Friday, April 30, 2010

Some Heartfelt Advice For "Moderates"

... and by "moderates" I mean everyone to the right of Che Guevara who still lives in S.F.

I've long given up on the Democratic Party in San Francisco. But a lot of people are still on the roles, if not believers. And I don't think a single one of them would argue that the City has moved WAY too far to the left.

How can it be, you're wondering, that if so many of society's cretinous heathens can't, don't, or won't vote, then how is it that we keep getting candidates that looked like they were handpicked by drug cartels, street hooker conventions, and asylum inmates?

CW Nevius unravels the mystery, and offers a wake-up call for those San Franciscans who are a) City Democrats and b) still sane in spite of it...

Moderate Democrats in San Francisco often complain that far-left politicians don't represent their values. Middle-class families are frustrated that their concerns - like safe streets - are undermined by ideologues with wild claims of a "police state." Developers are exasperated when their projects are subjected to endless delays, even when the property has been a vacant eyesore for years.

Would you like to see things change?

Then I've got some bad news for you.

You're going to have to get involved - or at least start paying attention.

The next two months will see a battle for the political soul of the city. It will pit the progressives against the moderates in a face-off that will have huge implications in the November elections and, perhaps, the election of the next mayor. The key is control of an obscure but incredibly influential organization called the Democratic County Central Committee.

Rather than complaining about the direction of the city, middle-of-the-road Democrats have to get active. They have to vote in the June DCCC election and they have to do their homework on the candidates to learn if they represent moderate values.

"If you want to see change in the city, change to the culture of the Board of Supervisors, and bring some common sense and reason back to the city, it starts with the DCCC," said David Latterman, a local pollster.

If you are not sure what the DCCC is, you are not alone. (Note: I have in the past referred to the DCCC as the "Gay Mafia" - mostly because their ranks include a who's-who of the gay ultra-left. Most of them got in by being gay, counting on unflinching support from the City's gay voters, and then used the position to fight not just for gay issues but for a cornucopia of Marxist imperatives - from handcuffing and vilifying cops at every turn to their unwavering support for illegal alien criminals. One of the reasons they get away with it is that gay voters don't seem to care what a person stands for as long as they're gay. Hopefully that will change.)

"If you stopped people on the street and asked them what the DCCC was, most of them wouldn't know what you were talking about," Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier said.

San Francisco political insiders know. The DCCC endorsement doesn't necessarily mean a win in every election - it just seems to work out that way. In 2008, the DCCC went 6-for-6 in supervisor races (the seventh, Ross Mirkarimi, used to belong to the Green Party and was not eligible for a Democratic endorsement) and 3-for-4 in the school board elections.

That's no surprise. San Francisco is a liberal Democrat town. When the official voice of the local Democratic committee sends out recommendations in mailers - and it has a nearly unlimited budget to do so - voters listen.

"But when Mrs. Jones receives her Democratic voter guide in the mail," said Scott Wiener, former chairman of the DCCC and candidate for supervisor in District Eight, "she's thinking of the party of Barack Obama, not the party of Aaron Peskin and (Supervisor) Chris Daly."

There's the rub. In 2008, Peskin and Daly unapologetically staged a takeover of the DCCC. They ran a slate of well-known names, including Eric Mar, David Campos and David Chiu, all of whom won seats as supervisors later that year. When they won seats on the DCCC, Wiener was voted out as chairman and replaced by Peskin, the former president of the Board of Supervisors.

Now, there's nothing illegal or evil about that. In fact, a few years ago people complained about then-Mayor Willie Brown controlling the DCCC. Peskin and Daly promised to dismantle the Willie Brown machine.

They did. Then they created their own.

"Aaron Peskin is building a political machine that would make Willie Brown blush," Wiener said.

Campos scoffs at that idea.

"We don't sit around trying to figure out what we, as a machine, should do," he said (Note: BULLSHIT!). "I talk to everybody."

Maybe so, but with the DCCC's unmistakable power, a progressive voting majority will guarantee endorsements of far-left candidates in the November elections for supervisor. And remember, if Gavin Newsom leaves office as mayor, the supervisors will elect his successor. The stakes are huge.

The election for the DCCC is in June. You should be sure to vote. And you should make sure you know who you are voting for.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

MSM and the Left Decalre War on Arizona - and America

Stand Strong, Arizona!
America Supports You!

Lying Leftist shitbags across the nation are on the verge of brain-popping aneurysms following Arizona's enactment of sweeping anti-illegal immigration legislation.

The protests have already turned violent as the "peace, love, and understanding" crowd pelt police with bottles and bloody demonstrators with whom they don't agree. The hypocracy and arrogance is astounding - but not if you know them; it's par for the course.

