Sunday, August 30, 2009

The New "Face" of America?

I promise I'll put up some photos from my excellent Sierra trip... but this was on my mind so I'll start with this...

A couple months ago, a couple came into my store and were shopping for some gear. The man was your ordinary looking guy, and the woman was wearing a full-on burqa.

As I helped them, I could barely contain my contempt. I tried hard to look the woman in the eyes - the only visible part of her body - but, clearly, the man was in charge and that was whom I had to deal with.

Now... if you want to get fuckin' technical about it... she was wearing a chador, not a burqa, and not like there is a real big fuckin' difference (click here for a guide to Islamic "styles").

Brenda Walker - my kind of feminist and environmenatlist- wrote a great piece on the recent decision by France to ban burqas in swimming areas. She brilliantly states exactly what is meant by the wearing of this garment...

Misguided persons (often of a leftist persuasion) argue unconvincingly that the women attired in fabric prisons do so entirely of their own free will—see the curiously titled New York Times piece, My Burqa Is None of Your Business, by Ronald Sokol [email him] (July 2, 2009) for a liberal male view. Certainly some women willingly hide their faces and everything else based on religious belief, but the social pressure to conform to traditional oppression within many Muslim households is intense. There may be little choice involved for many.

No, the burqa is not just an expression of Muslim female modesty, but it is also a highly effective territorial marking device, showing Islam's expansion into Europe and beyond in a personal and daily manner. It is an obtrusive political statement of demographic jihad: "We're here, we're not changing, and we're not leaving."

from: "France's propsed burqa ban a great start" - VDare, 8/13/09

As much as I cannot understand why any sane, reasonable, American man would support the forces of cultural Marxist genocide on western culture, what I really do not get is why any sane, reasonable American woman would support such a thing!

Even the dumbest, most brain dead lefto-feminist must realize that the replacement of western culture with muti-culturalism would be an enormous leap
backwards for women's issues.

Leave it to the idiot left to throw away all progress made in western civilization towards equality towards women, and replace it with peoples and cultures who still have it all to do.

Please also read Brenda's "Why Multiculturalism is a Fraud and a Disaster For Women's Rights" which contains links to literally hundreds of great articles on the subject. If you are a woman, and if your identity, your dignity, and your freedom mean anything at all to you, I suggest you do it now.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

On Vacation

I'm getting out of here - taking a week off to go backpacking in the Eastern Sierras.

So here's a little arena rock moment to tide you over.

Friday, August 14, 2009

Bologna Family Denied Justice in Round 1 - Family's Lawyer Vows To Fight On

Danielle Bologana and her daughters have sadly lost the first round of their battle for justice against the City of San Francisco and its illegal and insane policy of shielding illegal alien criminals, and aiding and abetting them to commit more crimes - including mass murder - with complete impunity and an utter disregard for the lives of its citizens. The fucks.

But this is far from over...

The family of a father and two sons who were gunned down on a San Francisco street last year has failed to convince a federal judge that the city violated the victims' constitutional rights by shielding their alleged murderer from deportation.

But a lawyer for Tony Bologna's widow and daughter said he'll return to a state court with claims that San Francisco acted negligently by not notifying federal authorities of Edwin Ramos' immigration status when police arrested him in separate incidents in 2003 and 2004.

The city's lawyer said he'll seek dismissal of those claims as well.

Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, were shot to death near their home in the Excelsior district in June 2008. Ramos, 22, is charged with murdering them.

Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors describe as a gang member, was arrested twice as a juvenile, for an assault on a Muni passenger in October 2003 and an attempted purse-snatching in April 2004. Juvenile courts sent him to a shelter after the first incident and to the city-run Log Cabin Ranch after the second.

Case records don't show whether police or juvenile courts knew at the time that Ramos had entered the United States illegally. But under juvenile justice authorities' interpretation of the city's sanctuary policy, they would not have passed along such information to federal immigration authorities.

