Greedy Union Workers Force Boeing's Exit from Seattle

From today's Los Angeles Times, "Boeing families in Seattle area feel spurned over 777X project: The aerospace giant threatens to build its newest airliner out of state unless a union approves concessions. Some workers have generations of history there":

MILL CREEK, Wash. — Shannon Ryker is a third-generation employee of aerospace giant Boeing Co. She followed her grandfather into the huge plant in nearby Everett. And her father. And her Uncle Bob.

Her youngest sister worked at Boeing until she became pregnant. Both of Ryker's brothers-in-law and one of their dads work there. Her other sister's stepson has applied for a Boeing job.

So it wasn't easy for the 37-year-old mechanic to sit down in her crowded apartment here on a recent Sunday and write to Boeing management about her growing disappointment.

"Like my 86-year-old grandmother, I would like to tell my children and grandchildren that 'Boeing has been good to this family,'" Ryker wrote in an open letter that has since landed on company break-room tables and in co-workers' email in-boxes. But now, she said, "I no longer can hold my head high and say I am proud to work at Boeing."

At issue is the company's hunt for a site to build its newest airliner, the 777X. Ryker and other members of the International Assn. of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 751 overwhelmingly voted last month to reject a contract that would have cut some pension plans and healthcare benefits but guaranteed the program would stay in the Pacific Northwest.

Since the vote, Washington's largest private employer has been looking elsewhere for a site to build the plane, a potential move that threatens the state economy and the middle class Boeing helped create.

The company's decision reflects the hard realities of the industry and the latest skirmish in the fight for union survival. Boeing says the contract concessions are essential to compete financially with its longtime European rival Airbus, which plans to deliver its own new twin-aisle jetliner next year....

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Chief Executive Raymond L. Conner laid out the stakes in a letter to workers before the Nov. 13 union vote on the 777X, an essential part of the company's long-term product strategy. "What we want to avoid is that we become one of the companies that made decisions too late to remain competitive in the marketplace," he wrote.

Boeing gave other states until Tuesday to submit proposals to build the wide-body's latest generation. Within days of the union vote, California, Missouri and Texas made appeals to Boeing in an attempt to snag the program.

The company joins a long line of manufacturers and municipalities that have sought to wring concessions from unions that once negotiated comfortable pensions and wages.

After a bitter strike in 2008, the company shipped much of the work on its 787 Dreamliner to South Carolina, a right-to-work state. Seven years earlier, it moved its headquarters from Seattle to Chicago. Its Washington workforce is more than 83,000 strong, but there are fears that the company's future is elsewhere.

"If Boeing doesn't build the 777X here, this could be the start of a long, steady decline of the company's presence here," said Scott Hamilton, an aviation industry consultant who figures Boeing could be gone by 2030, based on backlogs and production rates.

"Sure it can happen," Hamilton said. "Thirty to 40 years ago, Southern California was the hub of commercial aerospace. Now, no [aerospace] company is based there."

Boeing was responsible for $70 billion of Washington's $76-billion aerospace industry in 2012. But unlike bankrupt Detroit, whose fortunes lived and died with autos, Puget Sound has diversified since the 1970s, when an enormous layoff called the "Boeing Bust" prompted a rueful billboard: "Will the last person leaving Seattle turn out the lights."

Washington has taken desperate measures to ensure that its flagship employer remains key to the economy. On Nov. 5, Gov. Jay Inslee announced that he was calling a special session of the Legislature to approve a massive package of tax breaks designed to keep the 777X in Washington. "These jobs are ours," the liberal Democrat said, "if we act now."

Less than a week later, state legislators passed the biggest corporate tax subsidy in U.S. history — $8.7 billion.

But the lawmakers' actions didn't cement the deal. The machinists needed to approve a new eight-year contract with the company, but they rejected it by a 2-1 ratio.

Ryker, in her letter to Boeing's Conner, spoke for many union members when she explained her planned "no" vote: "I have told my father … I would rather keep my integrity and be unemployed than bullied into agreeing to a contract that hurts my children in the future."

Continue reading.

