of Multiculturalism

In anticipation of the revolutionary storm that would baptize the world in an inferno of red terror, leading to its rebirth as the promised land of social justice and proletarian equality-Friedrich Engels wrote,

“All the…large and small nationalities are destined to perish…in the revolutionary world storm… (A general war will) wipe out all…nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only reactionary classes…but…reactionary peoples.” (”The Magyar Struggle,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Jan. 13, 1849)

By the end of WWI, socialists realized that something was amiss, for the world’s proletariat had not heeded Marx’s call to rise up in opposition to evil capitalism and to embrace communism instead. They wondered what had gone wrong.

Separately, two Marxist theorists – Antonio Gramsci of Italy and Georg Lukacs of Hungary – concluded that the Christianized West was the obstacle standing in the way of a communist new world order. The West would have to be conquered first. Gramsci posited that because Christianity had been dominant in the West for over 2000 years, not only was it fused with Western civilization, but it had corrupted the working class. The West would have to be de-Christianized, said Gramsci, by means of a “long march through the culture.” Additionally, a new proletariat must be created. In his “Prison Notebooks,” he suggested that the new proletariat be comprised of many criminals, women, and racial minorities.

The new battleground, reasoned Gramsci, must become the culture, starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and history. All of these things must be radically transformed and the social and cultural order gradually turned upside-down with the new proletariat placed in power at the top.

The Prototype

In 1919, Georg Lukacs became Deputy Commissar for Culture in the short-lived Bolshevik Bela Kun regime in Hungary. He immediately set plans in motion to de- Christianize Hungary. Reasoning that if Christian sexual ethics could be undermined among children, then both the hated patriarchal family and the Church would be dealt a crippling blow. Lukacs launched a radical sex education program in the schools. Sex lectures were organized and literature handed out which graphically instructed youth in free love (promiscuity) and sexual intercourse while simultaneously encouraging them to deride and reject Christian moral ethics, monogamy, and parental and church authority. All of this was accompanied by a reign of cultural terror perpetrated against parents, priests, and dissenters.

Hungary’s youth, having been fed a steady diet of values-neutral (atheism) and radical sex education, while being simultaneously encouraged to rebel against all authority, easily turned into delinquents ranging from bullies and petty thieves to sex predators, murderers, and sociopaths.

Gramsci’s prescription and Lukacs’ plans were the precursor to what Cultural Marxism in the guise of SIECUS, GSLEN, and the ACLU – acting as judicially-powered enforcers – later brought into American schools.

Building a Base

In 1923, the Frankfurt School – a Marxist think-tank – was founded in Weimar Germany. Among its founders were Georg Lukacs, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodor Adorno. The school was a multidisciplinary effort which included sociologists, sexologists, and psychologists.

The primary goal of the Frankfurt School was to translate Marxism from economic terms into cultural terms. It would provide the ideas on which to base a new political theory of revolution based on culture, harnessing new oppressed groups for the faithless proletariat. Smashing religion and morals, it would also build a constituency among academics, who could build careers studying and writing about the new oppression.

Toward this end, Marcuse – who favored polymorphous perversion – expanded the ranks of Gramsci’s new proletariat by including homosexuals, lesbians, and transsexuals. Into this was spliced Lukacs’ radical sex education and cultural terrorism tactics. Gramsci’s ‘long march’ was added to the mix, and then all of this was wedded to Freudian psychoanalysis and psychological conditioning techniques. The end product was Cultural Marxism, now known in the West as multiculturalism.

Additional intellectual firepower was required: a theory to pathologize what was to be destroyed. In 1950, the Frankfurt School augmented Cultural Marxism with Theodor Adorno’s idea of the ‘authoritarian personality.’ This concept is premised on the notion that Christianity, capitalism, and the traditional family create a character prone to racism and fascism. Thus, anyone who upholds America’s traditional moral values and institutions is both racist and fascist. Children raised by traditional values parents, we are told to believe, will almost certainly become racists and fascists. By extension, if fascism and racism are endemic to America’s traditional culture, then everyone raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism, gun ownership, or free markets is in need of psychological help.

The pernicious influence of Adorno’s ‘authoritarian personality’ idea can be clearly seen in some of the research that gets public money,

“In Aug. 2003, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced the results of their $1.2 million tax-payer funded study. It stated, essentially, that traditionalists are mentally disturbed. Scholars from the Universities of Maryland, California at Berkeley, and Stanford had determined that social conservatives…suffer from ‘mental rigidity,’ ‘dogmatism,’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance,’ together with associated indicators for mental illness.” (http://www.edwatch.org/ “Social and Emotional Learning” Jan. 26, 2005)

The Orwellian cast of the pathologies named shows how far Gramsci’s long march has led us.

A corresponding and diabolically crafted idea is political correctness. The strong suggestion here is that in order for one not to be thought of as racist or fascist, then one must not only be nonjudgmental but must also embrace the ‘new’ moral absolutes: diversity, choice, sensitivity, sexual orientation, and tolerance. Political correctness is a Machiavellian psychological ‘command and control’ device. Its purpose is the imposition of uniformity in thought, speech, and behavior.

Critical theory is yet another psychological ‘command and control’ device. As stated by Daniel J. Flynn,

“Critical Theory, as its name implies, criticizes. What deconstruction does to literature, Critical Theory does to societies.” (Intellectual Morons, p 15-16)

Critical Theory is an ongoing and brutal assault via vicious criticism relentlessly leveled against Christians, Christmas, the Boy Scouts, Ten Commandments, our military, and all other aspects of traditional American culture and society.

Both political correctness and Critical Theory are in essence, psychological bullying. They are the psycho-political battering rams by which Frankfurt School disciples such as the ACLU are forcing Americans to submit to and to obey the will and the way of the Left. These devious devices are but psychological versions of Georg Lukacs and Laventi Beria’s ‘cultural terrorism’ tactics. In the words of Beria,

“Obedience is the result of force…Force is the antithesis of humanizing actions. It is so synonymous in the human mind with savageness, lawlessness, brutality, and barbarism, that it is only necessary to display an inhuman attitude toward people to be granted by those people the possessions of force.” (The Russian Manual on Psychopolitics: Obedience, by Laventi Beria, head of Soviet Secret Police and Stalin’s right-hand man)

Double-thinking ‘fence-sitters’, otherwise known as moderates, centrists, and RINOs bear the imprint of these psychological ‘obedience’ techniques. These people – in some cases literally afraid of incurring the wrath of name-calling obedience trainers – have opted to straddle the fence lest they be found guilty of possessing an opinion, one way or another. At the merest hint of displeasure from the obedience-trainers, up goes the yellow flag of surrender upon which it is boldly written:

“I believe in nothing and am tolerant of everything!”

Cultural Determinism

The linchpin of Cultural Marxism is cultural determinism, the parent of identity politics and group solidarity. In its turn, cultural determinism was birthed by the Darwinian idea that man is but a soulless animal and therefore his identity is determined by, for example, his skin color or his sexual and/or erotic preferences. This proposition rejects the concepts of the human spirit, individuality, free will, and morally informed conscience (paired with personal accountability and responsibility) because it emphatically denies the existence of the God of the Bible.

Consequently, and by extension, it also rejects the first principles of our liberty enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. These are our “unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Cultural Marxism must reject these because these principles of liberty “are endowed by our Creator,” who made man in His image. Cultural determinism, states David Horowitz, is

“Identity politics – the politics of radical feminism, queer revolution, and Afro-centrism – which is the basis of academic multiculturalism…a form of intellectual fascism and, insofar as it has any politics, of political fascism as well.” (Mussolini and Neo-Fascist Tribalism: Up from Multiculturalism, by David Horowitz, Jan. 1998)

It is said that courage is the first of the virtues because without it fear will paralyze man, thus keeping him from acting upon his moral convictions and speaking truth. Thus bringing about a general state of paralyzing fear, apathy, and submission – the chains of tyranny – is the purpose behind psychopolitical cultural terrorism, for the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda must, at all costs, be clothed in darkness.

The antidote is courage and the light of truth. If we are to win this cultural war and reclaim and rebuild America so our children and their children’s children can live in a ‘Shining City on the Hill’ where liberty, families, opportunity, free markets, and decency flourish, we must muster the courage to fearlessly expose the communist Left’s revolutionary agenda to the Light of Truth. Truth and the courage to speak it will set us free.

from Conservative Underground Archives via Sword-at-the-ready

More Left-Wing Propaganda From SFGate: Fighting William B. Shockley Park

It's truly amazing how much of the SFGate is little more than left wing propaganda, funneled to it from various leftist advocacy groups and printed - often verbatim - with absolutely no journalistic integrity whatsoever.

Today's exercise is an article written, most likely, by the ACLU, and funneled through "reporter" Justin Wiley, on efforts to thwart a move by the Auburn Area Recreation and Park District to name a piece of land after Nobel Prize-winner William B. Shockley and his wife - who donated the land (and $50,000 for upkeep) to the District.

In March, the Auburn Area Recreation and Park District board voted 3-2 to accept the tract, along with $50,000 for park upkeep. A coalition that includes the NAACP and American Civil Liberties Union will try today to persuade the board to reverse that decision.

Jim Updegraff, chairman of the Sacramento County chapter of the ACLU, stressed that this is not a question of free speech. "We don't feel that was the proper action for the board to take. It is an insult to people of color and anyone in the Placer area with an IQ under 100," Updegraff said.

Shockley won his Nobel Prize in physics in 1956 for his work on the solid-state transistor, along with fellow Bell Laboratories colleagues John Bardeen and Walter Brattain.

His book Electrons and Holes in Semiconductors, published in 1950, became the "bible" for an entire generation of scientists working to develop and improve new variants of the transistor and other devices based on semiconductors.

But who cares, right? The only thing that matters was his personal beliefs - among them being that the high birth rates of our stupidest citizens would eventually lead to our downfall.

On the Wikipedia page, it states "Shockley reasoned that because intelligence (like most traits) is inherited, the black population would, over time, become much less intelligent countering all the gains that had been made by the Civil Rights movement."

Anyone care to argue that this isn't exactly what has happened?

I don't see the fucking imbeciles at the ACLU arguing that Noam Chomsky's groundbreaking work in linguistics not be separated from his personal views. But then, of course, Chomsky is a leftist...

If it weren't for people like William B. Shockley, we'd still have vacuum tubes in all of our electronics, and hand held electronic devices would still be a dream.

"Shockley is the man who brought silicon to Silicon Valley."

Alan Partridge's Tour de France

Just thought I'd put this up for all of you following the Tour de France!

Numbers USA's Roy Beck With Encouraging News On Amnesty Battle - and What You Can Do To Keep It Going.

Roy Beck of Numbers USA has some great news for us all on recent developments in Washington regarding the huge DHS bill and several pro-American, anti-amnesty proposals that have made their way into it...

What a week!

And, yes, the results were just as wonderful and just as scary as you might hope and fear.

Most of you are shocked by the Senate's passage of 4 strong immigration enforcement amendments that would open up hundreds of thousands of jobs to unemployed Americans over the next year alone. Maybe even millions of jobs!

The Sessions E-Verify amendment. The DeMint fence amendment. The Vitter no-match amendment. The Grassley E-Verify amendment.

Rightfully, many of you are skeptical. You are asking us: Did the Senate Democratic Leadership -- that has opposed everything that favors unemployed Americans over illegal aliens -- suddenly "allow" us to win as a kind of trap? What's the trick?

First, you really do need to take a minute to celebrate (just a little). Your pressure has caused the Democratic leadership to retreat a bit. The fact that congressional leaders believe that they have to concede some victories to us shows that your efforts are having some effect.

But, based on our information from inside Congress, we should expect that Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Pelosi and Pres. Obama have every intention of killing these amendments in a backroom maneuver when the joint Conference Committee negotiates the final bill to be sent to the President. (See below.)

NEXT 2 WEEKS OUR BEST CHANCE FOR IMPROVEMENT THIS YEAR

Friends, we spend most of our time trying to get good legislation just looked at somewhere.

We are in a totally different -- and better -- position at this moment. What we have now is amazingly good legislation already passed by the U.S. Senate -- by easy margins! The good stuff is on the table. It's on its way to law. It is ours to lose right now. We haven't been in a better position than this in a very long time. Instead of fighting for our lives to stop something really bad, we have something very good to protect and preserve.

Our Action Buffet team already has several important faxes for you to send from your corkboard to protect the 4 Amendments. But we will come back to you Monday with another task, and perhaps a number of others during the week. One of our Capitol Hill Team told me late last night that there is no reason to save energy for any other time -- NOW is the time to mobilize everything we have.

As you fight, remember that you aren't fighting just for yourself or your family but for 15 million Americans and their families who currently are desperately searching for a job but can't find one.

If you win in keeping these enforcement amendments in the DHS bill, hundreds of thousands of jobless families will once again have income, benefits and the hope of not having their houses foreclosed. Is that enough incentive?

We are highly unlikely to get a better chance to make a huge humanitarian difference the rest of the year.

(and here Roy explains why - despite repeatedly winning votes to improve border security and workplace enforcement - nothing ever seems to get done...)

YOU HAVE TO STOP A REPEAT OF THE FEBRUARY BETRAYAL BY R-O-P-E

In February, I told you about the R-O-P-E killing of really tough enforcement measures that had been passed by the House as part of the Stimulus Bill.

R-O-P-E is my short-hand for where all federal power is currently concentrated: Reid-Obama-Pelosi-Emanuel (White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel).

Although U.S. citizens elect 535 Members of Congress to represent them, the four members of the R-O-P-E team currently have almost dictatorial power when House and Senate bills go into a Conference Committee negotiating session. Many of you find it hard to believe but that is what has been happening. And this is what will happen with the Homeland Security spending bill just passed by the Senate and the one earlier passed by the House.

If the Conference process this time is like for the Stimulus Bill and most others this year, this is what will happen next week:

1. R-O-P-E and their staffers will meet in secret and decide which things to keep and which to throw out of the two bills.

2. Democratic Senators and Representatives on the Conference Committee will be told by their leaders that they have to accept the decisions and vote for the R-O-P-E package with out alteration.

3. The R-O-P-E package then will be brought back to both Senate and House where Members won't want to vote against the overall spending bill just because they oppose the removal of the workplace protections for workers against illegal aliens. Unemployed Americans will lose again.

But like the Ghost of Christmas Future told Scrooge, this is not the future that has to happen. Please open all of our Action Alerts and come back to this website daily for suggestions of ways that you can persuade R-O-P-E and the Democratic Conferees to leave the 4 Enforcement Amendments in the bill.

ROLL CALL VOTES GOT TOO SCARY -- REID PROTECTED HIS DEMOCRATIC SENATORS BY ALLOWING FINAL AMENDMENTS TO PASS EASILY BY VOICE VOTE... WITH LIKELY PROMISE TO RIP THEM OUT LATER

The first two votes on Wednesday (Sessions and DeMint amendments) were by roll call. For the first time this year, our side won -- handily with the help of 12 Democrats and an Independent.

Viewers of C-SPAN Immediately saw Vitter's and Grassley's enforcement amendments come up, and it looked like they would enjoy the same roll call victories.

But Reid stopped the process for lunch.

When the Senators returned, the Vitter and Grassley amendments were nowhere to be seen for the rest of the day and much of Thursday. The momentum in our direction had been temporarily interrupted.

The roll call votes were very threatening to Reid's Democratic Caucus. They were forcing Senators either (a) to anger the majority of their constituents by taking the side of illegal aliens and outlaw businesses, or (b) to anger the special-interest open-borders groups by siding with unemployed Americans against illegal employment.

Most of the rest of the year, Reid solved that dilemma by using parliamentary powers to just keep any of our amendments from ever coming up for a vote. But NumbersUSA's members and many others have pounded Reid mercilessly this year for such high-handed, undemocratic efforts. For some reason, Reid decided he would allow the Vitter and Grassley enforcement amendments to come up even though they were sure to pass.

But insisting on a voice vote with no position recorded for any Senator would protect the Members of his Caucus.

Passing on voice vote was not a sign that the amendments didn't have substantial opposition among the Senators. In fact, it was just the opposite. But the open-borders Senators realized they couldn't beat them and they didn't want to be held accountable for opposing them.

Passing on voice vote did indicate that nearly everybody in the Senate recognized that most Americans would not understand how somebody representing the U.S. national community could vote against those amendments.

Often in these kind of circumstances, the Majority Leader assures opponents of a measure that allowing it to pass will not matter because it will be ripped out of a bill in the Conference Committee.

That is why we are at such a dangerous point. All can be lost easily over the next few days. But so much can also be won if we pull away the curtains that hide the shameful pandering to special interests and shine the light of day on all the proceedings.

Take action now. And please open all emails I send you these next two weeks.

WHAT THE AMENDMENTS WOULD GIVE US

The 4 Enforcement Amendments we are trying to save would do far more than give unemployed Americans a much better shot at jobs than they have had.

They would also reverse what will otherwise be an even worse shot at jobs because of decisions being made this month by Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano. She is systematically gutting the moderate level of enforcement at the end of the Bush Administration and providing a de facto amnesty to most illegal aliens.

If the 4 Amendments are not kept in the bill, the result of Napolitano's new orders will be that far more returning veterans and other Americans will be unemployed as far more illegal aliens get to keep and obtain U.S. jobs.

Here is what is at stake:

SESSIONS AMENDMENT

• Authorizes E-Verify permanently. It would not be a program that is constantly under threat. Congress could always decide at some point that it wants to terminate the program, but it wouldn't be automatically on the chopping block every few months as is now the case.

Napolitano wants the program to be threatened with elimination again in two years.

• Mandates that if a company has a federal contract, every new person hired within the entire company would have to be checked through E-Verify.

Napolitano's new proposal would require E-Verify only for new hires for the federal contract itself. The company could still hire illegal aliens for its other operations. Then if the company transferred the illegal alien into the contract project, he/she would NOT have to go through E-Verify. This creates a huge loophole.

• Mandates that ALL people working on the government contract would have to be put through E-Verify, even those who have previously worked for the company for years.

Napolitano makes no provision for rooting out previously hired illegal foreign workers (click here to watch Sen. Sessions speaking about his amendment on the Senate floor).

DeMINT AMENDMENT

• Requires the completion of the 700-mile fence along the Mexican border by the end of 2010.

VITTER AMENDMENT

• Activates a no-match notification system that not only informs employers of all their workers with bad Social Security numbers but tells them to fire the ones who can't correct the problem.

Napolitano this week issued a decree that she was ending this no-match system that was started by the Bush Administration but which was stopped before it was implemented because of law suits by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and leftist open-borders organizations.

The Vitter amendment would potentially alert businesses, non-profits and governments about several million of the 8 million illegal aliens estimated to currently hold a job. Advocates for illegal workers are hysterical about this provision and fear it could drive a large segment of the illegal population out of the country. Every one of those jobs would then be open to unemployed Americans.

Currently, if you are an illegal alien who has been working at a job since before an employer started using E-Verify, the law forbids an employer from running you through E-Verify.

GRASSLEY AMENDMENT

• Allows any business, non-profit or government to voluntarily run all their existing employees through E-Verify.

Large numbers of the 110,000 employers now using E-Verify would love to get all illegal aliens out of their work force. But the law forbids them to check on existing employees. They can only use E-Verify on new hires.

Grassley would allow patriotic employers to make sure that all their jobs are available to returning veterans and other American citizens and legal immigrants.

BOTTOM LINE

Can you believe that any Senator really would like to face voters and explain why they would be opposed to any of those four measures?

Some will try to claim that E-Verify is unreliable. That is nothing but nonsense. E-Verify has a higher accuracy rate than almost any program of government. And no U.S. citizen or legal immigrant has ever been reported as fired on order of the E-Verify system.

The only reason to oppose these measures is because a Senator wants 8 million illegal aliens to keep their jobs -- and is willing for 8 million returning veterans and other Americans to be without a job as a result.

Your message to every Senator should be similar to the message we need to deliver to Pres. Obama:

President Obama, I expect you to instruct your staff to keep all immigration enforcement in the DHS Appropriations bill during the Conference Committee process.

In February, your people conspired with Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to kill the House E-Verify provisions. And you did it behind closed doors, without explanation. That isn't going to work again this time. The nation's eyes will be on whether you condemn hundreds of thousands of unemployed Americans to continued joblessness because you overturn the Senate's enforcement amendments and favor the hiring of illegal foreign workers.

If you have never before raised your voice to your elected representatives and told them to STOP favoring illegal workers over American citizens, to STOP aiding and abetting the wholesale violation of our borders and our sovereignty, then NOW IS THE TIME TO START.

Go to Numbers USA's Action Buffet, register, and fax your representatives for free using their system. You can alter the suggested wording and add your own comments (resist the urge to use profanity, please!).

The pressure that millions of Americans just like you has put on these officials is the ONLY reason why we don't have a full amnesty and completely open borders right now!

And here's another thing to consider... if it were just a matter of obstructionism by a Republican minority, we would also be under an amnesty. The fact that we don't have an amnesty is thanks in part to the many DEMOCRATS who - under tremendous pressure from their constituents - could not swallow that final pill, and went against the elite's wishes and voted (sometimes reluctantly) to support Americans over illegal aliens.

I'm going to tell you something that not many people believe anymore... your voice DOES matter and it DOES make a difference.

My years following this issue has shown me that, contrary to what so many people in this country want to believe, Democracy is NOT dead. If it were, we wouldn't be talking about this. The fact that we still have immigration law - despite almost all of elitist opinion being 100% against it - is proof that the people's voice still matters.

Hold Strong Honduras!

The Government and People of Honduras are holding strong!

I really didn't expect this level of resolve, but I'm happy to say that the country is not backing down against pressure to re-install its Hugo Chavez wanna-be dictator Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted from power after attempting to hold a constitution-altering referendum which was deemed illegal by the Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Military (who run elections in Honduras).

The military blocked the runways at Tegucigalpa's airport and forced Zelaya's plane to go to El Salvador instead! Yeah!

The Chron printed a heavily biased pro-Communist account from Associated Press, some of which is here...

Already volatile Honduras slid toward greater instability after soldiers blocked an airport runway to keep ousted President Manuel Zelaya from returning, and protests that had remained largely peaceful yielded their first death.

Police and soldiers blanketed the streets of the capital overnight Monday — enforcing a sunset-to-sunrise curfew with batons and metal poles.

The extended curfew added to the tension after a turbulent Sunday that saw soldiers clash with thousands of Zelaya backers who massed at the airport in hopes of welcoming home their deposed leader.

Zelaya's plane, on loan from Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (what a shock), arrived to find the runway blocked by military vehicles and soldiers under the command of the government that has ruled this Central American country since Zelaya's ouster last weekend.

....

Clashes broke out Sunday afternoon between police and soldiers and the huge crowd of Zelaya supporters surrounding Tegucigalpa's international airport. At least one man was killed — shot in the head from inside the airport as people tried to break through a security fence, according to an Associated Press photographer at the scene. At least 30 people were treated for injuries, the Red Cross said, after security forces fired warning shots and tear gas.

When Zelaya's plane was turned away, his supporters began chanting "We want blue helmets!" — a reference to U.N. peacekeepers.

....

Zelaya won wide international support after his ouster, but several presidents who originally were to accompany him decided it was too dangerous to fly on Zelaya's plane, which carried only his close advisers and staff, two journalists from the Venezuela-based network Telesur and U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann, a leftist Nicaraguan priest and former foreign minister (which pretty much shows where the UN is coming from).

Honduras' new government has vowed to arrest Zelaya for 18 alleged criminal acts including treason and failing to implement more than 80 laws approved by Congress since taking office in 2006. Zelaya also refused to comply with a Supreme Court ruling against his planned referendum on whether to hold an assembly to consider changing the constitution.

Critics feared Zelaya might try to extend his rule and cement presidential power in ways similar to what his ally Chavez has done in Venezuela — though Zelaya denied that (but only after he was ousted).

But instead of prosecuting him or trying to defeat him at the ballot box, masked soldiers flew the president out of the country at gunpoint, and Congress installed Micheletti in his place.

All of the American MSM coverage, with the exception of op-eds, has been pro-Zelaya. They tell only one side of the story, that of the Zelaya faithful - mostly poor. Go ahead - try to even find a story in the mainstream media that gives any quotes from the anti-Zelaya forces.

I hope this can be maintained without a full scale war developing. Unlike leftists, I take no great pleasure in seeing people killed for any reason. But this is a bad situation; Chavez has clear imperialist designs on the entire region (check out ALBA if you don't believe me), and Zelaya is clearly Chavez' puppet. If he is allowed back in the country, he will try to become a dictator, and Chavez will no doubt send in troops.

If that happens, what would Jesus... sorry, Obama... do?

Quick Notes For the 4th

Saturday is the Fourth of July, the 233rd anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

For the few of you out there for whom this date still has some meaning beyond hot dogs, fireworks, or time-and-a-half, here's a few things coming up this weekend...

TEA PARTY II - The Tea Party movement, which emerged last Tax Day to remind the Government and its media lapdogs who pays the bills, is going for round 2. This will probably not be as big a deal as the first one (and will be assuredly ignored and ridiculed by the likes of MSNBC and other leftist trash), but nonetheless it's an important statement and one that will no doubt continue to grow as Obama's designs for the destruction of the USA become clearer and even a majority of the kool-aid drinkers start to wake up.

The official Tea Party website is here. There are no events planned in the City of San Francisco this time, but there are several around the Bay.

Also... the Golden Gate Minutemen will be in the Fremont 4th of July Parade again this year! Come out and support 'em! Starts at 10 am.

A Coup D'Etat? Really???

A New Paradigm In Central America?

So let's say you have a President (for the sake of argument, let's say it's this Obama guy)...

In 2012, several months before his 2nd term is up - and he is legally required to vacate the White House - Obama proposes a referendum which would, among other things, let him have a third term in office. The Supreme Court rules that the referendum is designed to overturn "set-in-stone" aspects of the Constitution - including the term limit - and is therefore illegal and unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, Obama orders the ballots to be distributed by the military (or whoever runs elections in your country). The Chief of the Army announces he won't violate the law by doing so. Obama sacks him, saying...


"We will not obey the Supreme Court," the president told cheering supporters in front of the presidential offices.

"The court, which only imparts justice for the powerful, the rich and the bankers, only causes problems for democracy," he said.

Obama then rounds up a large group of "supporters" and "liberates" the election materials from a local air force base - where they are being kept - and announces that the illegal and unconstitutional referendum will take place anyway, apparently with security provided by his new "buddies."

The Government, which has tried its best to stop this illegal and anti-democratic action, now has no choice but to depose the President. Put in his place is the next-in-line for President - a member of the President's own party - who says that elections will go on as planned and that he personally will not run.

Does this really constitute a "coup d'etat?"

Central America's Latest Wanna-be Dictator, with his
"pro-democracy" friends Castro and Chavez

... this is basically the situation going on in Honduras at the moment.

Around the world, countries are lining up to condemn the "coup d'etat," apparently preferring the consolidation of power into a Communist dictatorship, the expansion of Hugo Chavez' imperialist designs, and ultimately quite likely a civil war.

