Doc's Talk: Confessions of a San Francisco Tea Party Mobstress

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Confessions of a San Francisco Tea Party Mobstress

Sally Zelikovsky

When I first donned my mobster's hat last April, clinging to it as I do my guns and Bible, I was embarking on a journey not only into the unknown but also into the unknowable: unknown because, like most of my fellow mobsters, I had never attended a protest before; unknowable because we were in the unnerving position of having to react to the endless barrage of "hope and change" that would be hurled our way. But don that hat I did along with hundreds and now thousands of others in the Bay Area. Bay Area mobsters take protesting seriously: they study the issues in preparation for an event, confer with permit officers and police before and during an event (we even thank them), create pithy but catchy signage to deflate their anger and, why the police love us most of all, clean up after the protest.

Tea Party anger differs from the kind of ire we have witnessed from the left over the years. Theirs is the anger of youth: unbridled, unreasonable and irascible. It is visceral and emotional.

Probably due to the variety of political affiliations we have in the Tea Party group--where no particular party or ideology dominates-Tea Party outrage, while real, has been assuaged by several factors: familiarity with world history, an understanding of human nature, a commitment to a shared code of conduct and a willingness to fight for principles upheld by past generations in order to pass them on to future generations.

This is the essence of the tea party movement and it was out in full force this past Thursday, October 15th, when Bay Area tea partiers found babysitters, left work early and traveled great distances to converge on San Francisco to give President Obama a real San Francisco Treat: Opposition!

To the best of my knowledge, this is unprecedented: average citizens taking on a radical President, who is hell bent on eradicating our way of life and replacing it with something out of Moscow from thirty years ago, and doing so in the country's most radical city! San Francisco's tea partiers are a small but significant cog in the tea party wheel that is seeking to prevent Obama from imposing a regime on this nation that is inimical to every principle on which this country was founded, every life sacrificed for those principles and every fiber on which our founding documents were crafted.

Although Obama and his minions have tried to marginalize tea partiers, one can easily detect that he is well aware of our presence and knows we are a threat:

"I hope the election was not just a fad..." he remarked at the DNC fundraiser at the Westin St. Francis October 15th, before a crowd of acolytes, some of whom paid $15,000 apiece to dine with the President.

He continued: "I want everybody to know who are standing in the way of progress...I'm not tired...." Because we object to what He has decided is best for us, we are standing in the way of progress. In their own self-congratulatory way, progressives sincerely believe that's what they do: progress. Yet, history is riddled with the remnants of "progressive" regimes that did no more than oppress and suppress under the guise of enlightenment.

Informed people know better. Like Alla from Russia and Andrejz from Poland and Chris from Romania, all of whom attended the Obama protest desperately trying to thwart the destruction of the last best place on Earth, the shining city where they sought refuge from their own "progressive" homelands.

These folks took to the streets of San Francisco for the simple reason that every other avenue for political redress has failed them: the politicians have forgotten that they represent the people; the press have abandoned their role as a check on the government; and our parties have simply lost their way. What else is there to do other than wrest the reins from those driving and take charge, first on the streets and then hopefully back in the halls of government.

This past Thursday, in a city where the average political campaign is a battle between progressives and liberals, Bay Area tea partiers effectively snuffed out the cocky days of yesteryear, when a progressive political icon could waltz into San Francisco with "red" carpet rolled out, to the accolades of thousands of supporters.

San Franciscans greeted Mr. Obama with cheers of "Kill the Bill" and signs that read "Govt Run HealthCare Makes Me Sick." Even Obama's supporters, whom we outnumbered, couldn't help but notice us. The whisperings that we overheard included comments like ""Where did these people come from?" and "I didn't know people like this existed?" And what about this remark, from two gals who were trying to goad us (every time we chanted "Yes" they screamed "No" and vice versa): "These people are no fun; they're so boring. They don't respond to us; they don't get nasty or angry." And now for the million dollar question: after seeing us up close and personal, will those two gals question The Angry Mob Myth that they have been fed? Or will they remain part of the drugged and clueless masses?

Our little mob of thousands put Obama and every other progressive on notice that there is no longer a guarantee that they will be entering friendly territory when they pass through the Golden Gate. And the more politicians and their useful idiots in the press malign, mock and marginalize American citizens, the louder and more numerous we will grow.

While this notion alone is quite powerful, the protest against Obama was really the opening salvo in what will undoubtedly be a protracted, vicious ideological fight. They now fully comprehend that if we are in San Francisco, we are everywhere and we are a force.

But the real tale from this city is an ugly one: the awareness that we are dealing with a very dark, very dangerous group of politicians and unaccountable czars....a veritable cornucopia of Marxist, Maoist, communist, socialist and progressive megalomaniacs. Although they've been busy for years in our schools, the courts and the media, whittling away at a little liberty here and a piece of private property there, their Great Campaign Against Liberty commenced this past week with the lynching of Rush Limbaugh. Even liberals sense this.

As Alla, Andrzej and Chris will tell you, that is always how it starts: first, they target high profile, prominent citizens; then, anyone who speaks out or even thinks about it; and finally, when the fear is boundless and the punishment ruthless, all turn against one another-employer and employee, priest and parishioner, husband and wife, child and parent. Keep a vigilant watch, my fellow mobsters: when the unjustified audits start happening and jobs are denied because a standard google search unearths a politically incorrect comment you once wrote and permits are randomly denied for housing improvements, you know where this is going.

And, when this happens, marching together will no longer be enough. But cowardice should never be an acceptable alternative. We will have to stay strong and fight for one another, fight against the clampdowns to our freedoms and stand resolute, shoulder-to-shoulder, in resistance against the despots.

The real tale from this city is, quite simply, that this story has been told before. We cannot sit idly by and let it unfold again. Not On Our Watch. We have to continue the pressure; we cannot turn away; we cannot cower. We have to stay united and stand up for one another when the going gets tough; otherwise, there is nothing left of all that is precious, all that is our America.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/confessions_of_a_san_francisco.html at October 20, 2009 - 03:39:09 PM EDT

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk