On Tuesday, January 5, the regular session of the Tucson City Council was move to the Civic Center in anticipation of large protest crowds. The agenda that day included the discussion of budget options, including cuts to public safety and a new “Landlord’s Tax”.
Many people from groups representing police, fire, and renters were there. Volunteers from Tucson Tea Party were selling T-shirts. Trent Humphries, of Tucson Tea Party, was there chatting with people. He said that during the study session earlier that day, Ward VI councilman Steve Kozachic, with budget book in hand, offered a number of specific items in the one to two million dollar category that could be cut from the budget immediately. Humphries also reported that both public safety cuts and the “Landlord’s Tax” were now “off the table.”
The abandonment of the public safety cuts and the new tax appeared to take much of the energy out of the crowd. While many people milled around outside the hall, there were few signs and little excitement among the protestors.
In related news, a committee was formed to recall mayor Bob Walkup and councilmen Regina Romero and Karin Uhlich. The committee includes Umberto Lopez, local developer and investor, and the Tucson Tea Party. Papers are to be filed January 6, 2010.
Recently, I was chatting about local politics with a friend and he said that a couple of members of the Tucson City Council were to speak at the upcoming May Day rally. For those of you who do not know, May Day (the first day in May), also known as International Workers Day, is the big commie holiday of the year. I thought, â€œA commie rally, right here in River City!â€ and marked my calendar, determined to attend.
At the last minute, I invited an amateur photographer friend named Eric to come along. I thought that my being accompanied by a guy with a big fancy camera would make me look like some kind of journalist, and he would get a chance to shoot people â€“ photographically speaking. I picked him up on the morning of May the first, and after breakfast, went to the Southgate Shopping Plaza where the commies were gathering for the parade.
The gathering was actually just south of Southgate. There was a small crowd milling about before a podium from which impassioned speeches, maybe rants (it was hard to tell, most of it was in Spanish) were being delivered.
I suppose Iâ€™m showing my age when I say that I was a little surprised to see no hammers and sickles, red stars, or pictures of Marx and Lenin.
In their place, were a few Obama tee shirts, and a large banner proclaiming â€œObama We Trust in You, Si Se Puede!â€ The phrase â€œSi Se Puede!â€ (Yes We Can!) was originally a slogan of the United Farm Workers, a labor union formed by Cesar Chavez and Delores Huerta. The Obama campaign adopted the slogan as its own for the purpose, we can assume, of showing solidarity with a â€œcommunity organizerâ€ of an earlier generation, and securing the lefty Latino vote.
I saw a few college-aged kids in SEIU tee shirts. The SEIU (Service Employees International Union) was formed, as I recall, because the AFL-CIO was not doing enough to advocate leftist politics. They focus, as the name suggests, on representing service industry workers â€“ a labor sector generally ignored by older, more mainstream unions.
There were a few guys dressed up in spectacular Aztec costumes. They wore huge plumed headdresses, and seashells around their ankles. They were quite striking and handsome.
Of course, there was a banner comparing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to Nazis.
They formed a parade line, and moved north on Sixth Avenue, the right lane of which was cordoned off for the marchers. Groups within the parade were chanting different slogans.
The paradeâ€™s destination was Armory Park. Eric and I drove to the spot before the parade arrived. The entire park was surrounded with that plastic net barrier material with entrances at the corners.
As we entered, I was approached by a smiling woman with a clipboard who, with a happy lilting voice, invited me to sign a petition. I was really focused on observation that day, and did not want to deal with the relative merits of this or that petition. I told her that I was not registered to vote (I lied). She said, â€œOh thatâ€™s O.K., you donâ€™t have to be.â€ I asked about what the petition was. She replied, â€œWe just want to spank Joe Arpaio.â€ I said, â€œI really would prefer not to, but thank you.â€ Suddenly, her face went stern. She glared at me as if to disrupt my cell structure with the energy emanating from her expression. I quickly began to walk away, figuring that for every three feet of distance I put between us would reduce by half the force of her glare weapon.
We walked to the corner at which the parade was to arrive. It was here that I suffered two embarrassments.
First, I looked at a large memorial to the soldiers of the Spanish-American War. It featured a life-size statue of a soldier from the period, and listed the different theaters of battle in the war, one of which was Puerto Rico. It was spelled â€œPorto Ricoâ€. We were not alone in noticing the gaffe.