Apparently it would have been better if the illegal referendum had been allowed to go ahead, Zelaya had imposed himself as dictator for life, and have a civil war break out - most likely involving Venezuela and several other Communist countries coming to his rescue. Yeah... that would have been far better! The Government and military of Honduras evidently figured it would be better to have bloodless coup now than a bloody one in 8 months.



More....

Deposed Honduras Prez Accused of Drug Ties

Ousted President alienated many in Honduras


Plus Still More to Come...

HOORAY FOR HONDURAS!

-DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE ABOUT HONDURAS!

-WHAT HAPPENED THERE THIS WEEK WAS NOT A COUP D'ETAT!

-IT WAS THE ENTIRE GOVERNMENT MOBILIZING TO PREVENT THE SELF-CORONATION OF A HUGO CHAVEZ-BACKED COMMUNIST DICTATOR!

AND... WHAT A SURPRISE... OBAMA WANTS HIM BACK IN!

MORE TOMORROW!

San Francisco Justice: Cop-Killer Gets Probation

If anyone still has any questions about whether this state has even an ounce of sanity left, those questions should be thoroughly squashed as a racist cop-killer gets 5 years probation for killing an SFPD Officer with a shotgun inside a precinct lobby in 1971.


A key defendant in the slaying of a San Francisco police sergeant nearly 40 years ago pleaded guilty Monday to a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter and will be put on probation for that crime while he continues serving a life sentence for the murder of two New York police officers (uh... how does that work... how can you be on probation while you're in prison?).

Herman Bell made the plea in San Francisco Superior Court, just a week before the start of a preliminary hearing for him and six co-defendants in the death of Sgt. John Young, who was killed during an attack on the San Francisco Police Department's Ingleside Station on Aug. 29, 1971.

Bell said very little during Monday's hearing, other than to answer "yes" to questions posed to him by Judge Philip Moscone concerning whether he was aware of the rights he was waiving. Then Bell said simply, "I plead guilty."

Under terms of the plea deal, Bell will not testify against any of the other defendants in the case, and his guilty plea may not be used as evidence against anyone else.

(So... to recap... for murdering an SFPD Officer, Bell gets probation. In exchange for the lenient sentence he has to do nothing in return.)

Bell's attorney, Stuart Hanlon, said the plea agreement was a victory for Bell (ya think?).

"Mr. Bell was facing life without possibility of parole in a maximum security prison in California if convicted," he said in a press release he distributed after the hearing adjourned. In a previous interview with The Chronicle, Hanlon had said the trial in San Francisco presented a major hardship for his client (oh boo hoo). Bell has a life in the New York prison system, Hanlon said in a previous interview, and living in the San Francisco County Jail was much worse for him.

"His fight for freedom is in New York, where he will continue to fight for parole," Hanlon said Monday. "He has been a model prisoner while in New York, where he has gained several graduate degrees and started programs to help other inmates and the communities from which they come."

(Yup... you heard right... a man who killed two cops and is gunning for parole. So he admits to killing a third, and essentially he gets nothing... the fucking twat is still going to get parole. I would call this a great victory for racist killers everywhere.)

David Druliner, the lead state prosecutor in the case, cited unspecified legal issues and the passage of time in settling the Bell case, saying the plea includes an admission of guilt.

"It's the appropriate plea, under all the circumstances," he said. The manslaughter outcome, he said, includes a statement of acknowledged facts about the events surrounding the death of the police sergeant.

Druliner said the plea is the "first clear statement of guilt" from any of the defendants, who had previously denied guilt and who had alleged that they had been framed.

Hanlon had a different take on the plea.

"If they really believed Herman Bell is the executor of a (San Francisco) cop, how can they give him probation?"

I'll admit Druliner has a point... it might be worth it to finally get an admission of guilt from these racist trash - who, for over 30 years, have been lying and claiming they were "framed" by "the man" - but who were in fact murderers, rapists, and terrorists. And it might be worth it to finally shut up their apologists, who have been spouting the same tired bullshit.

I mean... I understand why a racist cop-killer acts the way he does (he's got nothing to lose, especially in this case)... and I'm beginning to understand how liberals apologize for them. Behind every apologist for a killer - and most death penalty opponents - is a deeply anti-social person whose beliefs are not so much dictated by any real caring for minorities or any real desire for justice - but are in fact motivated by a deep hatred of society and a desire to see innocent people hurt.

The Gun Debate (For Liberals)

Dear Liberal,

It’s time we talk. The debate over gun control is not about guns, it’s about culture, and here is how it works: You point to school shootings and other violence and say that it’s my fault because I support the right to keep and bear arms. I point to violent video games and sociopathic teenagers, and I say the problem is your fault, thanks to inadequately internalized values and morals.

But here’s the thing: Between guns and culture, only one thing has changed. Weapons have been in the hands of man since time immemorial. There is nothing special about semi-automatic “assault weapons.” In fact, until 1934 people could go out and buy fully automatic Thompson submachine guns, hand grenades or just about any other implement of destruction they could afford.

Admittedly, there were a limited number of mafia “hits” in which those weapons were used by unsavory characters to snuff out other unsavory characters. But I defy you to find a single instance in which a child of the 1930s took Daddy’s “Tommy Gun” to school and shot up his classroom.

We can debate merits of the 1960s another time (with pleasure), but I think we can both agree that, as a cultural standard, the innocence of “Leave It to Beaver” pretty much went the way of the dinosaur by the time of the 1968 Democratic National Convention.

Now that the flower children are all grown up (sort of) and produced self-esteem-dependent, atheistic children of their own, we are shocked to discover them to be inadequately socialized. Then, inevitably, they encounter a setback. It could be a romance gone wrong, perhaps rejection by an attractive social group. Whatever the catalyst, equipped with “my” weapons and “your” values, they cut loose on some campus somewhere.

Now, we could go the way of the Brits who, after the Dunblane massacre, banned everything in sight. Unfortunately, in this most perfect of gun control laboratories – an island nation with strict laws and tight borders – the result has been an explosion in crime…and yes, that especially includes gun crime.

It has also led their inadequately socialized post-60s kiddies to stab each other with such alarming regularity that the British have now begun to ban knives, leading us to the sad but inescapable conclusion that Brits can no longer be trusted with sharp objects.

On their present path, the nation of Winston Churchill and the “stiff upper lip” will soon ban running with scissors (if they are allowed scissors at all), and kitchen matches will be the stuff of museums, quite probably under surveillance cameras and armed guard.

Unfortunately, because you are liberal, and because liberalism seems to manifest itself as a pathological obsession to run my life, I can’t reason with you. Therefore, my only choice is to beat you. (Stop cowering: I mean metaphorically, not literally.)

My sole recourse is to marginalize you and reclaim my culture, and that is what I have set about doing. If not me, then my children. If not them, their children. We will make the Thirty Years’ War look like a trifle.

There. We’ve cleared the air. Don’t we all feel just a little better?

Sincerely,

A Conservative

by Paul Valone @ examiner.com

Illegal Alien Killer-gate Update: Ramos To Stand Trial For Triple Murder

Edwin "Babyface" Ramos - illegal alien, MS-13 gangster, and accused mass murderer - will stand trial after a judge waved off a bullshit ploy from the defense.


A San Francisco judge ordered a 22-year-old alleged gang member Monday to stand trial in the slaying of a father and his two sons, citing the testimony of a surviving family member who said he got a good look at the defendant's face as he opened fire on an Excelsior district street.

Ramos' attorney, Marla Zamora, expressed disappointment Monday, saying that her client drove the car carrying the gunman but did not pull the trigger (oh... well then he's a mother-fucking saint!). She said Ramos was not a gang member and had identified the killer, a man whom authorities have been unable to locate.

Ramos showed little reaction as Jackson read off the charges, only whispering to his lawyer.

The murder counts include special circumstances - for multiple killing and for an alleged gang motive - that make him eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted. District Attorney Kamala Harris says she opposes capital punishment (and pretty much any other kind of punishment) and has never sought the death penalty since taking office in 2004.

Tony Bologna's widow sobbed in the front row of the courtroom gallery as the judge announced her decision. Wearing sunglasses and dabbing at her face with tissues, Danielle Bologna reached back and clutched the hand of another family member. After the hearing concluded, she hugged relatives and cried out, over and over, "Thank you, God."

Outside court, prosecutor Harry Dorfman called the killings "a terrible crime. And now we need to go on to the next phase."

Asked about the defense's (bullshit) contention that another man shot the Bolognas, Dorfman said, "I agree with very little of what the defense argued today."

Zamora had strong words for police investigators and prosecutors in her closing remarks, saying, "Either they didn't want to get the real shooter or they felt a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush (maybe they should get O.J on it!)."

Ramos, who remains jailed without bail, was ordered to return to court for arraignment July 13.

A spokeswoman for Harris, Erica Derryck, said after the hearing that the case will be formally reviewed by a team of attorneys in the district attorney's office. They will "consider factors in mitigation and aggravation and make a recommendation to the district attorney" about what sentence to pursue should Ramos be convicted, Derryck said (like it's gonna matter... criminal loving bitch will probably not even push for LWOP).

Ramos had a record as a juvenile before the Bologna killings - a gang-related attack on a Muni passenger and an attempted assault on a pregnant woman, both of which he committed when he was 17.

So the odyssey continues... I hope the Bologna family gets a huge - no, HUMONGOUS - settlement from the City, that Harris' and Newsom's political careers go into the toilet where they belong, and that this City will grow a pair and stop coddling criminals from protected classes.

Just Seeing If You're Awake

I do not necessarily endorse this person's conclusions. In fact, the very idea that the Zapruder film may have been altered never occurred to me.

I still think LBJ was behind it.

OKAY... Who Are You and What Have You Done With the Chronicle's Editorial Dept?

Even the SF Chronicle - the most pro-illegal alien paper in the nation - has to face the truth sometime. And while it's not in any way a repudiation of support for a blatantly unfair, racist, and profoundly damaging policy, it may be an indication that the pendulum may have reached it's zenith.

Seriously... when even the Chronicle - a paper who, at best, is heavily slanted towards amnesty and, at worst, is nothing more than a propaganda arm for open-borders advocates - comes out with an editorial like this, it is cause for at least a little hope.


Sanctuary Has Its Limits


San Francisco is re-examining a fervently held political doctrine. The well-intentioned notion of offering sanctuary for undocumented immigrants has its limits, the city has learned the hard way.

Over the past two decades, the city moved from offering sanctuary for political refugees fleeing wars or repressive governments in Central America to a wider acceptance of all illegal immigrants, whose lives and families would be disrupted if forced to leave.

But two recent scandals have spotlighted excesses that badly needed correcting. It remains to be seen whether city leaders will follow through.

In the first case, Mayor Gavin Newsom was forced to cancel a quiet policy of escorting juvenile lawbreakers out of the country. In some cases, the youths re-entered the country illegally and were arrested again. The program operated at odds with the conventional - and commonsense - practice of referring young drug dealers who are here illegally to federal immigration officials for deportation.

Then, this past week, a praiseworthy job-training program run by District Attorney Kamala Harris was found to contain a serious flaw. At least a half dozen offenders were being schooled for jobs even though none were here legally - and thus were ineligible for the jobs for which they were being trained. Harris has reworked the Back on Track program to bar undocumented immigrants.

Plainly these two city leaders recognize that a ever-widening accommodation of undocumented immigrants has gone too far, though neither took action until negative publicity forced them to make their moves.

The sanctuary policy is not just a matter of humanity - there is a practical crime-solving value for local law enforcement to hold the trust of immigrant communities.

But that potential law-enforcement benefit is lost when a sanctuary city becomes a refuge for criminals. San Francisco's welcome mat must be withdrawn for undocumented immigrants who commit felonies.

Contained in the letters section was D.A. Kamala Harris' half-assed response to the initial story, which was mainly to defend her pet program and only to pay lip service to the immigration and violence issues involved...

District Attorney Harris defends Back on Track

The Chronicle's article about San Francisco's Back on Track initiative painted a distorted picture of this nationally recognized program that has reduced crime and saves money.

Back on Track is an innovative initiative that has achieved remarkable results. It has dramatically reduced recidivism - the re-offense rate - among its targeted population (nonviolent, first-time, low-level drug offenders). In California, more than half (54 percent) of drug offenders commit additional crimes. However, fewer than 10 percent of Back on Track graduates in San Francisco re-offend (of the only 53% who actually graduate). That's why Back on Track was adopted as a national model by the National District Attorneys Association.

In addition to cutting crime, Back on Track is saving taxpayers money. Back on Track costs $5,000 per participant, while taxpayers pay 10 times as much - about $50,000 - to house each inmate in county jail or the state prison. On top of that, taxpayers save even more money because the initiative reduces recidivism - keeping just 25 people from returning to jail for one year saves taxpayers $1.25 million. In a time of catastrophic budget shortages, we desperately need initiatives like this that improve public safety while saving money.

Only nonviolent offenders are eligible for Back on Track. As a veteran prosecutor, I do not hesitate to put people who commit serious and violent offenses behind bars (if only for a few hours).

Eligibility for Back on Track is restricted to individuals who are first-time, nonviolent, low-level offenders with no gang affiliations, no prior convictions and no "ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) holds" that suggest possible immigration issues. No one with an ICE hold has ever been allowed to enter the Back on Track program. Additionally, every participant must prove they are legally eligible to work before they are admitted to the program.

In the program, participants are under close court supervision while undergoing a mandatory, intensive personal responsibility program. They must go back to school, get a job, get current with child support and attend parenting classes. Back on Track combines close supervision and strict accountability - and has proved to save money and reduce crime. Everyday people who are fed up with the petty drug dealers repeatedly coming back to their neighborhoods need solutions that work.

