San Fransanity

Illegal Alien Mass Murderer Denied Parole

2011-12-05T17:28:00.000-08:00

Juan Corona, one of the most infamous mass murderers in California history, has been denied parole....

A California man who was once known as the nation's worst serial killer was again denied parole Monday after he admitted his guilt for the first time before the parole board.

Juan Corona said he murdered and mutilated 25 (mostly white) farmworkers four decades ago because they were trespassing in the orchards north of Sacramento, said Sutter County Assistant District Attorney Jana McClung.

Parole officials decided Corona can try again in five years, McClung said after the two-hour hearing. It was Corona's seventh bid for parole from Corcoran State Prison.

Corona previously made incriminating statements to a prison psychologist.

However, "this is the first time that I'm aware of that he made that admission to the full board. He said it was trespassing and they were winos," McClung said. "He just doesn't seem to realize that what he did was wrong."

Corona, 77, has been diagnosed with dementia and mental illness (but by all means, let's let him go free - how much harm can a 25-time murderer suffering from dementia and mental illness do???).

No family members of his victims attended the hearing. Prosecutors said Corona targeted victims who had few relatives and likely wouldn't be missed.

"We have had no contact with survivors for two decades now," District Attorney Carl Adams said before the hearing. "The people who he killed were farm laborers who were itinerant. Most of them didn't have relatives who could be contacted back in the `70s at the time of trial." (Moral of the story - if you're going to kill people, make sure they have no family so no one will be upset.)

Four of the bodies have never been identified. The bodies of 14 of Corona's victims were never claimed by family members after they were discovered in 1971.

Corona, a farm labor contractor with a history of mental illness, was convicted of stabbing the men, hacking open their heads and burying their remains near Yuba City, 40 miles north of Sacramento.

He told the parole board he stabbed his first victim with a kitchen knife, shot his second, and killed the rest with a machete, McClung said. However, there is no record of any of his victims being shot, she said, raising questions about whether there was another possible victim or if the shooting was a product of Corona's fading mind.

Corona walked unaided into the hearing, but his dementia was evident during his comments, McClung said.

"He was a little bit all over the road," she said. "He did start rambling a little bit."

Corona's attorney, Leon Harris III of Bakersfield, declined to comment before the hearing.

Corona's first conviction in 1973 was overturned on appeal, but he was convicted again in 1982 and sentenced to 25 concurrent life sentences. He was not eligible for the death penalty because California's capital punishment law had been ruled unconstitutional at the time (not like it makes any difference in a state where capital punishment is the law, but it is effectively not used by politicians who don't believe in it).

It was the most deadly killing spree in U.S. history, until John Wayne Gacy Jr. was convicted in 1980 of murdering 33 young men and boys in his Chicago home. Gacy was executed in 1994 in Illinois.

Investigators found a machete, a meat cleaver, a double-bladed ax and a wooden club, all stained with blood, in Corona's home, along with a ledger book containing the names of seven of the victims.

Corona is a Mexican national and native of Jalisco, Mexico (Translation: He was an illegal alien).

His attorney argued that his age and lack of recent violent acts means he should be paroled, said McClung, who countered that his dementia and apparent lack of understanding and remorse means he is still dangerous.

"The concern could be, would he go out and do this again, because he doesn't seem to have an understanding of what he did the first time," she said.

Buried in the story - again - is the fact that Corona was an illegal alien who predominantly murdered white people. But that makes him a hero in the liberal playbook.

PETA Condones Vegetable Rape

2011-08-23T14:21:00.000-07:00

The wonderful people at PETA have launched a new website, according to the SFGate...

TGL has noted before that the animal rights group PETA seems paradoxically willing to exploit and belittle human females to raise awareness of the exploitation on non-human animals.

It appears that PETA is sticking to the old saw that any PR is good PR. Far from shying away from its sexploitationalist tactics, the group plans to launch a pornographic website.

I need an adult! I NEED AN ADULT!!!

The website, www.peta.xxx, will allegedly earn its .xxx domain, but probably won't offer footage of sex acts. The site will instead promote veganism by offering erotic teasers of the sex-with-vegetables theme before hitting hard with graphic images of animal suffering.

A PETA spokesperson told Australia's Herald Sun: "It's the kind of thing you often won't see on TV because the under cover footage is so graphic and violent that it's pretty tough to show." But, according to the Huffington Post, the site will feature some celebrity flesh.

The group defended its tactics. A spokeswoman told HuffPo, "We wouldn't use nudity or some of our flashier tactics if we didn't know they worked. We also track the effectiveness of our actions very closely and see if we get visitors checking out other features on our site."

Apparently there's an untapped market for recruiting internet porn surfers to altruistic causes. Who knew?

Typical liberal fascists. Everything is evil... unless we do it. Then it's okay.

One has to wonder if there is anything that liberals won't stoop to if it thinks it advances their cause.

4-year old Boy Killed By Illegal Alien Driver in Santa Rosa

2011-08-19T16:23:00.000-07:00

From the PressDemocrat...

Police say the suspect in a fatal hit-and-run crash that took the life of 4-year-old Santa Rosa boy was cited for driving without a license less than a week before he plowed through a West Ninth Street crosswalk Thursday night and killed the youngster.

Marcos Lopez Garcia, 22, was cited once for unlicensed driving last year and then again last Saturday, with instructions to appear in court Oct. 18 and ordered not to drive until then, Santa Rosa Police Sgt. Rich Celli said Friday.

***

He was arrested for suspected felony hit and run and driving without a license, though police intend to request more serious charges now that the boy has died, Celli said.

Garcia was being held without bail because of an immigration hold, jail personnel said.

Border Reality

2011-01-15T17:21:00.000-08:00

Those in America who say that the border violence has not crossed into America are fucking liars.

This is a report from Nightline - that bastion of right wing doublethink - on the town of Fort Hancock, Texas. That's right, Texas. As in inside the USA.

The "virtual fence" has been scrapped by the Obama administration, but what, if anything, will take its place.

We are watching.

The Unabomber and The Left

2011-01-05T00:16:00.000-08:00

I don't know exactly what drove me to look up and read the Unabomber Manifesto (whose actual title is "Industrial Society and Its Future"). Ted Kaczynski was seen somewhat sympathetically by some as an obviously disturbed man who took a very extreme approach in addressing what many people see as a problem: the pace of technology that is leaving humanity in the dust. It should be noted that this sympathy was not mutual.

Contained in the manifesto, towards the beginning, is one of the most concise and complete critiques of the modern Left I've ever seen. Kaczynski was clearly not insane - he sees the left with a clarity that is refreshing in its truthfulness. Perhaps resorting to terrorism was the only choice he felt he had, given his wholly isolated existence.

He was wrong, of course, and its hard to imagine that things would have been the same had he not imposed that isolation on himself. Just because he was a murderer does not however render his ideas invalid.

The ideas of Kaczynski deserve reading and discussing. Ideas are just ideas, they are not harmful in themselves. People who are scared of ideas are pussies. People who need to suppress ideas are shitheads. Ideas certainly can be dangerous. But the suppression of ideas is worse. Still worse is the unflinching, uncritical acceptance of ideas.

So here then is what the Unabomber thinks of the Left. Italics emphasis is in the original. My emphasis is in bold.

The Psychology of Modern Leftism

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the whole truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

Feelings of inferiority

10. By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures are inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They say they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he grudgingly admits that they exist; whereas he enthusiastically points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative," "enterprise," "optimism," etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's problems for them, satisfy everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they prefer masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to invent problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

Oversocialization

24. Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe such people.

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of himself. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are not in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes) for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all essential respects leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers "responsible." They want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, never rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

Missing Virgiia Girl Found Safe in SF

2010-12-10T21:29:00.000-08:00

A missing Virginia girl has been found over 2,000 miles away from home at a Safeway on 48th Ave and Fulton...

A relieved Virginia police chief extended an emotional thank-you from across the country to a San Francisco woman who spotted a fugitive sought in a slaying and kidnapping as she shopped at a Safeway in the Outer Richmond on Friday afternoon.

"We're so thankful to her - for a person to be that observant, 3,000 miles away, is almost incredible," Roanoke County Police Chief Ray Lavinder said about the unidentified shopper who recognized Jeffrey Scott Easley, 32, from a TV report and called police, leading to his arrest and the recovery of 12-year-old Brittany Mae Smith.

Whoever the woman is... she deserves a medal.

One of the ways he was identified was by distinctive tattoos on his calves. Idiot swipes child and doesn't think enough to cover his calves. What a fucking moron.

So is he a local? Surely the failure to cover up the tats makes him as stupid as a local. On the other hand, only a tourist would wear shorts here at any time of year.

The two, who were detained at about 1:30 p.m., had been living in a makeshift encampment near Ocean Beach, police said. The tent Easley had purchased at the Virginia Walmart was found in the encampment nearby, police said.

...which means they could have escaped detection for years, like many other criminals who get a free ride from the cops because they're homeless. That girl is very lucky that someone was paying attention to something going on outside of their own little universe.

CITY PROPS GUIDE FOR TUESDAY - YES ON B, G, & L, NO ON D

2010-10-31T01:28:00.001-07:00

Here's San Fransanity's handy-dandy print off guide for City Props.

I'll add a more in depth analysis of Prop L - the sit/lie law - later. There's a few other ones I'll need to elaborate on as well.

As usual, if you don't understand a proposition - particularly one which increases spending or taxes - vote no.

A - NO - more later

AA - no recommendation - This is a $10 per year fee tacked on to auto registration to pay for street repairs, crosswalk improvements, and "bicycle infrastructure." While I don't so much like these sort of fees (and "fee" is San Francisco-speak for "tax"), this one is pretty modest and does seem to go to an area which needs help and which benefit everyone and not just the usual parasites. Make your own choice. I mean... do that anyway, of course... but no help from me on this one...

B - YES, YES, YES - San Francisco Public Employees need to pay their fair share for their health plans and stop bilking the taxpayers. The No on B folks are whining about kids being without health care and people being forced to move out of the city but they are talking out their assholes... even if B passes, SF employees will still be grossly overpaid and overcompensated, and will still pay far less for their health care than you do... in fact, you are the one paying for it now, a little detail that unions simply don't care about or are too ideologically blinded to put this simple equation together.

C - NO - Chris Daly's "brainchild" is back yet again, to make the Mayor jump through hoops and attend monthly verbal abuse sessions with the Board of Mental Incompetents. Vote this one down - again.

D - NO, NO, FUCK NO - Allows illegal aliens to vote in municipal elections. Aside from the fact that the City Attorney has already said that this is probably illegal, and would certainly end up in court, it is also JUST FUCKING WRONG. In addition to being JUST FUCKING WRONG, it creates a real problem - as illegal aliens could only vote in school board races, and only in cases where they are the parent, guardian, or caretaker of a student - that makes voting in a polling place an even more confusing experience, and would cost between $100,000-$150,000 extra per election. But these are small potatoes compared to the real reason why you should vote no on D - BECAUSE IT IS JUST FUCKING WRONG.

E - NO - Allows same day voter registration. $425,000 price tag... plus a major incentive for voter fraud? Vote no.

F - YES - Sean Elsbernd - the lone voice of fiscal sanity on the Board - put this one on to save a few bucks on Health Board elections. Why not?

G - YES, YES, YES - The "stick-it-to-MUNI" measure whereby everyone's favorite union - the MUNI drivers - would have to negotiate through collective bargaining like every other city union, forcing them to come to the table on work-rule concessions, something the union has absolutely no incentive to do as they are guaranteed to be among the highest in the country. It is not out of the question that MUNI would strike just for spite if this passes. Fuck 'em. San Francisco needs to extricate its balls from MUNI's vice. Vote YES.

H - YES - If you need any further proof that San Francisco is a one-party state, this is it. Placed on the ballot by the Mayor to get back at his far-left rivals on the Board, its main goal is to keep far-left Supervisors from simultaneously holding positions on the DCCC - the Communist-style politburo that runs Democratic Party politics (and, therefore, all politics) in the city. There's something to be said for the idea that a Supe should be spending their time doing their job and not running for another office. But the point of the measure is to keep the DCCC from becoming the tool of powerful Supervisors. The DCCC will still be the insane, batshit, nutball conglomeration of mental defectives it has always been, but at least they won't have a direct line to city government, and it won't be as subject to the type of Stalinist "purges" that tend to happen when Supes are in high positions and want to "eliminate" up and comers who disagree with them.

I - NO - Part III in the Stupid Costly Voter Reform trilogy. $1.7 million to have voting on Saturday before election Tuesday. Anyone who can't get their shit together enough to vote on Tuesday or send a ballot in the fucking mail probably isn't going to be able to get their shit together to vote on Saturday. Another pricey solution in search of a problem.

J - NO - Jacks up the hotel tax rates to the highest in the nation - higher than NYC!!! This in a town where tourism is the number one industry. But then... that's "Progressive" thinking for you! Seriously, how fucking stupid can these people be???

K - NO - Another hotel tax measure designed to close a loophole that lets online booking houses pay the tax on the wholesale, and not retail, rate. This is apparently already being settled in court, and would just create more problems. It also contains a poison pill that overrides Prop J. I hate poison pill tactics and hope they're made illegal. Better just to defeat J (and K for that matter) outright.

L - YES - This was a tough one. I ultimately decided to go with it. More later.

M - NO - Poison Pill to nullify Prop L if it passes. These type of things shouldn't be on the ballot in the first place, and I expect that they will be made illegal some time in the future. In the meantime... just vote no.

N - NO - After doubling the tax on property transactions two years ago, they now want to increase it again by a 33% on properties of $5 to 10 million, and by 66% on properties over $10 million. Pretty good deal for doing nothing. But then getting paid obscene amounts of money for doing nothing is... well... no need to beat a dead horse.

A Love Letter to the San Francisco Giants

2010-10-30T13:52:00.001-07:00

Me not very good putting feelings into words - at least not feelings that aren't incandescent rage :)

So I'll let blogger Rocketshoes sum it up. GO GIANTS!!!

*****

A Love Letter to the San Francisco Giants

This is why I’m a Giants fan. This exact moment. Scratch that: this is why I like stupid, grunt grunt sports in general. San Francisco, this very moment.

It’s legitimately a magical time in San Francisco right now. I have the fortune of working approximately two blocks away from AT&T/”For Christsakes, it’s PacBell” Park, and it’s been absolutely surreal. If a unicorn came around the corner and high fived me right now and said, “Go Giants”, I wouldn’t even take an earbud out. I’d just high hoove him right back and point and smile.

For people who don’t understand why people love sports so much, move to a town where this kind of thing might happen, and you’ll get it.

This team has done something to this city that is unreal. It’s even more unreal because this is San Francisco. Home of the polarizing “I hate your district NO I HATE YOUR DISTRICT LET’S MAKE OUT THOUGH BECAUSE WE BOTH LOVE SAN FRANCISCO” landscape. Hipsters hate marina guys. Marina guys hate hipsters. We judge every goddamn thing on the planet that isn’t organic, and then can’t understand why people judge the crap out of us right back (irony alert). I mean…I work down the block from afucking artisan grilled cheese store. This town is, by no means, indicative of the rest of the American landscape. We’re just weird, and we embrace the living crap out of it.

And right now, everyone is a Giants fan. Everyone. Your grandma. That homeless guy directing you into a wide open parking spot and then expecting you to congratulate him for his non-feat with a dollar. Right now? I’d give him two. Because this town is effing electric.

You know what? To all the people who hate “bandwagon” fans? Let it go. Who cares. You know who you are? You’re the guy who liked the Kings of Leon and then got mad when everyone else did. You’re the guy who said “this band is SO good”, and then when someone said, “hey I agree” you said NO YOU DON’T ONLY I CAN LIKE THEM. That’s silly. Knock it off. Let them in. Buy them a beer, or a kombucha. Whatever it is. I don’t care. Just let this happen and stop Eeyoring the crap out of our unlimited happiness we’re on the brink of.

I love sports for this reason. Every now and then, everyone just stops being so damn frumpy and acts like our city is just a big college. You ever been to a college town thatreally loves their team a scary amount? Like, Ray Finkel’s Mom amounts? It’s great. You know why? Because everyone is just actually nice to each other. You have a common bond. And whether or not it’s a bond that is contingent upon a guy throwing a ball or waving a wooden stick, it’s an awesome bond.

I love this time. I find myself smiling at people when I buy coffee. I see my friends who bicker over ridiculous crap calling each other and inviting each other to hang out. I see strangers hugging because a guy from the Dominican Republic is hitting sac fly’s. Marina guys are wearing the same goddamn t-shirt hipster guys are wearing. HOW CAN YOU NOT BOTTLE THIS MOMENT UP? We’re in a vacuum. Enjoy it.

I have grown up with the Giants. My brother and I spend half of our “that’s so adorable that they are ACTUALLY best friends” time talking to each other about them; it genuinely brings us together. It’s in the blood of my family, and I was taught from a very young age to bring a blanket to the ‘stick because it’s never a comfortable temperature in this city. My mother and father brought our family together with this ridiculous game. If you never lived here or you’re just getting on the bandwagon? Let me be your creepy metaphorical father and open the front door and hand you a beer. Welcome. We love you, too.

So fear the Just for Men beard. Embrace the fact that every woman in town is in love with the good guy (THAT NEVER HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE). Embrace the fact that we have a pitcher that resembles one of the greatest characters in film history, one Mitch Kramer (he even smokes pot…how San Francisco is that?). Embrace it.

No matter what happens, San Francisco, embrace it. This is why we like sports. Because they are ridiculous, and they make people really happy when we’d usually just bide the time complaining about what we don’t like about each other.

Embrace it, San Francisco. This is why we like each other. Right now.

Fear the goddamn beard.

Everything Changes Tuesday

2010-10-30T03:03:00.000-07:00

As you may have noticed, I've begun a flurry of last minute postings on the election.