Federal officials learned of Ramos' status later, after he applied unsuccessfully for legal residency. They did not take him into custody for deportation proceedings, however, and his application for residency, based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen, was pending in 2008 when the Bolognas were killed.

The family's lawsuit says the city was responsible for the shootings because its policy - which the suit claims violated both state and federal law - allowed Ramos to go free rather than be deported.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed the family's claim that the city's actions violated the victims' constitutional right to due process of law.

Illston said a government agency that exposes someone to a "known or obvious danger" can be held responsible for the harm that follows.

San Francisco might be held to account, she said, if there was evidence that it knew Ramos posed a danger to the Bolognas. But Illston said the family's suit claimed only that Ramos' release endangered the entire city, or all black and Latino residents who were presumed to be the targets of his gang.

"Due process claims simply do not stretch so far," she said.

Illston did not rule on the family's claims that the city's negligence had caused the Bolognas' deaths, and said she planned to return those claims to San Francisco Superior Court, where the suit was originally filed.

Matthew Davis, the family's lawyer, said Illston's ruling was procedural and did not affect the negligence claims, which he considers the strongest part of the case.

Deputy City Attorney Scott Wiener said the city would ask Illston to rule on those claims as well, but is prepared to defend against them in either court.

"Edwin Ramos murdered these victims and he is being prosecuted for that," Wiener said. "That doesn't mean that the city is liable for that act of violence."

We should feel lucky that the City has found it within their cold, black hearts to even prosecute this case at all!

Scott Weiner (who is running for Supervisor of District 8 - the Mission - in 2010) is well suited for being the City's apologist, being a committee member of the extreme left SFDCCC - which famously passed a resolution calling on the City to continue to shield illegal alien felons! Fucking BENDERS!

To be fair, Weiner did abstain from the vote (it passed 20-1 with 5 abstentions) and tried to slightly water it down, with no luck.

The SFDCCC is considered - even by San Francisco liberals - to be an ideologically extreme leftist entity. Here's just some of the bullshit spewed by the committee's various dipshits in a Fog City Journal (a leftist website) article about the rez...

Robert Haaland - District 5 losing candidate, SEIU "organizer" and complete asshole - had the following drivel to spew...

Robert Haaland, who represents thousands of unionized immigrants in the Bay Area, blamed the former Bush administration for the persecution of undocumented immigrants.

“After eight years of George Bush and eight years of ICE raids and eight years of immigrants being treated like criminals, it has affected our consciousness and our rhetoric and how we think about immigration policy in San Francisco,” Haaland said.

Haaland also blamed the San Francisco Chronicle for “manufacturing a crisis” following the shooting deaths of three family members in the Excelsior by an undocumented immigrant in June 2008. He said the Chronicle reports’ “scapegoated and distorted and played on peoples’ fears around public safety in order to push us to change our policy around immigrant youth.”

“Their efforts, I’m sorry to say, were successful,” Haaland said, adding that he is “ashamed” that undocumented immigrants are now being deported “on the spot without any kind of due process.”


Supervisor Chris Daly - another unmitigated asshole - chimed in with his own political vomit...

Supervisor Daly echoed Haaland’s comments, saying the San Francisco Chronicle used the Bologna family shooting tragedy to “whip up anti-immigrant hysteria,” adding that when law-abiding undocumented immigrants are deported to their home countries, they often return with no family connections or support for reintegration.

Here's the Resolution in its entirety, authored by Debra Walker (yet another ultra-left batshit "progressive" looking to become Supervisor of District 6 in 2010)...