The MSM have come out with slanderous editorials calling an entire state "Nazis." Here's just a few of the lying, biased hit-pieces by our allegedly "objective, non-partisan" media...

Nikitas3 on RedState summed it up thusly...

Two of the three Navy Seals accused of allegedly punching a most-wanted terrorist during capture in Iraq now have been cleared of the charge. We conservatives all expect that the third, Matthew McCabe, will be cleared as well. He has taken a lie detector test about the incident and passed it.

Yet why are we even seeing these charges?

Answer: Because people on the political left are doing everything they can to undermine our military and our national security. These terrorists are trained to lodge false complaints against the American military whenever they can, and leftists in the American legal system and media are poised to immediately echo those charges in order to hamstring our war on terror.

Now the state of Arizona will soon impose a tough new immigration law after drug violence from Mexico has spilled over into Arizona with kidnapping, murder, mayhem, and the killing of a rancher named Robert Krentz. Liberals oppose the new law vehemently - the same leftists who are seeking to prosecute our troops and CIA agents whenever possible in the war on terror.

But after decades in which illegals have flooded into America, obtained hundreds of billions of dollars in public services, crowded our hospitals and schools, and, in a small minority, committed large amounts of violent crime, the people of Arizona decided to act. Their legislature passed, and Republican governor Jan Brewer signed a law to allow the state’s police officers more freedom to search suspected illegals. 70% of Arizonans support the new law in one poll, including Democrats, independents and Republicans.

Fox News reported:

‘The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

…”We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.” ‘(end of excerpt)

The law even requires every Arizona resident to carry ID papers which the left is calling unconstitutional. Yet these same liberals are allowing the government to force us to buy health insurance.

The tough Arizona law is akin to a tough response to terrorists after years of attacks on the United States. This is not to compare terrorism to illegal immigration, but indeed to compare terrorism to those illegals who are bringing serious drug violence to Arizona.

Most Americans believe that illegals want to come here and work hard, and many do. But the violent element among illegals is rising every year, and the situation in Arizona is out of control. And after decades of federal failure to control the border, the state of Arizona now is reacting.

President Obama and his allies - the same people seeking to prosecute our Navy Seals and CIA for every perceived departure from Geneva Conventions protocol in our war against terrorists – are protesting the Arizona law. Obama said, “If we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country… That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona

And there is the crux of the issue: The federal government has failed to protect the border, and the primary reason for that failure is that liberals in the Democrat party and in academia and the media have tied law enforcement’s hands at every turn and allowed the border to run amok, just like the progressives who are hamstringing our war on terror at every opportunity.

Had they allowed reasonable control of the border - which could be easily achieved - there would be no need to take such action as the Arizona legislation.

But for Democrats, defending illegals - and terrorists - in a blanket fashion and minimizing their criminality is perfectly in keeping with their stance on all criminals since the 1960s.

Conservative mayor Rudy Giuliani’s crackdown on crime in New York City in the 1990s came after decades in which the city’s liberals let criminals run wild with a toothless justice system and rampant political correctness toward bad people.

As far as lefties are concerned, Arizona should simply accept the violence, just as the people of New York City did. And leftists believe that if terrorists attack us, then we must either seek to understand it, or be prepared to read those terrorists their Miranda rights and guarantee them American Constitutional liberties if we capture them. This is sheer stupidity that is going to cost Dems big-time in the November elections.

To keep the new Arizona statute fair, the governor has ordered Arizona law enforcement agencies to develop a training course on implementing the law without violating civil rights.

Liberals fear racial profiling, which is a standard objection in their opposition to any effective tactics against identifiable people like Middle Eastern hijackers. Yet in that case, profiling would make airport screening vastly more efficient, and would end the practice of scrutinizing little old white ladies as potential terrorists, which is actually a more severe and intrusive form of reverse profiling.

Open-border groups are angry about the Arizona law. They are part of the movement to legitimize and legalize every illegal alien in America. And in protests by immigrants’ rights groups just one day after the Arizona law was signed, the protestors turned violent, pelting police with bottles. This we expect from the violent left and comes after endless false charges about bad Tea Party behavior.

Even the Mexican government is angry about the law, and for good reason. The government there is seeking to force as many of that nation’s poor into the United States so that they do not further burden the Mexican economy.

With detractors like that, Americans should see clear to support the Arizona law. Under the current system of sanctuary cities and illegals’ rights pursued at every turn, along with billions in federal and state handouts to illegals every month, the pendulum has swung way too far over to the side of the aliens. How about the constitutional and civil rights of Americans like rancher Krentz to live in their own country in peace and security? Where is that debate?