The flaw in the initiative that The Chronicle pointed out was fixed when it came to my attention. No innovative initiative will ever be created without some unanticipated flaws to be fixed along the way, but this must not stop us from tackling tough problems with smart solutions.

KAMALA D. HARRIS

District Attorney

San Francisco

Harris is clearly more concerned about her pet program than any of the people hurt by it. Harris goes on and on about the offenders, with not even one passing mention of the crimes they have committed and the people they have hurt.

And that right there is the crux of the matter: that is the very singular reason why Kamala Harris is a disgrace to her profession, a compete phony and a fraud, and someone who should be kept as far away from the State Attorney General's Office as possible.

You see... Kamala Harris loves criminals.

To someone like her, a criminal is just a person who has been dealt a raw hand, had some troubles, and became desperate. It is only because of bad circumstances that people commit crimes, and that even the most cold-blooded killer is just a human being worthy of our compassion.

And I'm sorry, but that is just plain wrong. It is ethically, morally, intellectually, and spiritually wrong.

Call me old-fashioned... but I believe that a law enforcement officer (and a just society) should have a healthy antipathy towards those who victimize others. To claim otherwise is not "justice." It is putting the criminal and the victim on the same moral footing. And that is seriously fucked up.

Chron's Jaxon Van Derbeken Accepts Eugene Katz Award

Now this one's kinda long, and kind of painful at times (Debra Saunders will not be winning any public speaking awards soon...) but worth the effort.

Jaxon Van Derbeken has been a shining diamond in the steaming turd known as the San Francisco Chronicle's reporting on immigration.

Chances are that, if it weren't for Jaxon, San Franciscans would be reading the sordid details of the City's illegal immigrant criminal shield in the LA Times or somewhere else from outside the Bay Area.

The Eugene Katz award is given out by the Center for Immigration Studies.

Jaxon's acceptance of the award (and the undisclosed amount of cash that went along with it) caused a lot of whining and gnashing-of-teeth by the local "Death to America!" Communists - who were outraged that a reporter in a paper from New Sodom would accept an award from (GASP!) a "right-wing group!"

Oh the humanity!!!

(As mentioned in the previous post, "right-winger" is roughly equivalent to "child molester" in San Fran, though not quite - child molesters are held in much higher regard than right wingers.)

Is the CIS a right wing group? Well... if you consider maintaining America's sovereignty as "right wing," if you consider enforcement of immigration laws as "right wing," if you think that being concerned over the massive amounts of immigration to the US - legal and illegal - is "right wing," if you believe that displaying concern that these massive immigration increases consist almost entirely of poor, third worlders with little education is "right wing," and, finally, if you believe that having grave suspicions about the motives of the politicians, activists, and businesses that are seemingly hell bent on systematically altering the genetic make-up of the country through massive third world immigration is "right wing," then.... yeah, they're a right wing group.

And besides, the Southern Poverty Pimp Center says so!

Keeping The Heat On Kamala

As of today, three of SFGate's Top 10 most commented stories have to do with the Kamala Harris/illegal alien criminal shield/Ramos murders story.

We will start with SFGate's Jaxon Van Derbeken's re-hash of the story broken by the LA Times covered (thoroughly) in the last post:


San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris' office on Monday defended allowing about a half dozen first-time drug offenders to clear their records by going through a job-training program, even after prosecutors learned they were deportable as undocumented immigrants.

But Harris' aides said they have since made changes in the program that would prevent a recurrence of instances in which illegal immigrants got their criminal records cleared by going through the Back on Track jobs program, which trains offenders for jobs that undocumented immigrants legally would be prevented from holding (Yeah... right. Sure they have. I'll believe that when an independent non-San Francisco government entity verifies that).

The Los Angeles Times first reported (ouch!) Monday that illegal immigrants had been enrolled in the program and that Harris' office had let several graduate and go free even after learning of their status.

The fallout Monday highlighted the pitfalls that could lie ahead for San Francisco politicians seeking higher office from a statewide electorate more conservative than the city's.

Last year, Mayor Gavin Newsom, who is now a candidate for governor, ordered juvenile justice officials to stop shielding illegal immigrant youths who commit crimes from possible deportation. On Monday, it was Harris, a candidate for attorney general, who came under scrutiny on the illegal immigration issue.

Not S.F.'s job

Harris was quoted in the Times as saying that enforcing federal immigration law was not the job of local authorities (though apparently breaking federal immigration law is). The district attorney was explaining how her office handled the case of Alexander Izaguirre, an illegal immigrant from Honduras who had been enrolled in the Back on Track program in July when he allegedly robbed a woman of her purse in Pacific Heights, then got into an SUV that drove into the victim (nearly killing her).

The woman, Amanda Kiefer, 30, suffered a fractured skull. She said in an interview Monday that she had gotten a good look at Izaguirre and the SUV driver.

"They were both laughing," Kiefer said.

Izaguirre, then 20, was one of at least seven undocumented immigrants (ILLEGAL ALIENS DAMMIT!) who participated the Back on Track program, which Harris created in 2005 as a way of reducing the number of drug offenders sent to overcrowded county jails and state prisons. In all, 113 people have successfully completed the program, with 99 failures, according to prosecutors' statistics.

Sold drugs in Tenderloin

Izaguirre was enrolled in the program after admitting to dealing drugs to an undercover officer in the Tenderloin in late 2007. He had two previous arrests, one for drugs and the other for purse snatching, records show. The charges were dropped.

The district attorney told the Times that she had not known Izaguirre was an illegal immigrant until after he was arrested for the alleged assault. Harris did not return repeated phone calls for comment Monday, and representatives of her office said she was not available.

Sheriff's deputies, who run the city's jails, screened Izaguirre after his drug arrest Dec. 7, 2007, and determined that he could fit the profile for reporting to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, sheriff's spokeswoman Eileen Hirst said.

But Hirst said there is no record of whether deputies had actually referred Izaguirre to immigration officials, who could then have asked the city to put a hold on his release. She added that the department did not keep records of referrals at the time, but now does. ("Blame the Sheriff" is a familiar refrain here. We hear it again and again. And again... I will believe the City when an independent auditor proves that the City is not shielding illegal alien criminals - they cannot be taken at their word. Either the Sheriff's department is really incompetent, or their in on the whole deal.)

Feds have a hold now

Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the agency placed a hold on Izaguirre in August, after he was arrested in the alleged robbery. He is still in custody awaiting trial on robbery and assault charges.

Assistant District Attorney Sharon Woo, who oversees the Back on Track program, said Monday that prosecutors had assumed that offenders who sought to enroll were here legally because they had been screened by the Sheriff's Department.

After Izaguirre was arrested in the alleged assault, however, Harris' office checked and learned that six other offenders enrolled in Back on Track were not qualified to work in the United States, presumably because they were illegal immigrants.

Woo said all had been in the yearlong program for at least eight months and had been meeting all of the requirements, so Harris' office allowed them to finish the program early and have their criminal records expunged.

'Design flaw'

"Those individuals were in the program for a long period," Woo said. "When we realized there was a design flaw and they were without the ability to show they could work here legally," she said, her office "sat down and asked, 'What are we supposed to do here?'" (This alleged "design flaw" copout is bull... this agency, this government, is ALL ABOUT protecing and shielding illegal aliens. The only "flaw" was that it got exposed.)

Prosecutors concluded that they had struck what was in essence a contract with the offenders, who had fulfilled everything that was required of them.

Woo said that the "flaw" in the program had been fixed after Izaguirre's arrest and that the program now asks all those who apply whether they can legally work here ("Are you here illegaly? No? Then you're in!" What bullshit!).

Kiefer, reached in Michigan, where she moved after the attack, called the idea of clearing illegal immigrants' criminal records "crazy" (not to mention "fucked up, treasonous, insane...").

"We should be spending our tax dollars on our own citizens, not on people who are allowed to stay here after committing crimes," she said.

"I understand the whole sanctuary city thing - if people aren't causing any problems, why waste time and resources going after them?" Kiefer said. "But if they are committing crimes, they should not be here."

Here's a few choice comments from among the 993 (and counting) left by SFGate readers:

jorgeone: "Harris should be fired." (Thumbs up: 2061, Thumbs Down 80)

janicefreeman27: "Kamala Harris is the flaw in the design along with SF mayor Gavin Newsom. They have both greatly helped san francisco turn into a cesspool of what was once a great city." (Thumbs up: 1900, Thumbs down: 93)

nr5667: "She still planning on running for state AG? S.F must be an insular little republic if its politicians think they have a change outside the tip of the peninsula..."

nezumi: "I'm proud to state that I'm native San Franciscan whose family has been here since shortly after the Gold Rush and that there is not a life form at City Hall that I voted for. The Mayor and DA should be indicted on Federal Criminal Charges too numerous to expand on here; shall we start with aiding and abetting, harboring criminals, fraud, etc. No Sacramento for you KH, hope you are still on Willie's list or you will need Care Not Cash to remain in The City."

NOMAMA: "DEMAND AN FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HER, HER OFFICE & HER FINANCES."

chroncensored: "Wait till Edwin Ramos doesn't get charged with the Death Penalty. He will probably be charges with accidental firearms discharge and allowed to sue the Bolona's for unlawfully portraying gangsters. Then he'll sue and win 20 million dollars and start a scholarship under Kamala Walla Ding Dongs name. Something about "culturally affirming activities" Ar least GAVIN is breathing easier, his name ain't come up yet! Remember, the liberal stooges elected her TWICE, ONCE UNOPPOSED!"

etf: "How many times do these illegals have to do harm to citizens of this country before they are punished? How many more citizens have to be robbed or murdered? Elected officials like Harris have made the constitution of this country one big joke. It only protects illegals! What a sad state of affairs. Is there any wonder at all as to why this state is turning into a third world environment? Just look around. I've live in SF since 1973 and no longer recognize it. It's becoming more of a border town due to the so called progressive agendas. Newsom, Fong and Harris. What a huge void of leadership. SF is the Titanic and no one at city hall is going to take the helm and steer the ship away from the icebergs. SF leaders keep telling us that it's not an iceberg, but only ice cubes."

BerkeleyBW: "Public safety is obviously the last thing on the minds of people in the DA's office. It never occurs to them that their stupid policy decisions make the city more dangerous. As Adam Smith observed, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent."

tax_revolt: "edlim said Ah hahaha California is doomed to become a 3rd World State of Mexico.

????????????
.
What are you talking about? Compared to Mexico we've already dropped to fourth world status, no respectable third world nation would pay as much as California for the pleasure of being invaded and rearranged, since that makes them smarter the only place left is fourth.

idiotnoir: "what a country! not only do we let illegal aliens into our country to steal jobs from americans and drive down wages, we will train them so they can steal even better jobs from americans!"

end_timer2: "This goes far beyond simply voting her out of office. This idiot woman DA is responsible for countless deaths that are the direct result of her NOT DOING HER JOB!! Refusing to prosecute violent gang criminals, enabling illegal immigrants to avoid arrest and deportation and coming up with insane arguments for why her office cannot and will not prosecute criminal defendants. There needs to be an investigation by the Feds and the FBI of Harris and the DA's office, as I suspect corruption on her part, probably involving large sums of money in offshore bank accounts, coming from drug gangs in return for her making sure there are no prosecutions of certain gang members/illegal immigrant gang members. There can be no other reason for her actions, except total incompetence on her part. And if that is the case, then she needs to be removed as DA, and replaced with someone who knows how to prosecute criminals so they get put away for their crimes."

And so on and so on and so on.

But... you should know that not everyone is miffed at Harris and her sorry D.A.'s office (just 99% of them)...

In fact, there are some who are actually standing up and backing the D.A. with Don Quixote-like zeal...

BeyondChron - an ultra-left website run by the Tenderloin Housing Clinic and funded from the taxpayer trough - ran a piece called "Chronicles Unfair Hit On Kamala" that mostly bitched about the link that ran with the piece to her opponents' press release calling for Harris to release recidivism statistics for her "success stories" (the link has since been removed from SFGate, but can be seen here).

You see... Harman is a (gasp) "right-winger!"

Calling someone a "right-winger" in San Fran is like calling someone a "child molester" anywhere else (child molesters are held in much higher regard in S.F. than right-wingers).

Beyond Chron implies that the "attack" may have been due to sour grapes over being scooped by the LA Times, and nowhere does BC take the story on its merits - in short, it was a very fair "hit" on a crooked politician.

Another Nail In Kamala's Koffin?

San Fran's criminal-coddling excuse for a District Attorney Kamala Harris has received yet another blow to her hopes to become California's chief criminal-coddler; the Los Angeles Times (of all people) has reported that yet another illegal alien criminal went on to commit vicious crimes against American citizens after being shielded from deportation by the City government.

The assault on Amanda Kiefer at dusk in San Francisco's posh Pacific Heights was extraordinary enough for its cruelty.

A stranger, later identified as Alexander Izaguirre, snatched her purse and hopped into an SUV, police say. The driver sped forward to run Kiefer down. Terrified, she leaped onto the hood and saw Izaguirre and the driver laughing. The driver slammed on the brakes, propelling Kiefer to the pavement. Her skull fractured. Blood oozed from her ear.

Only after the July 2008 attack did Kiefer learn of the crime's political ramifications. Izaguirre, police told her, was an illegal immigrant who had pleaded guilty four months earlier to a drug felony for selling cocaine in the seedy Tenderloin area.

He had avoided prison when he was picked for a jobs program run by San Francisco Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris, now a candidate for California's top law enforcement post. In effect, Harris' office had been allowing Izaguirre and other illegal immigrants to stay out of prison by training them for jobs they cannot legally hold.

The program, Back on Track, is a centerpiece of Harris' campaign for state attorney general. Until questioned by The Times about the Izaguirre case, Harris, a Democrat, had never publicly acknowledged that the program included illegal immigrants. In interviews last week, she and her office offered inconsistent explanations.

