SAVE US JACKIE SPEIER!!!

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

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"

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?

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???

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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.

"Stinky Stabber" Caught - Cop-killing Seattle Animal Put Down

News out of SF is that MUNI patrons can leave their Kevlar vests at home for the time being, as a "man" has been arrested in the "Stinky Stabber" case.

This comes as MUNI implements drastic service cuts starting December 5th. Maybe a good thing?

San Francisco police have arrested a man in the stabbing of a Muni Metro passenger Monday, authorities said today.

The suspect, Bobby Brown, 30, a (most likely typically criminally insane) transient, was arrested on the street along the Metro tracks in the Sunset District this morning, police said.

He is being held on attempted murder and other charges stemming from the attack Monday on Rachel "Ty" Brown, 24, on the J-Church Metro line. The suspect and the victim are not related.

Police are trying to determine whether Bobby Brown may also have been responsible for the Sept. 1 stabbing of 11-year-old Hatim Mansori on the 49-Mission bus.

Taraval Station Officers Feliks Gasanyan and Maria Donati made the arrest at 8 a.m. at 31st and Judah streets. The officers recognized Bobby Brown on the street along the N-Judah Metro line.

"They were on the Muni streetcar routes in hopes of finding him," said Lt. Michael Connolly of the investigators bureau (I know... cops doing their job??? Who woulda thunk it...).

The victim, who is still hospitalized, said in an interview before the arrest that she was sleeping aboard the outbound J-Church train at Church and Market streets Monday morning when a man walked past her and struck her at least twice in her side.

"I saw his face," Rachel Brown said. "He startled me awake, then he ran off the train."

At first, she said, she didn't realize what had happened and didn't want to call police.

"I thought the guy just punched me, no big deal," she said. After two or three stops, she said, she realized she was bleeding, and other passengers notified the operator.

Now... I really don't wanna rag on the victim here... she didn't ask to get stabbed... but both her and her "partner" displayed exactly the PC, anti-punishment attitude that directly contributes to this kind of situation.

(Brown's partner Gabby) Winder said she assumed the man who stabbed Brown on Monday was mentally ill.

"I felt sorry for him," Winder said. "If you find him, help him. I feel bad. I didn't want the dude to go to jail, but he's not mentally there."

Your girlfriend is stabbed, nearly killed, and you feel sorry for him. The only reason you want him caught is so that he gets help? Not so that he doesn't kill an innocent person, but so that he gets help? Whatever! Fucking liberals.

Brown herself showed a little more sense, saying that she decided to do interviews from her hospital bed after hearing that the "poor" psycho who nearly killed her had nearly killed an 11-year old kid. Sometimes political correctness just can't compete with a hard, cold dose of reality.

Sometimes.

It is time for us to stop looking at the drug addicted/insane zombies who roam our streets as our stray pets.

A commenter on sfgate summed it up nicely...

If it had happened suddenly, San Franciscans might have reacted more forcefully. That might not have been an entirely good thing, either... But it happened gradually, if fairly consistently, beginning sometime between the Beats and the Hippies, people came here to Be Free. Mencken noted that those arriving for the Democratic convention (1920) felt they'd escaped America. You could do things here you couldn't do even in LA, or NY, or so we've been told. But over the years the idea of Tolerance became confused with Acceptance, and it almost always ran one way, the newcomer insisting You had to accept them, but they didn't have to accept You. Clearly, You were not cool, You were wrong. They got to do what they wanted, and You had to accept it, because this was San Francisco, but what you did was simply Wrong/Not Cool. The lunatics now control the Asylum. The losers seem to think they can call the shots. The difference between Tolerance and Acceptance needs to be reset. Soon.

Here here! I for one get real sick of these leftist cultural carpetbaggers... these liberal dumbfucks from wherever who come to San Francisco, take a big, steaming ideological dump, and call themselves the "soul of San Francisco." You would think, talking to them, that San Francisco has had eight generations where everyone in every family was a transgendered body piercer or homeless art camper or multi-ethnic dildo producer. San Francisco is (or at least, was) a place where normal - and I'm sorry because I know how much liberals hate that word - normal people lived and had *gag* families and *ack* worked for a living at honest jobs and *eeew* went to church and all the other things that people who aren't fucked up in the head do. But I digress...

By that time, however, the attacker was long gone from the train.

Rachel Brown was being treated at San Francisco General Hospital for at least two wounds in the side. One wound was superficial, the other more penetrating. She may be released today, hospital officials say.

Police are trying to determine whether Bobby Brown may have been responsible for stabbing 11-year-old Hatim on the bus Sept. 1 at Mission and 19th streets. The descriptions of that attacker and the man who stabbed Rachel Brown on Monday were similar.

The boy was badly wounded in the attack but recovered. His mother said he has returned to the sixth grade at Marina Middle School.

