Latest from Board of Mental Defectives: $3 Downtown Toll

The geniuses at San Francisco's Board of Supes are pushing an idea that's been batted about from time to time but appears to be gaining momentum - a $3 toll to enter downtown in a car.

These tolls - called "cordon tolls" - are not used in the United States, but are in some European cities.

Needless to say, there are lots of problems with this idea. Putting aside for a moment the question of how to implement such a scam, er, scheme, just getting into San Francisco from the Bay Area costs $4-5 depending on which bridge you cross.

Here are some other issues brought up by the SFGate article (with my 2 cents)...

"Initially, they considered establishing a downtown zone - a twin triangle area bounded by Washington, Jones, Turk and Harrison streets and Van Ness Avenue. Then they looked at charging fees at the city's major gateways: the Bay and Golden Gate bridges, Highway 101 and Interstate 280.

But the downtown zone was too small, and drivers would just avoid it, causing problems in adjacent neighborhoods, Bent said. And charging at the gateways would reduce traffic from outside San Francisco but might end up encouraging more driving among city residents, she said."

(Wellll... DUH! So they came up with this map - see below. As anyone will easily see, the green area covers much, much more than just "downtown." It encompasses nearly a fourth of the city, including all tourist areas, most shopping and convention areas, the Castro, and the entire Western Addition [Good luck collecting from all the housing projects, Ross!].

"The congestion toll could raise between $35 million and $65 million a year - money that could be invested in transportation improvements, with an emphasis on boosting service and capacity on Muni, BART and other transit agencies that serve San Francisco."

(Could be, but most likely won't be. The Supes will no doubt push for the money to be put into the general fund, where they can spend it on the things they find really important: namely more benefits for bums, drug addicts, drunks, illegal aliens, and criminals, and for forcing their idiotic brand of Socialism on people with brilliant ideas like fining people for not sorting their garbage).

This will - in theory - get a lot more people using public transportation. But there's a teensy weensy problem....

"We've already reached our design capacity, and are going to need to make investments in expanding rail capacity." said Tom Radulovich, a BART director from San Francisco.

Anyone who's ridden MUNI in the last year or two knows that the buses and trains are getting more and more crowded, and putting more people on the existing lines without a major increase in service will likely lead to riots. But what do the Supes care... they need the money to make sure we don't have cigarettes in Walgreens, have calorie counts posted at Taco Bell, ID cards for illegal aliens, and City-sponsored shooting galleries for heroin addicts!

Tell Obama What "Change" You'd Like To See Regarding Immigration

Here's a link to Prezelect Obama. He says he wants to hear from you! It's a great opportunity to let your voice be heard on exactly why an amnesty is a bad idea, and why opening our borders to every criminal on Earth might not be a good idea.

You may well ask, "What's the freakin' point???"

Well, as NumbersUSA's Roy Beck explains...

"Yes, I see that a number of you are saying that sending any information to Obama is a wasted effort because of his strong support for virtually open borders. But that was Pres. Bush's position, too. You all hammered him for years. Finally a year ago, he allowed DHS to engage in the strongest immigration enforcement this country has seen since Pres. Eisenhower in the 1950s. Speak up. You never know what political miracles may happen."

Here's what I wrote:


Dear President-Elect Obama,

Thank you for this opportunity to express my thoughts on immigration.

I live in San Francisco - a "sanctuary city" - and have seen, and continue to see first hand every single day, the DAMAGE that immigration anarchy has caused to my city and to our once-great state of California.

On my block I see it every day. About 5 years ago, a few illegal alien day laborers started showing up at the paint store across the street looking for work. Today that number is anywhere from 20 to sometimes over 50 people crowded on one block. Pickup trucks line up to BREAK THE LAW and hire these people illegally for sub-minimum wage, with no workman's comp. There exists within this group of workers hardcore drunks and drug dealers. At a town meeting, several local women announced that they avoid my block because they are sick of the catcalls and sexual harassment.

In San Francisco, 4 people so far have been MURDERED this year by illegal alien gang members. Many of these gang members were harbored and assisted in avoiding Federal authorities by our own city government!

We have had it. As long as the forces of comprehensive immigration reform refuse to weed out the significant criminal element of the illegal alien population, we will continue to fight tooth and nail against ANY amnesty. I believe firmly that I am in the vast majority of Americans who believe that rewarding criminals is wrong and the antithesis of what this country stands for.

That said, I believe I and many others who hold these beliefs as strongly or even stronger than I would support a limited amnesty - on the firm condition that illegal alien criminals will be caught, punished, and deported without ANY chance at becoming American citizens. I cannot tell you how angry it makes me to think that the illegal alien gang member who murdered three members of the Bologna family in San Francisco was a hairs' breadth away from becoming every bit as much a US Citizen as me. That is WRONG. You know it is wrong. We all know it is wrong.

It is time to reassure the American people that America is not going to become a haven for illegal alien criminals.

Thank you for you time.



Tell Prezelect Obama What He Should "Change" In Immigration Policy!


PS... I'd like to add another bit of Roy's wisdom here...

"I also have read from others of you that you are actually afraid that if you give Pres-Elect Obama your email address something bad will happen to you. Please! Stop the paranoia and become an American again. If you are afraid to send your opinion to the President of the United States, you obviously have given up.

A flurry of postings on Obama's website WILL be noticed. They will be unlikely to stop the nomination (of Janet Napolitano as DHS head) but they very well can influence how carefully Napolitano and Obama try to avoid instituting radical ideas."