Izaguirre's trial this fall for the Kiefer attack -- his arrest forced him out of the program and into jail -- will put Harris in the middle of the controversy over San Francisco's lax policies toward illegal immigrants.

The city has a history of shielding some illegal immigrant criminals from deportation. The assault on Kiefer occurred just a month after a triple homicide in San Francisco that put Mayor Gavin Newsom on the spot over the city's repeated release of Edwin Ramos, the illegal immigrant accused of the slayings.

Izaguirre's assault arrest, by contrast, drew almost no public attention.

Kiefer, then 29, was walking with a friend to a restaurant when the attack occurred. To her (and, indeed to anyone else with a brain), it makes no sense that the D.A.'s office would set Izaguirre free after his earlier drug arrest -- or enroll him and other illegal immigrant felons in Back on Track.

(But, sadly, this makes perfect sense to San Francisco's pussified leftists. Illegal Immigrants - particularly Hispanic illegal immigrants - are, for all practical intents and purposes, a protected class in San Francisco.

"If they've committed crimes and they're not citizens, then why are they here?" Kiefer asked. "Why haven't they been deported?"

(And, perhaps more to the point, why has the U.S. Attorney's Office done NOTHING while American citizens are being victimized? I do not expect the race-baiting, criminal-coddling City of San Francisco to stand up for the rights of its citizens, but I would like to think that the U.S. Attorney's Office would at least take an interest.)

Harris said she first learned that illegal immigrants were training for jobs in Back on Track when Izaguirre, then 20, was arrested for the Kiefer assault and other crimes on a purse-snatching spree.

Izaguirre had been selected for the program after two arrests within eight months; an alleged purse-snatching preceded his arrest for selling cocaine. Because completion leads to the expunging of a felony conviction, the program has a waiting list of potential entrants. Selections are made solely by the district attorney's office.

It was a mistake, Harris said, to let illegal immigrants into the program, a "flaw in the design."

"I believe we fixed it," Harris said in an interview at her office in San Francisco. "So moving forward, it is about making sure that no one enters Back on Track if they cannot hold legal employment."

Exactly how many illegal immigrants have been included since the program began four years ago is not publicly known.

Harris said that after Izaguirre's arrest she never asked -- and has never learned -- how many illegal immigrants were in the program. Sharon Woo and Sharon Owsley, the prosecutors who oversee the program, said they too never asked and have never learned the number.

But after the interviews, Harris spokeswoman Erica Derryck said the D.A.'s office had in fact "assessed who would not have been able to meet" the new requirement for legal papers to obtain a job.

"We deliberated on how best to handle this group, given that they entered the program under different criteria," Derryck said -- in other words, as illegal immigrants.

The San Francisco chapter of Goodwill Industries International handles day-to-day oversight of Back on Track participants for the D.A.'s office. Carlos Serrano-Quan, a Goodwill supervisor, said it appeared that fewer than a dozen illegal immigrants had been in the program.

Whatever the number, Harris said that once she realized that illegal immigrants were enrolled, she (STILL!) allowed those who were following the rules to finish the program and have their criminal records cleared. It is not the duty of local law enforcement, she said, to enforce federal immigration laws (but apparently in San Francisco, it is the duty of law enforcement to WILLFULLY VIOLATE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW AT EVERY TURN! Again... where is the mother-fucking U.S. Attorney's Office?).

"My issue was more, what are we going to do to prevent this from happening in the future?" she said.

Some of the illegal immigrants were allowed to graduate before finishing an entire 12 months of the program, as normally required, according to the D.A.'s spokeswoman.

"The whole point of the program," Harris said, "is that these people would be able to obtain and hold down lawful employment, and if they're undocumented, they probably would not be able to do that, so it would go against the very spirit of the program" to continue admitting them.

Harris, 44, was elected district attorney in 2003 and reelected in 2007. She designed Back on Track to help young adults who are arrested once for selling drugs; the goal is to help them avoid falling into a life of crime. Like cities and counties across the nation, San Francisco was already running several programs with that goal.

Back on Track participants agree to plead guilty to a drug felony and spend a year in the program, a mix of community service, employment and life-skills training, family counseling and English lessons for those who need them. While in the program, they are free to live where they wish.

Even natural adversaries of the district attorney have applauded Back on Track.

"It's very innovative for the district attorney to have a program like this," said Simin Shamji, a deputy public defender in San Francisco. It might work better, she said, if the D.A.'s office ceded some control and collaborated more with social service agencies.

Over the last four years, 113 admitted drug dealers have graduated from the program, while 99 were yanked for failing to meet the requirements and sentenced under their guilty plea, according to the D.A.'s office.

(OKAY OKAY OKAY! TIME OUT! Let's take a look at those last three paragraphs again. This fucking stupid program is being touted as a "success" and "innovative" and then in the very next fucking line, it is admitted that it has an 47% FAILURE RATE! FUCKING HELL!

If this... THIS... is the future of law enforcement than we might as well all slit our wrists now. This is the future of FAILURE!

Oh, and by the way, the public defender's and D.A.'s offices may be natural adversaries in a normal world, but here in batshit San Francisco, they often work towards the same goals, which usually involve less or no punishment for criminals.)

Harris said graduates of the program are far less likely than other offenders to commit crimes again, but her spokeswoman declined to provide detailed statistics (because she's a fucking liar).

In her campaign for attorney general, Harris calls Back on Track a model for a statewide approach to preventing crime and easing prison overcrowding (again, because she's a fucking liar).

The campaign has consumed much of Harris' time in recent months. Last week, she was raising money at homes in Calabasas, Studio City, Pacific Palisades and Hollywood.

Harris' liberal San Francisco pedigree will pose challenges in a statewide race, particularly her 2004 vow to "never charge the death penalty." That pledge will be put to the test in the upcoming murder trial of Ramos, the illegal immigrant accused in the shooting deaths of a man and his two sons. Harris has not announced whether she will seek the death penalty (She won't... though if she did it would just go to show what a calculating, conniving backstabber she is.)

Now, the Izaguirre case adds a new complication to her campaign.

"The immigration issue, as it relates to the Izaguirre case, obviously is a huge kind of pimple on the face of this program," Harris acknowledged. An instant later, she regretted the metaphor, saying, "I don't mean to trivialize it, nor do I mean to cover it up." (Obviously to this fucking bitch, the assaults, rapes, and murders of American citizens are a small price to pay for the maintenance of this failed criminal-coddling program.)

Handcuffed and wearing an orange jail uniform, Izaguirre appeared Wednesday in a San Francisco courtroom. He told a judge he would plead guilty to robbery for the July 2008 purse-snatchings. But for reasons that were left unclear, he then abruptly withdrew the plea and backed out of a deal with prosecutors that would have put him in prison for three years and four months. His trial is set to begin Sept. 4 and he could be deported afterward.

"He is being prosecuted, and he will be deported with my full encouragement and support," Harris said (now that there's nowhere to hide).

Kiefer, who packages medical devices for a living, said she has left California for good, in part because of the trauma of nearly having been killed on her way to dinner last summer in Pacific Heights. Nearly a year later, she remains baffled that San Francisco authorities ever let Izaguirre and other illegal immigrant felons back onto the streets.

"If they're committing crimes," she said, "I think there's something wrong that they're not being deported."


Oh, there's something wrong all right... and it's not just with a few nutjobs like Harris... what is wrong is the entire City's attitude towards crime and illegal aliens specifically. There's also something deeply deeply wrong with a City that celebrates an American citizen fleeing for her life and an illegal alien criminal happily roaming the streets looking for more victims.

One of the main reasons I started this blog was to expose Kamala Harris for the heartless bitch that she is. San Fran's D.A.'s office is the laughing stock of the nation, and any comment from this office saying that they stand for law and order is an out-and-out lie; this D.A.'s office's primary concern is helping criminals - particularly non-white criminals - escape punishment.

We can only pray to whatever higher power we believe in that this criminal loving activist lawyer's chances at becoming Attorney General are thwarted. San Francisco is - and should be - the only place on God's green earth that a person like Harris could ever fool the people into thinking she's some kind of "crime fighter" - rather than an apologist and enabler for minority criminals.

And here's one final thought... this blog has taken on as its mission the exposure of this fraud, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that Kamala Harris NEVER becomes Attorney General of California. You can count on there being lots and lots of revelations as the election comes closer, and I will print every damn one of them.

The fact that Kamala Harris is seriously considered a candidate for Attorney General in California is proof of how far this state has slid down its moral sinkhole, proof that a large portion - if not a majority - of San Franciscans are insane by any measure of the word, and that the City itself is severely mentally ill.


Note: This version corrects a previous version in which I did some shoddy math and made the claim that Back on Track's failure rate was 88%. It is actually 47% according to the D.A.'s office figures. Also note that these "success stories" only graduated the program; no indication (and I doubt any will be forthcoming) as to how many of them re-offended.

When is a Hate Crime Not a Hate Crime? (Like I have To Ask...)

Cal State’s Brian Levin And The Case Of The Hate Crime That Wasn’t. (Guess Why Not), by Peter Bradley

Last week's shooting at the Holocaust Museum has made “hate crimes” a front page issue once again. It may give the stalled federal hate crimes bill the added boost it needs to become law. In James von Brunn, the media seems to have discovered its carefully created stereotype of a hate criminal: an old, bitter white man with a history of violence, who denies the Holocaust, despises non-whites and holds bizarre conspiracy theories.

The usual suspects have hustled to take advantage of their good fortune. Brian Levin (email him), a Cal State San Bernardino criminal justice professor and a "civil-rights attorney" who used to work with the Southern Poverty Law Center ($PLC), declared in a CNN.com article, Hate groups threatened by diversity:

"Yesterday, less than a mile from the White House, an old bigoted white man was suspected of firing back his response at the place where America tries to draw lessons from ... hatred. Yesterday's shooting is the latest in a series of murderous attacks by erratic far-right-wing extremist ‘lone wolves’ over the past three months. When shocking violence like this arises, commentators point to various factors including mental illness, political debates and the availability of guns.

“We, however, must first acknowledge the hand of a small but expanding hate movement as a potent, yet invisible, accomplice that incites and inspires society's disaffected to serve as its most violent warriors."

Levin mentions the pending hate crimes bill as "good news" near the end of his column.

Leftist blogs such as TPMCafe are exploiting the incident to push for censorship and/or punishment of views they don't like:

"Hate speech and hate crimes are sociological, not just psychological. It's ridiculous to look at one of these crimes from the shortened perspective of the point of the gun to the victim. It's much bigger than that. That's why I think it's a misconception to conclude any racist who takes someone's life 'acted alone' or is 'a lone wolf'

“Instigation is critical here. We need to make a serious assessment of those who disguise their hate speech as free speech." [When it comes to hate crimes, there's no such thing as "acting alone". June 10, 2009, 8:47PM]

But two weeks before the von Brunn shootings, The San Jose Mercury News ran a short article about a similar crime that was just as deadly as the Holocaust Museum incident.

The killers were motivated by the same type of hatred and extremism.

Yet, for some strange reason, the murder has attracted almost no attention or outrage.

In July 2007, Michael Wills, a white man, was shot and killed by two members of Your Black Muslim Bakery. As the name suggests, the bakery was a racial-nationalist outfit with ties to the Nation of Islam (the store even displayed a prominent picture of NOI founder Elijah Muhammed). Yusuf Bey IV, the leader of the now-defunct bakery, and Antoine Mackey, one of Bey's followers, were charged with shooting Wills in the head with an assault rifle.

The Mercury News article leaves no doubt as to the racial motive of the murder:

"Devaughndre Broussard, another Bey IV follower who has admitted to killing journalist Chauncey Bailey, told a prosecutor in March that Bey IV and Mackey bragged they killed Wills because of his race. The two saw him walking in North Oakland as they were discussing a string of racially motivated murders in the 1970s known as the Zebra killings.

“'They was laughing about and joking about,' Broussard said of Bey IV and Mackey.

“Mackey 'said he seen the white dude walking down the path ... then he shot him,' Broussard added.

“Bey IV later said, ‘We got a devil. White people are devils,’ according to Broussard's statement.

“Then Broussard said Bey IV talked about ‘a devil mentality. A black man can be a devil if he's against his people.’ Bey IV and his late father, bakery founder Yusuf Bey, have often, while preaching, referred to white people as ‘devils.’ And in telephone calls recorded from the Santa Rita Jail in Dublin and obtained by the Chauncey Bailey Project, Bey IV often made similar statements, referring to ‘white and Jew devils’ and ‘media devils’ whom he claims are trying to destroy him."

[Former bakery leader accused of saying 'white people are devils' after 2007 killing, By Josh Richman and Thomas, May 26, 2009]

An open and shut case of a racially-motivated hate crime? Think again. Prosecutors are not seeking a hate crime charge against Bey IV and Mackey.

And that decision meets with the approval of those who direct race policy in America. The Mercury News article continues:

"Prosecutors tend to be very hesitant to charge hate crime cases "... because they're really, really hard to prove: You have to prove the offender's motive beyond a reasonable doubt," explained Associate Professor Phyllis Gerstenfeld, [Email her] a ‘hate-crime expert’ who chairs the criminal justice program at Cal State, Stanislaus. ‘Hate crimes are the only criminal acts that require you to prove motive beyond a reasonable doubt... and we can't read people's minds.’"

We can’t? Prosecutors had no problems reading the minds of the James Byrd and Matthew Shepherd killers. Nor are they likely to have much problem peering into von Brunn's thought process.

According to the Mercury News, a certain "civil rights attorney" agrees that hate crime charges do not make sense in this particular case.