Virtually the entire state wanted Boeing to stay in Seattle, all except the greedy union hacks, who refused even a state bailout with their vote against the contract.

Oh well, perhaps the 777X production will be moving to Long Beach. Governor Brown's sure pushing for it.

We'll see.

PREVIOUSLY: "Boeing Moving Commercial Plane Modification Work to Long Beach From Seattle."

Democrat Party Has No More Centrists

Well, it goes without saying, but still.

Here's Michael Goodwin, at NY Post:

Make no mistake, polarization is real and results from power blocs in both parties moving away from the center. But that doesn’t make them equally guilty.

Conservatives revolted over the destructive expansion of government and growing curbs on individual liberty. They take seriously, and sometimes too literally, the Constitution’s limits on federal power.

Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty. Many want the Constitution scrapped or stretched beyond recognition.

If you’re not sure where you stand, think of Barack Obama as the litmus test. If you’re with him, you’re no hawk or centrist. You’re a progressive. But don’t confuse that with progress.

Snowden, and Greenwald, at Rolling Stone

Andrew Bolt posted on this earlier, "Did Snowden know precisely the damage he’d cause the West - and not its rivals?"

But see the whole thing, at Rolling Stone, "Snowden and Greenwald: The Men Who Leaked the Secrets."

And ICYMI, see Jamie Kirchick, at Commentary, "Treason Chic," which pretty much sums up my thoughts about the whole thing.

Apple, Google, Microsoft and Others Launch Campaign for NSA Reform

A lot of good that'll do, but see the Verge.

Charles Johnson Bad Craziness

It's takes something extraordinary for conservatives to even acknowledge Charles Johnson these days. I'd frankly forgotten about him for most of this year. He's a bonafide leftist now. No different from the trolls at Daily Kos, as far as I'm concerned.

But C.J.'s been interacting with Louise Mensch on Twitter for quite sometime. I just ignored it, thinking Louise would figure out the Lizard Loser sooner or later. Well, it's gonna be sooner, it turns out. Robert Stacy McCain broke the silence about the deranged LGF sleaze-master on Twitter, and he posted a blog entry. See, "Transformation Complete, Charles Johnson Denounces Ronald Reagan."



Be sure to read the whole thing at the Other McCain. It's all good.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."



Also at Woodsterman's, "Sunday Bits," and Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's SUNDAY FUNNIES."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Young and the Restless."

CARTOON CREDIT: William Warren.

Gingrich Takes Heat for Praising Mandela

At Newsmax:

Appearing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union," Gingrich said he was surprised by the criticism. Some people returned up to five times repeating how angry they were, he said.

Gingrich didn't let the matter lie. He took to his online newsletter on Friday, responding with a post titled "What would you have done?"

If You Like Your Doctor You Can Pay More

Boy, 2014's going to bring some of the most interesting campaign advertisements ever --- and Ezekiel Emanuel's going to be a big star, across the county.

Here's the lying scumbag on Fox this morning, and Chris Wallace admirable holds his feet to the fire:



More at Twitchy, "‘Brutal!’ The doctor is in? This newspaper’s Obamacare headline says it all [photo]." The Cincinnati Enquirer slams ObamaCare, "THE DOCTOR IS IN BUT NOT FOR YOU."

Oops!

If the name #Obamacare didn't remind people what a colossal pile of fail that act/the POTUS in general is, I'd call it #OopsieCare

— LilMissLetItSnow (@LilMissRightie) December 8, 2013

Communist Fidel Castro with Nelson Mandela in South Africa

The more I read around on this, I'm increasingly astonished at the intense complexity of Nelson Mandela's legacy, and especially how his leadership in South Africa overlapped with some of the most important conflicts of the Cold War. When leftists uncritically supported South Africa's black liberation movement against apartheid, it's simply a fact that such solidarity placed them in alliance with Cuba and the Soviets against U.S. strategic interests in Africa.