Whereas, San Francisco has had a Sanctuary Ordinance since 1989, standing proud in encouraging diversity, welcoming full participation in all that our country and our city offers and supporting community policing by increasing trust between immigrant residents and law enforcement, and

Whereas, even as President Obama has taken huge steps in closing horrific institutions like Guantanamo– citing severe violations of due process and, even as our prison system is being taken to task for mistreatment of inmates, it is clear that San Francisco is instead choosing to encourage such due process violations and racial profiling by reportedly engaging in stopping, questioning and confiscating valid identification cards and vehicles in sections of town with high immigrant populations and referring youth suspected of being undocumented to federal immigration enforcement at the booking stage, prior to receiving a hearing; and,

Whereas, the United States Constitution clearly delineates that we as a country shall not “deny to ANY person within it’s jurisdiction the EQUAL protection of the law” because the effect of taking the rights from ANY of us steps on the rights of us all,

Therefore let it be resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party takes a recommitted position in support of our constitution and our city’s sanctuary position for all,

And be it further resolved that we demand that the mayor redirect law enforcement efforts away from criminalizing the immigrant community and restore our pledge to uphold constitutional due process laws and our commitment to constitutional rights to all.


...And here's Weiner's amendment... voted down on a 19-5 vote....

Whereas, San Francisco has long stood as a sanctuary city, standing proud in encouraging diversity, and welcoming full participation in all that our country and our City offers,

Whereas, immigrants in San Francisco have long contributed to the City’s economic and cultural vibrancy,

And whereas, San Francisco’s sanctuary policy should protect immigrants from being separated from their families and communities through deportation, while also protecting public safety by ensuring that persons who commit violent felonies cannot take advantage of the sanctuary policy,

Therefore be it resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party takes a recommitted position in support of our constitution and our city’s sanctuary position for immigrants,

And be it further resolved that the San Francisco Democratic Party supports continuation of the sanctuary policy without extending the protection of that policy to persons who commit violent felonies.


The SFDCCC has become something of a "Gay Gestapo" and - as Tammy Bruce so eloquently put it in her book "The Death of Right and Wrong" - this is what happens when you put a bunch of psychologically damaged people together and put them in positions of power... they take out their anger, frustration, and bitterness on everyone around them, and seek to bring the world down to their level, so that, at last, they can be "normal..."

Or, at least, no more fucked up than anyone else.

read the charges:
Danielle Bologna et al v. City of San Francisco (html) (pdf)

Sunday, August 9, 2009

The Fundamental Problems With Obama-dom

Maynard - Tammy Bruce's co-poster on her website - his done a great job getting to the roots of the problem, as usual...

We seem to be taking a lot of shots at Mr. Obama and his crew lately. With so many arguments on the table, we sometimes lose sight of the basic issues at stake. I think it’s useful to make a concise list of the most fundamental stuff.

ObamaCare: Debt and inevitable bureaucratic mismanagement and waste is a big part of the argument against Obama’s proposals. (No, I do not believe the non-profit loss-making government plan will deliver more bang for the buck than a private for-profit plan, any more than the loss-making US Post Office does a better job than the for-profit United Parcel Service or FedEx. Governments are dumb.)

However the cost and clumsiness factors are dwarfed by the fundamental wrongness of allowing the government to become the biggest (and, according to Obama’s stated ambition, the sole) customer for health care. When your government pays for your health care, then your government determines what you get and when you get it. And if you don’t like that, then go home and die. Is that the position Americans want to place themselves in? Even if you trust Obama to make these personal life-and-death decisions on your behalf, what makes you think you’ll trust the next president when responsibility passes to (ahem!) her? Did you trust the previous president? No, Obama’s plan must be stopped at all costs. Free people cannot allow the government to have that much power over their bodies. (Note that I’m echoing the basic pro-choice argument, which most Obama supporters endorsed.) (Proposed slogan: “ObamaCare? Not over my dead body!”) (By the way, please be a sport and report the foregoing to Your president will thank you.)

Spending and Debt: The national debt, once created, must be serviced until/unless it is paid off. That’s a top government priority; national finances come to a halt when a government defaults on its debts. More and more of our debt is owed to foreign countries; lately we’re borrowing from China. We’re approaching a future in which the top priority of our government will be to suck money out of the pockets of American taxpayers and turn it over to foreigners. This will put a serious and ever-increasing drag on the economy.