He said:

"Why go through having to interject something that now has to be proven to a particular standard? It can be highly appropriate for (prosecutors) tactically to avoid overburdening the jury with additional items. Sometimes the cleanest, simplest case is the best."

The person making these remarks: none other than Cal State San Bernadino’s Brian Levin—who had no problem lecturing us about the threat posed by "an old bigoted white man" only weeks later.

Unlike "civil rights" attorneys, the distraught Wills family wants to pursue a hate crime charge. According to Patrick Wills, younger brother of the victim:

"Everybody knows the only reason (Michael Wills) was shot was because he was white. So I don't see any reason why that (hate crime enhancement) should not be part of the charges. For it to not to be there is horrible."

Horrible or not, the decision not to pursue hate crime charges against the killers of Wills is not surprising given the race of the victim and the shooters.

But Your Black Muslim Bakery has a long history of racial violence that leaves von Brunn in the shade. Though held up as a model of black self sufficiency, the bakery was linked to widespread physical and sexual abuse, intimidation, welfare fraud, and murder. Bey IV and Mackey also had good reason to joke about the Zebra Killings as some of the killers—all black Muslims—were connected to the bakery according to Clark Howard, author of Zebra, the definitive book on the murders.[Read the first chapter (PDF)]

The Zebra Killings occurred in the San Francisco bay area between 1972 and 1974. Though seldom discussed, they are the worst case of racially-motivated serial murder in U.S. history. Carried out by black Muslims who went looking to kill "white devils", the attacks left up to 71 people dead and many injured.

Bey IV and Mackey were apparently looking to add to this legacy.

The late Sam Francis used to note that some hate crimes are more equal than others. The different reactions to the von Brunn and Your Black Muslim Bakery shootings prove that nothing has changed.

When the hate crimes bill is debated in the Senate you can be sure the names Matthew Shepard, James Byrd, James von Brunn and Stephen Johns, the black guard killed in the Holocaust Museum shooting, will be highlighted.

You can also be sure that the names Michael Wills, Yusuf Bey IV and Antoine Mackey will never be mentioned.

The hate crimes bill, if passed, will certainly stifle free speech and strengthen the thought police. It will also be yet another exercise in unequal and selective justice.

Not Exactly The Anti-Fong... But We Could Do Worse...

Meet George Gascon - the outgoing chief from Mesa, AZ - who has been picked as the new Police Chief to replace Heather "the feather" Fong. He will take control by August.

No doubt he will face some serious hurdles... though what exactly those hurdles are is open to interpretation.

According to the left-leaning SF Chronicle...

He faces a department beset with challenges: complaints of low officer morale, poor case resolution rates, allegations of racial profiling and a faulty discipline system that can keep good officers off the streets and bad officers on the payroll for years.

Though some have a different view...

"I think he's got a chance for success, but it's a steep mountain," said Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, who hoped one of the department's own would get the job. "I think if anybody has a chance of success coming in from the outside, it's going to be him. But it's not going to be easy."

Delagnes summed up the main difficulty in one word: politics.

San Francisco is unique, Delagnes said, and a successful chief must understand the players in the mayor's office, the Board of Supervisors, the command staff, the media and the Police Commission, the civilian oversight body that handles discipline and sets departmental policy.

"It's like no other place in America," Delagnes said. "He's got to see where the knives are coming from, and the knives are coming from day one. They (have) already started ... The poor guy couldn't get through one press conference without being taken on about towed vehicles."

Clearly one of the early "knife-holders" will be newly elected Supe John Avalos - who has already proven to be a complete fuckhead - and has shown that he will be one serious pain in the ass to anyone who doesn't tow the PC, anti-cop, anti-white, pro-Communist line.

Supervisor David Campos, a former police commissioner who came to the United States illegally as a child, said he is drafting legislation aimed at reversing the mayor's year-old policy of handing over undocumented juvenile immigrants to federal authorities if arrested on suspicion of a felony.

Gascón said he backs a sanctuary city policy that allows undocumented immigrants to approach local authorities without fear of arrest if they've done nothing but cross the border illegally. But he made clear he agrees that it's appropriate to turn over immigrants arrested for other crimes, if the arrest was conducted properly, including finding there was probable cause a crime was committed.

Despite the lies spouted forth by the SF Chronicle's arsenal of pro-amnesty columnists, the support for Sanctuary City policy is waning, particularly after the Chron's own articles outing the city's kid gloves handling of illegal alien juvenile felons - and the outrage following the Bologna Family murders by an illegal alien MS-13 gangster. The Chron falls all over itself publicizing the very loud efforts of local racist reconquista groups, but would never have the balls to find out what San Franciscans really think about the policy and how it has been gamed and corrupted.

A more honest view of the hurdles Gascon faces is found in this op-ed by retired San Francisco Deputy Police Chief Kevin Mullen. He makes some very important and very obvious points which I will highlight thusly...

The goals Mayor Gavin Newsom has set for George Gascón, his new police chief, are to "Implement a computerized system for spotting crime trends, increase the crime clearance rate and improve the morale of rank-and-file officers." Those goals should be simple to meet because the mechanisms to achieve them have been around for a long time. All it will take is the political will.

As to morale, Gascón is coming to a police department crying for change - and a very different organization from that which Chief Charles Gain, the last chief named from outside the department, confronted in the 1970s. At that time, the police department and much of the citizenry presented a united front against the new chief. Today, the department and the city are composed of numerous identity groups, all vying for a piece of the pie.

There is one issue within the power of the chief to effect, however, upon which all but the most marginal participants can agree: Serious violent crime.

By taking a different posture from his predecessor, who has maintained a low profile in the city and the police department, Chief Gascón can step forward to mobilize the vast energies of officers who are looking to be led. To do this, he will have to avoid or neutralize the factional recriminations which accompany much of what passes for civic discourse in San Francisco these days.

A large part of what troubles police officers is the lenient treatment of many serious offenders by an overly tolerant district attorney and the courts.

AMEN BROTHER!

Despite his support for some sort of Sanctuary City law, I wish Chief Gascon the best of luck. He's going to need it. We live in one of the most anti-cop cities in the United States, with a Board of complete childish assholes looking to fuck up anything that might make this town more livable to anyone who is not a goddamn freak, and a Mayor who will push the knife in himself if he has to.


Still, he'll be a better chief than Fong. He could hardly be any worse.

The Battle of the Trough

San Francisco's City Hall was apparently a zoo today - even more so than usual - as two competing groups of parasites battled over who gets to bleed the city dry.

On one hand, you have the "public services" sector - a seemingly unending mob of bum enablers, illegal immigrant protectors, ethnic tribalists, halfway-house racketeers, "re-education" corps, "community outreach specialists" (whatever the fuck that is), and a whole host of others who sole mission in life is to not work. The City unions are no better, containing a few hard-working dedicated people picking up the slack of the majority of overpaid, overcompensated, lazy, complaining loafers.

On the other, the "public safety" sector - folks like the cops and fire department, who do a much needed service but at a vastly over-inflated price. The cushy retirement packages are legendary, as are the immense amounts of overtime.

Left out of this whole debate - as usual - are the taxpayers. One thing that is certain is that neither the Mayor's office or the Board of Supervisors would consider - even for a moment - cutting the City's bloated budget if they didn't absolutely have to.

The mob scene beautifully showed the main problem with San Francisco: Too many pigs at the trough; way too many people relying way too much on the government.

Of course, having a Board of Supervisors where 6 0f the 9 members are out-and-out Communists, and a Mayor who believes that no problem exists that can't be cured by more taxes, doesn't help in the slightest. (Mayor Newsom would be considered a tax-and-spend Socialist in any other city in America, but he just looks conservative-ish in comparison to the collectivist rabble on the Board).

It's a shame they can't both lose. But we can always hope!

Nat Hentoff on 'Hate Crime' Laws

Illegal Alien Killer-gate Update: Preliminary Hearings in Bologna Family Case Finally Begin

Michael & Tony Bologna

Edwin Ramos - the illegal alien who murdered 3 American citizens in broad daylight in S.F., and who, despite being a multiple felon, was repeatedly shielded from immigration authorities by S.F.'s sanctuary city policy - is finally going to court.

Matthew Bologna

A year after the fatal daylight shootings of a San Francisco father and his two sons inflamed controversy over the city's sanctuary policies for protecting illegal immigrants, the 22-year-old suspect appeared in court Monday for a preliminary hearing that will determine whether he stands trial.

Edwin Ramos, a Salvadoran immigrant and alleged member of the MS-13 gang, was once shielded from possible deportation under an interpretation of San Francisco's sanctuary policy that officials have since disowned.

Ramos is accused of murdering Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Matthew, 20, and Michael, 16. Prosecutors say he mistook his younger victims for gang rivals when he opened fire on them June 22 as they drove in the Excelsior district near their home.

The killings, authorities said, happened when Tony Bologna blocked a car making a left turn while he was driving home from a family picnic. The killer opened fire after Bologna backed up to let the other car past.

Ramos has pleaded not guilty to murder counts that carry the special circumstances of multiple murder and murder as part of a street gang. The charges make him eligible for life imprisonment without parole or the death penalty if he is convicted, although District Attorney Kamala Harris has never sought execution since taking office in 2004.

The preliminary hearing is expected to last several days in San Francisco Superior Court, after which Judge Teri Jackson will decide whether Ramos must stand trial. It began Monday after Ramos sought unsuccessfully to have the judge close the hearing to the public. His attorneys argued that some evidence or testimony could endanger Ramos' wife and child if it is aired.

Ramos appeared in court with his ankles and left wrist shackled, and frequently whispered comments about testimony to his attorney. About a dozen members of the Bologna family - including Tony Bologna's widow, Danielle Bologna - attended the proceedings but declined to comment.

Little of Monday's testimony touched on the shooting itself. Prosecutor Harry Dorfman spent most of his time attempting to prove that Ramos was a gang member by linking him to gang-related incidents and to other alleged members.

One police officer testified that on the night Ramos was arrested, his 14-year-old sister-in-law said she thought he was a Sureño; the MS-13 gang, the officer said, is considered to be a subset of the Sureños.

Defense attorney Marla Zamora suggested the evidence of gang membership was flimsy, and under cross-examination another officer said Ramos had not been on a list of registered gang members in San Francisco.

During a break in testimony, Zamora said she planned a vigorous defense of Ramos, who she asserted was in the country legally.

"He did not shoot anybody on June 22, 2008, and he is not a gang member," Zamora said.

The Chronicle revealed last year that Ramos could have been deported after he was found to have committed two felonies at age 17, a gang-related assault of a young man aboard a Muni bus and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman. But juvenile justice authorities did not surrender him to federal officials for possible deportation.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera subsequently said there was nothing in the city's policy of refusing to cooperate with federal authorities in deporting illegal immigrants that required juvenile justice officials to protect youths who commit felonies.

Mayor Gavin Newsom ordered juvenile authorities to turn over underage offenders to the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency if they were undocumented immigrants.

The Bologna family has sued the city, blaming the city's "official and unofficial" sanctuary policies for allowing Ramos to walk free before the killings.

... and here's hoping the family can take us for everything. It would serve this batshit leftist government right.

The True Spirit of Flag Day

Rick Monday saves the American Flag from two "animals" trying to burn it - Dodger Stadium, April 25th, 1976.

And Now For Something Completely Different...

....from the days when music was music.

"Deadbeats More Valuable Than Beat Cops" Say SF Board of Imbeciles

"[Supervisor Eric Mar] knows who killed John Young...
He's a radical, leftwing liberal...
he actually believes this bullshit."

-SFPOA head Gary Delagnes

(Photo of angry cops staring down
said radical, leftwing liberal from sfappeal)

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors... whew... just about threw up there... have taken their cop-hating, criminal-loving, Commie agenda to its logical conclusion - by slashing $82 million from public safety services, namely police, fire, and sheriff's departments from the coming budget - in apparent retaliation for Mayor Newsom's cuts to homeless drop-in shelters and other programs catering to the terminally indigent.

This bit of fuckery has caused havoc with the search for a new police chief (replacing useless tool Heather Fong); according to Mayor Hairdo, the unnamed guy (yup, you heard right, guy) had accepted the job, but is now having second thoughts after seeing just how much our beloved Board cares about the men and women in blue.


San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has selected the city's next police chief, but he said Thursday his pick is (apparently only just now) thinking twice about accepting the job after a Board of Supervisors' committee voted to strip public safety agencies of tens of millions of dollars in funding.

The Police Commission forwarded a list of three finalists for the position Wednesday night, but the mayor and his staff were mum on his final choice because the person hasn't said yes to the job.

Sources said the finalists include no women and nobody from within the San Francisco Police Department, a decision likely to irritate insiders who were angling to replace retiring Police Chief (and useless tool) Heather Fong.

The finalists are all (presumably non-white) male police chiefs in other cities, including Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, who would be San Francisco's second African American chief. San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer was widely considered a front-runner, but is not a finalist, sources said.

Newsom said he is in final salary negotiations with his pick for chief, but said selling the job is a challenge after the board's move.

"I was about to make an announcement, and now I'm trying to explain what the board did," Newsom said, implying he had been in talks with his choice Thursday morning to convince him.

"This board acted without my understanding of their intent," he continued. "It's a very dangerous game. I don't know what they're trying to do. I am stunned. Thank God we have a mayor."

The Board of Supervisors' budget committee voted Wednesday to rewrite parts of Newsom's interim budget, a placeholder document that ensures that city services continue during July. July 1 marks the start of the new fiscal year, but the new budget isn't usually signed until later in the month.

Traditionally, the board rubber-stamps the mayor's interim budget, but on Wednesday, the budget committee voted to strip $82 million out of the police, fire and sheriff's departments to reverse the mayor's cuts to the health and social services programs.

City officials said there's enough money to keep paying the salaries of public safety officers through July, but that if a compromise isn't reached, it would mean major cuts in those departments once the new budget is signed.

David Chiu, president of the Board of Supervisors, said there's no reason Newsom should have been taken aback (as nothing these crazy dipshits do should surprise anyone anymore), because the board passed a list of budget priorities last month explicitly stating the city needs to protect the social safety net for vulnerable San Franciscans (and Mexicans and Salvadorans and any American citizens who excel at sponging off the system and can afford a bus ticket here).

Newsom's $6.6 billion budget for the 2009-10 year, which he delivered to the board last week, includes bigger budgets for public safety agencies while closing homeless drop-in centers and slashing millions of dollars from services for the mentally ill and drug- and alcohol-addicted.

"I'm surprised at the mayor's emotional reaction to a legitimate, genuine policy debate," Chiu said. "When he calms down, I look forward to working with him to develop a budget that reflects our shared policy priorities ."

While many city officials say they think a compromise will be struck within the next several weeks, Newsom and others didn't hesitate to outline what an $82 million cut to public safety would mean: the closure of district police stations, layoffs of more than 300 police officers, the closure of at least one city jail, the release of hundreds of inmates, the closure of 12 of 42 fire stations and 50 fewer firefighters working at any given time (you can just hear the progressives getting sexually aroused at the very idea!).

"When tourists get off the plane at SFO, should we hand them a sheet of paper that says, 'Danger! Staying in San Francisco could cause serious death (as opposed to "non-serious death?") or injury to you and your family'? It's crazy," said John Hanley, president of the firefighters union.

But supervisors said slashing health and human services would endanger lives, too (of the "important" people: drug addicts, illegal aliens, bums, criminals... the sort of people that dumbfucks like Chiu, Avalos, Daly, Mirkarimi, and Maxwell think run this city). Supervisor John Avalos, chairman of the budget committee, pointed out that no firefighter, police officer or sheriff's deputy will lose their job under the mayor's budget, while hundreds of other city employees will be out of work (and your point issss?).

"They have to share some of the pain," he said.

Sheriff Michael Hennessey said he's confident "a more moderate approach will develop over the next 60 days," but acknowledged that it will be a tense summer at City Hall.

"I won't be running off to the beach anytime between now and September," he said.

In sort-of related news...

The SF Chronicle published an editorial that actually praised the Police Department and admonished four of the Boards chief Commies - Mar, Maxwell, Daly, and my very own Ross Mirkarimi - for grandstanding in their attempt to pass a useless resolution (do they pass any other kind?) calling for charges to be dropped in the ancient case of the murder of SFPD Sgt. John Young in 1971 by members of the Black Liberation Army.

The editorial comes as a bit of a surprise from the normally anti-cop Chronicle. Indeed, in the same edition as this editorial are more stories of people suing the police for alleged misconduct - a fairly common storyline in the Chron.

Four supervisors - Eric Mar, Ross Mirkarimi, Sophie Maxwell, and Chris Daly - want the case dropped, using hazy logic (again - do they employ any other kind?) that mixes the discarded charges with images of Abu Ghraib abuse.

If the case is so weak, it will be exposed in court, not via a toothless resolution that insults the judicial process, the San Francisco Police Department and the integrity of City Hall.

But then... insulting the judicial process, the Police Department and the integrity of City Hall is what these assholes are all about. That's their raison d'etre. How can we expect any less - or more - from them? Nobody should be surprised that they're acting out in this way.

Oh and for a real laugh... the Chron previously published an op-ed on the same subject - urging for dismissal of the charges - by one of our favorite homegrown Communists Cindy Sheehan! America's least favorite Gold Star Mom tries to tie in Abu Gharib, J.Edgar Hoover, and, of course, racism, to try to explain why we should just give it up.

And here in San Francisco, the new attempt to prosecute this old case seems to have been generated less by any new evidence than by the atmosphere of fear fostered by the war on terror, led by a government willing to condone torture in the name of security.

I call on all officials to do so as well, to reject prosecution based on the results of torture and to defend the human rights of these men who have been subjected to such injustice.

yes... I'm sure they were fine, upstanding citizens until the bad policeman got a hold of them. Just like those poor misunderstood people in Guantanamo. Stupid bitch.

The only thing truly "tortured" here is Cindy Sheehan's logic.

From: Mallard Fillmore

Hard Questions For The American People

By Lisa Fabrizio via ChronWatch...


Is it all over in America? This is a question which has been asked, I suppose, since its founding. It is reported that when Ben Franklin was asked after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, if America was a republic or a monarchy, he replied: “A republic...If you can keep it.”


So, even at the birth of our nation, there were doubts as to the feasibility of a government whose powers were reserved to “We, the People.” Never had a great nation survived without a group or groups of individuals seizing the reins and using governmental power to strip the rights from the people.

Fear of governmental abuse was so great in many of the Founders, that in addition to clearly spelling out the duties of the three branches of our government in the Constitution, they added the Bill of Rights to restrain possible depredations by future generations. Yet some were opposed to this addition, arguing that the enumeration of certain rights that were sacrosanct would leave others open to attack. They need not have worried. Their prescient redundancy has not served its purpose--not for a lack of brilliancy on the part of its crafters, but for the sloth of its heirs.

Most of the Founders knew that in order to secure their liberty, future Americans would have to be just as vigilant and zealous in regard to their God-given rights as were they.

As Samuel Adams put it: “No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant, and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.”

Over the years, the worst fears of Franklin and Adams have been realized. The intentional dumbing-down of American citizens and the ridicule of virtue and the objective truths on which this nation was founded have been afoot for generations. Yet, one can’t help feel that there are still some things inherent to most Americans, and that the love of freedom still beats in the national breast, though unheard in many quarters amidst the cacophony of media propaganda and populist sloganeering.

What is needed to stem the tide of encroaching cradle-to-grave government control of our lives, is a series of hard questions put to the American people, to shake them out of their complacency and ignorance. Simply put and honestly asked, these are but a few suggestions for those who would hope to hold back the wave of Socialism that is well-past licking at our shores.

Should the government be involved in private industry? If people who have spent years in these industries can’t make a go of them--in no small part due to government regulation and interference--can the government itself? In the past eight years, men like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, an MBA and CEO respectively, were held up to ridicule and abuse, while the present administration is fat with folks who have never earned a paycheck in the private sector in their lives. Yet we are expecting them to save the banking and auto industries. Does this make any sense?

Is the freedom to practice one’s religion publicly as well as privately protected explicitly under the First Amendment? One has only to scan his daily newspaper for stories of students unable to pray at graduation, or schools that cannot mention the word Christmas in order to know the answer to this one. Should this blatant usurpation continue?

Should there be such things as “hate crime” laws which punish thought? Do certain groups of citizens deserve special rights based on their sexual proclivities? Are hate crime laws in actuality designed to silence those who would speak out against the granting of such special rights?

Do you trust strangers to raise your children? Recent rulings against homeschoolers and the mandatory teaching of homosexual '‘lifestyles’' in public school should make the skin of every American parent crawl. Do parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit?

Does anyone who has eyes and a memory believe that appeasement will work with Islamofascists? President Obama has made it a priority to assure the Muslim world that we like them; we really like them. Do you feel that this naive approach will work with those who have sworn death to all non-believers and send their women and children out to commit homicide bombings?

Is healthcare the number one issue in America? If so, should we follow the disastrous examples of Canada and Europe where for example, the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients at only one-fourth the U.S. rate? Or might we go to the root of the problem by seeking to bring down costs by limiting frivolous malpractice lawsuits?

Do you believe that Americans must be punished by radically altering their lifestyles for an issue like global warming that is based, at best, on faulty science? Can a movement that blames cow flatulence for changes in the Earth’s atmosphere be taken seriously? Should we continue to finance our enemies in the Middle East and elsewhere by buying oil from them that can be easily drilled here at home?

How these questions are answered by the American people will manifest itself in the coming elections. And there is reason for hope. The people of California have rejected higher taxes and the incursions of the gay lobbyists who seek to couch their sexual preferences as a ‘'civil rights’' issue. The news from across the pond is also encouraging. Socialist are losing ground in Europe; they have suffered defeats in Germany, France, the UK, Italy, Spain and Poland.

We must not only persist in asking these and many more questions; we must demand answers. We must restore the power of critical thinking to the American people and encourage them to use it in the public square in order to preserve our cherished way of life. As Dr. Franklin said, “Without freedom of thought there can be no such thing as wisdom, and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.”

Action Alert!

CAPS has two new alerts out for those of you who would like to fax your elected representatives - for free - in regards to two current pieces of legislation.

First... THE BILL THAT WOULD NOT DIE... for the umpteen million billionth time, the shit-for-brains CA legislature is trying yet again to pass a bill giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens.

Fax your rep and tell them to pull their head out of their ass - nicely of course - and reject this again. Hopefully you'll have better luck than I; my rep is Tom Ammiano - the, er, "man" responsible for San Francisco's Municipal ID for illegal aliens, and an all-around champion to criminals everywhere. I could say other things... but it would just be too damn easy.

Second... Yeah, it's always a longshot but it needs to be said... and said again and again.

Nathan Deal (GA) has introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship. This would bring the US into the modern age, and re-affirm the intent of the 14th Amendment - which was NEVER to allow foreign invaders to plop kids out on U.S. soil and stay forever. Even the most strident immigrationist will admit - if they're not total liars - that the "anchor baby" phenomenon was NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. The Amendment was introduced just after the Civil War as a way to deal with children who were born to slaves (who weren't yet citizens) and those children born on disputed lands.

Fax your rep and DEMAND that the 14th Amendment be re-affirmed in its original intent and that the anchor baby loophole be closed.

Extra Credit: Jared Taylor's "What do White Nationalists Want"

Jared Taylor - editor of American Renaissance - recently wrote a piece for Taki magazine regarding the New Haven firefighters case. It got a lot of attention, including this rather silly critique from Antiwar.com's Justin Raimondo (who apparently fancies himself a "conservative" of some sort) which spectacularly missed the point.

Taylor's reply to Raimondo- entitled "What Do White Nationalists Want?" - is a great read, and if you really honestly don't understand why white people are getting so pissed off in this country then get educated now.

"My hopes for the land in which my descendants will live are no different from those of virtually every person who has ever lived anywhere. The idea that nothing will be lost if a founding population is replaced with aliens is a new disease that strikes only whites. Our Mexican neighbors would scoff at the notion that “diversity” is a strength or that millions of English-speaking, white-skinned immigrants were a form of “cultural enrichment.” They would be astonished at the idea of elevating to a position of power a gringa who claimed white women made better decisions than Mexican men. In all these things they could not be more natural, normal, or healthy. It is we who have betrayed the ideals of our ancestors and diced with our children’s future by opening the doors to dispossession."

Death Sentence Upheld - Again - For Evil Scumbag

still giving us the finger after all these years

Richard Allen Davis - who, despite all odds and massive public outcry, continues to live and breathe on God's green earth - has lost yet another appeal.

The state Supreme Court upheld the death sentence today of Richard Allen Davis, the repeat felon who became the catalyst for California's "three strikes" law when he kidnapped 12-year-old Polly Klaas from her Petaluma home and strangled her in 1993.

At the time of his arrest, Davis had an 11-page rap sheet, with two prison terms for attempted kidnappings. His case galvanized public support for an initiative that required a sentence of 25 years to life for any felon with a record of two serious or violent felonies.

The "three strikes and you're out" measure qualified for the ballot and passed overwhelmingly in 1994, giving California the nation's toughest sentencing law for repeat offenders.

Every time I see this bastard's name in the paper, my soul hurts. Why is this sick, evil man still alive? Why are there allegedly sane people still fighting to keep him alive? What motivates an allegedly sane person to defend evil?

Here are a few of those allegedly sane people and what they are doing for this monster...

Mr. Davis' personal web page (lovingly provided by the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty)

Also... check this out... Prison Talk's "Loving a Death Row Inmate" forums

... reading these gives you a fascinating look into the minds (and rationalizations) of women who choose to love DR inmates. It's so easy to say these are a bunch of sick, weird bitches before reading these stories. It's almost as easy to say after you read the stories as well. The rationalizations in use are truly mind boggling. Safe to say that there is not a shred of concern for the victims of their loved ones' crimes, only for their lovers. Many believe they are God's chosen vehicles of "compassion" - loving those that no one else would. Many proclaim - laughably - that it "just happened" and that they did not go into their correspondence looking for love. What utter bullshit! They claim to not be crazy, but many also admit to not being "normal" - but way "above" it - through their Christ-like compassion and love for those that commit evil.

It's worth a look at the "good that props up evil."

More...

View Mr. Davis' rap sheet here

"Richard Allen Davis - Safe On Death Row" by Debra Saunders

Polly - never forgotten

Some Good News For Once: Homicides Down Dramatically In S.F.

San Francisco has seen a dramatic drop in its homicide rate this year - with 17 homicides since the first of the year, compared to 45 last year!

According to the SFGate...

There have been nine black male murder victims this year, compared with 23 at this time in 2008 and 16 in 2007. And there have been no murders attributable to black-on-black gang violence this year, which was long pegged as a prime cause of the city's spiking murder rate. (Note: and which can now definitively be pegged as the cause)

Analysts say crime rates usually climb during economic recessions, making this year's homicide drop even more unlikely. Kevin Ryan, director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice, credited the new "zone strategy," in which police officers flood the most crime-ridden neighborhoods.

(Note: This extraordinarily simple idea - putting cops where the crime is - is, for San Francisco, a radical concept. It forced the city to take off its politically correct blinders and realize that its "this is the whole city's problem" attitude was just plain wrong. Even a cursory glimpse at the SF Homicide Map will show that the city's homicides are concentrated in a few areas - areas everyone knows about and anyone who can avoids. I don't think I need to tell you what the characteristics of those neighborhoods are. Let's just say admitting as much would not be very PC - hence the foot-dragging.)

He said a renewed focus on high-risk people on probation and violent gangs is also working. He also praised District Attorney Kamala Harris' office for tougher charging of gang and gun crimes (Note: tougher by her lax standards anyway) and the Department of Justice for getting involved in certain gang cases (Note: although your average SF leftist would gladly tolerate a few more bodies on the streets, if it meant a) keeping the DEA out of pot clubs, and b) keeping ICE from going after criminals.)

"We have come up with a formula that has stemmed the tide for now, but we must watch the trends and be prepared for new strategies as the situation requires," he said.

....OR NOT! Look... my advice is if nothing you have done for years has worked, and all of a sudden you see a dramatic improvement with your new strategy... THEN STICK WITH THAT STRATEGY! In fact, do a lot more of it.

Oh No... Sotomeyer Isn't Racist...

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Judge Jose Cabranes, who like Ms. Sotomayor was appointed by President Bill Clinton, didn't find the matter to be so clear. His majority decision against the criminal felons, in favor of the state, comprised 36 tightly reasoned pages. Particularly compelling is the fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed to help further the aims of the Constitution's 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment specifically allows states to deny the vote to those convicted of crimes.

Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It's as if she thinks black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than that they are denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is the convicts' own actions, their crimes - not any state-based racial discrimination - that make those felons ineligible to vote.

From: Washington Post

The Truth About Sonia

Sure, President Obama’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is blatantly racist. Few dispute this fact, even members of the Hispanic community.

The smiling senorita was chosen simply because she is a Latina. If Sotomayor had been a lily-white Methodist from Minnesota, she would not have received the slightest chance for consideration.

Her gender also serves to affirm the patronizing nature of Obama’s appointment.

Strange to say, the mass media is applauding the president’s appointment not because of Sotomayor’s judicial acumen, let alone her rather abysmal courtroom record, but rather because of the fact that she is brown and from the Bronx barrio.

Few commentators note that 60% of Sotomayor’s rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court—a fact, as Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, notes that should cause legislators to “pause and take a good look at her record.”

But a good look at her judicial record is secondary to the good look at her Puerto-Rican ancestry.

Sonia’s supporters, however, are quick to point out that she pulled herself up by the proverbial bootstraps—that she went from a housing project to Princeton University.

Few note that Ms. Sotomayor received her education in the heyday of affirmative action—a time when functional illiterates were entry to the hallowed halls of ivy for the sake of diversity—a time when standardized test scores, including law board examinations, were adjusted to compensate for “cultural disadvantages.”

Race remains a concern in the Sotomayor appointment—particularly because of her strong ties to La Raza, the Latino answer to the KKK.

As a member of the National Council of La Raza, Ms. Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan”—a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.

These areas belong to the Latinos and Latinas and must be surrendered to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, come to constitute a majority, as in Los Angeles. Once this is achieved, the current borders of the United States will simply be obliterated.

But the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”

Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled—opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”

And so, our new Supreme Court appointee and self-professed advocate of La Raza approves of the reformation of the United States, the creation of a separate Chicano country, and widespread ethnic cleansing.

This assertion may not raise conservative eyebrows, let alone Christian opposition to Sotomayor’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court, save for the fact that La Raza and other Latino activist groups have expressed widespread anti-Jewish sentiments and support for radical Islam. This finding is supported by articles in “The Voice of Aztlan” with such lurid titles as “That Shitty Little Country Israel,” “Pat Tillman Got What Was coming to Him,” and “Osama bin Laden: the ‘Pancho Villa’ of Islam.”

Intrepid columnist Michelle Malkin maintains that all Americans should be aware of the following fifteen facts regarding La Raza (“The Race”):

15. “The Race” supports the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

14. “The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students—discounts are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.

13. “The Race” opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.

12. “The Race” calls for the immediate removal of fences along the Mexican border.

11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent federal officials from entering immigration information into a key national crime database.

10. “The Race” decried Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.

9. “The Race” initiated a lawsuit to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.

8. “The Race” condemned common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”

7. “The Race” has opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.

6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States.

5. “The Race” spawned and supported a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, including Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as “the most anti-American groups in the country.”

4. “The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves.

3. “The Race” sponsors and supports militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain .&nsbp;. . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”

2. “The Race” has honed the practice of the politically correct shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.

1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy—and the politically correct elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. Prominent historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’—and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”

Sotomayor, let’s remember, is a leader of La Raza—an individual who has shaped its policies, its ideology, and its racist demands.

“No one,” President Obama said today, “can oppose this appointment.”

I oppose it, and, if you are a red-blooded American, you should oppose it as well.


From: Canada Free Press

Truer Words Never Spoken

AP-

The woman who fired a gun at President Gerald Ford in 1975 and spent the next 32 years in prison said in an interview Thursday that she believed the country would change only through a violent revolution.

Sara Jane Moore told NBC's "Today" that she now realizes that her actions, stemming from her involvement in radical politics, were "wrong ... a serious error."

In Sept. 22, 1975, Moore, then around 45, fired on Ford as he waved to a crowd in San Francisco. A man near her knocked the pistol out of her hand and the shot went astray. It was the second failed attempt on Ford's life in less than three weeks.

Moore was sentenced to life in prison but released on parole in December 2007. She has lived in an undisclosed location since then.

It was during the long years in prison, she said, that "gradually I began to realize that I had let myself be used. ... I definitely think that it was wrong. I think I was misled. I think I was mistaken. I think I made a serious error."

Moore, who had been loosely associated with leftist groups in California, said she "wasn't prepared" for the things she learned about the extent of poverty and other problems.

"It was a time that people don't remember. You know, we had a war ... the Vietnam War, you became — I became — immersed in it," Moore said Thursday.

"We were saying the country needed to change. The only way it was going to change was a
violent revolution. I genuinely thought that (shooting Ford) might trigger that new revolution in this country."

She said she now knows she was hearing only one side of the story. "We thought San Francisco was the world, and it wasn't."

ps... perry321 in the comments wrote... "This is the reason I am so AGAINST the so-called, "life without possibility of parole" sentencing! I thought that was suppose to mean..she DIES in prison! She actually deserved the death penalty if anyone does..attempted murder on a President! Here she is, out walking around, giving interviews,...disgusting!"

So very true... most anti-D.P. pro-criminal activists love LWOP because they know it never means that. They know that killers will be set free eventually. And that makes their dicks hard.

The Disgusting, 4-letter "F-Word" is "Fong"

Our utterly incompetent fool of a Police Chief Heather Fong is busy (finally!) burning bridges and tarnishing the reputations of decent officers who do their jobs, as her final act of sabotage against the people of San Francisco.

San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong isn't leaving quietly - in recent weeks, she has either demoted or leveled charges against two of her possible successors.

She has also brought charges against one of her sharpest critics, police union boss Gary Delagnes, for being quoted as uttering a four-letter word and for calling the Board of Supervisors "morons."

The first to feel Fong's administrative fist was Capt. Greg Suhr for allegedly failing to report a domestic violence case promptly.

The alleged victim - who called Suhr for help on the night of the incident - says he actually saved her life and got her to go to police. Nonetheless, Fong concluded that Suhr should have filed a report on the incident personally, and in a timely manner.

As a result, the chief demoted Suhr from deputy chief to captain just as the selection process for a new chief was getting under way.

The second chief candidate to come under the gun from Fong is Capt. Denis O'Leary,

First, without explanation, O'Leary was transferred out of his command at Ingleside Station and reassigned to the politically treacherous vice squad.

Now, on the eve of his interview for the chief's job, O'Leary finds himself embroiled in an internal affairs probe for having signed off on allegedly fraudulent overtime cards submitted by a civilian secretary at Ingleside Station. Although he has not been charged with misconduct, he has been notified that he must appear at a formal inquiry.

O'Leary's attorney, Tony Brass, called it "ridiculous."

Even if the secretary lied about her hours, "a police captain cannot babysit every clerical employee in his station," Brass said.

"This is simply an effort to get rid of a very respected and qualified candidate for the chief's spot," Brass said.

But it's the disciplinary charges filed against Delagnes, head of the Police Officers Association, that really have tongues wagging at City Hall.

The outspoken Delagnes stands accused of using the f-word repeatedly in talking to the SF Weekly for a story about BART police Officer Johannes Mehserle's fatal shooting of an unarmed rider.

A few days later, in a C.W. Nevius column in The Chronicle, Delagnes called San Francisco supervisors "morons."

He's been calling them that for years - and it isn't uncommon to hear the same term coming from the mouths of mayoral aides. This time, however, Fong has decided that Delagnes' remarks were vulgar and disparaging and constituted "unofficerlike conduct."

Delagnes says he can't be disciplined because he made his remarks in his capacity as the union boss, not as a sworn officer.

"The department knows full well that I have the ability to say whatever I wish while representing the Police Officers Association," Delagnes said. He has requested a chief's hearing to appeal Fong's decision to reprimand him and could take the matter to the full Police Commission.

The mayor's office isn't talking, but commission President Theresa Sparks said, "I don't look at these things as conspiratorial or vindictive."

"If I had a criticism of the chief," she said, "it might be that she is very sensitive about ... not appearing to have slacked off the last couple of months and not wanting to be criticized as giving someone a break."

Fong declined to discuss any of the specific cases but issued a statement saying that as police chief, "I have an obligation to review the actions of members in specific circumstances that are brought to my attention to determine whether their actions are consistent with policy and direction."

Don't go away mad, Heather... just go away!

This... Is Just Sad

Sad, sick old creep Keith Olbermann - in a move reeking of even more desperation than usual - has flatly declined Rush Limbaugh's challenge to stand on his own two feet and to go 30 days without mentioning him.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann says he'll stop talking about Rush Limbaugh for 30 days — provided Limbaugh doesn't talk about Limbaugh for the same period.

It was a response to Limbaugh's challenge that the left-leaning cable channel not talk about him for a month, since "MSNBC is hoping to build its ratings on my back," the radio talk show host said.

Limbaugh, who has increased his already high profile as an insistent voice of opposition to the Obama admininstration, said he wanted to see if MSNBC could go on "Rush withdrawal."

"Thirty days without anything mentioning me," Limbaugh said on his show Tuesday. "No video of me, no guests commenting on me. See if you can do it. You know, stand on your own two feet. Stand on liberalism. Stand on what you believe. Stop bleeding off me."

Olbermann flatly declined, not wanting to kill off his raison d'etre.

Olbermann said Wednesday night that Limbaugh had "suddenly gone all Greta Garbo on us. He wants to be left alone. He has surrendered."

"Suddenly, the impact of being accurately called out, day after day, hour after hour, as a faux populist, press-release regurgitating lackey of repressive and regressive political flunkeys has hit bone," Olbermann said.

Olbermann said Limbaugh had no business being able to decide how people react to him.

What does that even mean? That is fucking incoherent.

MSNBC isn't exactly driving off of a cliff, but they're not exactly lighting any fires either. the network is in solid 3rd place behind Fox and CNN, and on some days barely manages to beat out CNBC.

Click here for TV By The Numbers' O'Reilly vs. Olbermann chart and see for yourself.

Rachel Maddow - the other pompous, elitist slick-haired male at MSNBC - is fairing even worse. her ratings are slipping lower and lower, and, on May 15th, had her worst program ever at MSNBC in BOTH total viewers and in the 25-54 demo. Maddow regularly loses to ol' fossil Larry King. (Note: On the same day, TV's most famous gay anchor also had his worst day since the inauguration.)

Olbermann isn't doing much better - there are many days when he barely beats out Nancy Grace on the pathetic HLN, and O'Reilly regularly trounces the pompous jackass in the coveted 25-44 demographic by a margin of 2.5-3 to 1!

The numbers prove what you've already probably figured out - MSNBC has thrown it's hat into trying to appeal to a very small cadre of political elitists. It's not working... or, maybe, it's working as well as it can.

It is heartening to see that the "sound and the fury" of MSNBC is just one long liberal fart.

... And Yet Another Reason To Dump Gitmo Detainees In Rhode Island

Wow... and I thought California had the monopoly on mentally ill politicians....

A Rhode Island Democratic lawmaker says he'll donate $100 to charity for every second former President George W. Bush withstands waterboarding.

State Rep. Rod Driver sent letters making the offer to Bush as well as to former Vice President Dick Cheney and ex-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Bush's administration allowed the interrogation technique, which simulates drowning, to be used on terrorism suspects. Driver says if Bush is confident it isn't torture, he should try it himself. His offer was reported Thursday in The Westerly Sun.

A representative for Rice said she would not participate, while Bush's and Cheney's offices did not return calls seeking comment.

By all means, since the elected representatives of Rhode Island are so enamored with terrorists (see previous post), they should put their money where their big, fat mouths are, and stand up and offer to take Gitmo detainees into their state.

Honestly... what can you possibly say about an alleged American who would rather torture an ex-American President, V.P., or Secretary of State than a terrorist who seeks to kill American citizens?

What a douchebag.

Gitmo Detainees To Be Dumped In Rhode Island

... at least if there's any justice they will be.

Here's a list of the "Gitmo 6" - the six Democrats who voted to give the Obama Administration $80 million for the Pentagon and the Justice Department to close the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by January. The funding was shot down - dramatically - by a vote of 90-6.

Durbin (D-IL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Reed (D-RI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

So... since both Senators from the great state of Rhode Island are so keen on having terrorist detainees released onto American soil (albeit to super jails), I say send them all there. I'm sure they'll be pleased.