Until we move the pendulum back with strong action, the problem of unchecked and dangerous illegal immigration will continue to fester and to threaten our security and the safety of our own American citizens. And if illegals continue to participate in violent protests - and they will - it only will strengthen the case against them.

News Flash: After 50 Years Flower Children Still Mad at Their Parents

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the true enemy of the Left is not the "rich."

Leftists and "the rich" are actually a lot closer to each other than you might think. Both often have very questionable morals. Both often have rampant superiority complexes. Both are in favor of one-world government. Both inevitably support amnesty.

No, the true enemy of the Left is the middle class. Always has been since the flower children revolted against their middle class parents in the '60s. The Left has always viewed the middle class as too stupid to know what its own best interests are.

The robber barons are not the enemy because they steal from the people; the people are the enemy because they are too dumb to see it.
The Left's assumption here is that they wouldn't be too dumb to see it, if only they would listen to those who were smarter than them - namely US. This is, after all, just a cry for attention, albeit on a grand - almost theatrical - scale.

Which is why you see the Left screaming in apoplectic fury over any mention of Sarah Palin, and writhing in spasms of pure hate over Arizona's new anti-illegal immigration measures, and, at the same time, completely letting the rich off the hook.

To continue along this vein, we have a recent editorial by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. from the Washington Times...

The liberals hate the middle class. There. I said it, and I am glad. Once again, I am a truth teller, in this case speaking truth to stone heads. So certain am I of the truth of my asseveration that I honestly doubt any liberal will take issue with me. Can you imagine a liberal coming forward and saying: "Wrong Tyrrell! I love the middle class." Well, I guess I can imagine it because liberals are effortless liars. Yet what specifically about the middle class might the liberals adduce to demonstrate their affection? The middle class' sobriety? Hard work? Love of country? Love of liberty?

The liberals' contempt for the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin is obviously fired by their hatred of the middle class. She has said nothing that many ordinary Americans have not said privately, though she does it with charm. I was particularly charmed by her playful taunt directed toward the Prophet Obama at February's National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, where she said: "How's that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya?" At the time, President Obama's polling figures were low - not as low as they fell later, but low - and not much was "working" for him. Things have not improved.

What seems particularly to offend the liberals is that Mrs. Palin is from Middle America and from a state whose citizens pride themselves on self-reliance. Then, too, it has to hurt that she is so easy on the eyes while being the antithesis of the feminist. By the way, has there ever been a comely feminist? Yes, Gloria Steinem had her moments, but then, as the years went on and her gripes and disappointments multiplied, her anger got the best of her, and today her face looks like a gnarled fist. Mrs. Palin could teach her a lot, starting with a pedicure and maybe a prayer. That is another thing that brings the liberals to a boil: Mrs. Palin's being a person of faith. For some reason, religion really alarms liberals, unless it be the religion of the Prophet Muhammad. Now there is an evolution in liberal thought I would not have anticipated.

The Tea Party movement is another perfectly middle-class phenomenon that sets off fires of indignation with the liberals. I could understand if they simply disagreed with the Tea Partiers. The Tea Partiers favor freedom, limited government, low taxes and addressing the staggering debt that government is piling up. These are values liberals do not champion. But the liberals have to go further, depicting the Tea Partiers as violent racists. Once again, we see how fluently the liberals lie, starting by lying to themselves.

Last week, during a seminar at the Heritage Foundation on my new book, "After the Hangover: The Conservatives' Road to Recovery," Michael Barone, surely one of the most learned political observers of our time, made a very instructive point. While writing his fine book "Our Country: Shaping America From Roosevelt to Reagan," he discovered that there was in the late 1930s a growing resistance against the New Deal's spreading governmental tentacles. Very much like today's Tea Party participants, Americans were becoming uneasy about the cost and coercion of Franklin D. Roosevelt's huge government projects. Moreover, as Amity Shlaes has demonstrated in her recent book, "The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression," the New Deal was not ending the Depression but lengthening it.

Mr. Barone thinks that had World War II not arrived, this late-1930s Tea Party manifestation would have supported a stiff challenge to FDR's precedent-breaking third term. He speculates that there is something about America that makes many of its citizens relish their freedoms and suspicious of government involvement in areas Americans envisage as off-limits to government power and inefficiency. That something in the Constitution, which might explain why liberal judges want to be free to ignore it or disfigure it.

Yes, the liberals hate the middle class, and I think I tripped across the reason for their hatred while finishing "Hangover." Whereas conservatism is fundamentally a temperament to delight in reality, in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, liberalism is fundamentally an anxiety. The environment? The Constitution? The middle class? Liberalism is an anxiety about reality. The liberals prefer fantasy to reality - hence their fluency in lying about the Tea Party movement and the pulchritudinous Sarah Palin.