I understand we’re facing a tough situation at the moment, and a balanced budget is not immediately realistic. But Mr. Obama, like Mr. Bush before him, has clearly made fiscal responsibility his very last priority (this in the teeth of campaign promises to the contrary).

It’s worth noting that the only government programs Mr. Obama has seen fit to cut have been in defense spending.

Control and Micromanagement: There is a consistency in Obama’s approach to dealing with problems. If something is wrong, the government should take over. Banks, health care, industry…whatever it is, either he wants to own it, or buy it, or micromanage it. This is consistent with the heavy-handed ways the administration orchestrates press conferences and other publicity events: Maintain absolute control at all costs.

As with debt, I understand that sometimes the government must take a “hands on” approach to problem solving. But this is Obama’s only approach. He is truly the one-trick pony.

Friday, August 7, 2009

Purple Is The New Brown

Obama's enforcers - the purple-people-punching SEIU goon squads - have made the news by putting a man distributing literature in the hospital.

Email from eye witness and attorney confirms that SEIU-logo’d thugs attacked and beat a black man for distributing Gadsen flags following a Town Hall in St. Louis County on Thursday. Race was a factor in the beating.

August 7, 2009

Dear Mr. Hennessy:

I am Kenneth Gladney’s attorney. Kenneth was attacked on the evening of August 6, 2009 at Rep. Russ Carnahan’s town hall meeting in South St. Louis County. I was at the town hall meeting as well and witnessed the events leading up to the attack of Kenneth. Kenneth was approached by an SEIU representative as Kenneth was handing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags to other conservatives. The SEIU representative demanded to know why a black man was handing out these flags. The SEIU member used a racial slur against Kenneth, then punched him in the face. Kenneth fell to the ground. Another SEIU member yelled racial epithets at Kenneth as he kicked him in the head and back. Kenneth was also brutally attacked by one other male SEIU member and an unidentified woman. The three men were clearly SEIU members, as they were wearing T-shirts with the SEIU logo.

Kenneth was beaten badly. One assailant fled on foot; three others were arrested. Kenneth was admitted to St. John’s Mercy Medical Center emergency room, where he was treated for his numerous injuries. Kenneth was merely expressing his freedom of speech by handing out the flags. In fact, he merely asked people as they exited the town hall meeting whether they would like a flag. He in no way provoked any argument or altercation, as evidenced by the fact that three assailants were arrested.

We hope that Kenneth fully recovers from his injuries; however, he is in great pain
at this time. We will be pursuing legal action at our discretion. This was a truly senseless hate crime carried out by racist union thugs. Regretfully, Representative Carnahan’s statements blaming Kenneth for being a disruptive force are wholly untrue and slanderous. We would like to think that an elected official in Representative Carnahan’s position would gather accurate information before carelessly rushing to judgment.

Kenneth supports conservative ideals, although he subscribes to no particular political party. We are calling on the SEIU, Representative Carnahan, and President Obama to condemn the racist actions of these union thugs. In the days to come, we will be investigating whether these thugs are working at the behest of Representative Carnahan and how strong their alliances to various organizations–such as ACORN–may be.

We hope the St. Louis Tea Party and tea party organizations around the country will protest Representative Carnahan’s offices and also protest SEIU offices in every major city across the U.S. These Democratic strong-arm tactics must end now.


Attorney David B. Brown

The St. Louis Tea Party coalition joins in the call for apologies from Carnahan, SEIU, and President Obama. This criminal attack was inspired by DNC and propaganda. Only Thursday morning, the White House promised “punch back twice as hard.” Clearly, the goons of SEIU decided to draw the first blood.

We believe that this attack was planned and intended to create a riot to discredit the American political resistence. Luckily, the patriots who attend tea parties and town halls did not take the bait. Mr. Gladney did not fight back. Mr. Gladney, like Crispus Attucks, suffered for the promise of freedom — the freedom his race was so long denied. We salute Kenneth Gladney. We are proud that he is on our side.

We all pray for Ken. May he recover quickly and fully from his injuries inflicted by leftist thugs in an attempt to subvert his First Amendment rights.