Here's Pamela Falk, at Foreign Affairs, "Cuba in Africa":

The strategic importance of Africa, politically and economically, should not be underestimated. The 51 nations of Africa comprise the second-largest continent in the world, with over twice the population of the United States. The value of mineral and oil resources is estimated at several trillion dollars. The Horn of Africa provides easy access via the Red Sea to the Middle East; the Ethiopian ports of Assab and Massawa allow Cuba and the Soviet Union access to the Gulf of Aden and the ports of South Yemen. In addition, the Red Sea passage to the Suez Canal is of vital importance for transporting Soviet goods. North Africa gives Cuba proximity to U.S. bases around the Mediterranean as well as to critical sea lanes. The southeast African states such as Mozambique and Tanzania afford the Cubans access to the Indian Ocean. Off the coast of southern Africa are the "choke points" of the Cape of Good Hope and the Channel of Mozambique. Thus, Cuba’s early support of the MPLA’s quick victory in Angola was fortuitous, giving Havana an ideal staging ground for the entire Cape region of Africa.

In geopolitical terms, Angola is a bull’s-eye. Angola’s strategic importance in southern Africa is the key attraction to the Cubans. Angola has over 1,000 miles of coastline south of the Congo River, which serves as part of its northern border. This extensive access to the South Atlantic makes Angola a significant outlet for iron ore, diamonds and coffee, in addition to minerals from the central African nations. Angola’s border abuts Zaïre on the northeast, Zambia on the east, and Namibia (South West Africa) to the south. Cabinda, an enclave of Angola to the north which is not contiguous to Angolan territory, borders Congo and Zaïre.

Angola’s area is almost one-half million square miles, roughly equal to the size of South Africa. Luanda is the principal port city in the north; Lobito and Benguela are the two major central Angolan port cities, and Namibe is the southern port. Major railroad lines run eastward from these Atlantic ports to the interior. Though these lines have only functioned sporadically during the civil war they are important links even to nonborder nations such as Zimbabwe, Botswana and Mozambique. Angola’s rail connections are thus a vital, even though largely potential, part of an Atlantic-to-Indian Ocean route bypassing the South African transit system.

Angola’s southern border with the former South African "mandate" territory of Namibia gives Angola additional strategic weight in East-West relations. The Namibian group opposing continued South African control, the South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO), established its headquarters in Angola, and Angolan involvement in Namibia’s fight for independence has inextricably linked the political fates of South Africa and Angola. If SWAPO were to win power, the South African government believes that the government on its northern border would be unfriendly, and South Africa would be susceptible to invasion by the Cubans from Angola through Namibia. Consequently, South Africa unswervingly demands the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola as a condition for Namibia’s independence. To force such a withdrawal, South Africa has repeatedly invaded Angolan territory, thereby increasing the perceived importance of Angola, and thus Cuba, in the geopolitics of the turbulent Cape of Good Hope....

Cuba has small amounts of troops, military advisers and technical advisers in several other sub-Saharan African nations, including: Zambia (200 troops), Uganda (250 troops), Tanzania (100 military advisers), Congo (3,000 troops and advisers), Equatorial Guinea (240 troops), São Tomé e Príncipe (500 military security personnel) and Lesotho, where seven Cuban military training officers represent a goodwill gesture rather than a military outpost. In northern Africa, Cuba has 3,500 troops stationed mainly in Libya and Algeria, giving Havana Mediterranean access. It also provides support to the Polisario rebels fighting for Western Sahara’s independence from Morocco. In the former colonies of French, British and Portuguese West Africa, Cuba has stationed civilian advisers in Benin (50), Sierra Leone (150), and Guinea-Bissau (125).

Far more important to Cuba are the ties it has successfully forged with the opposition movements of two nations in the turbulent Cape region: Namibia’s SWAPO and South Africa’s African National Congress. SWAPO leader Sam Nujoma makes frequent trips to Cuba and has met with Cuban Politburo member Jorge Risquet in Angola. The ANC’s Oliver Tambo, while more cautious, continues to maintain strong ties of solidarity with Cuba. Though they know it may take years, Cuban leaders are banking on an eventual change of government that will bring these groups to power in their respective nations.