I wish I could've got to it earlier, but the Giants have quite inconveniently gone to the World Series and are poised to become World Champions for the first time in over 50 years, so that has been occupying most of my time (fan since 1973). So, yeah... the election is important, but there are other things even more important.

So I will - somehow - get all the race, state props and local props up by Monday.

"This is not so much an election as a restraining order."

-PJ O'Rourke

We Need A Miracle

2010-10-30T02:24:00.000-07:00

John Dennis is tilting at the ultimate windmill... trying to knock off Nancy Pelosi - the Democratic Party's Deng Xiao Ping in the Liberal One Party State known as CA District 8.

His chances for victory are quite slim, but he deserves your vote.

Now, you might think I would be 100% behind anyone running against Pelosi, but the truth is there are many issues where I do not agree with Dennis' stance. That said, he is by far the lesser of two evils, and anything that can be done to break the political stalemate in San Francisco has got to be supported.

San Francisco is perhaps the most anti-democratic (with a small 'd') city in the United States. The City is entirely controlled by one party - the ironically-named Democratic Party - and the Democratic County Central Committee operates like a Soviet-era politburo. Many elected positions in city government are filled more or less by appointment than by election - many of them are settled in "races" where the hand-picked leftist runs unopposed.

Pelosi may not be part of the dysfunctional family power struggle of SF city politics, but she's a symptom of the same problem. She is the choice of people who don't believe that people should have a choice, or, to be more specific, who don't believe that people are intelligent enough to run their own lives.

Sadly, many San Franciscans don't seem to have any problem living in a one-party state, and don't seem to grasp that this isn't a good thing - no matter what end of the political spectrum you're on. Which kind of makes you wonder how they feel about democracy (or freedom, or America) in general....

********************

SF Examiner endorses Dennis...

Send the speaker a message

Rep. Nancy Pelosi will no longer be speaker if Republicans take over the House of Representatives, or even if they come close, thanks to the many House Democratic incumbents and candidates who have promised not to vote for her in the new Congress.

Our sister publication, The Washington Examiner, asked Pelosi’s office whether she would pledge to serve out her full term if re-elected. It has not heard back. So a vote for Pelosi is probably a waste of your time. And it is a bad idea.

It would reward her hurried passage of an $814 billion stimulus package written behind closed doors that has done nothing to prevent local unemployment from rising to 10.6 percent during the past year. It would reward her for ramming through a health care reform bill that will benefit few San Franciscans, given that nearly all our uninsured are covered under Medi-Cal or Healthy San Francisco.

The main result locally will be the thousands of residents forced to buy new and more-expensive insurance plans. The procedural gimmicks involved in passing Obamacare — and, notably, Pelosi’s own statement that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” — did more than anything else to sour Americans on Democrats.

Pelosi’s two-term speakership has been characterized by the arrogance of power. Her rental of a $19,000-a- month office downtown at taxpayers’ expense — the most expensive of any House member, possibly of all time — is but one example.

During her 85 military aircraft flights since March, she has racked up a six-figure food-and-drink tab. She made the 111th Congress the most opaque in history, with bills of a thousand or more pages routinely written in secret without committee input, then thrown to the floor mere hours before votes were taken.

Even worse, after years of singing the virtues of patriotic dissent against Bush administration policies, Pelosi falsely branded dissenters on Obamacare as Nazis “carrying swastikas and symbols like that,” then denouncing those who challenged their members of Congress in town hall meetings as “drowning out opposing views” and therefore “un-American.”

The Examiner does not believe that Pelosi has ever been drowned out, given the enormous power and speaking platform she possesses. Further, we view her attempt to demonize dissenters as far more dangerous to democracy than anyone’s protest. Therefore, we encourage voters in the 8th Congressional District to support her opponent, John Dennis — an anti-war, pro-marijuana Republican.

A vote for Dennis will send a strong, clear message that dictatorial policymaking, the lavish and unnecessary spending of tax dollars on wasteful programs and personal perks, and demonization of the political opposition are unacceptable behavior for officeholders of any party or philosophy.

Coming Soon to America - If Liberals Have Anything to Say About It

2010-10-30T02:15:00.000-07:00

From Stand With Arizona (and Against Illegal Immigration) on facebook...

This is Mexico. Does this video remind you of anything - in another part of the world? Next time you hear Janet Napolitano and her lackadaisical attitude towards securing the border, think about this, and ask yourself: How Long? How long until the mayhem of Mexico is visited upon Americans? Until some of the 28,000 murdered since 2007 starts to include our citizens? And how long do we have to wait until the Feds build the damn wall they promised us, to keep out this growing cancer next door?

Looking Forward to Tuesday

2010-10-29T18:28:00.000-07:00

From the Telegraph (UK)...

Paul Krugman and the Last Gasp of the Liberal Elites

Is this the last gasp from America’s liberal elites before the November mid-terms on Tuesday? This is what economist Paul Krugman has to say in The New York Times today, predicting “political chaos”, with the hysterical warning – “if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.

Krugman then goes on to blame George W. Bush for America’s economic problems, including the huge budget deficit, to which Barack Obama has added $3 trillion since taking office:

The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.

But we won’t get those policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

Not only is Krugman’s article one of the most ridiculous pieces of scare-mongering in the history of modern American journalism, but it is the pathetic whimper of a decaying liberal Ancien Regime that is spectacularly crumbling. It also illustrates just how out of touch liberal elites are with public opinion, as well as economic reality. The tired old blame Bush line no longer works, and as a recent poll showed, the former president’s popularity is rising again.

Whether Krugman likes it or not, the American people are turning overwhelmingly against Barack Obama’s Big Government agenda, and are looking for free market solutions to getting the country back on its feet, creating jobs and cutting the nation’s debt. As poll after poll shows, Americans are rejecting the liberal status quo and embracing the political revolution sweeping the country. My guess is that historians will look back on November 2010 not as a “catastrophe”, as Krugman declares, but as the beginning of a powerful new era for the United States, when conservatism and the cause of freedom made a striking comeback.

The article generated this response in the comments. If we are to be afraid of the future, then this poster outlines the real reasons that we should be - maybe not afraid - but vigilant, steadfast, and ready for anything...

One thing we should understand: for the Left and its enablers, the entire battle is that of propaganda. Of 'getting the message out'. Their entire edifice is built on pure lies.

Every single thing they say is a lie. Everything about their intentions, everything about their own methods, everything about their own identities---every single thing is a lie. So, the alleged 'intellects' of the Left are always busy spinning things out of any cotton they can find, and more often, they spin things out of thin air. No cotton required. It is an existential imperative for them. Just like if you are a farmer, you *have* to farm in order to survive (or change the vocation), and if you are a scientist, you have to pursue truth, if you are a Leftist, you can not not lie.

This krugman is no different and no more orginal then the original Leftists--the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks and the "Social Democrats" and "Progressives" and such. And when they are caught red-handed lying (and committing unspeakable crimes against humanity), the only response they know is to lie some more. They will say and do the most mind-bogglingly untrue things and keep the battle going until their last breath---literally.

There is no redemption for a Leftist. No renunciation of his own house of intellectual virtual cards. Because nothing can replace the nothing that they are pathologically addicted to. However. And this is a big big however, one must never say, 'last gasp of the Left'. Because anther of their greatest characteristics is that they *never* ever, that is, *never* *ever* give up.

Their indvidiual evil dies *only* when they actually give up the ghost---literally. And their collective soul keeps living inside those who still haven't bought the farm. As a particularly adept observer of the american left, i can assure you that these current times are *far* from the 'last gasp of the Left'. Indeed, it is anything BUT the last gasp. It is, however, a turning point for them.

Realizing early on in 20th century that americans are not going to buy their Leftist nonsense if sold overtly, they spent nearly a hundred years corrupting america with their slow and steady covert attack ... in the name of 'liberalism' etc. (with the exception of few years in the sixties where they came out of their little burrows and openly tried a revolution).

The current time----pre-election---the past two years, have been the crowning zenith of their covert operations, and as soon as they got the power in 2008 they thought that they had it made. They lost all inhibition and carefullness and, in terms of their actions, came out in the open as to who they really are, and what they really want. Now it is very unlikely that people are going back to buying their older brand of snake oil.

The covert career of the Left in america is over. That does not mean Left is dying or is dead. It only means that now they have nothing to loose, and they will hit the streets with overt anti-american action. Not exactly in the sixties' fashion, but you *will* see a lot more direct action than you did in the sixties. It is now or never for these people. And if they loose america, she will survive to revive the ideals of liberty and freedom from government tyranny, and hence will prosper (like before), and that means the Left looses their entire global war of past 100 years.

They are *not* going to give up that easily. Not because a mere electorate votes them out. They don't give a damn about such electorate or about the Democracy or about the Constitution. Indeed, it is these things they have been trying to undermine all these years. Now they can attack those things directly, and already have in past two years. Expect a thousand times more of that in near future. This war between Left and Right is far from over. The real war starts after the Left in america officially looses the 100 year covert battle. Wear your seatbelt, and enjoy the ride.

Who Will I Be Voting For?

2010-10-25T23:46:00.000-07:00

An interesting thing happened at work today...

I went into the alley behind the office for a smoke and found, on the ground, a check for $950. An unemployment check. For $950. I found it ironic as just moments before I was having a co-worker turn a handful of dimes I'd fished out of my piggy back into a $5 so I could buy some lunch.

Yeah, I'm burnt out from overwork, and here's someone getting a bigger paycheck than me for not working.

This fucking country.

The person I'm voting for is someone who will stand up for working Americans - and not the liberal's version of "working Americans" which really means "NON-working Americans."

I will vote for the person who will fight for me and keep me from getting fucked on my bills and on my taxes.

I will vote for the person who cares more about citizens and victims of crime than criminals (which rules out Kamala Fucking Harris right there).

I will vote for the person who helps those struggling to make it who are trying desperately, and not reward leeches who sponge off of the government.

I will vote for the person who is not xenomaniacal. I will vote for the person who cares for their citizens first.

I will vote for the person who stands up for the normal people and not just the most fucked up.

.... by the way, I tore up the check. Let the person do some work and get it reissued.

Back to Business

2010-09-29T22:16:00.001-07:00

hi all!

As you may have noticed, I've been off for a while. Call it an extended vacation. Some unexpected traveling, some very unexpected computer failures, and a whole lot of work have conspired to eat up my time.

But, as November approaches, I will be back in full swing. Count on it. I do appreciate y'all checking in, and rest assured I will be blogging more regularly as the election comes up.

Coming up... I'll be weighing in on the recent "revelation" that Meg Whitman hired an illegal alien to work for her - a revelation that just so happened to be leaked right before a Spanish-language debate and orchestrated by TV lawyer and Democratic Party media-whore Gloria Allred.

For illegal aliens... the exploitation NEVER ends.

Clearly, the Democrats have thrown all morals and decency out the window this time, and have shown that there is no low they will not sink to. Now, I have some serious problems with Whitman, but if the Democrats are willing to stoop to this, then maybe she's got more going for her than I think.

Secondly, I will weigh in forcefully on the sick, sad saga of child rapist/murderer Albert Greenwood Brown and his attempt to cheat his well-deserved execution. Anyone who reads this knows how I feel about the death penalty (I'm for it) and the people who oppose it (who are mentally ill and I'm NOT kidding).

If you are against the death penalty - no matter what your reasoning - prepare to have your ass handed to you. I invite all anti-DP posters to come on and prove to me that you're not a bunch of crazy, criminal-loving fucks.

Slogging On, Blogging On

2010-08-09T18:41:00.000-07:00

You no doubt may have noticed that I haven't been writing a lot lately. Mostly it's because I'm just seriously starting to not care anymore.

This town is a shithole, full of shitty, mean, crazy people, and I see less and less good about it with every passing day. So basically I've just felt the need to disengage; I haven't been reading the news.

A few choice tidbits from today...

SFGate - the internet arm of the liberal-to-farleft SF Chronicle - is stepping up to the plate for criminal-loving Attorney General candidate Kamala Harris, with the first of what will no doubt be many hit pieces on her opponent Steve Cooley.

A 50-year old German tourist - a Mrs. Mechtild Schroer from Minden - was gunned down at 9 pm in the "Theater District" (read: Tenderloin) last night...

With the help a taxi driver and other bystanders, police have detained five teenagers in connection with the fatal shooting of a German tourist walking with her husband in the Theater District Sunday night.

The elementary school rector was hit by stray gunfire during a battle between rival groups attending an under-18 party at a private club, police said today.

Mechthild Schröer, 50, of Minden, Germany, was killed at 9 p.m. Sunday when shots were fired on the 400 block of Mason Street at Geary Street in the Theater District, police said. Her husband was not injured.

It was not the only club related gunfire over the weekend. Shortly before 2 a.m. Monday, two women were shot on Harriet Street near the 1015 Folsom nightclub in the SOMA neighborhood.

...

Eberhard Brockmann, German deputy consul general in San Francisco, said Schröer came with her husband to the United States on July 17 and had been planning to leave San Francisco on Tuesday for St. Louis before leaving from Chicago later this month.

Her husband "was at her side when he realized what happened," Brockmann said, noting that the couple was about a block from their hotel when the gunfire erupted.

He said the couple's two teenaged sons stayed in Germany during the trip, which came after Schröer was made rector of her elementary school in February.

"They were at wrong time at the wrong place," Brockmann said, noting that the couple had been walking back to the King George hotel. "It's a tragedy." (The wrong place being... San Francisco)

Mayor Gavin Newsom condemned the weekend violence while offering condolences to the victim's family and urging that anyone with information to come forward to help the police (like that'll happen).

He pointed to efforts of an unnamed, "brave taxi driver" and other bystanders who helped police catch suspects in the Mason Street gun battle. "These people represent the best of our City and our values," he said (and these people, sadly, are few and far between).

Newsom made the comments on the day he signed legislation aiming to beef up enforcement powers of the Entertainment Commission.

"We will continue to pursue every possible means to prevent violence outside clubs and hold club owners and promoters accountable," he said. (Yeah. Sure. One wonders how many more murders it will take.)

Illegal Aliens, Criminals, Racist Liberals Win Round 1 of Arizona Battle

2010-07-29T12:32:00.000-07:00

As many expected, the Government won a temporary injunction against several provisions of Arizona's. The law has not been ruled unconstitutional by any means, though it is a big disappointment, and it certainly provides some clarity as to whose rights this administration is willing to fight for.

And here's a hint: it ain't yours.

PHOENIX — Supporters of Arizona's illegal-immigration law vowed a long legal fight to enforce it after a federal judge blocked key provisions of the legislation that ignited a national furor.

Hours before the law was to take effect, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, a Bill Clinton appointee, on Wednesday put on hold its most contentious element: a provision that requires police to check suspects' immigration status during routine stops if there is reasonable suspicion they are in the country illegally.

The decision, a temporary action until the full legal dispute is aired, also blocks parts of the law that ban illegal immigrants from seeking work and require documented immigrants to apply for or carry registration papers.

Bolton noted (read: paid lip service to) the state's concerns about illegal immigration but said enforcement of the provisions "would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy."

The much-anticipated ruling is a (small, temporary) victory for (illegal) immigration rights advocates (and other racists) and the Obama administration, yet it marks just the first skirmish in a swelling legal battle.

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the legislation in April, promised an "expedited" appeal of the initial ruling to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, while opponents of the law said they would continue their fight to strike it down permanently.

Once the Appeals Court rules, the dispute could head to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"This fight is far from over," Brewer said.

The Obama Justice Department, which filed one of seven challenges to the law, had argued that immigration enforcement was a federal responsibility.

"While we understand (read: pay lip service to) the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement," Justice spokeswoman Hannah August said. (But of course the myriad of Sanctuary City policies - designed to interfere with the system - will stand).

Phoenix Vice Mayor Michael Nowakowski, a Democrat, stood outside the federal courthouse here to back the judge's decision.

"You can't have 50 states doing their own version of immigration law," he said.

Bolton's ruling came as supporters and opponents of the law gathered for demonstrations today in Phoenix and as officials in nine states — from Florida to South Dakota — had offered their support to Brewer.

"Today's ruling is a slap in the face to citizens who are trying to exercise their sovereignty," said Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican candidate for governor.

Mexican officials, too, acknowledged the fight (for the reconquering of the Southwest) is not over. Francisco Ramírez Acuña, speaker of Mexico's House of Representatives, urged colleagues to continue preparing for more deportees in case the law eventually takes effect.

"We have to agree to generate sources of jobs (for once), so that these people who are coming from the United States can find some kind of employment in our country," he said.

2010-07-24T22:06:00.000-07:00

Our deepest sympathies and healing prayers go out to the people of Germany and Duisberg.

Raving Lunatic Of The Week: Asshole Congressman Pete Stark

2010-07-09T22:26:00.000-07:00

Sure, even wastes-of-skin like Pete Stark should be respected as elected members of the government. But, at some point, you get back the respect you give.

Just listen to this flaming asshole...

Stark and people like him are exactly what is wrong with the government. In one portly, ugly frame, Stark embodies government arrogance, corruption, running roughshod over the people to preserve the party, and the deep disregard and contempt for the people he supposedly represents.

Most government officials don't have the balls to openly mock their constituents, lie to them, and belittle their concerns. But then Stark is a fucking prick... always has been.

A Question or Two For The Obamaphilic...

2010-07-09T10:27:00.000-07:00

This post was in the comments of this story in the USAToday: Obama: It will take time to dig ourselves out of the jobs hole - which begs the question... how exactly does one dig yourself out of a hole?

But anyway...

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 9 months -- so you'll have three years and three months to come up with an answer.

USA Sues Az To Keep Illegal Immigration Flowing

2010-07-07T14:34:00.000-07:00

Independence Day Post: Happy Fourth of July!

2010-07-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

Happy Independence Day to All!

"In the Year Of Our Lord"... Independence Day And Loyalty Day by James Fulford

Possibly because, as I write this, it is still only the Third of July, I couldn't find on the Obama White House website a presidential proclamation on the subject of Independence Day. However, in addition to various housekeeping proclamations, and more conventionally patriotic fare, I did find these proclamations on the first two pages:

You can make up your own jokes here. Kamehameha was the name of the first King of Hawaii, as well as of the last one, and the three in between—the Hawaiians weren't very inventive as far as names are concerned. This proclamation honors the first one:

"Two hundred years ago, King Kamehameha the Great brought the Hawaiian Islands together under a unified government. His courage and leadership earned him a legacy as the ‘Napoleon of the Pacific,’ and today his humanity is preserved in Ke Kanawai Mamalahoe, or ‘the Law of the Splintered Paddle.’ This law protects civilians in times of war and remains enshrined in Hawaii's constitution as ‘a unique and living symbol of the State's concern for public safety.’

“On this bicentennial King Kamehameha Day, we celebrate the history and heritage of the Aloha State, which has immeasurably enriched our national life and culture. The Hawaiian narrative is one of both profound triumph and, sadly, deep injustice. It is the story of Native Hawaiians oppressed by crippling disease, aborted treaties, and the eventual conquest of their sovereign kingdom. These grim milestones remind us of an unjust time in our history, as well as the many pitfalls in our Nation's long and difficult journey to perfect itself. Yet, through the peaks and valleys of our American story, Hawaii's steadfast sense of community and mutual support shows the progress that results when we are united in a spirit of limitless possibility." [link added.—JF]

Five minutes with Wikipedia will tell you that Kamehameha "brought the Hawaiian Islands together under a unified government" by the usual process of brutal conquest, not unmixed with treachery. The 1893 takeover by the US was much more civilized, but President Clinton insisted on apologizing for it in 1993. And apologies are still continuing under Obama, who was, we are assured, actually born in Hawaii.

But such apologies are typical of this administration. Obama did manage to proclaim Loyalty Day without apologizing for the Palmer Raids, the "Red Scare," or the Americanization campaigns of the early twentieth century:

Presidential Proclamation--Loyalty Day

However, in proclaiming Loyalty Day, Obama (or the speechwriter actually doing the writing) did manage to say, on the subject of the famous motto e pluribus unum, which represents the union of the Thirteen Colonies: "It became a cherished creed, representing the foundation of our national values. As a union of States and a Nation of immigrants from every part of the world…"

Aargh. I promise you, the Founders meant Massachusetts joining with Virginia, et cetera, not, for example, mass Hmong immigration.

If you've never heard of Loyalty Day, you might look back at an old Sam Francis column, from when Bush proclaimed Loyalty Day in 2003

"'Loyalty Day' is not new and has been proclaimed for at least the last two years as well, but I confess I'd never heard of it until now. For me as with most other Americans, every day is Loyalty Day, but then, given mass immigration and political leaders who see nothing wrong in dragging this country into war on behalf of other countries, maybe there's a need for it. "

Bush's proclamation was just as bad, and didn't impress Sam at all:

"'To be an American is not a matter of blood or birth,' the First Citizen gushed.’Our citizens are bound by ideals that represent the hope of all mankind. On Loyalty Day, we reaffirm our allegiance to our country and resolve to uphold the vision of our Forefathers.' Well, not quite."

Loyalty Day was an idea from the more confident and patriotic days of the 1930s and 1950s. Held on May 1st, it was intended to counterbalance the tendency of the wrong kind of immigrant to march on behalf of international communism on that day.

But yes, as Sam said, for most Americans every day is Loyalty Day, and so is every day Independence Day—in the sense that most Americans want their country to remain sovereign and independent.

But in the Obama administration, no day is ever really Loyalty Day, and no day is ever Independence Day—none of them are loyal to America as she is now, much less as she used to be, and none of them really want the United States to remain sovereign and independent.

Even so, the President's proclamations continue to be in the old form: "in the year of our Lord two thousand ten, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-fourth."

I keep expecting them to try and drop the words "in the year of our Lord".

And I hope that they never get to say "of the Independence of the United States of America the…last."

Obama Wrong - U.S. Not "A Nation of Immigrants" By Michelle Malkin

In his immigration speech on Thursday, President Obama heralded America as a "nation of immigrants" defined not by blood or birth, but by "fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear."

If only it were so. Left-wing academics and activists spurned assimilation as a common goal long ago. Their fidelity lies with bilingualism (a euphemism for native language maintenance over English-first instruction), identity politics, ethnic militancy and a borderless continent.

Obama blames "politics" for the intractable immigration debate. Whose politics? The amnesty mob has taken to ambushing congressional offices this week to scream at lawmakers to choose "reform" (giving a blanket path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens) or "racism" (their description of any and every legislative measure to stiffen sanctions for and deter the acts of border-jumping, visa-overstaying and deportation-evading).

Is there no middle ground for all sides to agree that clearing naturalization application backlogs should take priority over expanding illegal alien benefits, or that tracking and deporting violent illegal alien criminals should take precedence over handing out driver's licenses to illegal aliens, or that streamlining the employee citizenship verification process for businesses (E-verify) and fixing outdated visa tracking databases should come before indiscriminately expanding temporary visa and guest worker programs?

Must every response to even the most modest of immigration enforcement measures be "RAAAAACIST"?

Further, as I've noted many times over the years when debating both Democrats and Republicans who fall back on empty phrases to justify putting the amnesty cart before the enforcement horse, we are not a "nation of immigrants." This is both a factual error and a warm-and-fuzzy non sequitur. Eighty-five percent of the residents currently in the United States were born here.

Yes, we are almost all descendants of immigrants. But we are not a "nation of immigrants." (And the Politically Correct president certainly wouldn't argue that Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians and descendants of black slaves "immigrated" here in any common sense of the word, would he?)

Even if we were a "nation of immigrants," it does not explain why we should be against sensible immigration control. The Founding Fathers were emphatically insistent on protecting the country against indiscriminate mass immigration. They insisted on assimilation as a pre-condition, not an afterthought. Historian John Fonte assembled their wisdom, and it bears repeating this Independence Day weekend:

George Washington, in a letter to John Adams, stated that immigrants should be absorbed into American life so that "by an intermixture with our people, they, or their descendants, get assimilated to our customs, measures, laws: in a word soon become one people."
In a 1790 speech to Congress on the naturalization of immigrants, James Madison stated that America should welcome the immigrant who could assimilate, but exclude the immigrant who could not readily "incorporate himself into our society."
Alexander Hamilton wrote in 1802: "The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family."
Hamilton further warned that "The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another. The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust;—the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader."
The survival of the American republic, Hamilton maintained, depends upon "the preservation of a national spirit and a national character." "To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty."

As pro-amnesty extremists moan that "we didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us" and illegal alien marchers haul foreign flags above Old Glory, President Obama pretends that the "common national sentiment" our Founding Fathers embraced still binds us all together.

Many of us still have faith in a strong, sovereign America—the unhyphenated, the law-abiding, the gratitude-filled sons and daughters and grandchildren of legal immigrants for whom such distinctions still matter.

But it's no thanks to the assimilation saboteurs who put "one world" over "one nation under God."

Bloomberg: Throw Open the Borders... Destroy The Country... What Do I Care?

2010-07-02T15:41:00.000-07:00

New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg has come up with a great idea... just erase any pretense that we are in any way a country, throw open the borders, and make the former nation of the United States of America a global gladiator ground for the world's avaricious.

What could possibly go wrong?

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the country (despite welcoming more immigrants than all other countries in the world combined) is "giving shortshrift to immigration" and that economic problems will worsen until America sends out a (even) more welcoming message (if that is at all possible).

Bloomberg says the U.S. is "pushing people that other countries want away from our shores." He said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that an overly restrictive immigration policy (which we decidedly do not have) discourages people who can create work with an entrepreneurial spirit.

Bloomberg said, "If I were the president working with Congress (which I'm sure is his wet dream, although dictator would be more suited to him), I would give a green card to anybody from around this world who wants to come here, create a business. They keep the green card as long as they employed, let's say, 10 or more workers."

He said a path to citizenship should be found for the roughly 11 (to 30) million people here illegally.

Bloomberg of course represents the so-called "right-wing" view of the double-barrel destroy-the-country crowd - much like the oft-printed big business shill Tamar Jacoby - that America in order to survive must destroy itself by opening its borders.

A country of half a billion people fighting for resources might sound like hell to you and me. To assholes like Bloomberg, it just means we're halfway to being able to compete with China.

It's odd - and more than a bit of a lie - to suggest that Bloomberg (and his mentor Bush) somehow represent a "conservative" approach to amnesty. That's bullshit. There's nothing conservative about it. It is NeoLiberalism on a global scale. Bloomberg seeks to be nothing less than a global plantation owner, watching over the hardest working slaves. Under avaricious cunts like him, just relaxing will become a crime in America. Probably the only law that will be enforced.

Bloomberg is a conservative? Fucking bullshit. He is globalist scum, who wants to see this country neutered just as much as the most racist La Raza adherents.

Congressman Tom McClintock Tells Mexico To Butt Out

2010-07-01T01:26:00.000-07:00

Tom McClintock puts Mexico's bitch-ass Presidente in his place!

Beginning of the End This Thursday?

2010-06-30T23:53:00.000-07:00

News is coming out that Obama - after lots of back door meetings with various Hispanic pressure groups - is going to unleash an amnesty proposal on Thursday.

What will it look like? My guess is it'll be the same old shit - full amnesty for all illegals including criminals, an increase in immigration, and lip service to border security. Just what the country needs.

The idea is that their going to do it in a lame-duck Congress, when as this article states...

Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents’ eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn’t have to face voters for another two years—when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls.

In other words, they're going to expose themselves for the chickenshit pussy cowards that they are.

But it's not like they have much of a choice. The "political reality" is that the American people don't want no mother-fucking amnesty, and the scumbags know it. Obama - despite some bleatings - is not going to attempt an "executive order" to amnesty the illegals; even he must realize that this would be a great way to get shot. They do not have the votes to pass anything while Congress is in flux. And the results of the next election may make that even less likely.

So, defeated at the polls, the last great "fuck you" to America by the liberal Democrats will be to pass a blanket amnesty for up to 30 million invaders.

Who cannot see these people for what they are now?

Thank God It Only Happens Every 4 Years!

2010-06-25T00:16:00.000-07:00

Not that I don't like the World Cup - quite the contrary. I love it. Perhaps too much. But, as we saw with the Germans 4 years ago when they hosted, it is great to look around this City and seeing people wearing the red, white, and blue - boldly and proudly - for once.

France is out. Italy is out (and good riddance to both of them). England was very nearly out. The USA has made two thrilling comebacks - even with horrible calls going against them. The football world has been turned on its head in this cup, and it's been quite entertaining.

The big story lines this time around are the collapse of the European powers, the no-show on the part of the African teams, and the dominance of the South (and North) Americans.

In the USA, I have been very encouraged by the turnouts and support of the people here, even in America-hating San Francisco. In previous Cups, you sometimes had to work to find a place to watch the games. Not so this time; it seems that every single bar in the City that can open at 7 am is open, and they are packed.

I was sick with a stomach flu for the England game, which put a damper on my plans to watch it on the Jumbotron at AT&T Park. Several thousand non-puking SFers did make it there and had a good time. I'll put a video up when I can.

For the Slovenia match I braved the Lower Haight's famous Mad Dog - which was a soccer bar long before it was cool to be one - to hang out with crazy American soccer fans packed in a standing room only space to watch a great comeback. The place went absolutely nuts when the USA won the game (okay... should have won the game, but the goal was disallowed by the lame-ass referee).

Evil has a name, and it is Koman Coulibaly.

Wednesday was another early day... at the bar at 6:30. This time it was Yancy's in the Inner Sunset - the huge space, lots of screens, and chairs to sit in came as a welcome contrast to the Mad Dog, though they're both good in their own way. It might have been a more sedate atmosphere, but the place still erupted when Landon Donovan finally exorcised the demons of the awful American performance of 2006 in the 91st minute.

The first match showed that sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. The Algeria match proved that - much more often - it's better to be good than lucky.

This World Cup comes at a critical point in a lot of ways for international football. Playing for ones country is still a great honor, if you play for, say, North Korea, or some of the smaller, newer European countries, or some of the powerhouse South American teams. But more and more you see some teams (France... I'm looking at you) where the players really don't seem to care.

The way it used to be was that international football was a big step up from club football, because you would take the best members of your country's clubs, who were mostly - if not totally - made up of your fellow countrymen. Nowadays, with the pro leagues being opened up, when Manchester United and Arsenal can field a team with virtually no English players, when Athletico Madrid or Barcelona can field a team with virtually no Spanish players, then what does an international match mean? For many players, it represents a step down from what they are used to. And they play like it.

But then, this is the theme of the great coming war, isn't it? World War III - if and when it does come - will be a war about identity. It will be a culture war - a war of preservation of culture in the face of those who would murder it - for the sake of profit or for the sake of (anti-) humanism. And this war will be international - it will be global. A war between those who value culture, who value identity, who value humanity and the differences which make it so interesting and lively, and those who don't.

I am really looking forward to the rest of the tournament. The French were terrible and they will not be missed. The Italians, too, played about 15 good minutes of football in this entire tournament, and their 15 minutes are up. Both of them deserved to go home, and it's nice for a change to see these two not given an automatic berth to the second round.

Saturday's game against Ghana will be awesome! 11:30 am PST on ABC, or in my case, at Yancy's. It's not going to be easy, but it is doable. Ghana has been the only African team out of 6 that didn't fail to get out of the group stage, and the South African crowd will be solidly behind them. We'll be the hated underdogs once again. But then we are the USA; we've played in hostile matches against some of the worst anti-American fans in the world... from Guatemala City, to Mexico City, to the most hostile place of all for American soccer - Los Angeles.

So here's my cheer for the USA (with apologies to Millwall FC...)

"No one likes us
No one likes us
No one likes us
We don't care!

We're the Yankees
Bloody Yankees
We're the Yankees
From USA!"

GO USA!!!

2010-06-11T00:52:00.000-07:00

World Cup 2010 starts in... oh... 6 hours.

South Africa takes on lowly Mexico at 7 AM, so I'd better get some sleep.

It's gonna be a long month.

Come to AT&T Park on Saturday to see the US v England at 11:30. It's free. What else are you gonna do?

Election ReCap: Harris Wins But Faces Possible Annihilation In The General

2010-06-09T22:52:00.000-07:00

The election is over and we won some and lost some.

The biggest loss is that Kamala Fucking Harris is the Democratic Nominee for the Attorney General race. Not much of a surprise really, but the good news is that her victory was far from convincing, and the results show pretty tepid support even among Democrats.

Harris won with a mere 33.1% of the total vote, with four challengers polling in double figures. When fewer than 1 in 3 voters in your own party vote for you, it says you pretty much suck. Harris failed to get 50% of Democratic primary voters in every single county except two - San Francisco, of course, and - much to my undying shame - Marin.

Marin... I don't even know you.

The results also showed that Harris still has not achieved much name recognition in SoCal; the only counties she carried were LA (30%) and Orange (24.7%).

Republican Nominee Steve Cooley, by contrast, was strong across the board, outpolling Harris by nearly 200,000 votes statewide.

So, all in all it looks good, and the real dirt on Harris has yet to surface. We haven't yet heard from Kamala's victims - namely the widow of slain SFPD officer Isaac Espinosa, a case is which Harris refused to seek the death penalty for a cop-killer based on her own "philosophy," and Danielle Bologna, the woman who had her husband and two sons murdered by an illegal alien gangster who had been repeatedly shielded from immigration authorities and let off easy on serious charges.

The drug lab scandal is important to some people, and, to some extent, it does show her incompetence. But that is the least of her gaffes. She will probably successfully deflect blame somewhere - namely the SFPD, whom she despises (and the feeling is quite mutual) - and anyone hoping to bring down Harris on the force of that scandal will be disappointed. And I'm certainly not taking the side of our whiney little bitch of a Public Defender, Jeff Adachi - though I am grateful to him for damaging Harris. It's a little bizarre though, since they are essentially on the same side; both of them want to punish criminals as little as possible.

If today's paper is any indication, then Cooley is playing it right - hit the bitch hard, hit her early, and hit her often.

So we have basically a race between two District Attorneys of two giant liberal cities. From what I've seen so far of Cooley, I have to say that I'm concerned. He certainly seems to be the most liberal of the Republican candidates, and, if Los Angeles is any indication, maybe he's not doing that good of a job after all. Maybe some folks from LA can give us their views.

But make no mistake... whatever reservations I have about Cooley, I consider Kamala Harris to be a very dangerous person. Her philosophies are insane, her priorities are fucked up, and electing her will mean only one thing - a massive increase in crime, and a massive decrease in punishment. She is the darling of the lunatic left, and you can expect to see President Obama coming to California to stump for her (unless he's so unpopular that he's told to stay away).

As far as this state is concerned, defeating Harris is job#1. Well, perhaps the Governorship is more important, but I think whomever the Governor is, they are going to have a hard time reigning in Harris' "progressiveness" (read: really stupid ideas that reward criminals and punish normal people).

It's Time to STAND UP for Arizona

2010-06-08T02:18:00.000-07:00

Amid the relentless wave of lies and slander from the Left media, Arizona stands strong!

Arizona's too polite to say it, so I will...

Leftist scum... fix your own damn (probably broke and crumbling) states and mind your own fucking business. If you had half the balls of the people of the Arizona you might not be living in a state on the verge of collapse. It is, of course, one of the hallmarks of petty little loser Stalinists like you that you feel you must force everyone on Earth to live how you want them to. That's what true fascists do.

If you believe in freedom - which I sincerely doubt - you can't begrudge a besieged state the right to defend itself when those entrusted to do the job willfully violate the trust given to them.

Everyone can see through you... we know you don't give a rat's ass about border security... the only thing that matters is giving amnesty to your precious brown pawns. Yes, pawns... we know they don't mean shit to you except in the sense that they can be used to get back at whitey and your parents... which - let's face it - is where the real problem lies, doesn't it?

On behalf of Arizona... Fuck off... go wreck your own city. You have no right to tell other people how to live and what to do, because you don't really have their best interests at heart do you? And yes, that is the understatement of the year. Truth is just the word "Arizona" fills you with visceral hatred, doesn't it.

Pure. Hate.

And you thought you were above that...

A Few Last Endorsements Before Bedtime...

2010-06-07T23:44:00.000-07:00

It's late Monday nite and I'm dog tired from work (some of us still have to), so I'll just rattle off a few thoughts and endorsements before hitting the hay...

Republicans for Attorney General: To be honest, I haven't been following this much, since I've been so consumed with fear and loathing over the prospect of Kamala Harris as AG. From the brief looks I've done, I kind of like John Eastman, though I'm not sure how he'll do against the other two (Steve Cooley and Tom Harman). But I'll leave this up to you. The Republican nominee is certainly important because they'll have to be able to win against Harris - which means that they will have to be tough, fearless, and dirty, and expose the bitch for who she is. Eastman looks to be the toughest.

Democrats for Attorney General: FOR GOD'S SAKE IF YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND HAVE ANY SELF-RESPECT AT ALL THEN DO NOT VOTE FOR KAMALA FUCKING HARRIS!

If you've read this blog at all, you know what I think about Harris. I'll briefly recap. She's a hard-left cultural Marxist who loves criminals, hates locking people up, and never met a criminal who didn't deserve an unlimited amount of second chances. She's as soft-on-crime as they come. Electing her would almost certainly mean the end of the death penalty in California (and the end of life-without-parole as a sentencing option), a re-working of "3 strikes" in favor of violent criminals, and a pro-illegal alien stance which would undermine any and all attempts at border security, deporting illegal alien criminals, or even co-operating with Federal Authorities in immigration matters. She will be an unprecedented fucking disaster.

But... there is some hope in the form of Chris Kelly. Yes, he is still a Democrat, and despite the fact that he's waaay more liberal than the most liberal of Republicans, he has a few decent ideas - including identifying and eliminating diversion programs that don't work (whereas "Diversion Program" is Kamala Harris' middle name).

He's not the best choice, but he's the best choice to beat Harris in the primary, which is job #1!

Statewide Propositions:

YES ON 13
NO ON ALL THE REST!

I could explain why but I'm too tired.

Be sure to vote tomorrow!

Election Endorsements For This Tuesday - June 8th - San Francisco Ballot Measures

2010-06-05T18:50:00.000-07:00

There's an election this Tuesday - with all of the excitement that a June Primary election usually carries...

Zzzzzzzzzz....

But for those of us who bother, here's my election tips for Tuesday:

S.F. BALLOT MEASURES

Prop. A (school district parcel tax)

FUCK NO

Put on the ballot by the ultra-partisan Green Party-dominated SF Board of Education - far more concerned about "teach-ins" and banning the popular JROTC program then teaching children to become good citizens with basic skills. Send a message to the Board; your job is to teach kids education courses, not convert them to Marxism.

Prop. B (Earthquake safety bond)

YES

Daly's against it. Good enough reason to vote for it.

Prop. C (Film Commission appointments)

FUCK NO

Another "Progressive" power-grab by the Board of Supervisors.

Prop. D (public employee pensions)

YES

Makes modest fixes to a major problem: public-employee pension and health care costs that may drown the city in red ink. However, I find the fact that no unions are screaming bloody murder about this to be a little suspicious. It's probably a small ineffectual step, but it's a start.

Prop. E (cost of protecting dignitaries)

FUCK NO

Another childish measure by the Board of Supervisors to appease those who hate both a) The Mayor, and b) cops. Giving comfort to the enemy - The San Francisco Way!

Prop. F (rent increase appeal)

Allows renters who lose a job or endure pay cuts to block yearly rent increases. Another solution in search of a problem, this measure undermines the hardship system SF already has in place. These rent increases are already pretty modest, and one would assume that making the increase would be small potatoes compared to the rest of the rent, unless that rent was already subsidized somehow, in which case the Supes can just vote to increase welfare. Like they need a reason.

Prop. G (Transbay Terminal)

Expresses voter sentiment for making new Transbay Terminal the local hub for high-speed rail. Or not... seems to me that the Airport would be the most logical place. But then there's that pesky 'L' word again. High-speed rail is a pipe dream that has no chance of realization; the very people demanding it will be the same people slowing it to a crawl when it becomes known that the noise is keeping endangered badgers on edge or whatever. All the more reason to ditch the whole damn thing.

Bay Guardian Endorsements We'd Like to See

2010-06-05T18:13:00.000-07:00

It's election season again, and busy and/or lazy liberals everywhere in this town will be grasping for the inevitable election endorsements from SF Bay Guardian - San Francisco's establishment/alternative weekly. Like the urine-soaked Panhandle after the Bay to Breakers, they have become a sad fixture of the City. Many years ago, they started printing a clip-out version - sparing people the pain of actually reading their endorsements.

The SF Weekly has done a nice parody of these annoying dirges... they'd be funny if they weren't so true... aw hell, they're funny anyway...

Can't remember what the Bay Guardian endorsed for next week's election? Neither can we, so for your convenience we're reprinting an abridged version of its voter guide.

Governor

Jerry Brown

We wish we knew which Jerry Brown we're voting for: the crazy young man who used to run California, or the crazy old man who just won't go away. Either way, we're in. There's only one thing we'd rather see Jerry Brown do than be California's next governor, and that's Jerry Brown going out of his way to run for every office Gavin Newsom wants from now on. That would be putting the public first.

Lieutenant Governor
Jerry Brown

Anybody who's thinking of voting for Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor should write in "Jerry Brown" instead. Just to see the look on Newsom's face. Oh, like you really care who ends up as lieutenant governor.

Attorney General

Kamala Harris

Let's recap. Kamala Harris has a plummeting conviction rate, a drug lab whose staff are actually on drugs, and her office has neglected to inform defense attorneys about cops who have been convicted of crimes. So why are we endorsing her? Because one of our editors is a cutter, and this was the best way he could hurt himself. God, we feel so alive!

U.S. Senate
Barbara Boxer

Many people claim Boxer has been a terrible senator, but we had a late lunch that day and missed the whole thing. We asked them to repeat what they'd said, only slower this time, but it turns out we weren't going to listen anyway. Re-elect Barbara Boxer.

Congress, Eighth District
Nancy Pelosi

We honestly can't remember the name of the person running against her. Is it Cindy Sheehan again? Because that would be different: Sheehan would have won last time if we'd only endorsed her harder.

Congress, Seventh District
George Miller

It would be an exaggeration to say we picked his name out of a hat. It was more like a helmet. But it was a very good helmet. Made by a small local business. Quality headgear.

Secretary of State
Debra Bowen

Progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive, progressive! If that's more "progressives" than you have after your name, then you are morally obligated to vote for Bowen.

Controller
That one guy

You know, the guy who's running for the office? Unopposed ... we think? It'll come to us. We know this one, we really do. Man, are we really excited to endorse him, too. He's done, like, great ... controllery ... things for the past two (or maybe four) years. Really kept stuff under control for the people of California. Dignity: the word that comes to mind when we think of our state controller.

State Senate, District 8
Leland Yee for Mayor

Popular with his district and a powerful force in Sacramento, Leland Yee for Mayor is a shoo-in to return to the state Senate, where he will start the Leland Yee for Mayor for Mayor campaign. Sources say it will really be the kickoff to his eventual run for governor.

State Assembly, District 13
Tom Ammiano

When the history of progressive politics in San Francisco is written, it will prominently feature two things: 1. Steve Jones' bicycle and 2. Tom Ammiano. Together, they led a revolution in San Francisco politics that successfully alienated a broad coalition of voters. Ammiano continues that noble tradition in Sacramento. He deserves to be re-elected for that. But honestly? He had us at "Kiss my gay ass." We couldn't have said it any better, and we tried.

State Ballot Measures
Proposition 14 (Open primaries)

No!

Open primaries will make it easier for people to vote for the candidates they like, instead of the candidates who are best for them. Party hacks and political pamphlets will lose influence, and then what will you do? You need us! Admit it, and vote no.

Proposition 15 (Limited public financing of elections)
Yes! Yes! Maybe! Wait — yes!

Public financing in San Francisco has supported no underdog candidates, but has led to several costly lawsuits. Naturally, we want to see the same efficiency applied to every election you vote in.

Proposition 16 (Mandating a two-thirds vote on public power)
Rape, rape, rape!

Throughout all of history, there has never been an organization more oppressive than PG&E. Nazi Germany? Hah — PG&E has made twice as many Jews suffer by charging them too much for electricity. The Khmer Rouge? At least they reused every part of their victims. The Republican National Committee? It works for PG&E — at least, according to a diagram by our unpaid interns. Someday you'll see it; someday you'll thank us. History will absolve us. Vote no, or be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Proposition 17 (Auto insurance law changes)
Nooooooo

As we understand it, this measure emerged out of a plane crash on a mysterious island inhabited by a smoke monster who kills some people and saves others 15 percent or more on their car insurance. But we might be getting it mixed up with something else that was ultimately disappointing.

San Francisco Ballot Measures

Proposition B (Earthquake safety and emergency response bonds)
Yeeeeeeeeeesssssss

This is a multimillion-dollar bond on a public project. And those always turn out so well. Just the thought of public money coursing through the system makes us shiver with delight. It doesn't matter what it's for, and it doesn't matter that the city won't really tell us. Vote yes: This measure's so bad it's good.

Proposition D (Retirement benefits)
Yes! Yes! Yes!

We've tried to explain to San Francisco's activists why Prop. D works, but they didn't like it because it doesn't mention global warming even once. So instead we'll say this: They would have voted for Prop. D in the '60s. Or, at least, the '60s as we remember them; the actual '60s got us into this pension mess in the first place. But that doesn't matter now.

Proposition E (Budget line item for police security)

Yes

Our only problem with this measure is that it doesn't go far enough. Not only do we need to know how much money was spent on Gavin Newsom's security detail — even though the police chief will tell us anyway — we also need to know who the officers assigned to it are, the names of their children, and a log of the officers' sexual activities that goes back at least five years. The citizens of San Francisco deserve to know whether their cops are sex-positive. Why? Because democracy requires access to information.

Proposition G (Transbay Transit Center)
Sure, why not?

Ending on a purely symbolic policy statement with no force of law or practical impact just feels so right. If only all our endorsements could be this good.

Leftist's Wet Dream Coming True!

2010-06-05T17:44:00.001-07:00

This article in the SF Chronicle no doubt caused a few erections among the Lunatic Left!

Here's the article with emphasis and comments mine...

White's In State 'Below the Replacement' Level

California's white population has declined since 2000 at an unprecedented rate, hastening the day when Hispanics will be the state's largest population group, according to newly released state figures.

There were half a million fewer whites in California in 2008 than in 2000, a period when the state's overall population grew by 4 million to 38.1 million, according to a study released Thursday by the state Department of Finance (the same Dept. of Finance that predicts that the state's population will be 60 million by 2050!).

By 2008, whites made up 40 percent of Californians, down from 47 percent at the turn of the century. In 2000, Hispanics comprised 32 percent of the population; that number grew to 37 percent in 2008.

Analysts said the decline can be attributed to two main causes - a natural population decrease as Baby Boomers enter their later years and die at a faster rate than younger whites have children, and a migration from California since 2001 among whites who sought affordable housing as real estate costs soared (and sought to flee from a third-world state).

"This is the first decade to see a year-over-year consistent population decrease due to natural causes," said Mary Heim, chief of the Finance Department's demographic research unit.

The study also confirmed projections that a steadily growing Hispanic population will surpass whites as the state's largest racial demographic in 2016. Hispanics are expected to become a majority of all Californians in 2042, Heim said.

Most Bay Area counties reflected the state's shifting numbers - Alameda County, for example, dropped from 41 percent white to 36 percent - while showing spikes in Hispanic, Asian and multirace categories.

Yet, San Francisco's racial mix remained consistent. Forty-four percent of the city was white in 2008, 30 percent was Asian and 14 percent was Hispanic, just as it was in 2000. Only the city's African American population showed a slight decline, from 7 percent to 6 percent.

Below replacement level

Hans Johnson, a demographer at the Public Policy Institute of California, said white women in recent decades have tended to pursue higher-education degrees and stay in the workplace, leading them to have fewer children. The white population is now "below the replacement" level, Johnson said. "They're simply not replacing themselves."

The median age among California's whites is 44, while the median age for the Hispanic population is 28, according to the study.

Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, said the study also reflected how skyrocketing real estate prices pushed workers from California during the housing bubble from 2005 through 2007.

"This is a good look at what happens when your housing prices get way out of line with the rest of the nation," Levy said. "It will be interesting to see what happens when the market corrects itself."

Reverse of a trend

Johnson said migration into California was a national trend until the 1990s, when the number of out-of-state transplants began to decline.

Lower-paid California workers headed to cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas and Seattle, where they could make similar wages but pay less for housing.

"California is no longer attracting large numbers of people from other states," Johnson said. "And a lot of those who did come to California from other states were white, reflecting the ethnic composition of the country as a whole.

"Now," he said, "that flow has dried up."

The decline among whites and increase in other groups in California is a long-standing trend, Johnson said.

"It's just faster now."

Now, the figures may be accurate, but the analysis is bullshit. Many whites are fleeing California because the place is rapidly becoming a foreign country, where you can hardly get on the phone to a local business or agency and not expect to have a hard time understanding the person on the other end.

The other bullshit assumption is that this is "just happening," and is therefore inevitable. California's slide into third-world-dom has been planned and exploited by businesses and by the Democratic Party. It is no accident whatsoever that all of this is happening here.

This is perfectly fine for the hard left - whose alleged concern for minorities pales (no pun intended) against the real driving force - which is seething anti-white racism. Leftists don't give a fuck about minorities any more than big illegal employers do; they are simply pawns in a game - bigger profits for business, bigger political profits for leftists. Oh sure, they'll get to know their names and be friendly and all, but it's just an act - a means to the end - not to elevate minorities but to tear down whites.

I defy any of you Leftist scum to deny it.

A Rare Opportunity to Vote for Common Sense in San Francisco: Vote Non-Communists Into The DCCC

2010-06-05T17:21:00.001-07:00

There's an election this Tuesday, June 8th, and way down the ballot is an obscure but important race that - if it goes the right way - could begin to swing this town away from the suicidal hard-left path it's been going on for the last decade.

San Francisco is a one-party state - much like Mexico under the PRI - and for the most part people here have given up on the idea that San Francisco's government is anything resembling a democracy. There is only one game in town, and that is the Democratic Party.

Only Party Members can vote in this important race, so if you are a Democrat and still have a semblance of a brain and/or a soul left after 10+ years of the Progressive Stalinism of the Board of Supervisors, then please make a vote against anarchy and for common sense.

Here's CW Nevius with the scoop...

Tuesday's election features contests with big-name politicians and national issues. In San Francisco, it also includes an obscure race for a nonpaid position few people know exists.

That's the important one - for Democratic County Central Committee.

If there are moderate San Francisco voters who support the Democratic Party but are turned off by political fringe issues like legalizing prostitution, now is the time to show up. (I will suggest some moderate candidates at the end of the column.)

Who is elected to the DCCC will have a domino effect that starts with the November election and the Board of Supervisors, influences the appointment/election of the next mayor, and - if a clever, but sneaky change to the rules passes - extends years into the future.

If you are running for supervisor in San Francisco and have the DCCC endorsement, you're in. According to 25-year DCCC member Arlo Hale Smith, since 1990 the committee has endorsed 43 candidates. Forty were elected.

"In a one-party town," said Smith, "the endorsement of the Democratic Committee is the tiebreaker - particularly in local elections where people don't pay attention."

DCCC Chair Aaron Peskin, the former president of the Board of Supervisors and a shrewd political wheeler-dealer, scoffs at that.

"My next order of business," he said, "is to call my friends and remind them that I am running. Because I'll bet two-thirds of them don't even know there's an election."

But the facts say otherwise.

"In the old days nobody spent $100 on the (DCCC) campaign, much less $1,000," said John Burton, current chair of the state Democratic Party.

Today, candidates for supervisor are exploiting a loophole that says there is no limit on individual contributions for DCCC.

For example, Rafael Mandelman, a progressive candidate for supervisor in District Eight, spent $28,102.17 on his DCCC race through May 22. His opponent, moderate Scott Wiener, spent $58,402.85 over the same period. Mandelman and Wiener can't use the money for their supervisor's race, but until the DCCC election they can use it to get out ads to promote their names.

But the real reason these races are so hotly contested is that if the Chris Daly-Peskin progressives can gain seats in the DCCC, they can control issues. And finally, there is a proposal by Daly to realign the DCCC, which now has 12 seats in both District 12 and District 13. He wants to add seats to politically progressive District 13 to give the far left an advantage for years to come.

"Personally," said Peskin, "that's not on my list of things to do."

But Wiener, who lost a bitter battle for chair in 2008, sees serious problems.

"This proposed rule change is designed to accomplish one thing . . . moving the DCCC even further to the hard left," Wiener said. "When the Democratic Party starts representing only one line of thinking . . . that will be a huge loss."

So, if you're happy with the far-left agenda, check out the Bay Guardian. (Progs with name recognition like Peskin, David Campos, David Chiu, and John Avalos are probably shoo-ins. Daly is not running.)

For those who'd like to see a swing to families, kids, and civility on the streets, here are some suggestions:

District 12: Bill Fazio, Matthew Tuchow, Mike Sullivan, Arlo Smith, John Shanley, Meagan Levitan, Alex Volberding, Mary Jung, Dan Dunnigan, Ron Dudum, Andrew Clark and Tom Hsieh.

District 13: Keith Baraka, Catherine Stefani, Stuart Smith, Scott Wiener, Calvin Louie, Joe Alioto Veronese, Owen O'Donnell, Linda Richardson, Leslie Katz, Chuck Hornbrook.