Next, were the protesters. Now, I always roll my eyes when someone describes those who have reservations about open borders as â€œtoothless white guys in camouflage clothing.â€ Well, there were a few protesters, and as you might have guessed by now, there was a guy with the megaphone who was a toothless white guy dressed in military clothing complete with booney hat â€“ O.K., I donâ€™t know if he was actually toothless, in fact he probably wasnâ€™t because his diction was excellent, but why present yourself that way?
Frankly, I find it really counter productive for fewer than half a dozen angry people to harass a bunch of commies celebrating their holiday. It just reinforces the stereotype with the young people there who no doubt were not impressed by the sign saying, â€œGo Home and Un-F*** Mexico.â€
That sign was particularly aggravating because there is an underlying point that was obscured by its quite vulgar and offensive nature. If all the ambitious, hardworking risk takers abandon Mexico to find work abroad, how will the country be maintained? As Thomas P.M. Barnett said, â€œThe rich want protection from the poor, the poor want protection from their condition, but the middle class wants protection from the future.â€ It is this concern for the future that gives a society stability and continuity from generation to generation. Mexico will become a failed state if the people who could be building her middle class abandon her instead.
Anyway, after the parade arrived, everyone filled the park. There was a stage set up with a band. A speaker went the microphone and, after doing the usual greetings to the attendees, announced that there would be no speakers, just a fun party. She did make a point of thanking councilmen Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff for all their help in supporting the event.
We wandered around looking at the tables and booths. Many groups were represented including Comite de Derechos Humanos, Democrat Party recruiting, ACORN, and CPUSA (Communist Party USA). The live music was great, and many of the young people were dancing.
The most telling image was of the CPUSA table, compared to the ACORN booth next to it. The CPUSA table consisted of a folding table with a few pamphlets, a hand made sign, and an old geezer in a ball cap to answer questions. The ACORN booth had big banners saying â€œHealth Care Canâ€™t Waitâ€, and â€œForeclosure Free Zoneâ€. There were three people man the large sized booth answering questions and selling tee shirts.
CPUSA has pretty much disappeared as a political force in America. Itâ€™s a throwback to the days when the left thought it could argue itâ€™s case honestly, above board, and win. That does not work, and the geezer obviously did not get the memo.
The modern approach is to infect and commandeer disaffected groups whose generally noble causes they transform into anti-American weapons. In that way, they can push the agenda while maintaining an innocent front. This is the future of the movement. If you want examples of groups who are in the sway of the far left, you need look no farther than the groups who came to celebrate this May Day.
What can we do about this threat? First, we must be quick to draw attention to deception and dishonesty (remember, they lose when they are honest), then we must stop tax money from going to support their political activities â€“ this is a mater of principle and applies to all, not just the commies. Finally, we vote out of office any elected official who supports them.
As luck would have it, both Regina Romero and Nina Trasoff are up for re-election this fall, so the last part is easy.
It came to light, in a local daily, that the City of Tucson is funding a gaffiti class. That’s right, taxpayer money is being spent teaching children how to spray paint walls. In fact, Regina Romero earmarked $8,000.00 for the project.
Most of the City agencies involved have been scurrying to find excuses, most of them are some form of “Well, we heard of the project, but had not considered or approved it, and suddenly it just happened.”
Regina Romero was the only one in the article that was either gutsy, or stupid enough to defend the program. She apparently asked a bunch of kids what they wanted to do, they said they wanted to do graffiti, and here we are. She actually said, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in. We’re reaching kids that wouldn’t otherwise take an art class.” The answer to her question is in the question itself – WE ARE THE ADULTS. Is it not a the role of the adults in our community to guide children regarding their intrests and behaviors?
If the children said that they wanted to deconstruct buildings with fire, instead of vandalize building walls, would Ms. Romero be saying, “Who are we as adults to judge what the youth are interested in?” Would she earmark $8,000.00 to set up structures in the TFD training facility that the children could learn to burn down in a creative and educational way? Would City officials say that the purpose was to provide a place for kids to burn buildings safely so they would not go out and do it illegally?
When I was in High School, some progressive parents would let their kids drink in their houses. They thought that it would be better for the kids to do it under supervision, than out on the street somehere. It did not take long before they realised that their tacit acceptance of under-aged drinking led to a dramatic increase in the activity, and we kids did not limit it to the relative safety of their homes. The vast majority of parents already knew supervised under-aged drinking for the disaster that it was, and the progressive types came to that understanding in short order.
Hopefully, Ms. Romero will learn what some of our parents learned the hard way. It will, of course, be harder on the children who are recieveing mixed messages from those in authority.