5585 Pershing Ave.
Suite 130
St. Louis, MO 63112

PHONE: 314.367.0013
FAX: 314.361.8704

But this is always the way it is with leftists... call other people racists to cover your own racism, and call other people Nazis to hide your own Fascistic tendencies.

Sadly, this will not be the last time you hear of "political enemies" being attacked by Obama's brown-shirts. But at least they'll tell you exactly why you're such a "hater" while they're beating the shit out of you....

Oh... and one more thing... I haven't received my check from the greedy insurance companies yet... does anyone know if the post office has been cut from the budget?

article from the St. Louis Tea Party

Glenn Beck's History of Illegal Immigration

Why The Sierra Club Sucks Balls

"With fond memories, a heavy heart, and a desire for progress, I say to you tonight that environmentalism is dead," declared former Sierra Club President Adam Werbach to a crowd that included current leaders of top enviro groups such as the Sierra Club, Rainforest Action Network, and Earth Island Institute.

As it loses basic battles such as curbing pollution, environmentalism has shown it's as good as dead. The movement's members should therefore stop focusing on a single cause and instead advocate for broader leftist ideals, Werbach urged.

"Choose your side. Are you a progressive or a conservative? If you're a conservative," Werbach declared, "we wish you well, but we need you to leave this movement."

from SFWeekly, 12/15/04

Thus was the proclamation from the President of the Sierra Club, Adam Werbach, back in the days after the '04 election when "progressive" politicos were in a state of suicidal depression after losing the Presidential election.

The Sierra Club had, for years, been slithering left-ward - much like the endangered San Francisco Garter Snake - but now had become an all-out, exclusionary left wing entity. The main cause for the shift - besides the belief of some members that the group was too cozy with business - was the big 1993 immigration debate.

Then came the whole flap over immigration. In March of 1993, the Sierra Club found itself on the brink of endorsing a measure that basically said newcomers and the United States environment were a bad match. Keep those folks south of the border, you see, and they won't be standing on line in Wal-Marts across America getting ready to buy aerosol sprays that could deplete the ozone layer.

"And you thought cars and industry polluted air, lack of recycling regulations made solid waste such a problem and the water shortage was because of a water subsidy policy that makes it profitable for big growers to raise rice in arid California. You were wrong: according to the national Population Committee of the Sierra Club, it's the immigrants, who are increasing California's population with their higher fertility rate and their desire to learn our lifestyle, who cause these problems," Hannah Creighton of Earth Island Institute wrote in the summer 1993 edition of Race, Poverty, and the Environment, which devoted an enLinktire issue, guest-edited by Creighton, to the topic of racism within the environmental activist community. The debate over immigration ran hot enough to ignite Sierra Club fires for months. Has the fury died down?

"No it hasn't, and nobody talks about this," says Sierra Club board member David Brower, still burning.

So said David Brower back in 1996, but one suspects that there's likely been a bit of a Stalinist purge at the Sierra Club, with anyone daring to question leftist orthodoxy being told to take a hike - and not in a good way.

Interestingly enough, many of the voices in the "restrictionist" movement as it is called by leftists point to this moment as a part of their awakening. Many of those purged and urged to leave the Sierra Club went on to form and staff some of the biggest and best organizations trying to save America from immigration anarchy.

Even leftists like the Sierra Club know in their hearts that unrestricted immigration is killing this country. Some lie to themselves and say it's the size of the footprint (like immigrants won't pollute as much as Americans if given the chance). A few think upending the Anglos is a good thing (like immigrants are going to be good stewards for the environment... despite the fact - which I'm sure makes said Sierra Club leftists squirm - that the environmental movement is (and always has been) almost totally white).

But many are just in simple, ordinary denial - it's not that they can't reconcile immigration with their
environmental beliefs, it's that they can't reconcile immigration with their leftist beliefs.

The Sierra Club made a choice - leftists first, environmentalists second. They somehow believe a Communist utopia will somehow be good for the planet (the squeaky clean former Soviet Union not withstanding).