Just don't forget to vote.

More Nazi Tactics From Obama's "Purpleshirts"

2010-05-24T23:56:00.000-07:00

The lyin' purple people beaters at Obama's favorite thug factory - the Service Employees International Union - have again engaged in gestapo-like tactics to intimidate their opponents, this time actually aided and abetted by the police (whom always, let us not forget, always have the potential to behave as thuggishly as any union when they don't get what they want).

The sick story comes to us from an editorial at the SFExaminer....

Imagine you are sitting at home on a peaceful Sunday when you hear buses pull up in front of your house and begin disgorging hundreds of angry people waving signs with threatening messages, shaking their fists and crowding onto your lawn. Soon, hundreds of screaming people are tromping on your flower beds, peering into your windows and scaring neighbors, who nervously begin placing calls to 911.

As the noise levels rise and demonstrators start banging on your front door, you begin to fear that something very bad is about to happen. Then, you spot the police cars and relief floods over you. “At least the cops will keep things under control,” you tell yourself. But your relief is shattered when you realize the cops you thought were there to protect you are actually from another jurisdiction and they are there because they escorted the mob to your address.

Sound like a fantasy, something that could never happen here? Guess again, because that exact scenario played out last week in Bethesda, Md., an affluent suburb bordering the nation’s capital. The demonstrators were from the Service Employees International Union, the target of their anger was the home of Bank of America Deputy General Counsel Greg Baer, and the cops escorting the group were from the Metropolitan District of Columbia Police Department, which, like departments across the country, is represented by the Fraternal Order of Police union.

Although it’s standard procedure across the nation when officers from one jurisdiction cross into another to provide advance warning, that was not done in this case. The only person inside the Baer home when the demonstrators and Washington cops arrived was one of Baer’s young sons, who locked himself in the bathroom until his father arrived to rescue him after bravely forcing his way through the crowd. Eventually, Montgomery County, Md., police appeared on the scene and the demonstrators later departed.

There are multiple lessons to be gleaned from this highly disturbing situation. Such tactics are standard fare for SEIU, whose leaders think it’s just fine to target the private homes and families of people associated with whatever company the union has decided to demonize. These assaults are clearly meant to shock and intimidate.

Congress long ago banned secondary boycotts from union tactics. It’s time to put a stop to all such assaults on private homes and families. And the conduct of Washington police highlights another critical question: Should law enforcement officers be pawns of union bosses?

Collective bargaining should no longer have a place among those sworn to protect and serve the public.

SF History Post - U2's Vandalism of Valliancourt Fountain - 1987

2010-05-23T19:57:00.000-07:00

Oh yeah... I was there.

I had just started work at the (now defunct) Tassajara Bakery in Cole Valley, and begged my new manager to let me off early so I could race down there.

The famous graffiti was interesting, yes, but the most amusing part of the day was when Sir Bono commented on a sign which read "SF Loves U2" - and went into a profanity laced tirade which ended in "they'll be peace in Oyrland but not with yer Oy.R.A. royfles!!!"

It's interesting to see 50,000 people simultaneously look at each other and go "what the hell is he saying?"

Apparently, Bono - forgetting that he was in a city whose initials were "SF" - thought that the initials referenced meant "Sinn Fein."

Fortunately, I did get to see U2's two performances that week at the Oakland Coliseum. I say fortunately cuz this free show kind of stunk.

Thanks to Peter Hartlaub's "The Poop" for the memory jog.

Arizona Sing-A-Long: Read Immigration Law!

2010-05-23T18:08:00.000-07:00

Change We Can Believe In!

2010-05-23T17:33:00.000-07:00

For the first time ever, two top-tier test cricket nations met and played in the United States!

New Zealand and Sri Lanka - both coming off of somewhat disappointing World Twenty/20 performances - got to take a mini-vacation of sorts before getting down to business at the Pearls Cup, happening at the United States' one and only ICC-approved cricket ground - the main field at Central Broward Regional Park in Lauderhill, Florida.

Hopefully, this will become a regular happening, where top-tier teams will come to the USA for T20 series and maybe even honest-to-God test matches! A T20 World Cup would certainly seem to be in the offing as well. All we need is more than one stadium.

My feeling is that - rather than trying to woo the Oakland A's or the SF 49ers - the South Bay/Silicon Valley should try to capitalize on its huge Indian and West Asian population and build a regulation cricket ground. It would be a lot cheaper and a lot more useful.

Now, to those of you regular readers who are wondering why the hell this blog is spending so much time on the relatively obscure sport of cricket, it's because it's what I'm into lately, and ultimately this blog is about me and my interests and concerns. If I wanted to try to boost readership, I might write about something I could care less about (like Basketball, ghetto rap music, facebook, twitter, etc. etc. etc.). Match results to follow.

Just you wait until the World Cup starts!

More:

The story of Central Broward Cricket Ground

Photo Series of CBCG

England Win Cricket World Twenty/20!

2010-05-23T03:08:00.001-07:00

Whoo-hoo!

Obama's coming to San Francisco? Who cares!

England won a major cricket tournament for the first time in many, many years by defeating Australia in the final of the World Twenty/20 in the West Indies!

Pakistan put up a great fight in the semi against Australia but came up a little bit short, while England very easily dispatched Sri Lanka.

Sometimes you need to look beyond the local to find something to cheer about (are you listening Giants? 49ers? Sharks? Obama?!?).

Obama's Coming To San Francisco. Great. Swell.

2010-05-23T02:40:00.000-07:00

Our illustrious President Barack Obama will be visiting perhaps his only remaining hotbed of support this Tuesday, May 25th.

Me... I'll be working. Someone's got to!

According to the blog Mission Local (with emphasis mine)...

President Barack Obama is coming to San Francisco on Tuesday May 25 to help fundraise for the re-election of Senator Barbara Boxer.

According to a press release sent by immigration rights advocates the fundraiser will be at the Fairmont hotel. They are also asking people to go to Grace Cathedral near the Fairmont Hotel at 4:00 p.m. to put an altar with photos of loved ones (note: presumably the Bologna's will not be welcomed).

Their demands: 1). Push for comprehensive immigration reform, 2) end police and ICE collaboration, 3) end deportations. (our response: 1) fuck you, 2) fuck you, and 3) fuck you)

Interesting that no one is copping to this supposed immigrant's rights angle directly.

All the news blurbs say that Obama's visit is to fundraise for Barbara Boxer, and not to lobby for comprehensive immigration reform (read:amnesty), or bash Arizona - though presumably there will be a bit of that as it is now very trendy with the local Marxist scum who will no doubt be stepping up the pressure on Obama to destroy America faster than the pace he's going.

After bathing in the glow of the great admiring unwashed, he will then go to Fremont to speak at a solar energy company.

And then he'll be gone. Hopefully without causing too much damage.

San Francisco: Where PC Trumps Common Sense Everyday

2010-05-22T00:11:00.001-07:00

More politically correct clap-trap from San Francisco.

As everyone knows who rides the transit system here, MUNI has a serious problem with fare evaders. It costs the system gobs of money every year, and, by all accounts, appears to be getting worse every day.

Occasionally, MUNI and the Police Department do the absolutely unthinkable and try to actually enforce the law. Yeah... stupid, I know. But it even works for a while, until the populace's collective liberal panties get in a twist and then it's back to the same old shit.

Here's the latest from SFGate...

Does this ever happen to you? I'd been producing a radio piece about fare enforcement over the course of a few weeks. Then the day it aired I learned that the mass enforcement had been suspended. We added a quick explanation to the story and aired it as planned, but I wish we'd had more time: In the days since, as I've done more reporting, it's become clear that the craziness my recorder captured was indicative of the larger problem that got the program suspended.

Here's what happened: Last year Muni started a new effort to get people to actually pay to ride its buses and trains. The most effective way it found to do this was "saturation enforcement." That meant putting about 15 uniformed officers in one spot at a time to bust fare evaders. (When there are fewer ticket-writing inspectors, they are simply outnumbered by scofflaws, who simply walk away scot-free.) Even though the policy was effective - fare evasion has gone down significantly since they started - Muni said it would abandon the saturations and go back to putting a couple inspectors at a time in each spot. Why? ...

... Because of complaints to San Francisco's Immigrant Rights Commission.

People were worried that inspectors were demanding proof of payment from riders who didn't speak English, evoking the image of officers badgering the old Chinese man who simply can't understand what he is supposed to do. But ironically, the saturations actually decrease the possibility of this kind of cultural misunderstanding. With that many officers in one spot there will always be one who can speak your language. When I was on the Muni platform, I heard several inspectors speaking fluently in Spanish and Cantonese.

It wasn't just immigrants that felt picked on: mild-mannered, middle-class, fare-paying riders were driven into an irrational spittle-flecked rage by the sight of the inspectors. There's something about this show of force that rubs people the wrong way. This is all totally irrational, but it's also real, so Muni has to take it seriously. Whether or not public policy is right, it also has to make people happy. Call it the Feeling/Thinking problem. After all, the ultimate purpose of any government agency is to make the lives of the people better and happier. If any program, even if it works, perpetually causes strife and outrage, then it has failed the Thinking/Feeling test. So should Muni stop? No, it just needs to figure out how to do enforcement that makes people feel more secure - rather than less.

Lorena Melgarejo, vice chair of the Immigrant Rights Commission, says that the people she represents need fare enforcement; they are the ones who depend most on a functioning bus system: "This is our Muni," she says. "We don't want to lose $19 million a year and have Muni cutting those lines that we need because people aren't paying." But, she says, the fare enforcement should work, "the same way the census this year has worked." That is, a careful campaign to convince people that the effort is not against them, but for their benefit. Little changes could help, she adds, like if the inspectors wore white shirts, rather than dressing like cops (or immigration officers).

Really both sides in this fight want the same thing. It's gotta be tough for the Muni inspectors to bend to accommodate irrational behavior. But if they can figure out a way to both be right, and make people feel good - if they can solve the Thinking/Feeling test - it will make their jobs a heck of a lot easier.

Same old bullshit.

Now, out of the many classes and genres who evade fare paying, the biggest problems are usually with the insane, the homeless dirtbags, and black ghetto youth, but in terms of sheer numbers, nobody beats Mission Street (that's the Hispanic section for those of you who don't know S.F.) and the huge numbers of people who jump on the back of buses for free. Now who knows if they're "illegal" or not... my guess is that it's just another "entitlement" that "immigrants" (translation: non-whites) have grown very accustomed to.

It's actually a bit of a running joke... many times I've seen people jump on the back to have the driver yell at them something to the effect of "Come on... this isn't Mission Street!"

Fare evasion will always be a crime because it is committed mostly by the "downtrodden" and "socially vulnerable" (translation: anyone who isn't white - though insane or drug-addicted dirtbags get a bye), and therefore nothing will be done that might "offend" the thieves.

Sadly, a Rudy Giuliani-style crackdown would never work here - and not just because of the fascistic political correctness; SF's transit system is almost the opposite of NY's - it is bus based rather than train based - and thus is much, much harder to police (not like MUNI or the cops have any real interest in trying).

No good fare evading bastards!

Pakistan Hit By Hurricane Hussey!

2010-05-14T19:28:00.000-07:00

Australia pulled off an incredible win in the semi-finals of the World Twenty/20 Championships in the West Indies, successfully chasing down 192 with one ball to spare, thanks to the massive batting of Michael Hussey.

I know this means nothing to our American readers, but if you ever wanted to know what cricket was about, watch the highlights of this match. Sure, it's not test cricket (that's the 5-day variety), but it was one of the best twenty-over matches I've ever seen.

Next up: the final... England v. Australia on Sunday.

Cricket: It's what's for dinner!

2010-05-10T02:40:00.000-07:00

2010-05-10T02:25:00.001-07:00

Note: Well... at least he can speak English...

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?

2010-05-02T00:20:00.000-07:00

Man... they must be smokin' some good shit at the Chronicle editorial offices!

I suppose it's no surprise really... but the Chron has endorsed Kamala "I've never met a criminal I didn't like" Harris for the Dems' Attorney General of California candidate...

California's attorney general has the widest portfolio of responsibilities of anyone outside the governor's office. Crime, environment, corporate fraud, consumer protection. This list goes on. Not surprisingly, the Democratic candidates for attorney general presented an array of contrasts in both their emphasis and their knowledge of the issues. San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris stands out in this field both in her grasp of the issues and the clarity of her priorities (...fucked up as they are...).

Harris said her No. 1 goal would be to reduce the recidivism rate of inmates leaving prison, which contributes to an overcrowding crisis, adds to the state deficit - and erodes public safety. As she noted, California releases 120,000 inmates a year. Seventy percent of them return to prison within three years (Her solution: it doesn't count as recidivism if you never send them to jail again!).

"It's one of the biggest challenges that can be fixed in our state," Harris said.

In San Francisco, Harris' "Back on Track" program for first-time offenders between ages 18 and 24 has produced impressive (hardly) reductions in recidivism through job training and other life skills. It also generated a touch of controversy (which even the pro-amnesty Chron couldn't ignore) when it was revealed that some of the participants were undocumented immigrants, and thus could not legally (because they're "illegal") fill the jobs they were being trained to do.

Harris did not flinch at questions about the problems. The program screening was tightened, she said. Besides, she added, innovation in law enforcement necessarily involves an element of risk (to the public, of course).

The worst risk of all to public safety is to accept a 70 percent recidivism rate.

Her opponents include Rocky Delgadillo, the former Los Angeles city attorney; Facebook executive Chris Kelly, who has poured $8 million into his campaign; and three termed-out Assembly members - Alberto Torrico, Ted Lieu and Pedro Nava. Delgadillo, who lost to Brown in the 2006 primary, comes closest to Harris in applicable experience - but does not have nearly as well developed a vision for the statewide office (Oh Christ! You mean Harris has a vision of what she wants to do with - or to - California? That is fucking frightening).

Harris has clearly raised the level of the San Francisco district attorney's office in the last six years (which, considering she replaced Terrance Hallinan, is not saying much). Its conviction rate has reached a 15-year high (again, not saying much). The office has had some unsettling lapses, such as its inability or unwillingness to identify (or even acknowledge) the problems with the lax treatment of young drug dealers (known as "Kamala's Kids") under the Sanctuary City ordinance, or the colossal mess in the Police Department's crime lab. The best that could be said in each case is that she was not well served by some of her subordinates. But Harris has demonstrated her ability to confront and correct problems, and to learn from them. She is the Democrats' best choice for attorney general.

Harris' grandiose vision - Jesus help us - will no doubt require a lot of "elements of risk" that will certainly put the California public in serious jeopardy.

Not that she gives a flying fuck. Kamala's chief concern is for the criminal. They are, after all, the real victims. This is what passes for rational thought in the minds of those like Harris.

Fortunately, judging from the comments section, it looks like few are buying the Chron's glowing assessment of Harris' failed tenure...

* Fortunately, people outside S.F. get to vote on this one. No Harris, no way.

* you've got to be S####ING me...

* "San Francisco’s 800 plus unsolved murders rate ranks as one of the highest in the nation." Candidate against the death penalty--even for a felon who used an AK47 to gun down a cop! My ass. Harris, go get a real job.

* i dont know who wrote or edited this garbage but harris could not litigate herself out of county jail. all the 100,000 idiots released from state prison should be given a sentence in a bigger cell namely mexico. send harris there too. the stupidity of the san francisco crime lab cannot be ignored and left to the SFPD. can HARRIS.

* What???? OMG, this can't be serious, but absolutely stranger things have happened. Gotta go make sure I'm registered to vote. Jeez Louise!

* "Harris has clearly raised the level of the San Francisco district attorney's office in the last six years. Its conviction rate has reached a 15-year high"

Let's not forget that conviction rates were abysmally low under Harris' predecessor, ol' "Kayo" Hallinan, to the point where the SF Chronicle itself did an article about them. Remember, all improvements are relative.

* I'm all for aggressive prosecution of criminals, but not at the expense of sound judgment, which she clearly is lacking.

As far as I'm concerned, Ms. Harris got where she is because she was one of Willie Brown's girlfriends. She's done nothing positive with the job. ANYONE else would be better.

* Is this a joke? Ms. Harris couldn't prosecute a turnip much less be an effective Attorney General.

* Violent criminals are registering to vote as we speak...

* How could someone with such poor judgment be seriously considered for such an important position. I'm a Liberal Democrat, but this woman is incompetent, at best. This paper's recommendation of this person is really kind of insane, isn't it?

* I am sure they will love her in Red Bluff and Bakersfield given that she is seen as too liberal for S.F. Not a snow ball's chance of winning anything east of Treasure Island.

* Don't get me wrong, I've met her, and she is a bright, charming person. Which has nothing to do with being an effective prosecutor. She doesn't have that in her DNA.

TV Anchor? Sure. Even Supervisor or something. But she is not a leader in the never ending battle between good and evil, because she does not convey fear of consequences to criminals of any stripe.

She conveys wishy-washiness and a lack of focus on the right outcome -- the one that serves justice to the victims and punishment on the victimizer.

* "Harris said her No. 1 goal would be to reduce the recidivism rate of inmates leaving prison..."

Her number one goal SHOULD be to enforce the laws of the California AND protect its citizens.

Nevermind the touchy-feely, people-are-basically-good, social programs.

* This woman wouldn't make a good meter maid. Her color, sex and mouth got her where she is, and is incompetent at any level of measurement.

* Are you effing serious??? No wonder your readership has dropped off. She is about as qualified as my cat to be AG!!! She won't make it past the primary.

* I couldn't disagree more. How crime has snowballed in the city during her tenure should give most Californians pause. Thankfully Harris is despised in San Francisco, and a nobody to the greater state.

* The Chronicle's editorial board have really taken leave of their senses, this time. I wouldn't vote for Harris, even if hers is the only name on the ballot.