The Passage of Prop. 8 and White Liberal Racism

Much liberal hand-wringing has gone in San Francisco since the passage of Proposition 8 – the law banning gay marriage. The comment boards of the SFGate and other papers are overflowing with gay marriage proponents spouting some of the most racist, hateful invective ever heard in this city of “tolerance.”

Surprising? Hardly.

Steve Sailer, in a VDare article entitled “The Whiteness Studies Status Game,” offers as good an explanation as I have seen, in his review of Noel Ignatiev’s* new book “How the Irish became White...”


“White anti-white racism is a broadly fashionable attitude that extends far beyond loonies like Ignatiev. I don't believe I've ever seen it formally explained, although Tom Wolfe's novels show it in action.

The usual explanations of what drives whites like Ignatiev are "white guilt" or "self-loathing." But does Ignatiev appear as if he personally feels guilt or self-loathing?

No—he sounds like he's having the time of his life arguing that you should feel guilt etc. He comes across as an arrogant, hostile jerk who thinks the world of himself.

He wants to feel that he's better than other whites and to rub their faces in it. The bad guys in his book are Irish Catholics and Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Ignatiev himself is neither.

And this is typical, in my experience: whites who proclaim their anti-white feelings don't really care much about blacks or other minorities, pro or con. What they care about is achieving social superiority over other whites by demonstrating their exquisite racial sensitivity and their aristocratic insouciance about any competitive threats posed by racial preferences.

To these whites, minorities are just useful pawns in the great game of clawing your way to the top of the white status heap. Which, when you come right down to it, is the only game in town.”


*(Read more about the genocidal lunatic Noel Ignatiev here)

Liberals – particularly white liberals – viewed the fight over gay marriage as they view all such fights, as a fight against other white people. (Such sentiments can be clearly seen in even the most cursory readings of the SFGate’s enfants terrible – so-called “sex positive” Violet Blue and the truly despicable Mark Morford – who have both made a trademark of their blatant anti-white racism.)

I sincerely doubt that any of the No on 8 forces considered – even for the slightest moment – that minorities would not follow them. They could not possibly help it of course, for their racist views would not allow them to accept any possibility of it.

To a white liberal, it is unfathomable that their moral superiority cannot fail to be noticed by the oppressed masses – which include everyone except white people that they don’t agree with.

What does this say about how white liberals view minorities in general?

It is this colossal arrogance that led in part to minorities’ voting in such heavy numbers for Prop. 8. Frankly, minorities seem to be getting pretty damn sick and tired of homosexuals claiming equal footing with them in the oppression game. And many are infuriated that their pro-family, pro-work, and pro-religion life is being equated with a lifestyle that most view as unnatural, and many view as just plain sick.

"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. "
- G. K. Chesterton

"By toleration we adopt other men's sins and make them our own."
- Thomas Watson

Vote cast... and only one fight!

Well... vote cast. But not without controversy!

Just before I was going to bring my ballot up to be counted, a large skinny bald dude walked in wearing an Obama/Biden shirt. The pollworker asked him to turn his shirt inside out, and he became irate and started berating them, asking them to "show me the law" and adding the obligatory "I'm a citizen" and "I have freedom of speech" crap.

I had had enough.

I said - in a loud voice - "you cannot politic within 100 feet of a polling place! Don't be a dick!"

Well, that started a small shouting match which ended not in fisticuffs thankfully (he was much bigger than me!). I was leaving anyway, having finished my ballot. On the way out I apologized to the pollworker, who thanked ME for helping them do their jobs properly.

I felt a little bad about causing a scene, but here's the deal...

Everyone KNOWS you cannot politic within 100 feet of a polling place, and certainly not INSIDE a polling place. The guy wore a shirt endorsing a certain vote. He KNEW that. Then he started getting on the pollworkers' case IMMEDIATELY after they called him on it - meaning he was expecting it.

In short, he WAS being a DICK. And I called him on it.

So I don't feel bad now. I said what had to be said. These democracy newbies (and those not so new but who are intent on breaking the rules because they are believe they are supporting "God's chosen candidate") have got to learn - or be "schooled" - that they do not get to break the rules. If your dude wins and the only way you can win is by breaking the rules then what have you accomplished?

VOTE TOMORROW!

Yeah, yeah... vote tomorrow. I'd give my suggestions, but I just got off of a cross-country flight, and I'm totally wiped.

But I just want to make one little observation about the Presidential election.

I mean, really... we're at the point now where we are really seriously considering electing a man as President who has absolutely NO EXPERIENCE at all. At a time when this country is nearly on the ropes financially and our position in the world is being challenged left and right, we are thinking of electing a guy who has little experience other than being a "community activist" - whatever the hell that means.

What is behind this? Why would allegedly sane people vote this way?

Simple. They're suicidal.

There is a large contingent of people who want to see America destroyed so bad that they will elect an avowed Socialist, a terrorist-sympathizer, and a man dedicated to destroying large sectors of the economy, and also dedicated to nationalizing many, many more.

What is behind it is a hatred of America, and, ultimately, themselves. The possibility of a terrorist attack doesn't deter them; many will be disappointed if there ISN'T a terrorist attack.

Many of these folks say they want what's best for America. Sorry. As a former leftist, I don't buy it. Many want what's best for "the world," which, in their minds, means the destruction of America. See, we don't count when it comes to the world. Just as YOU don't count when the poverty pimps, the racialists, and the rest talk about "our community."

Vote for McCain tomorrow. He's not the best, and certainly not whom I would pick. But, come on, let's fucking THINK about what we are about to do for a second!