I don't follow the Sierra Club closely, so if I'm wrong in my assessment that the group is now just another cultural marxist entity, I'd love to hear from some real environmentalists on the state of the club.

Until then... let's hear from a real environmentalist...

Author: Edward Abbey

[From Abbey’s 1988 book One Life at a Time, Please.]

In the American Southwest, where I happen to live, only sixty miles north of the Mexican border, the subject of illegal aliens is a touchy one. Even the terminology is dangerous: the old word wetback is now considered a racist insult by all good liberals; and the perfectly correct terms illegal alien and illegal immigrant can set off charges of xenophobia, elitism, fascism, and the ever-popular genocide against anyone careless enough to use them. The only acceptable euphemism, it now appears, is something called undocumented worker. Thus the pregnant Mexican woman who appears, in the final stages of labor, at the doors of the emergency ward of an El Paso or San Diego hospital, demanding care for herself and the child she's about to deliver, becomes an "undocumented worker." The child becomes an automatic American citizen by virtue of its place of birth, eligible at once for all of the usual public welfare benefits. And with the child comes not only the mother but the child's family. And the mother's family. And the father's family. Can't break up families can we? They come to stay and they stay to multiply.

What of it? say the documented liberals; ours is a rich and generous nation, we have room for all, let them come. And let them stay, say the conservatives; a large, cheap, frightened, docile, surplus labor force is exactly what the economy needs. Put some fear into the unions: tighten discipline, spur productivity, whip up the competition for jobs. The conservatives love their cheap labor; the liberals love their cheap cause. (Neither group, you will notice, ever invites the immigrants to move into their homes. Not into their homes!) Both factions are supported by the cornucopia economists of the ever-expanding economy, who actually continue to believe that our basic resource is not land, air, water, but human bodies, more and more of them, the more the better in hive upon hive, world without end - ignoring the clear fact that those nations which most avidly practice this belief, such as Haiti, Puerto Rico, Mexico, to name only three, don't seem to be doing well. They look more like explosive slow-motion disasters, in fact, volcanic anthills, than functioning human societies. But that which our academic economists will not see and will not acknowledge is painfully obvious to los latinos: they stream north in ever-growing numbers.

Meanwhile, here at home in the land of endless plenty, we seem still unable to solve our traditional and nagging difficulties. After forty years of the most fantastic economic growth in the history of mankind, the United States remains burdened with mass unemployment, permanent poverty, an overloaded welfare system, violent crime, clogged courts, jam-packed prisons, commercial ("white-collar") crime, rotting cities and a poisoned environment, eroding farmlands and the disappearing family farm all of the usual forms of racial ethnic and sexual conflict (which immigration further intensifies), plus the ongoing destruction of what remains of our forests, fields, mountains, lakes, rivers, and seashores, accompanied by the extermination of whole specie's of plants and animals. To name but a few of our little nagging difficulties.

This being so, it occurs to some of us that perhaps evercontinuing industrial and population growth is not the true road to human happiness, that simple gross quantitative increase of this kind creates only more pain, dislocation, confusion, and misery. In which case it might be wise for us as American citizens to consider calling a halt to the mass influx of even more millions of hungry, ignorant, unskilled, and culturallymorally-generically impoverished people. At least until we have brought our own affairs into order. Especially when these uninvited millions bring with them an alien mode of life which - let us be honest about this - is not appealing to the majority of Americans. Why not? Because we prefer democratic government, for one thing; because we still hope for an open, spacious, uncrowded, and beautiful-yes, beautiful!-society, for another. The alternative, in the squalor, cruelty, and corruption of Latin America, is plain for all to see.

Yes, I know, if the American Indians had enforced such a policy none of us pale-faced honkies would be here. But the Indians were foolish, and divided, and failed to keep our WASP ancestors out. They've regretted it ever since.

To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of "Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!" from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play "let's pretend" much longer, not in the present world.