* Kamala Harris isn't qualified for any elective office in California, including dog catcher. If we had a truly just society, Ms Harris would be run out of town on a rail. She has failed miserably at her job of DA. And let's not forget that she slept her way into politics by servicing Willie Brown.

ALERT! PRO-ENFORCEMENT RALLY TODAY AT CITY HALL!

2010-05-01T00:18:00.000-07:00

Steve Kemp from GG Minutemen has alerted us to an emergency demonstration today (Saturday May 1st) at City Hall in San Francisco. Come show your support for the Citizens of Arizona!

Here is the e-mail in its entirety. Please read it.

Join us in San Francisco to Counter Protest (Illegal) "Immigrants May Day Labor March"!
Stand up for Border Enforcement and Legal Immigration to America!
WHERE: Civic Center Plaza, San Francisco
WHEN: 1 pm, Saturday May 1, 2010

PURPOSE: To stand up for American Citizens rights for Secure Borders, Support Arizona who is trying to secure its state, and Boycott San Francisco for slurring anyone who opposes illegal immigration.

WHO's COMING:
Pro-illegal immigration groups, SEIU, La Raza, etc (them): It's their rally, so they'll pull out all the stops. With politicians and the media fanning the Arizona flames, we're probably in for some heated moments.

Anti-illegal immigration groups (us): The Golden Gate Minutemen, the Pleasanton Tea Party, members from other Bay Area Tea Parties, SF 912'ers, and a variety of Citizens who want border security, the drug trade stopped, illegal alien crimes halted, and entitlement money cut off to illegal aliens.

NO MARCHING FOR US: The OPPOSITION will gather at 24th and Mission and march up to the Civic Center. DO NOT GO to 24th and Mission! That's their march!

DON’T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY! We are there to peacefully protest, but be prepared!! Watch out for each other and keep the person next to you under control. Stay in groups and don't go anywhere alone. Don't let the opposition provoke you into verbal or physical altercations. Remember, news cameras will be there watching for trouble and want to make us look bad, and make the illegals look like victims.

SFPD: The SFPD will surround us with a barricade and have Officers there to protect us.

BRING: Bring American flags, video and still cameras, charged batteries, snacks, water, sun block, but leave the kids home.

SIGNS: Keep them clean and as positive as possible. The opposition loves to label us "racists" and "hate mongers", so don’t give them any ammo. Here are some ideas:

- Illegal isn’t a Race
- Equal Justice is Color-Blind
- Not Angry, Not Hateful, Just Not Silent Anymore
- US Citizenship is NOT a human right
- NO Amnesty - NOT on my dime!
- We support the citizens of Arizona
- Boycott San Francisco
- Jobs for Citizens and Legal residents

Tell your friends!

I'd like to add a few things.

The deck is very much stacked against us. The illegal immigration supporters will be angry and easily provoked.

They hate us.

The media hates us.

The City Government hates us.

And my guess is the Police aren't too thrilled to see us either.

The SFPD's presence, unfortunately, may not serve as a deterrent to those who are predisposed to violent confrontation. My guess is that they will do all that they can to make sure things don't get out of hand. But you can count on extreme verbal abuse, things probably being thrown at us, and provocation to physical fights.

Remember... I am a former leftist. I know these people, I know their tactics, I know how they think, and I know what they're capable of.

And they WILL hurt us if they are given the chance.

Peace, love, tolerance... I hope that there is no one out there who still buys that garbage. These people fancy themselves as revolutionaries and have no qualms about hurting people that don't agree with them. None whatsoever.

Be especially on the lookout for diversions. A typical tactic is to create a diversion - a small skirmish off to the side - to attract the Police's attention. Then, once they're occupied, they attack. If a diversion occurs, bunch up. Do not spread out. If someone gets pulled away, pull them back into the group. Don't try to retaliate.

Remember... WE THE PEOPLE are the enemy.

Someday, if we stand together, we may live in a country where that is not the case.

SEE YOU THERE!

Some Heartfelt Advice For "Moderates"

2010-04-30T19:22:00.000-07:00

... 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.

MSM and the Left Decalre War on Arizona - and America

2010-04-29T21:03:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-29T20:14:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama's Brown Shirts At It Again

2010-03-24T22:39:00.000-07:00

Sunday March 21st saw a pro-amnesty/pro-open borders march in Washington that drew thousands of illegals and their pimps, laughingly calling on a Congress hanging by a thread to take up the most divisive issue in America and take action on erasing America's sovereignty.

As disgusting as this is... it is free speech. Even they have a right to voice their opinions. This is a sentiment that is not, however, advanced to those who oppose amnesty.

Jim Robb of NumbersUSA reports of the all-too-predictable doings of SEIU goonsquads at the rally....

Roy Beck was criminally assaulted Sunday, March 21, on Washington's National Mall by opponents of free speech coordinated by the Service Employees International Union. Roy was there to cover the pro-amnesty march.

S.E.I.U. is the pro-illegal immigration union connected in media accounts with political intimidation and assaults in recent years.
What happened Sunday continues S.E.I.U.'s and its allies' months-long strategy of dogging Roy's every public appearance, trying to shout him down or hounding event organizers to bar him from speaking. We have never tried to deny them their freedom of speech.

But this time the S.E.I.U. went much further. It sent a team of "mimes" and S.E.I.U. employees to stalk, push, shove, harass and whistle down Roy and his TV crew for several hours. It was very aggressive, including incitement of the crowd toward violence.

Roy filed criminal assault charges against the mimes and their S.E.I.U. organizers, who spent hours trying to block our webcast. (All of this can be seen and heard on the homepage of NumbersUSA.com.)

When the Federal Park Police finally ordered the S.E.I.U. agitators to move away from Roy and our TV crew, one of the "mimes" took the confrontation to a new low by falsely accusing one of our colleagues of assaulting her -- some three hours after it supposedly took place! The Park Police, acting on the word of the agitators, hand-cuffed and arrested our colleague on the National Mall. (We got him out of custody before the night was over, but he still must fight the pending criminal charge in court!)

While I'm certainly not surprised by this type of thuggery from the far left - and not surprised at all that it came from the Bolsheviks at the SEIU - it is a bit surprising that very few people seem to have any problem with it. But that's the way the left is... the ends always justify the means - which is very easy to do because to argue that the ends do not justify the means is to suggest that there are some limits that one must not cross. This is not a problem for the left, who will stoop to anything to get what it wants - or more truthfully, to get what it believes people need (whether they want it or - especially - if they don't).

When you have no values or morals, it's pretty easy to rationalize just about anything.

I'm not saying that everyone in the SEIU is a Stalinist punk. But the leadership certainly is, and the mouth-breathing cretins on the mall in Washington certainly are. They can fuck off and die.

This is the guy right here...

2010-03-15T23:30:00.001-07:00

You may have heard of this guy Scott Brown... the Republican who shocked the country by winning "Ted Kennedy's Seat" in Massachusetts. But I'm guessing you probably haven't actually heard him speak before.

So here's your chance.

Listen to what he's saying. If you Dems out there want any chance of maintaining a majority in any corner of Washington... listen. Because it's clear - as Scott says - that you are just not getting the message.

Eight months away. Eight months away.

Sunday's Arena Rock Moment

2010-03-14T21:13:00.001-07:00

Genesis were elected into the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame today. One of the great arena rock bands of all time.

Genesis of course spawned both Peter Gabriel and Phil Collins, and fans to this day debate which was era was better - the old era with Pete as the singer, or the "new" era with Phil. I guess I'll just have to post a Peter-era video and let you decide....

You're right... they both rock!

Carl Edwards: Cue the DICK

2010-03-07T14:26:00.000-08:00

What a dick!

"I don't know you..."

Carl Edwards screwed up big time in the Atlanta race, wrecking Bred Keselowski on the front stretch and ruining a 6th place run for the #12. Edwards was 156 laps down when it happened.

NASCAR black-flagged Edwards immediately and called him to the truck, meaning a points penalty may be coming.

Commentators remarked that the wreck was similar to the Talladega flip he did last year after running into Keselowski on the front stretch. They were similar... in the sense that both wrecks were Edwards' fault.

I've been looking for a driver ever since my boy - Ward Burton - hung it up a few years ago. I'm liking Kurt Busch more and more. Finding a driver can be a tough undertaking. How did you pick yours?

btw... you may notice I've been a little lax in blogging. Sorry. Been working a lot and when I haven't been working I've been sick. I'll pick it up as the election comes... you'll see.

But really... what a DICK!

SAVE US JACKIE SPEIER!!!

2010-01-31T22:47:00.000-08:00

Promising rumors have been floated recently that Congresswoman Jackie Speier - sick of "dysfunctional Washington" (than what is California???) - has expressed an interest in running for State Attorney General... thereby possibly saving us from "progressive" stall-wart Kamala Harris!

Please God... let it be true!!!

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Hillsborough, confirmed Thursday that she is considering a run for state attorney general.

"I'm weighing where I can do the most for my constituents in California," Speier said at a jobs conference she co-hosted at the San Mateo County Event Center.

Rumors began to swirl this week that Speier was mulling a bid to replace state Attorney General Jerry Brown after a recent poll showed her to be the favorite for the post among possible Democratic candidates, most notably San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris. Brown is expected to run for governor.

Citing frustrations with the legislative process in Washington, Speier said Thursday morning she is indeed thinking about entering the race.

"All I want to do for the next 10 years of my life is serve the people of California, whether it's in Washington or Sacramento," said Speier, 59.

Speier called the atmosphere on Capitol Hill "dysfunctional," and she expressed particular dissatisfaction with the workings of the Senate, where 60 votes are increasingly needed to pass legislation due to filibuster threats.

"Washington is a very frustrating place," she said. "You can get a great bill that passes the House and it can get bottled up in the Senate."

(snip)

As for the attorney general race, Speier will have to make a decision soon, spokesman Mike Larsen said. The period for declaring a candidacy opens Feb. 15, according to the California Secretary of State's office. The deadline to file nomination papers is March 12, though the deadline will be extended to March 17 if Brown doesn't run for re-election.

I have said before that the thought of Kamala Harris as Attorney General is a very scary one - criminals don't need friends with "enemies" like Kamala.

Her D.A.'s office in San Francisco has essentially become a second arm of the Public Defender's Office, an institution that cares far more for the well being of criminals than it does for society at large. Such a "progressive" attitude spread across the State would be a criminal's wet dream.

Speier is no prize pig herself, being a moderate (by Bay Area standards) establishment liberal very much in lockstep with the party line. Many have questioned her credentials, noting that she's "just barely" a lawyer and hasn't done anything out of a legislative context.

But, if you ask me, her "not being a lawyer" is a big point in her favor!

Not a Good Sign: Meg Whitman Panders to Reconquista Trash: Ends Relationship with Politician Who Dared Speak the Truth

2010-01-31T21:48:00.000-08:00

This is not a good sign for anyone hoping that the California State GOP had anything resembling a spine.

Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has bowed to pressure from the PC police, and has disavowed the support of Congressman Bob Kellar, for remarks that he made at a anti-illegal immigration rally.

The story goes thusly....

Santa Clarita councilman Bob Kellar attended a Minuteman rally on January 16, not just to support the Minutmen, but to make his views on illegal immigration more widely know than it already was. Kellar railed against illegal immigration, but it was his story of another time, perhaps another rally, that has sparked an uproar.

At that time, he recited the words of Teddy Roosevelt, and was consequently branded a racist for doing so. Remember, this is California, and anything that smacks of patriotism or love of borders is deemed racist. Teddy Roosevelt didn’t feel that way.

“We have room for but one flag, the American flag…we have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Kellar was later approached and labeled racist for citing those remarks. All he said…and this is the controversy, is That’s good. If that’s what you think I am because I happen to believe in America, I’m a proud racist, you’re darn right I am. He was taking their definition of a racist and throwing it back in their face. But, the media being what it is, ran with this National Enquirer style, and now poor Bob is seen as a racist all over the country. That is until you see the context of the statement.

As everyone knows, screaming "racist!" in 21st century America is the equivalent of screaming "witch!" in Salem in the 1600's; it is an accusation for which there is no defense - to simply be charged is to be guilty.

The accused in this case is indeed a heretic, because multi-culturalism is a religion. Much like any other ultra-religious sect from the FLDS to the Taliban, multi-culturalism is a dogma which is unquestioned and robotically parroted as a self-evident good by its disciples. To even mention in passing that something might be wrong with this orthodoxy provokes absolute foaming-at-the-mouth retaliation, and, like a heretic under the Spanish Inquisition, that must person must be destroyed. No apology is ever enough, any attempt at explanation will fall on the deafest of ears.

If you still have a semblance of an open mind and want to actually see for yourself what Kellar said and make up your own mind (while it's still legal to do so), then watch the video.

Leftists like to believe that they are somehow cooler than the rest of us because they are not "brainwashed" by the doctrines of organized religion. They are of course a bunch of lying, hypocritical weasels... holding up multi-culturalism as deeply and unquestioningly as the most fervent religious zealot does for their deity-of-choice.

A commenter on the original article put it well...

This is what it has come to in America: if you believe that America is great and that we should protect her culture, you are a racist. If you think that people who come to this country should assimilate, you are a racists. Somehow it has become wrong to be nativist in nature. Believing that your country is the best country on earth is wrong? These people don’t get it and they never will.

I just signed up on Meg Whitman's page to make sure she gets an earful from someone she obviously feels she doesn't need to pander to. Wonder how many other "proud racists" she'll disavow (and how she thinks she'll become governor without us)?

Another One From The Vaults: Richard D. Lamm's "I Have a Plan to Destroy America"

2010-01-25T00:38:00.001-08:00

Still feeling sick, so rather than think I thought I'd let someone else do the thinking.

This is a reprint of an old (well... 2005) speech from former Democratic Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm - given at a FAIR conference after Victor Davis Hanson discussed his book, "Mexifornia."

As you read this, keep in mind that this writer is a Democrat.

I have a secret plan to destroy America.

If you believe, as many do, that America is too smug, too white bread, too self-satisfied, too rich, let's destroy America.

It is not that hard to do.

History shows that nations are more fragile than their citizens think. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and they all fall, and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."

Here is my plan:

1. We must first make America a bilingual/bicultural country. History shows ... that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. One scholar, Seymour Martin Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon – all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France, faces difficulties with its Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.

2. I would then invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their own culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal: that there are no cultural differences that are important. I would declare it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rate is only due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out-of-bounds.

3. We can make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently, "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved, not by tolerance, but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically, and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with a salad bowl metaphor. It is important to insure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences, rather than Americans emphasizing their similarities.

4. Having done all this, I would make our fastest-growing demographic group the least educated – I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from school.

5. I would then get the big foundations and big business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of victimology. I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was all the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.

6. I would establish dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would "celebrate diversity." "Diversity" is a wonderfully seductive word. It stresses differences rather than commonalities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A "diverse," peaceful or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together, and we can take advantage of this myopia.

Look at the ancient Greeks. Dorf's "World History" tells us: "The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games in honor of Zeus, and all Greeks venerated the shrine of Apollo at Delphi. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet, all of these bonds together were not strong enough to overcome two factors ... [the] local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions." If we can put the emphasis on the "pluribus," instead of the "unum," we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.

7. Then I would place all these subjects off-limits – make it taboo to talk about. I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like "racist", "xenophobe" halt argument and conversation. Having made America a bilingual-bicultural country, having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of "victimology," I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra – "because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good." I would make every individual immigrant sympatric and ignore the cumulative impact.

8. Lastly, I would censor Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia" – this book is dangerous; it exposes my plan to destroy America. So please, please – if you feel that America deserves to be destroyed – please, please – don't buy this book! This guy is on to my plan.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." – Noam Chomsky, American linguist and U.S. media and foreign policy critic.

Voters in MA Speak... but is the Left Listening?

2010-01-21T14:27:00.000-08:00

Agggghhh!!!! Too much happening too fast!!! And on top of it, I've been fighting an awful cold for the last two weeks which has really sapped me. I feel negligent in my blogging and feel like there's so much now to try to wrap my head around.

First of all, let's not overlook the positive; Scott Brown's victory in MA was a huge, huge win for the people of America. It has effectively (for the moment) put the brakes on the Obama march to Socialism, and may have stopped it for good (assuming Obama is not elected to a second term).

I'm loving watching the left try to spin this into something other than an utter catastrophe. Here's the SFGate's editorial, with larding done by me in bold...

Aftermath of the Massachusetts Vote

Now comes the big test for President Obama and the Democrats who control both houses of Congress. They no longer have enough votes to ram through a health care plan without Republican support - unless they are politically stupid enough to attempt it before Sen.-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., is seated. Obama, for one, is too savvy for that. "The people of Massachusetts spoke ... he's got to be part of the process," Obama said Wednesday.

So, too, must other Republicans.

One of the many appealing themes of Obama's 2008 campaign was his promise to change the tone in Washington and to break the partisan gridlock that kept our elected representatives from finding common ground on big issues. In his first year of office, Obama veered from that pledge, partly because of heavy tugging from his liberal base and partly out of frustration with the utter refusal of many Republicans to allow him an inch of achievement (and partly because he never sought Republican input, and partly because he's an average corrupt Chicago-style politician and not some divine deity).

"If we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him," Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., famously declared last summer. On Wednesday, DeMint suggested his call to arms helped rally a rebellion against the bill that reverberated in the election for the seat long held by Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

There are many competing interpretations of what caused this stunning turnabout in the bluest of states, but there was no question that an uneasiness with the Democrat-crafted health-care bills was at least a factor (even the SFGate can't spin that one!). Brown made his opposition a centerpiece of his campaign; Obama appealed to his supporters to keep his vision of universal coverage on track by electing Martha Coakley.

The packages before House-Senate conferees are easy to shoot at, and Brown fired away - from the sheer size and complexity of the plans to the inequities between states resulting from (the usual) sweetheart deals to win votes from holdout senators in Nebraska, Louisiana and other states. California is among the states on the short end; the bills' impact on Medicaid costs led Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to pull his support (apparently Obama has not gotten the message yet that we're broke).

