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

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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

Raving Lunatic Of The Week: Asshole Congressman Pete Stark

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...

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

Independence Day Post: Happy Fourth of July!

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:

• Presidential Proclamation--Caribbean-American Heritage Month

• Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month

• Presidential Proclamation - World Refugee Day

• Presidential Proclamation-- 90th Anniversary of the Department of Labor Women's Bureau

• Presidential Proclamation-- King Kamehameha Day

• Presidential Proclamation- African-American Music Appreciation Month

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?

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

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

Beginning of the End This Thursday?

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!

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!!!

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

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

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...

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

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)

NO

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)

NO

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.