Therefore-let us close our national borders to any further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, as does every other nation on earth. The means are available, it's a simple technical-military problem. Even our Pentagon should be able to handle it. We've got an army somewhere on this planet, let's bring our soldiers home and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal affairs. Everyone would benefit, including the neighbors. Especially the neighbors. Ah yes. But what about those hungry hundreds of millions, those anxious billions, yearning toward the United States from every dark and desperate corner of the world? Shall we simply ignore them? Reject them? Is such a course possible?

"Poverty," said Samuel Johnson, "is the great enemy of human happiness. It certainly destroys liberty, makes some virtues impracticable, and all virtues extremely difficult."

You can say that again, Sam.

Poverty, injustice, over breeding, overpopulation, suffering, oppression, military rule, squalor, torture, terror, massacre: these ancient evils feed and breed on one another in synergistic symbiosis. To break the cycles of pain at least two new forces are required: social equity - and birth control. Population control. Our Hispanic neighbors are groping toward this discovery. If we truly wish to help them we must stop meddling in their domestic troubles and permit them to carry out the social, political, and moral revolution which is both necessary and inevitable.

Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Obama In His Own Words: Government Will Eliminate Private Insurance

Healthcare protest at Nutty Nancy's

Friday August 14th

1:00 - 5:00

Meet at Civic Center Park (McAllister/Polk) and walk to Pelosi's office (450 Golden Gate)

More info: Bay Area Patriots

I mean, seriously... those of you who voted for him... did you not expect this to happen?

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

"Historic" Moment - God-like Being To Ascend To Supreme Court

The AP's Julie Hirschfeld Davis - one of its' legion of amnesty shills - is waxing orgasmic over the likely confirmation of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court...

There was little doubt that President Barack Obama's first high court nominee would be confirmed with bipartisan support as early as Thursday, but senators lined up to weigh in on her fitness for the bench anyway, with an eye toward the history books, the nation's burgeoning Hispanic electorate and perhaps the next Supreme Court battle.

"Judge Sotomayor's journey to this nomination is truly an American story ... (and) a reminder to all of the continuing vitality of the American dream," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman. His opening remarks framed Sotomayor's confirmation as a step on the nation's still-evolving "path of inclusion" that began with the Bill of Rights and continued with the extension of voting rights to women and enactment of the civil and voting rights laws of the 1960s.

"She's a restrained, experienced and thoughtful judge who has shown no bias in her rulings," Leahy said.

Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the panel's top Republican and his party's pointman on Sotomayor, called her a devotee of an approach that heeds "the seductive siren call of judicial activism" and is contrary to the "classical underpinnings" of the nation's legal system.

"Judge Sotomayor's expressed judicial philosophy rejects openly the ideal of impartial and objective judging. Instead, her philosophy embraces the impact that background, personal experience, sympathies, gender and prejudices — these are her words — have on judging," Sessions said.


Democrats point instead to a long record of rulings in which Sotomayor has reached the same conclusions as judges who are considered more conservative. They call her a moderate who is restrained in her legal interpretations and argue that her controversial remarks — while perhaps worded inartfully — show nothing more than a belief that diverse experiences help a judge see all sides of a case.

Gah! There's that word again - diversity.

Some say the Left is not religious. Poppycock! The Left does indeed have a religion - a religion just as tightly held on to as the "people clutching their guns" - and that religion is The Cult of Diversity. The orgasmic fervor of the Diversity Cultists upon the election of the Anointed One now has its aftershock with the confirmation of a non-white, non-male to the SCOTUS.

Democrats are preparing to claim a big victory with Sotomayor's confirmation. They planned a midday rally Wednesday on Capitol Hill with civil rights, minority and women's groups.

... which sort of shows what this all about, doesn't it?

Sunday, August 2, 2009

Worker's of the World... QUIT!

Those Communist, illegal alien harboring, open borders, using-the-poor-as-pawns, dictatorial, power-mad, anti-free speech, race baiting, "brown-shirts for Obama" - the SEIU - are threatening to go on strike!!! OH NOOOOO!!!