While polls show an unmistakable ambivalence, even anxiety, about the health-care reform plans pending in Congress, there remains a widespread agreement that the current system is broken. A rejection of the House and Senate versions, as expressed by Massachusetts voters, should not be taken as an endorsement of DeMint-style obstructionism. This issue is too important to abandon, as long as so many millions of Americans are without health care - and those that have it are paying far too much for it, and finding out they have less coverage than they think when they become sick.

(See... here is where the left loses it. Providing coverage for those without health care on the one hand, and containing costs, streamlining fine print, and insurance anti-trust issues on the other are DIFFERENT THINGS. The people want the latter, while Obama and the left are only concerned with the former. The left showed that it did not care how much it hurt the rest of the country as long as the people on the bottom got the same thing (for free). That is what pisses people off.

There is a word for what the left wants, and there is no two ways around it: it is Socialized Medicine - a Marxist approach to health care. And Americans by and large fucking hate Marxists and for very good reason. Because Marxists suck shit.)

The rising cost of health care is also having a negative effect on what Americans widely agree should be Washington's No. 1 concern: Jobs. (This is a red herring and everyone knows it. You don't create jobs by socializing medicine, capping emissions, or legalizing illegal aliens - you create jobs by letting people keep more of their money).

Obama was on the right track Wednesday when he advised lawmakers to "move quickly to coalesce around these elements in the package that people agree on" (which is what the stupid motherfuckers should have done in the first place!) The one-party approach, which created legislation bloated with (the usual) backroom deals, made it all too easy for Republicans to (very rightfully) attack. Congress should heed Obama's campaign words about the value of open and bipartisan decision making.

If Republicans want to maintain a solid wall of resistance against health care, an issue Americans clearly care about, the electorate's anger just might be directed at them next time.

Pah. You wish.

What the Republicans and Independents are trying to "maintain a solid wall against" is the Marx-ification of America.

Obstructionism is a bad thing only when what you're trying to stop isn't evil and designed to destroy the country.

If Obama and the Democrats want to keep power in November, then they need to stop being such Goddamn fucking Communists... realize that they live in a Capitalist Democratic Republic and not a burgeoning Third World Colony... and realize that they are fools if they think they can trick us into voting for our own deaths.

Okay... breathe, buddy...

All of that said... there are still ways for the Republicans to fuck this up.

Democrats have had some success in painting the GOP as too cozy with Wall Street and Big Business. They succeed in this largely because the GOP IS too cozy with Wall Street and Big Business. In my humble fucking opinion, if the Republicans really want to squander this great opportunity and make the Dems look good again, all they have to do is keep fighting against any form of financial regulation.

There are places to give and places to take, and this is the one issue where Republicans really must make some concessions.

Personally, I don't see what the damn problem is with the GOP. I have NO PROBLEM sticking it to the motherfucking banks and lenders - I think if there is one thing that everyone in America can agree on, it's that the financial sector are a bunch of fucking crooks. If the GOP wanted to show that they truly are on the side of the people, then they will get behind bank reform. Make them stop nickel and diming us to death with fees and loan-shark interest. This, in my opinion, would do far more to boost the economy than health care reform in any incarnation!

I gotta take a nap... I'll be back later...

Ooh... wait... Was That An Earthquake???

2010-01-20T02:43:00.001-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

(actually, feel free to not visit MSNBC... but I do thank them for this video.)

Brace yourselves, leftists... 2010 is going to be a very bumpy ride!

:)

San Fransanity's State of the Blog Address - 2010

2010-01-18T23:28:00.000-08:00

San Fransanity has been plodding along for nearly three years now, and it has been quite an experience!

So I felt it was time to say thank you to all of my readers for your support and for giving this little shout in the dark a chance!

A few facts about San Fransanity: I started keeping webstats about 2 years ago. Since then, over 17,000 readers in 54 countries have checked in to see what's been happening in our little slice of hell! This blog has enjoyed concentrated readership in the Bay Area (of course), Los Angeles, Sacramento, the Eastern Seaboard, and (for some reason) Kansas. Internationally, the UK is our biggest (though still quite small) market, though we've received hits from (literally) all corners of the globe!

THANK YOU!

I will be instituting a few, minor changes to the blog in the coming weeks. Not to worry, the snarky sense of outrage will remain intact.

Firstly, the volume of spam I've been receiving lately has forced me to do something I've been avoiding, which is to moderate comments. Rest assured that I will not censor any comment delivered here on any subject written by anyone that is not obviously spam. I want to encourage everyone to comment freely and ask questions on any subject, even if (especially if) you don't agree with me. It's the only way we'll learn. Spammers - go die.

Second, I am going to make an effort to tag my posts for subject matter so that you can go into the archives easily and retrieve similar posts.

Finally, I intend to go through the links list and try to make it a little easier to get around and find things. I want to put a particular emphasis on the upcoming November elections, with links to organizations and individuals that reflect our values and are working towards our goals.

This coming year promises to be an interesting one. My main areas of focus will be...

1) November elections: The 2010 elections cannot come a moment too soon. While this election offers great promise nationally, California is still too much of a one-party state to really expect major changes or improvements to the most dysfunctional state government in America - yet there are always ways to stop the bleeding.

First and foremost - it is imperative - critical - to the soul of this state that criminal-loving race-hustler Kamala Harris NOT be elected to the office of State Attorney General.

I will be giving props, airtime, and links to any and all organizations working to make sure that the truth about Harris be exposed to all voters, and working to see that her political ambitions never stretch beyond the boundaries of San Francisco proper.

I will also try my best to keep up on the little things we can do to wrest this City back from the crazy motherfuckers who are doing their best to bury it. I will help any anti-progressive candidates in the City that I can, and publicize any proposition arguments that bring the City back to where it was before the batshit insane progressive trash ruined it.

2) The Coming Amnesty - Despite the fact that poll after poll has shown that the American people do not want amnesty for illegal aliens, it is an iron-clad guarantee that amnesty will rise from the dead in 2011, if not sooner. In fact, if the Dems rush a Health Care bill through (and this depends a lot on the outcome of the Mass. Senate race on Tuesday), we could see an amnesty bill by this summer! Now, I and others think that this is unlikely, but it never hurts to be prepared.

The racial pressure groups like La Raza and MALDEF are putting the screws to the Obama administration, and it is a sure thing that we will have to protect this country yet again from those who would sell us out.

But we've done it before. We have the numbers. We have the will. And we have the momentum. And we will stop it again. It won't be easy, especially with the motherfucking mass media firmly in the open-borders camp. But we can do it. What choice do we have?

Again, thank you so much for dropping by. Here's hoping that this coming year brings you all that you strive for, and that health, happiness, and prosperity bless us all.

Where Every Season is the Season of Sacrifice

2010-01-12T13:06:00.000-08:00

From Bill Wilson at ALG (emphasis mine)...

Recently reading a left-wing blog, I came across this lament. It is striking in that it conveys clearly the nature of the battle that is brewing throughout America. The blogger who goes by the handle of “Teacherken” wrote:

“Unless and until we can accept – even actively embrace – the idea of shared sacrifice and collective responsibility, unless and until we understand that we cannot hold on to some things we value in isolation from those we know have to change, we will not be able to make the kinds of changes we need to survive as a liberal democracy.”

Where to start? First, and most important, is the fact that America was never intended to be a “liberal democracy.” From Day One, we were a constitutional Republic. What’s the difference you say? A very big one.

The “liberal democracy” our friend so desperately wants, throws everyone into a pot and dictates government policy on the whims of a scant majority. As virtually all the founders observed, such a form of government means that a majority bands together to take from the minority.

Perhaps Benjamin Franklin said it best when he wrote:

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.”

The constitutional Republic our founders gave us was based on the rights of the individual. Government was restricted, in Jefferson’s words “chained down.” But thanks to people like the good Teacherken, those chains have been broken and the voracious beast that government easily becomes is now prowling the countryside looking for victims.

This condition didn’t come out of the blue, it was predicted. Vice President and Senator John Calhoun saw our current state of affairs very clearly 150 years ago when he wrote:

“To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws.”

The second point that Teacherken’s plea makes is one of collectivism. We are implored to take “collective responsibility” and accept “shared sacrifice.” But nowhere in our founding documents are we as a people or a nation submerged into the rancid stew of one big mass. Individual liberty was the watchword and is the goal to which we must now aspire.

Who in Teacherken’s and Barack Obama’s world decides what our sacrifice should be? The majority of course. But that very same majority is comprised of the two wolves looking at the lamb for dinner. That is not “sacrifice,” it is murder. History is replete with examples. The small private farmers of 1930s Russia “shared the sacrifice” of the late, great collective experience and millions were turned into fertilizer. Of course, let’s not forget the “sacrifice” of anyone with more than a grade school education in China during their “Cultural Revolution,” a bloody, mind-numbing plunge into collective hell.

What is “collective responsibility” anyway? First, one must decide what the collective is supposed to be responsible for. If you assume the writer means the welfare of all citizens, then we have destroyed any semblance of individual responsibility. That is a well-worn path to destruction. People, at their most basic level, must be responsible for themselves. Otherwise, they become dependent children. Programs originally designed to “help people get on their feet” have now become programs to enslave. The original goal of so-called welfare state was to get people to be self-reliant. Government and its defenders no longer even pretend they want to see individual self-reliance. The goal now is pure handouts, giveaways, and dependency.

At its core, the differences between Teacherken and his allies, versus those who embrace a constitutional view, is the way in which each views people. How one regards the average citizen, determines which side of this epic struggle he or she falls.

For Teacherken and most of the Democrat Congress and Barack Obama, people are weak, needy and unable to care for themselves. They are pathetic creatures requiring the hand of government to care for them. They are dependent children. Were it not so, the trillions of dollars in welfare spending taken from taxpayers and distributed to those in need would have had a dramatic affect.

But alas, all the spending, all the social engineering, all the authoritarian intrusion into people’s lives has only yielded more need, more demand in their world for more government.

In short, they have forced Americans to subsidize poverty, illness, ignorance, and sloth and have simply gotten more of it. In so doing, they have created the perfect self-perpetuating cycle where more negativity justifies more subsidies, which only produces more negativity.

There is another view of mankind, a view our Founders held, and tens of millions of Americans still hold. It is a view that people are free, independent individuals, capable of governing themselves, making decisions that affect their lives on their own without the dictates of bureaucrats or the “collective” and willing to live with the consequences of those decisions.

As free men and women, they are capable of deciding for themselves how best to use their time, talent and resources. They are answerable for their acts and should reap the rewards of their labors. No busybody need tell them how to live their life. And if they make decisions that I or Teacherken or Barack Obama doesn’t like, too damn bad. It’s called freedom.

This fundamental conflicting view of people motivates the differing views of the increasingly polarized camps. The outcome of the fight will determine if the American people can restore liberty or sink into the swamp of world government known primarily for “shared sacrifice.”

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government and a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

The True Meaning of Kwanzaa

2010-01-03T21:12:00.001-08:00

An oldie but goody from Kathy Shaidle at Amren....

Earlier this season, countless schools and households celebrated Kwanzaa. They lit black, red and green candles (for black skin, red blood, and the green hills of Africa), and sang songs about the festival’s “seven principles,” such as faith, unity and creativity. Already big among blacks in the United States, Kwanzaa is catching on in Canada, too. Held each year from December 26 until January 2, Kwanzaa is increasingly seen as an appropriate multicultural alternative to Christmas, a holiday considered too religious and “Eurocentric” for public schools. But there is one not-so-insignificant problem with Kwanzaa. While many teachers believe it is an ancient African harvest festival, it was not born in pre-colonial West Africa, but in 1960s southern California. It is the brainchild of African-American radical activist, academic and convicted felon Ron Karenga.

In 1969, two rival radical groups were battling for control of the UCLA black studies program: the Black Panthers and the lesser-known US, or United Slaves, led by Mr. Karenga. Both groups sauntered around campus carrying loaded guns. Perhaps inevitably, violence erupted. As David Horowitz recalls in Radical Son, Black Panther John Higgins was “murdered—along with Al ‘Bunchy’ Carter—on the UCLA campus by members of Ron Karenga’s organization.” After the killing, the FBI infiltrated both groups, and the United Slaves turned to fighting “enemies within.” The result: two female members were tortured by their “comrades” in May, 1970. Both alledge Mr. Karenga ordered and participated in their assaults.

In 1999, writer Paul Mulshine published his research into Karenga’s violent past on FrontPageMagazine. Mr. Mulshine found a May 14, 1971, Los Angeles Times report of the victims’ testimony, which read: “The victims said they were living at Karenga’s home when Karenga accused them of trying to [poison] him. . . . When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in [one victim’s] mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of [the other victim’s] toes was placed in a small vise which was allegedly tightened by one of the defendants. The following day . . . Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them.”

Convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment, Mr. Karenga was sentenced in 1971 to up to 10 years in prison. “A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day,” Mr. Mulshine writes. “That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga’s unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa.” Shortly after his release from prison in 1975, Mr. Karenga (now armed, not with a pistol, but a doctorate) took over the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach, which he runs to this day.

And what about Kwanzaa? The festival’s seven days commemorate allegedly “traditional African” principles, such as “collective work” and “cooperative economics,” each referred to by a Swahili name. “Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast?” asks Mr. Mulshine. “American Blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania—where Swahili is spoken—are thousands of miles away. This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day by speaking Polish.” And why would Mr. Karenga schedule a harvest festival near the winter solstice, “a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere?”

This month, the religious satire magazine The Door likewise questioned Kwanzaa’s authenticity. “Karenga cobbled together a mishmash of different traditions and languages and blended them with Marxist ideas to reflect a unified African culture that doesn’t exist anywhere,” it reported. Ujamaa, or “cooperative economics”—one of the seven principles of Kwanzaa—is the term the socialist leader of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, used for his disastrous policy of putting tens of thousands of Tanzanians on collective farms.

“People think it’s African, but it’s not,” admitted Karenga in a 1978 Washington Post interview. “I put it around Christmas because I knew that’s when a lot of ‘bloods’ [Blacks] would be partying.”

Warning: Not for Minors - it's THAT funny!

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T13:28:00.000-08:00

Merry Christmas from
San Fransanity.

Hope this year brings
all the opportunity and
success you desire.

P.S. Don't forget about love!

San Francisco Plus Insane Criminals: An Enduring Love Affair

2009-12-18T17:44:00.000-08:00

This City's love affair with mentally deranged creeps continues as yet another psycho is given a slap on the wrist with a twist... this time a judge - who had previously slapped said psycho's wrist - was allowed to sit on the jury!

The "Stinky Stabber's" got a cellie!

A man with a two-decade history of biting and attacking San Francisco police officers was convicted of misdemeanor charges Thursday stemming from the latest incident but cleared of a felony.

Miquel McNorton, 49, of San Francisco was found guilty of misdemeanor battery on an officer and two counts of resisting arrest stemming from an Aug. 18 run-in with two officers in the Tenderloin, one of whom he bit on the wrist.

One juror said the panel was not convinced that Officer Michael Wolf had suffered a serious enough injury for the attack to be felony battery.

"We decided that (the bite) really didn't require medical attention," said Steve Duff, the lone juror who agreed to speak about the case (which is fucking nuts - these animals are crawling with disease - should be charged with biological warfare).

The officer testified that he had received inoculations and other treatment after being bitten.

McNorton has been arrested 16 times (!) since 1988 for attacking officers, eight of whom he bit, prosecutors said. He had been convicted of misdemeanors in three bite cases before Thursday's verdict.

Superior Court Judge Kevin McCarthy, who presided over the case, barred prosecutors from telling the jury about McNorton's history, calling it irrelevant.

Defense attorney Seth Meisels argued to the jury that McNorton was not guilty of a felony because Wolf had not been seriously injured.

After the verdict, Meisels said he would arrange for McNorton to receive mental health treatment upon his release. McNorton could spend four months in custody on top of the four months he has served awaiting trial (but will probably be released as soon as possible - as is the way here).

If convicted of a felony, McNorton could have been sent to state prison for as much as three years.

The case drew attention within Hall of Justice circles because Judge Bruce Chan - who in July reduced battery charges in another cop-biting incident involving McNorton from a felony to a misdemeanor - was allowed to sit on the jury.

Chan appeared shocked when prosecutors told him after the verdict about the previous case and said he did not remember it.

"His jaw dropped," said prosecutor Victor Hwang. "He said, 'You all knew that and you let me sit on this jury?' "

Chan was not asked during jury selection about his earlier decision, and McCarthy refused to let prosecutors excuse him. Then, on Thursday, McCarthy gave both the prosecution and defense the opportunity to remove the judge before deliberations, but both declined (!).

Chan left the court without commenting.

Asked what it was like to have Chan on the panel, Duff said, "He was a juror like the rest of us."

It's hard to know what is the stupidest thing about this case... the fact that the liberal pussy judge refused to allow past actions of the animal - which clearly show a pattern, the fact that this liberal pussy judge allowed the other liberal pussy judge to sit on the jury, the jury of liberal pussies that let the animal off easy, or the so-called prosecution (no doubt composed of liberal pussies) who allowed a sympathetic judge to sit on a jury!

The defense attorney seems to be the only sane person in this story.

And that's never good.

Idiot Republicans Hand Major Victory to Democrats on Wall Street Reform

2009-12-12T15:57:00.000-08:00

The stupid idiot Republicans in the House emboldened Democrats everywhere with its unanimous - and unanimously idiotic - opposition to the Wall Street Reform Bill that passed through the house by a vote of 223-202.

The House passed the most ambitious restructuring of federal financial regulations since the New Deal on Friday, aiming to head off any replay of last year's Wall Street failures that plunged the nation deep into recession.

The sprawling legislation would give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to oversee consumer banking transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that have escaped the oversight of regulators.

The vote was a party-line 223-202. No Republicans voted for the bill; 27 Democrats voted against it.

While a victory for the administration, the legislation dilutes some of President Barack Obama's recommendations, carving out exceptions to some of its toughest provisions. The burden now shifts to the Senate, which is not expected to act on its version of a regulatory overhaul until early next year.

The president praised the House action Friday, and called on Congress to act swiftly to get the bill to the White House for his signature.

"The crisis from which we are still recovering was born not only of failure on Wall Street, but also in Washington," Obama said. "We have a responsibility to learn from it and to put in place reforms that will promote sound investment, encourage real competition and innovation and prevent such a crisis from ever happening again. "

The legislation would govern the simplest payday loan and the most complicated high-finance trades. In its breadth, the measure seeks to impose restrictions on every house of finance, from two-teller neighborhood thrifts to huge interconnected conglomerates.

Democratic leaders had to fend off a last-minute attempt to kill a proposed consumer agency, a central element of the legislation and one the features pushed by the White House. The agency would take over consumer protection powers from current banking regulators, and big banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce vigorously opposed the idea.

Democrats said the broad legislation would help address problems that led to last year's calamitous financial crisis. Republicans argued that it overreached and would institutionalize bailouts for the financial industry.

"Let's put it to the American people: Do you prefer the Republican position of doing literally nothing to rein in these abuses or should we try to rein them in?" Rep. Barney Frank, who led the Democratic effort on the bill, asked moments before the final vote.

Republicans cast the regulatory bill as a burden to business and argued that it would continue to protect companies considered too big to fail. They offered an alternative that called for special bankruptcy proceedings to dismantle failing financial institutions. That alternative failed.

"This house has been on a spending spree, a bailout spree and a regulatory spree that I could never have imagined in any of my prior 18 years here in Congress," Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio said.

Democrats accused Republicans of doing the bidding of big banks, pointing to a meeting in the Capitol Visitors' Center this week between GOP leaders and about 100 lobbyists. Even the White House took a swipe at House Republicans.

"I didn't expect them to help after a meeting with 100 lobbyists for the financial industry," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said in an interview. "I'm not surprised they are opposed to it. The lobbyists are trying to gut this."

Consumer advocates cheered the survival of the consumer protection agency but said the overall legislation fell short, especially in the regulation of complex investment instruments known as derivatives.

Now... even though the Senate won't pick this up 'till early next year, I see this as a major victory for Democrats for several reasons....

1) As a gloating liberal posted in commentary, this bill was passed despite bi-partisan opposition. If nothing else, this vote gives hope to the Democrats, who now know that significant legislation can be passed against conservative-to-moderate opposition (healthcare anyone?).

2) The age-old perception that the GOP is in bed with the worst abuses of the free market system has now been confirmed to the American people. If the GOP was trying to convince people that they held the interests of average struggling Americans over the greedy American banks, then they failed spectacularly.

3) As everyone knows, if there's one thing that the average consumer would say to boost their bottom line and confidence in the economy, they would say "get these fucking banks and credit card companies OFF MY BACK! Make them treat us fairly. Make them stop charging us $35 when we go one cup of coffee over our limit. Make them play by the rules!"

The GOP had a chance to be a part of that - to stand up for American consumers - and blew it bigtime.

4) Whatever momentum the GOP had towards 2010 is now stalled. Too bad for the country. Obama and the left will utterly destroy us if we let them, and we've given them a great opening, thanks to the GOP's achilles' heel: its uncritical support for "free market" finance that everyone knows is RIGGED.

I dunno... maybe the liberals are right... maybe the GOP is incapable of extricating itself from the hip-pockets of the financial industry.

Look... I'm a Republican and a conservative (just in case the tone of this blog wasn't clear). A great Republican once said "The constitution is not a suicide pact" - and I believe that one's financial philosophy shouldn't be one either.

I am all in favor of companies making a fair return on their investment, and I am leary of all of Obama's schemes... but COME ON! These bankers are CROOKS! The abuses of banks and credit card companies are well documented. They are nothing less than financial rapists and the way they have conducted themselves in this tough economic time towards their own customers can only be described as profoundly evil.

This is one case - I am sad to say - where the Democrats are on the right side.

It makes me angry when so many conservatives spout on about "personal responsibility" (which I'm all for btw) but can't see criminality for what it is. It's one of the main reasons - if not the main reason - why so many people don't take us Republicans seriously. And why should they... we are standing up for criminals.

And, as you know, I do not stand up for criminals - whether they are wearing doo-rags or pinstripes. A crook is a crook.

This isn't about (the all too usual) creeping Socialism of the Obama-ites; this whole thing came about because of people on Wall Street consumed with sheer greed and a political party that refuses to be less than dogmatic on the issue of finance. If the industry had taken even the slightest measures to address the overwhelming tide of seething hatred (deservedly) flowing their way, they might have avoided this. But pure greed knows no limits.

The industry richly deserves any and all limits put against it.

What. A. Shock. "Stinky Stabber's" Attorney Sets Up Insanity Plea

2009-12-11T16:01:00.000-08:00

Wow. I am shocked. Truly.

Crazy... at least,
crazy about stabbing people on buses

Bobby Brown - the alleged human being accused of now 5 stabbings and 18 felony counts - is going to plead insanity, apparently.

The attorney for the homeless man who is facing 18 charges in a string of stabbing attacks on Muni passengers and women in the street told a San Francisco judge today that he has doubts his client is psychologically fit to stand trial.

Bobby L. Brown Jr., 30, was to appear before Superior Court Judge Donna Little to answer for the charges, the latest of which, filed Thursday, involved a woman stabbed in the arm on an N-Judah Metro train May 12.

Brown's alleged victims now number five, including an 11-year-old boy badly wounded (nearly murdered) in a stabbing on a Muni bus Sept. 1.

However, the defense attorney's assertion about Brown's mental state puts the entire case on hold.

"I've declared a doubt about his ability to assist me," Brown's attorney, V. Roy Lefcourt, said outside court. He noted that Brown is in the jail ward of San Francisco General Hospital because he is considered a danger to himself or (clearly) others.

"I want him to see a psychiatrist, I want him to be evaluated and I want to see if he needs medication," Lefcourt said.

Brown is scheduled to appear Monday before another judge, who will arrange for a psychiatrist to evaluate whether he is able to assist in his defense and whether he understands the nature of the charges against him.

Lefcourt asserted that Brown is overwhelmed by what is happening. Brown "has had numerous problems" (bad childhood, didn't get what he wanted for Christmas, blah, blah, blah...) and has not been able to get help for his "serious psychological issues," the defense attorney said.

Brian Buckelew, spokesman for District Attorney Kamala Harris, said prosecutors were surprised that Lefcourt had not waited until after arraignment to seek a psychological evaluation. Brown has not entered pleas to any of the felony charges against him, which include four counts of attempted murder.

... and of course the insanity delay was granted...

Criminal proceedings against a 30-year-old homeless man accused of five separate unprovoked stabbings in San Francisco this year, three of them on San Francisco Municipal Railways, were suspended indefinitely today after the man's attorney declared a doubt about his mental competency.

The suspect, Bobby Brown, is facing four counts of attempted murder, five counts of assault with a deadly weapon, eight counts of battery and one count of attempted robbery for the alleged attacks.

The attacks include a 41-year-old woman stabbed in the arm on a Muni train May 12; an 11-year-old boy knifed in the stomach on a Muni bus Sept. 1; two women stabbed while walking in the Tenderloin on Nov. 14 and Nov. 26; and a 24-year-old woman stabbed twice with a corkscrew on a Muni train Nov. 30.

Police said the stabbings were all random and unprovoked: the unknown attacker said nothing and then fled. In the Nov. 14 Tenderloin stabbing, he reportedly asked the woman for money before attacking her.

All five victims survived, though the boy nearly bled to death.

Brown was arrested Dec. 1.

But the criminal cases were suspended in San Francisco Superior Court this morning when Brown's attorney V. Roy Lefcourt requested a hearing on "his ability to assist counsel" and understand the nature of the charges against him. A hearing is scheduled for Monday for the appointment of a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate Brown.

Brown, who is being held on $5 million bail, was dressed today in a red jail uniform and listened quietly to the proceedings, his head hung low and his eyes cast downward.

When Judge Donna Little told Brown he was going to a different courtroom for Monday's proceedings, he responded, "Alright ... alright."

Brown is being held now in a hospital ward due to his status as "a danger to himself and others," Lefcourt told reporters outside the courtroom.

Lefcourt said he and Brown have "had conversations," but he wanted to make sure Brown understands what his attorney is saying, and that he can receive the proper medication if necessary.

Lefcourt said last week that Brown told him he was not guilty.

"When you have a serious case like this, you have to be able to help your lawyer," Lefcourt said today. "I think he has some serious psychological issues," he added.

Lefcourt reiterated his stance last week that the identification of his client as the stabbing suspect in the five cases was at issue. He also said he has since spoken with members of Brown's family.

"They have been in touch with me, and they're very concerned," he said.

This morning's development, though not uncommon, took prosecutors by surprise as to the timing.

District Attorney's Office spokesman Brian Buckelew said Lefcourt's request was "unexpected."

"The people were prepared to arraign Bobby Brown today," he said, adding that prosecutors have no opinion yet on Brown's mental competency.

Buckelew said all five victims have identified Brown as their attacker through either live, photo or video lineups.

"I'm confident in all five cases," he said.

If found incompetent to assist his attorney, Brown will remain in a custodial status -- typically in a mental hospital, Buckelew said -- until competency is restored and criminal proceedings can resume.

That can take years, if ever.

If convicted, Brown would face life in prison.

A comment to the SFAppeal article said:

"I can also say, from reliable sources, that Brown's competency will be an issue. He was taken quietly by the SFPD because, allegedly, he had no idea what he was wanted for or why he was being arrested. That is a good clue about his mental state right there. The test will be: does he know what he has done, and does he know right from wrong?"

The answer is what does it matter? What does it matter if he knows what he has done? Does that take the knife out of that poor kids' stomach? Does that keep a woman from getting stabbed on Thanksgiving Day in front of her 3 children? Who fucking cares if he "knows right from wrong" or not???

He is clearly a danger to others, if not himself. He has proven again and again and again, that he cannot function in society without committing heinous, atrocious acts (and those are just the ones we know about).

When an insane, dangerous animal is loose on the streets, you kill it. No difference here. You do not take it to the kennel and let it maul the other animals hoping it will get better. You put it out of its misery. It's the humane thing to do.

God... it's amazing that I even have to say this shit.

If "not knowing right from wrong" is enough to get you off an attempted murder rap, then the police just might as well disband right now; there are an awful lot of people in this town who don't know right from wrong.

Tough Talking Kamala Harris? BWAHAHAHAHA!

2009-12-03T01:18:00.000-08:00

So the "Stinky Stabber" - a psychopathic puke named Bobby Brown - has been caught and charged not only with the two high profile stabbings of a child and a woman, but also with two other stabbings that somehow didn't get as much media attention.

And, after over 5 years of coddling criminals and cutting plea bargains for a small fraction of the perps' sentence in order to boost her image of being "smart on crime," San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris is now trying to convince us that she's grown a pair and is actually going to prosecute this case to the proper extent that it deserves.

Too little. Too late.

A homeless man was charged Wednesday with a string of stabbings against women and children as they rode Muni or walked the streets of San Francisco.

Bobby L. Brown Jr., 30, faces four counts of attempted murder, four counts of assault with a deadly weapon and seven other felony charges stemming from the unprovoked attacks, including one Monday.

District Attorney Kamala Harris said all four attacks - and two more that are being investigated as potentially involving Brown - appear to be random, targeted at vulnerable people and committed with no motive.

"We are ending tonight this defendant's reign of terror," Harris said Wednesday night. "We've got our guy, and he's off the streets." (yeah... for now...)

Harris said Brown faces 72 years to life in prison if he is convicted (by a jury and sentenced by a judge. No telling how long he'll get if he gets one of your sweet plea deals, Kamala...).

Rachel "Ty" Brown, 24, who is not related to the suspect, was stabbed on the J-Church streetcar as she slept on the way to school. Prosecutors say Bobby Brown attacked her with a corkscrew found in his pocket when he was arrested Tuesday. Authorities believe he used a knife in the three earlier incidents.

The first occurred on Sept. 1, when 11-year-old Hatim Mansori was repeatedly stabbed as he rode home from baseball practice.

Bobby Brown's mug shot had been in a group of photos the boy was asked to review after leaving the hospital, but he was unable to identify him. Unable to make a case against Bobby Brown, San Francisco police turned him over to San Mateo County authorities on an outstanding warrant in an indecent exposure case.

The boy's mother, Laila Elfazouzi, said Wednesday that her son had been asked to assist police in making an identification this week.

She said she was frustrated in how long it took to capture a suspect. "It takes so long, meanwhile, he hit another victim, the lady, it's very sad," she said.

The attacks escalated after Bobby Brown was released from jail in San Mateo County on Nov. 10, authorities said.

He pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor charges and was put on probation. He was later charged with misdemeanor battery of a San Mateo sheriff's deputy while in custody.

Four days after his release, prosecutors say, on Nov. 14, Bobby Brown allegedly stabbed a 25-year-old San Francisco woman at Sutter and Jones streets at 10:40 a.m. after she refused to give him money. She was stabbed twice in the back and buttocks and was hospitalized.

On Thanksgiving Day, Nov. 26, he allegedly attacked a 26-year-old woman in the Tenderloin at Golden Gate and Leavenworth streets in front of her three young children, one of whom she was pushing in a stroller.

Prosecutors said Bobby Brown grabbed the victim for no apparent reason and stabbed her three times in the back. She was hospitalized for seven hours.

"I feel like there's been some closure," said the victim, who asked not to be named. "I feel utterly grateful that I am alive today. That guy could have taken my life.

"He's sick - anyone in this world who would just randomly attack a woman with three small children is sick. "

Police Commander John Loftus said police were able to link the attacks because they were all stabbings, all random, the locations were all clustered in the city's central neighborhoods and the victims' and witnesses' descriptions of the attacker all matched up.

Loftus said two other stabbings are being investigated in connection with Bobby Brown, and that anybody who knows of similar attacks should call the police department's tip line at (415) 575-4444.

Harris said she could not discuss the defendant's mental state, but that it would not prevent her office from getting a conviction in court.

Harris said an arraignment could be scheduled for as early as this morning.

Authorities said Bobby Brown has been violent before on public transit.

On Dec. 14, 2004, he was accused of punching a woman for no reason as she waited for train doors to open at the MacArthur BART Station in Oakland, BART spokesman Linton Johnson said. Bobby Brown was arrested on suspicion of misdemeanor battery, and although no charges were filed, he was sent back to state prison on a parole violation.

Bobby Brown had also been cited twice in 2003 for BART fare evasion.

The most serious crime on his record dates to July 13, 1999, when police said he shot at a Noe Valley man who confronted him for knocking on a woman's window at 11 p.m.

The man told him to leave but Bobby Brown fired at the man and fled, officials said. Bobby Brown was arrested on attempted murder charges and pleaded guilty (or plea bargained his way down) to charges of assault with a deadly weapon.

He was given a three-year suspended prison sentence (for shooting a stranger - that's S.F. for 'ya) but was later sent to prison for violating his parole.

He has told authorities in San Mateo that he lived at an O'Farrell Street SRO hotel, but a clerk there said this week he had not been staying there for several months.

Bobby Brown's father, Bobby L. Brown Sr. of Richmond, declined to comment late Wednesday.

Kamala... you had better not fuck this up. I have a real hard time believing in this change of heart crap; it looks too much like an election year ploy to convince the people of California you've got what it takes to be state Attorney General. You don't. Everyone in SF knows it, and soon everyone in the state will know it when the litany of people you have failed to protect come out of the shadows.

Your problem, as I have stated before, is that you love criminals. You probably even think that this sick, sad piece of excrement can somehow be rehabilitated. He's a career criminal who nearly murdered four people in the last 3 months. What sane person would argue that he should get anything but the maximum possible penalty - which would be life?

Speaking of arguments from sane people, let's look at the opposite - taken from the SFGate's comments page...

-This is just another downtrodden black man striking back at the society that made him this way. Instead of locking him up and increasing his rage, this man can be rehabilitated. Giving him an education, a place to live, some help, this can be the reparations America should give to the black man for the sins committed against them.

Now... let me just breathe for a second... okay... this comment is so utterly stupid that at first I thought it must have been a joke. But then I remembered this is San Francisco and allegedly sane people still think this way. I don't even know where to begin with... the unbelievable naivete? the apologism for evil? God... how do you begin to reason with someone so DUMB?

Christ... even when I was a liberal I wasn't THAT dumb!

As usual though, the comments do bring out some folks who have not embraced the bullshit and respect reality enough to see the situation - all of it - for what it is...

-When society is kind to the cruel it is cruel to the kind. See what happens when you feel sorry for thugs and let them back into society whether they are brain-mad from drug use, came from a bad upbringing, or are simply sadistic?

-The City will just put him in a program because he's homeless and mentally ill...

-Sorry, but this guy doesn't belong in a school. He is too far gone. He belongs in the looney bin. Also, the days that blacks couldn't get an education are long gone. Anybody in this country who wants an education can get one. Furthermore, we don't know at this point what made him this way. Even his own family could be a great contributor, so stop trying to lay this at the feet of "society."

-When do we get to end DA Kamala Harris reign of terror over all San Francisco? You'll notice she finally starts prosecuting a case here and there as we lead up to the elections -- but the trailing six years she acted in agency with every banger and MS-13 hood in SF -- if there were truth in advertising the last six years she'd need to say she's from the Public Defender office.

-He'll be back on the streets after some kind of compassion defense or other silliness.
It'll surely turn out that Bobby Brown has a criminal past that should have kept him in jail instead of out on the streets stabbing people, but S.F. is soft on crime, so no surprise.

-Since Harris is so utterly fricken useless, he'll walk. Just watch.

-Knowing Kamala Harris, this guy will be back on the streets in no time.