Democrats Duped Again: San Francisco’s Democratic Party Leaders Faked Moderacy

It’s barely eight weeks since March’s Super Tuesday elections results were made official: San Francisco was being declared “shifting Conservative.” Across the nation, headlines extolled the moderate wins at local polls. The “SF Democrats for Change” was the slate to vote for if you were a registered Democrat and electing the local party leaders. Eighty percent of the moderates were winners, hence the incoming delegates to be seated on the SF DCCC (Democratic Central Committee) shift the party in San Francisco solidly towards center for the next four years was set. Or so they claim.

Congratulations and back-slapping aside, the monthly meeting of the SF DCCC occurring April last month was a special meeting – to install the new delegates (and five returning ultra-Lefties) was quite contentious. Apparently, those five Lefties were not ready to relinquish the status-quo which had so infected and set their party baseline the four years prior. A new Party chair was selected, Nancy Tung, if you recognize the name; she was one of the four candidates vying for SF district attorney job in 2019. Chesa Boudin was ultimately victor then, and though he was of course ousted, as we all know, Tung remained in the shadows until recently.

The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Democratic Party leadership is coming up Wednesday, May 22. The thing that stands out though is the announcement a few days ago by new delegate Bilal Mahmood, of his proposed “resolution” for colleagues’ consideration. Yes, party committees create, deliberate and approve, modify, or table delegate members’ resolutions. When approved, resolutions can become a part of the Party’s platform going forward. What’s so concerning about Mahmood’s, is it is unconscionably Leftie. And he ran for SFDCCC as a Moderate.

Oops! Bilal Mahmood fooled you (again)! It took barely these eight weeks and a mere two meetings to show his true colors. My previous column here.

So what’s so concerning about his resolution? It aims to declare “Racism and hate incidents as a public health crisis in San Francisco.” Get his two-page draft Resolution here, use it as reference.

Mahmood is coming out swinging Left with this one. It will undoubtedly divide the delegates and serve to shake up business as usual. It’s radical, it’s bizarre and after actually reading his cited allegations, the citations used as proof to justify his resolution, and the closing decree (“Resolved”) , you’ll agree it is horribly written. It’s incongruent; the opening statements (“Whereas…”) do not add up to prove the final Resolved statement at the conclusion. If this were a High School-level work, I’d grade it an F.

First off, Mahmood lists in opening paragraphs the increasing racially-based hate incidents against a variety of races over the last ten years nationally. We are in San Francisco. What happens in other cities and states is often not the case here. Why did he omit the San Francisco hate incidents against Muslims, against Jews, Blacks, Asians, Latinos and LGBTQIA+ ? He details spikes in each category. not from SF but across the United States.

Secondly, Mahmood cites the San Francisco Human Rights Commission (HRC) having already declared anti-Black racism a public health crisis. Really? Mahmood quoting one of the most controversial city agencies’ declarations? The HRC is a local San Francisco commission tasked with administering the SF Reparations Plan, the Office of Racial Equity, The Dream Keeper Initiative, and now the Office of Transgender Initiatives. This HRC has been exposed to be hiring, contracting with and making grants in a race-based manner, especially to and with the city’s African-American residents, in a wholly unconstitutional way.

Thirdly, Mahmood’s resolution cites San Francisco’s Black population having a greater likelihood to be hospitalized, to become obese, to get HIV, and have low life expectancies. He then deviates and quotes one in ten LGBTQ+ youth have attempting suicide nationally.

He then goes on to claim health outcomes as detailed above are predicted by past racism, and past racist discriminations can manifest itself biologically, passed down to future generations. So, you’d think every opressed racial and ethnic group would suffer from generational DNA changes. Jews, for one. Chinese, Japanese as well. But these were not mentioned by Mahmood.

The “Resolved” paragraph – the finale- the culmination of the justifications by all above paragraphs, is the real zinger: He desires the SF Democratic Party to adopt declaring anti-Black racism as a human rights crisis, urging the city of San Francisco to leverage resources and funds.

Ludicrous. The entire Resolution at the conclusion became centering on racism against the Black community. No other group, race, religion or ethnicity mentioned.

This proposed resolution gets a much-deserved F. We will see what his colleagues on the SF DCCC think; most likely its going to be received warmly by Mahmood’s fellow Lefties on the committee.

One interesting side note: In the opening paragraph, Bilal Mahmood cites, “racism is a system of structuring opportunity and assign value based on social interpretation of how one looks.” Congratulations, Bilal, in your attempt to justify your proposed Resolution, you’ve actually made the argument against DEI.

I rest my case.