Br'er Rabbit... meet briar patch.

California's largest state employee union has voted to allow job actions including a strike, officials said Saturday.

A spokesman for Service Employees International Union Local 1000 said no strike is imminent. Union leaders will meet in the coming week to decide what steps to take, spokesman Jim Zamora said.

The union announced that 74 percent of its membership approved the strike authorization in votes counted Saturday.

President Yvonne Walker said the overwhelming support shows employees are outraged at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to unilaterally furlough state workers three days each month.

The three furlough days effectively reduce pay by about 14 percent for most of the state's more than 200,000 workers. The furloughs also shut down most of state government three Fridays each month.

SEIU had negotiated a contract with the administration in February that would have limited its 95,000 members to a single monthly furlough day. Republican legislators blocked the contract's ratification, and Schwarzenegger said he had no choice but to add furlough days to help the state close a $26 billion budget deficit.

The Governor (or his successor, or somebody) is going to have to stand up to the unions bleeding the state dry, and there surely can't be a better union to make an example of then this rabble. If one wanted to make a strike at the very heart of "progressive" politics - and all of the Evil that they stand for - a good bitch-slap to the SEIU would be a great start!

To the SEIU: Puhleeeeaze go on strike! Pretty please! Then you can find out just how much the average Californian loathes and despises you. Clearly, it won't be anywhere near how much you hate the average Californian, but it should give you an idea of where you really stand.


SEIU backstabs California over stimulus funds
The SEIU's "curiously close" Friendship with the White House

Just when You Think That Things Can't Possibly Get Any Crazier... (Part 9,346)

We're Number 1! We're Number 1!

San Francisco Wins Homeless Soccer Tournament

Homeless people from across the country competed this weekend in the Street Soccer USA Cup with a team from San Francisco taking the title.

Street Soccer USA conducts soccer programs at social service agencies and homeless shelters across the country. The tournament, which began Friday, brought together 16 teams of homeless men and women.

San Francisco beat defending champion Minneapolis on Sunday in the final game of the tournament, which was held at Kastles Stadium in downtown D.C.

The top eight players in the tournament will represent the U.S. in the 48-nation Homeless World Cup, scheduled for September in Milan.

Good God Almighty... where to even begin with this?

First of all, SF was a shoo-in to win - we have, after all, the largest pool of participants from which to pick!

Then there are the obvious questions... what numbskulls are paying for this? Who is the home team when no one has a home? Will there be a parade, where the citizens will line the sidewalks and urinate on the street in honor of their heroes?

Some other observations and questions from the SFGate's peanut gallery...

"SF won since its been recruiting thousands of homeless annually for many years in anticipation of the event. This is the only example of SF long-term planning."

"This has got to be a Top 5 Achievement during Gavin Newsom's time as Mayor. But will it instill enough pride in San Franciscans for people to forget Newsom was too busy having an affair with his campaign manager's wife to keep the 49'ers from fleeing town?"

"Really, we won because we have a much larger population of homeless people to choose from in selecting a team -- a higher sample means more methheads who can run really fast!"

"I'm rooting for them... to stay in Milan."

"The organizers of the event save lots of money because they don't have to provide the players a place to stay."

"To make sure that San Francisco's homeless soccer team was a true reflection of the city, the Board of Supes insisted that the team include bums who were transgendered illegal aliens."

"How do they determine if the "athletes" are truly without homes? When they do the drug testing, it it MANDATORY that drugs are in the system?"

"That had to be a nice smell. I wonder if Obamer will invite them to the White House for congrats and a beer."

"GREAT!!! WAY TO GO!!!! WOOO-----WHOOO!!! Players and their friends......Now, put that championship energy and desire into getting yer s*** together enough to get off the streets for good!"

"I thought I was reading The Onion. I keep rubbing my eyes, but the story is still there, and it's still not The Onion. I swear to God - you people are making me MENTAL."

"Of course we won. Good lord."