San Francisco Where American Character Comes to Die

1
182

San Francisco is so many things to so many people; a cosmopolitan convergence of cultural and colloquial character unlike any place on Earth. A place where everything is sacred, but sadly it is also a place where personal responsibility, tradition, tolerance and the American character come to die.

It’s the home of controversy. If there’s an agenda to be made, as long as it’s on the far left it is welcome in San Francisco. Mayor Gavin Newsom and his cronies on the Board of Supervisors are increasingly billing San Francisco as “America’s most tolerant city.” That is unless you’re a conservative, belong to a traditional Christian denomination, or you exercise your constitutional right to own a firearm.

Recently a group called “Battle Cry for a Generation” staged a rally in San Francisco in which participants prayed and called attention to the fact that there are a signifi cant number of youths in this country that believe in traditional American-Christian values. But we can’t have that in San Francisco, so the anti-military, anti-American organization “World Can’t Wait” staged a counter-protest where they verbally berated this Christian group and demeaned their faith. As if that wasn’t enough, the all- knowing arbiters for truth and tolerance on the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning “Battle Cry for a Generation” for coming to San Francisco to espouse beliefs that are diff erent from those of its residents and for wishing to infl ame tensions in “America’s most tolerant city.” Th ey literally condemned people for saying things that do not fi t their ideological disposition while at the same time proclaiming how tolerant they are. San Francisco’s State Assemblyman Mark Leno called the group “disgusting” (in his defense, he spends so much time defending criminals and pedophiles in the assembly he probably has a very limited understanding of what the word actually means.) Now in case you’re wondering I am not a member of “Battle Cry for a Generation” nor had I even heard of them before this incident, but the treatment they were subjected to is inexcusable in a city where tolerance is supposed to be the guiding principle.

Th is kind of behavior isn’t really anything new to San Francisco. In 2004 we saw Mayor Newsom openly break the law by illegally marrying same-sex couples at city hall backed by the Board of Supervisors. He claimed the Constitution gave him the authority for such an action under its Equal Protections Clause, even though there has yet to be a judge outside of Massachusetts that agrees with him. Also, lets talk about the Constitution shall we, nowhere in the Constitution is there a sanctioning of homosexual marriage but that doesn’t stop Newsom and his allies from using supposition to back up purely ideologically based claims.

Skip ahead to November 2005, when San Francisco voters passed Proposition H, which was backed by the Mayor’s offi ce and the Board of Supervisors, a proposition that banned the sale, possession, and manufacture of fi rearms and ammunition within San Francisco. One would have thought that Constitutional scholars like Newsom and Leno would decry this action as an intolerable infringement upon the people’s constitutional right to bear arms. But as it turns out, their silence was more deafening than a pair of .44 Magnums going off behind your ears.

If thrashing the Constitution to fi t your worldview wasn’t bad enough, having no respect for the people that defend it is immensely more disturbing and insulting, but San Francisco has made itself the central battlefront for hating the U.S. Military. As San Francisco voters were passing proposition H, they were also voting 60-40 in favor of Proposition I which would ban military recruiting at schools in the city limits. Th ere is no way anyone can defend supporting such a rabidly anti-military and anti- American proposition. People like to claim recruiters are overly aggressive and dishonest because of one or two incidents nationally, but that belies the fact that the vast majority are decent and hardworking. Th ey do the best they can while people verbally assault them in the streets, throw bricks through the windows of their recruiting stations, or threaten them to the point that the police have to evacuate them from college campuses. For an entire city to condemn recruiters, many of whom are combat veterans fi nishing out their terms of service is inexcusable, immoral and absolutely anti-American. Th ey spend thousands of hours a year helping kids who want to join the military to meet requirements and deadlines, or apply for medical waivers all so these people can do the honorable thing and serve their country.

A majority of San Franciscan’s have no concept of honor or integrity as the passage of Prop I proves. Th ey march in the streets proclaiming the War in Iraq as immoral or illegal while at the same time they have the gall to say they support the troops. If the war is indeed immoral and illegal, aren’t the soldiers fi ghting in it obligated under penalty of the law to say so and to disobey their orders, lest they become agents in an illegal war? Since they are not disobeying their orders and re-enlisting in record numbers it would seem that the war is neither illegal nor immoral. Th usly it is justifi able and those protesting the war and claiming to support the troops are victims of their own logical fallacy, as one cannot possibly support the troops in goals that so many wrongly view as illegal or immoral.

1 COMMENT

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here