The stabbings and other high-profile incidents, including a fight between two female passengers (one black and one asian) that was posted on YouTube, have led to public concern about whether crime on Muni is increasing (and, as you'll see, it is).

Figures compiled by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which oversees Muni, show that the number of crimes committed in the first three months of the fiscal year, through Sept. 30, was slightly higher than in the same period in 2008.

A total of 248 crimes on the Muni system were reported to police from July through September, up from 230 in the same three months in 2008. The number of aggravated assaults dropped, from nine in the first quarter of fiscal 2008-09 to four in the same period this year.

The number of reported robberies in each period was identical, 37. (Sooo... aggravated assaults are down... robberies are holding steady... so what crimes are increasing - I mean, besides the stabbings of course?)

+++++++++

And meanwhile, while the story above may end up being a good one - with a psychopath behind bars (at least 'till Kamala Harris can find a way too release him) - the horrible story from up in Seattle has had a good ending....


A lone officer on patrol in the middle of the night Tuesday spotted a stolen car, its hood up and engine running, and pulled over to check it out. As the patrolman sat in his cruiser, a burly man with a large mole on his cheek came up from behind.

The officer turned, stepped outside and recognized the most wanted man in the Pacific Northwest — the ex-con accused of gunning down four cops at a coffee shop.

Moments later, Maurice Clemmons, 37, lay dead in the street, shot by the patrolman after Clemmons made a move for a gun he had taken from one of the slain officers, police said.

Clemmons' death brought to an end two days of fear across the Seattle-Tacoma area and one of
the biggest manhunts the region has ever seen. Dozens of police officers milled around at the scene afterward, some solemnly shaking hands and patting each other on the back.

"Good thing he wasn't able to get the gun out here or we might have had a different ending to this whole thing," Pierce County sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said. "The officer in Seattle did a good job of making sure he went home safe tonight."

Clemmons eluded capture thanks to family and friends who provided him with shelter, cell phones, cash and first aid for the severe belly wound he suffered when one of the dying officers in Sunday's coffee-shop rampage got off a shot, police said. Six to seven of those associates were being arrested Tuesday.

Among them, police said, was Darcus D. Allen, a convicted murderer who served in prison with Clemmons in Arkansas and allegedly drove the getaway truck after the coffee shop rampage; two men who later traveled with Clemmons as he eluded police; and Clemmons' sister, who bandaged him up and gave him a lift part way to Seattle.

It wasn't immediately known if she or Allen had attorneys; the other two have pleaded not guilty.

"Some are friends, some are acquaintances, some are partners in crime, some are relatives. Now they're all partners in crime," Troyer said.

Troyer said paramedics were stunned that Clemmons lived as long as he did with the bullet wound. It had been packed with gauze and patched with duct tape.

It was not clear exactly where Clemmons was while on the run. Police rushed from place to place, following tips that often came up empty or yielded only accomplices. They searched homes and apartments around the city and cordoned off a park after a report of blood in a restroom.

On Sunday, Clemmons briefly took refuge at a house in the city's well-to-do Leschi neighborhood, slipping away before police surrounded the home in an all-night siege that ended when SWAT officers stormed the place and realized he wasn't there.

Clemmons has a violent, erratic past, and authorities in Washington state and Arkansas — where then-Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000 commuted his 108-year prison sentence for armed robbery and other offenses — are facing tough questions about why an apparently violent and deranged man was out on the street.

On Sunday, six days after posting bail in Washington on charges of raping a child, Clemmons walked into the coffee shop in suburban Tacoma and killed four uniformed Lakewood police officers as they caught up on paperwork on their laptops, police said.

"The only motive that we have is he decided he was going to go kill police officers," Troyer said. Investigators also reported that Clemmons told others the night before the shooting that he was going to kill police and they should watch the news, but they wrote it off as "crazy-talk."

In a statement posted on the conservative Newsmax.com Web site, Huckabee said: "I take full responsibility for my actions of nine years ago. I acted on the facts presented to me in 2000. If I could have possibly known what Clemmons would do nine years later, I obviously would have made a different decision. But if the same file was presented to me today, I would have likely made the same decision."

The Seattle patrol officer who killed Clemmons, Benjamin L. Kelly, 39, a seven-year law enforcement veteran, will be placed on leave, which is standard procedure after a shooting.

The officer was driving in a working-class neighborhood of south Seattle at about 2:45 a.m. when he came across a stolen car, its engine running, Assistant Seattle Police Chief Jim Pugel said.

As he sat in his cruiser, beginning paperwork on the car, he sensed movement, turned and saw someone approaching, Pugel said. The officer stepped out and immediately recognized the man, whose face had been all over TV and mugshot fliers memorized by every officer in the region.

The patrolman ordered Clemmons to freeze and show his hands, but he kept moving, and the officer fired several rounds, hitting the man at least twice, Pugel said.

Police said Clemmons would have died eventually of the gunshot wound he suffered in the coffee-shop rampage.

At the time of his arrest in Washington state earlier this year, investigators said Clemmons had visions that he was Jesus Christ and that the world was on the verge of the apocalypse. He also "told the officer President Obama and Lebron James are his brothers, Oprah (Winfrey) is his sister and referred to himself as 'the beast,'" according to court papers obtained by The News Tribune of Tacoma.

A psychological evaluation in October found he was a risk to public safety, but not enough of one to justify committing him, the newspaper reported.

U.N., Associated Press Slam Switzerland - Again - For Minaret Ban

The United Nations and the Associated Press - two anti-Western bodies infiltrated by radical Islamic apologists - once again are hammering away at the Swiss people for their stance against the Islamic invasion of their country.

The United Nations called Switzerland's ban on new minarets "clearly discriminatory" and deeply divisive (maybe that was the point...), and the Swiss foreign minister acknowledged Tuesday the government was very concerned about how the vote would affect the country's image.

U.N. human rights chief Navi Pillay (formerly of that great bastion of human rights and tolerance of minorities - the African National Congress. In addition, she's also a regular contributor to - no surprise here - the Huffington Post) said Sunday's referendum to outlaw the construction of minarets in Switzerland was the product of "anti-foreigner scare-mongering."

The criticism from Pillay, whose office is based in the Swiss city of Geneva, comes after an outcry from Muslim countries, Switzerland's European neighbors and human rights watchdogs (and leftist orgs like the AP) since 57.5 percent of the Swiss population ratified the ban.

The Swiss government opposed the initiative but has sought to defend it as an action not against Islam or Muslims, but one aimed at improving integration and fighting extremism.

"These are extraordinary claims when the symbol of one religion is targeted," Pillay said in a statement. She said she was saddened to see xenophobic arguments gain such traction with Swiss voters despite their "long-standing support of fundamental human rights."

The referendum doesn't affect Switzerland's four existing minarets, or the ability of Muslims to practice their religion. It only bans the towers used to put out the Islamic call to prayer.

But wealthy Arab tourists might think twice now about spending their money in Geneva and other Swiss cities, and the neutral country's efforts to mediate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could also suffer (presumably because they won't be seen as completely pro-Palestine).

Sweden, which holds the European Union's rotating presidency (and has its own serious problems with Muslim immigrants - including a soaring rape rate - with over 90% of them being committed by foreigners), said the United Nations should reconsider its presence in Geneva, where it employs thousands of people and holds hundreds of conferences each year.

"Questions could very well be raised within the U.N. about holding meetings and activities in Switzerland, even if the Geneva canton belonged to those which voted against the ban," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on his blog.

Bildt said the vote was a poor act of diplomacy on Switzerland's part (It was not an act of diplomacy at all - it was an act of resistance against those who would force them to change - either the Muslims directly and/or the U.N. and E.U. indirectly).

"Even if this is Switzerland, it sends a very unfortunate signal to large parts of the rest of the world about attitudes and prejudices in Europe," Bildt said. "We all have an interest in showing that this impression is false and in the long-term even dangerous."

In Athens on Tuesday, Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said the government was worried about the ban.

"We are very concerned with this referendum. The reality of our societies in Europe and throughout the world (that reality being that Western countries everywhere are being invaded by hordes of hostile, non-assimilating aliens - and that the unholy cabal of cultural Marxists and cheap labor Industrial interests are deliberately destroying their own countries to facilitate it) is that each limitation on the coexistence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security," Calmy-Rey said during a meeting of foreign ministers of the 56-nation Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

"Provocation risks triggering other provocation and risks inflaming extremism," she added.

What kind of fucking logic is that - If someone is invading you, don't upset them because then they'll get angry???

Sunday's referendum, which was backed by nationalist parties (none of whom will even be named, let alone quoted), forced the government to declare illegal the building of any new minarets.

Calmy-Rey stressed that Muslims were accepted in Swiss society, and the decision would not change the foreign policy of the country, which would continue to maintain close relations with Muslim nations (presumably meaning wide-open immigration policies).

"Swiss Muslims are well integrated and will continue to attend the 200 mosques in the country," she said.

The minister said if an appeal against the referendum is lodged at the European Court of Human Rights, it would be up to the court to decide on its legality.

But why did the Swiss people vote this way? What was behind the vote? Who was behind the vote? Why do you think a clear majority of the Swiss would do this?

Whatever the answers are, you can be sure they will never appear in a report by the Associated Press. To do so would be to acknowledge the legitimate fears and anxieties of a continent being flooded with hostile foreigners, and also acknowledge a Western country's right to defend itself and determine what kind of society they are. And all of these things are simply unacceptable to the AP.

I was never a rabid anti-U.N. person, but more and more I am seeing why so many in this country consider this body a fascist, anti-Western entity.