Here's the summary of the chapter by Hedelberto López Blanch, "Cuba: The little giant against apartheid," in The Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 3, International Solidarity:

From the very start, after the triumph of the Revolution in January 1959, Cuba supported the anti-apartheid struggle, including at different international events, where its representatives condemned the racist policies and racial segregation of that system institutionalized by Pretoria; at the same time, they urged support for the South African people's fight for national liberation. That support increased continually, and is the subject of Chapter 15, written by Hedelberto Lopez Blanch. Cuban troops, sometimes numbering up to 50,000, fought together with Angolan forces against South Africa's troops, until then described as "invincible." Intense military combat took place in Angola from 1975 to 1988, culminating in the disaster for the racist South Africans at the battle of Cuito Cuanavale. Given the constant threats against Cuba by various administrations of the United States - a staunch enemy that in 1960 imposed an unending, ferocious blockade against the small Caribbean island - and the modesty that has characterized leaders of the Cuban Revolution, many of the events and information narrated in this chapter appear for the first time, given that author Hedelberto López Blanch was given access to recently declassified documents.

The tripartite talks between Cuba, the ANC and the Soviet Union; the holding of the Seventh Congress of the South African Communist Party in Cuba; the training of ANC guerrilla fighters in Cuba and other African countries; the combats against racist forces in Angola, and the discussions that opened the way to Namibia's independence and subsequently, the first free elections in South Africa, as well as comments by high-ranking leaders of the ANC and outstanding South Africans, are included in this chapter, which is also a reflection of the Cuban people's lofty spirit of humanism and internationalism.

And here's a couple of pieces from the Trotskyite Militant on Mandela's alliance with Communist Cuba, "'Internationalism Contributed to Victory': South Africa President Nelson Mandela Addresses Cuba Solidarity Conference," and "Fidel Castro Gets Hero's Welcome in South Africa."

Nelson Mandela Looks Great Compared to 'Racist Looters Like Jacob Zuma, Robert Mugabe, and Barack Obama...'

Ouch!

See the hammering entry at Moonbattery, "Revering Nelson Mandela":

Although Mandela led a brutal gang of socialist revolutionaries best known for the practice of necklacing; allied himself with a rogue’s gallery of terrorists and maniacs, including Fidel Castro, Yasser Arafat, and Muammar Gaddafi; and also threw in with the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, he was far from the worst leader Sub-Saharan Africa has produced. When he took power, he behaved for the most part responsibly, refraining from aggressively repressing whites, in stark contrast to the goons who run South Africa now. No one in his right mind would want to live under him, but he looks great in comparison to racist looters like Jacob Zuma, Robert Mugabe, and Barack Obama.

Actually, no one lowers the bar like Obama, but it's good. RTWT.

Stacey Poole and Holly Eriksson

Two of my favorite models, via Holly on Twitter.

(Stacey is here.)

National Reconnaissance Office Launches New 'Release the Kraken' Spy Satellite

"Nothing is beyond our reach."

From Kash Hill, at Forbes, "U.S. Spy Rocket Has Octopus-Themed 'Nothing Is Beyond Our Reach' Logo. Seriously" (via Instapundit).

Ready for launch? An Atlas 5 will blast off at just past 11PM, PST carrying an classified NRO payload (also cubesats) pic.twitter.com/ll7s0nCOPg

— Office of the DNI (@ODNIgov) December 5, 2013

Seen at Your Local Doctor's Office

Coming to a neighborhood near you, via Red Nation Rising.

Professor Shannon Gibney Reprimanded for Singling Out White Students During 'Structural Racism' Lecture

This story broke earlier this week, and what a doozy.

You have to watch the video interview with Professor Gibney get the full frontal-force of the left's obscene cult of racial victimization. See Joanne Jacobs, "Racism talk leads to reprimand." I watched. A little long, but you'll be shaking your head, if not outright ROTFLYFAO.

And it turns out that Professor Gigney's been doing a whole shakedown racket on campus to force "diversity" on the institution, including the school's student newspaper, where she attacked the white student journalists "for not doing enough to eliminate bias from the organization." The student newspaper! See Campus Reform, "College accuses black professor of racial harassment against white students."

Pat Dollard has more, "White Students Fed Up With Black Professor’s Racist Bullshit Rants":

The politics of faux victimization are spiraling out of control at a community college in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where several white students, their black professor and irritated administrators have one-upped each other with complaints, reprimands and now a lawsuit.

The trouble began in English professor Shannon Gibney’s Introduction to Mass Communications class at Minneapolis Community and Technical College. Though the class ostensibly has little to do with race, Gibney considers herself an activist on racial issues, and frequently invokes white privilege and oppression during class time, according to her students. (She has previously taught classes on race and gender.)

Recently, several white students announced that they had had enough with Gibney’s incessant racial screed. They interrupted her during a lecture, and said, “Why do we have to talk about this in every class? Why do we have to talk about this?” according to Gibney’s account of the incident, which was recorded by the City College News.

This lady's extreme, but she's hardly a lone example at community colleges, to say nothing of the elite universities.

Tyrannical Obama: The Founders' Greatest Nightmare

A great editorial, at IBD, "President Obama is the Danger Constitution Was Designed to Avoid."

And see TPNN, "LIBERAL PROFESSOR TESTIFIES BEFORE CONGRESS: OBAMA’S KILL LIST ‘FLAGRANTLY AND DANGEROUSLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL’."

Poor Black and Hispanic Homosexuals: The Face of AIDS — And the Left

There's blood on the hands of Democrat Party progressivism. I reported previously on the AIDS resurgence among gay men resulting from the careless death-wish ideology of sexually licentious progressivism. See, "Defiant Promiscuous Homosexuality: Surge in Barebacking Threatens Resurgence of AIDS Epidemic."

And now the New York Times provides an even more immediate report on the crisis, "Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V.":

The AIDS epidemic in America is rapidly becoming concentrated among poor, young black and Hispanic men who have sex with men.

Despite years of progress in preventing and treating H.I.V. in the middle class, the number of new infections nationwide remains stubbornly stuck at 50,000 a year — more and more of them in these men, who make up less than 1 percent of the population.

Giselle, a homeless 23-year-old transgender woman with cafe-au-lait skin, could be called the new face of the epidemic.

“I tested positive about a year ago,” said Giselle, who was born male but now has a girlish hair spout, wears a T-shirt tight across a feminine chest and identifies herself as a woman. “I don’t know how, exactly. I was homeless. I was escorting. I’ve been raped.”

“Yes, I use condoms,” she added. “But I’m not going to lie. I slip sometimes. Trust me — everyone here who says, ‘I always use condoms’? They don’t always.”

Besides transgender people like Giselle, the affected group includes men who are openly gay, secretly gay or bisexual, and those who consider themselves heterosexual but have had sex with men, willingly or unwillingly, in shelters or prison or for money. (Most of those interviewed for this article spoke on the condition that only their first names be used.)

Nationally, 25 percent of new infections are in black and Hispanic men, and in New York City it is 45 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the city’s health department.

Nationally, when only men under 25 infected through gay sex are counted, 80 percent are black or Hispanic — even though they engage in less high-risk behavior than their white peers.

The prospects for change look grim. Critics say little is being done to save this group, and none of it with any great urgency.

“There wasn’t even an ad campaign aimed at young black men until last year — what’s that about?” said Krishna Stone, a spokeswoman for GMHC, which was founded in the 1980s as the Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

Phill Wilson, president of the Black AIDS Institute in Los Angeles, said there were “no models out there right now for reaching these men.”

Federal and state health officials agreed that it had taken years to shift prevention messages away from targets chosen 30 years ago: men who frequent gay bars, many of whom are white and middle-class, and heterosexual teenagers, who are at relatively low risk. Funding for health agencies has been flat, and there has been little political pressure to focus on young gay blacks and Hispanics.

Reaching those men “is the Holy Grail, and we’re working on it,” said Dr. Jonathan Mermin, director of H.I.V. prevention at the C.D.C. His agency created its Testing Makes Us Stronger campaign — the one Ms. Stone referred to — and has granted millions of dollars to local health departments and community groups to pay for testing.

But he could not name a city or state with proven success in lowering infection rates in young gay minority men.

“With more resources, we could make bigger strides,” he said.

Continue reading.

This is precisely the demographic the left purports to champion --- yet poor minorities are wallowing in a deathly downward spiral of AIDS-related hopelessness:

Among the poor, untreated or inadequately treated H.I.V. is the norm, not the exception, said Perry N. Halkitis, a professor of psychology and public health at New York University. According to the C.D.C., 79 percent of H.I.V.-infected black men who have sex with men and 74 percent of Hispanics are not “virally suppressed,” meaning they can transmit the infection, either because they are not yet on antiretroviral drugs or are not taking them daily.

It's the freakin' norm!

And progressives don't even care. Obama-style "gay rights" activists are all about homosexual marriage and LGBT activism, and yet here we are with this disgusting crisis of sick homosexual metastasis at the core of a vulnerable generation.

And it will get worse, because disease and sickness can only get worse as the Democrats continue to chip away at the decency and health of society. This is what happens when defiant promiscuity and progressive politics combine. More people die. And the so-called compassionate political party doesn't do jack.

Can Democrats Recover From the #ObamaCare Catastrophe?

From Charlie Cook, at National Journal:

Most graphs of polling data show shifts that are very gradual. (Tracking real-time changes in poll results often is about as exciting as watching paint dry.) Recently, however, the HuffPost Pollster website produced a graph of national polling on Congress that showed one of the most dramatic shifts I've ever seen in 40 years of involvement in politics. It charts responses to the question of whether voters would like Republicans or Democrats to control the House.

The year began with Democrats 8 points ahead of Republicans on the generic congressional ballot test, 46 percent to 38 percent. The GOP had come out of the 2012 elections licking its wounds, having lost a presidential election that, just a year earlier, appeared highly winnable. As the year progressed, the Democratic advantage gradually but consistently declined, paralleling a similar erosion of President Obama's job-approval rating since his reelection. The drop in Democrats' numbers leveled off in June, to a statistically insignificant 1 percentage point lead over Republicans. It is important to remember that there is a historic tendency for this poll question to skew by a couple of points in favor of Democrats, making that meager edge almost certainly an illusion.

Then, in August, statements started coming from some of the more exotic Republicans in the House and Senate that perhaps it was a good idea to shut down the government over the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Notwithstanding warnings from House and Senate Republican leaders and experienced (and wiser) members that such an effort would be a disaster for the party, the Republicans in the "kamikaze caucus" barreled ahead, over the cliff, shutting down the government.

Sure enough, the Democratic numbers in the generic ballot began to pull dramatically ahead, resembling a steep ascent up the side of a mountain, ending about 7 points ahead of Republicans, 45 percent to 38 percent—an advantage that, were it to last until the election, would give Democrats a chance to recapture the House.

Then, in mid-October, the focus shifted from the government-shutdown fiasco to a different debacle, this time a Democratic disaster: the botched launch of the Obamacarewebsite and subsequent implementation problems of the health care law, including termination notices going out to many people who had insurance coverage. The Democratic numbers from the generic-ballot test dropped from 45 percent to 37 percent, and Republicans moved up to 40 percent. This 10-point net shift from a Democratic advantage of 7 points to a GOP edge of 3 points in just over a month is breathtaking, perhaps an unprecedented swing in such a short period. Occurring around Election Day, such a shift would probably amount to the difference between Democrats picking up at least 10 House seats, possibly even the 17 needed for a majority, and instead losing a half-dozen or so seats.

Click back over to National Journal for the graph, and at Legal Insurrection.

Eleven months is a long time, although no one's expecting the ObamaCare clusterf-k to be exiting the news cycle anytime soon. It's an endless nightmare for the Democrats, and I'm glad.

Nelson Mandela 'Kept Portraits of Lenin and Stalin Above His Desk at Home...'

Black supremacist Ta-Nehisi Coates is leading the chorus of attacks on "racist" Cold War conservatives who questioned the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s. See, "Apartheid's Useful Idiots."

You have to read the whole thing, but literally the bottom line is that to raise any questions about Mandela's legacy, regardless of the historical context, and most importantly, regardless of Mandela's terrorism and Communism, and you're a racist. Coates argues that "the overall failure of American conservatives to forthrightly deal with South Africa's white-supremacist regime, coming so soon after their failure to deal with the white-supremacist regime in their own country, is part of their heritage, and thus part of our heritage." He then links to this Wall Street editorial as racist data-point for the right, "Nelson Mandela (at Google)":

The bulk of his adult life, Nelson Mandela was a failed Marxist revolutionary and leftist icon, the Che Guevara of Africa. Then in his seventies he had the chance to govern. He chose national reconciliation over reprisal, and he thus made himself an historic and all too rare example of a wise revolutionary leader.

Mandela, who died Thursday at age 95, had a patrician upbringing and a Methodist education. But his coming of age coincided with the rise of apartheid. Winning whites-only elections in 1948, the National Party lavished its Afrikaner base of European descendants with state jobs and privileges. Black, mixed-race and Indian South Africans were disfranchised.

Trained as a lawyer, Mandela was drawn to the African National Congress, which was founded by professional, educated blacks in 1912. He was not a born communist, but as he rose in its ranks the ANC moved toward Marxism and an alliance with the Soviets. Mandela kept portraits of Lenin and Stalin above his desk at home. Frustrated with the ANC's ineffective peaceful resistance, he embraced armed struggle in the early 1960s and trained to become a guerrilla leader. He was arrested for plotting sabotage.

His 1964 trial gave Mandela a platform. In his famous closing argument, he said: "I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die."

This speech was the last the world saw of him for 26 years. He started his life sentence at Robben Island prison near Cape Town a would-be Lenin. He walked out of jail on February 11, 1990—at age 71—an African Havel.

Age mellowed him. Times changed. The apartheid leadership had opened secret talks with the ANC in the mid-1980s. While still in prison, Mandela became "president in training" under F.W. de Klerk, the last apartheid leader. In early 1990, Mr. de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC.

Mandela ditched the ANC's Marxism and reached out to business. Somehow—another miracle—the illiberal ANC and the illiberal National Party together negotiated a liberal new constitution with strong protections for minorities and an independent judiciary. "You do not compromise with a friend," Mandela often said, "you compromise with an enemy."

He won the country's first free presidential elections in 1994 and worked to unite a scarred and anxious nation. He opened up the economy to the world, and a black middle class came to life. After a single term, he voluntarily left power at the height of his popularity. Most African rulers didn't do that, but Mandela said, "I don't want a country like ours to be led by an octogenarian. I must step down while there are one or two people who admire me."

Look, these are just facts, but for the morally-stunted left, facts are "racist."

There's going to be lots more leftist hissy-fits over the weekend. Rightfully call Mandela a Communist and you'll be branded a reactionary and racist.

More at the Other McCain, "1987: Thatcher Responds to ‘Further Intensification of the Armed Struggle’."

And see Saberpoint, "Nelson Mandela: Some Sour Notes Amid The Chorus of Praise."

PREVIOUSLY: "Nelson Mandela: Terrorist and Communist."

Nelson Mandela: Terrorist and Communist

I was teaching yesterday, in the early afternoon, and at the end of the class a student came up and asked if I'd seen the news that Nelson Mandela had died. I had not, but of course immediately realized the significance of the news, and I mentioned to the student that Mandela leaves a "tremendous legacy."

I shortly went on the web and clicked on the New York Times' obituary, "Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s Liberator as Prisoner and President, Dies at 95." And it's pretty much what you'd expect. Mandela was an outsized historical figure, blah blah. How could he emerge from 27 years in prison without bitterness and anger, blah blah?

No doubt he was one of the most important historical figures of the 20th century --- and interestingly, folks online yesterday placed his legacy as somewhere between Vladimir Lenin and Vaclav Havel. That sounds about right, although the main priority here is for people to look beyond the whitewash, to understand Mandela as a deeply flawed individual who was hardly the saint that the leftist culture has so effectively manufactured.

Here's the tweet yesterday from the Communist Party of the United Kingdom:

Nelson Mandela has died. A hero against all the odds. True friend of ordinary ppl & progressive politics, we miss u pic.twitter.com/7pOZbH227Y

— Communist Party (@communist_party) December 5, 2013

We know that Mandela, in his membership with the African National Congress, was a terrorist and Communist, even though his ties to the Moscow-led revolutionary world program were disguised at the time. Here's Telegraph UK from last year, "Nelson Mandela 'proven' to be a member of the Communist Party after decades of denial." (And see the fascinating contemporary piece from Thomas Karis, at Foreign Affairs, "South African Liberation: The Communist Factor." Also, here's a communique from South African Communist Party Leader Joe Slovo from 1989, "Message by Joe Slovo, General Secretary of the South African Communist Party, to the Soweto rally for the released ANC leaders.")

In any case, it's no surprise that we're seeing overwhelming acclaim for Mandela's legacy from the left and the right, although it's pretty pathetic that even so-called conservatives are attempting to tamp down the meme that Mandela was a Communist.

@rsmccain There is more to the story of his life than that picture and #Mandela was not a communist even if Slovo (at right) certainly was.

— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) December 5, 2013

And for more on that, read Robert Stacy McCain, "‘Unspeakable Atrocities’."

Plus, don't miss Kathy Shaidle's piece from earlier this year, "Raining on the Nelson Mandela Parade."

Obama to Paint the Golden State Red?

Well, it'd be a feat of Biblical proportions.

California's the deepest of blue states, but then again, they say he's a "light worker."

From George Skelton, at LAT, "California Democrats are facing risk of voter turnoff":

President Obama's popularity is falling even in California, a deep-blue state he has won twice by landslides. It means Democratic politicians should worry about suffering fatal falls in the polling booths next November.

That's not necessarily because voters turned off by the president will take it out on Democratic congressional and legislative candidates, although some of that could happen. More important, Democratic voters may be so disenchanted with Washington and politics generally that they don't turn out to cast ballots at all.

And there's little on the horizon in California to excite them about voting. A gubernatorial race between Gov. Jerry Brown and some obscure Republican won't be a draw.

A USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll last month found widespread ambivalence about the Democratic governor. More than half of those surveyed approved of his job performance, but less than a third said they were inclined to reelect him.
Of course, Republicans are staring at their own turnout dilemma. There's no sign of a strong gubernatorial candidate at the top of the ticket to attract GOP voters to the polls.

But small-turnout elections tend to benefit Republicans, whose voters habitually cast ballots more consistently. Just look at some recent special elections to fill legislative vacancies, where turnouts have been dismal and Republicans have fared better than expected. They picked up one state Senate seat in the southern San Joaquin Valley.

"How enthusiastic will the voters who supported the president in 2012 be about voting in 2014?" asks Mark Baldassare, president and pollster of the Public Policy Institute of California. "From a Democratic perspective, it raises some concerns....

In a poll released Wednesday, the policy institute found that Obama's approval rating had dropped 10 points since July and now is at 51% among California adults, with disapproval at 45%. That matches a record low from 2011. Among likely voters, slightly more disapprove of his performance than approve.

But Congress? A scant 10% of likely voters approve of how it's working.

The Field Poll released a similar survey Tuesday, showing 51% approval and 43% disapproval of Obama's job performance among a third group, registered voters — an eight-point increase in negativity since July. It's his worst showing in two years.

Blame the embarrassing rollout and broken promises of the president's signature program, Obamacare. But the pollsters also cite two other things that have upset Obama's Democratic base: His failure to achieve immigration reform. And his National Security Agency's spying on American citizens and foreign leaders.

Obama's rollout of the Affordable Care Act website was "seen as inept," says Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo.

And although California developed its own website that has been relatively successful, the national media spotlight has been focused on the federal fiasco. "It creates a lot of anxiety" among Californians, Baldassare says. "People think 'somehow it's going to affect me. What else isn't going to go well?' It's a lack of confidence more than anything."

This is all very interesting, but Obama won California last year with nearly 60 percent of the vote. We're deep blue, and marinated in disgusting left-wing collectivism and moral depravity.

But hey, things aren't getting better, and Californians are pragmatic people. Perhaps folks will rip the wool off their eyes and say, "WTF!"

I'll be following up on this, in any case. Obama could possible force a realignment in the strongest of Democrat strongholds.