The Snoop Zone

Stare Decisis

2006-01-13T16:16:00.000-06:00

By Lady Guinevere
Snoop Zone Guest Writer

It’s being talked about more then is usual on TV these days, in connection with Judge Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Those wanting to nuke his chances are playing the “A” card - they point to his statements, decisions, and personal view points on Abortion. And he’s made no secret that he believes abortion is wrong. So, the abortion on demand (oh - excuse me - the abortion is a right) folks are gearing up for the fight of their lives. They believe, or they want others to believe that they believe, that with Alito’s appointment would come a return to back room or alley abortions. A vote for Alito would be a vote against women, so they say.

But can one judge, or a majority of judges, on the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Well, it depends. It depends upon whether the judge(s) in question are willing to ignore one of the oldest legal principles around. In lay-person’s terms, it means that any court reaching a decision has GOT TO FOLLOW THE LAW. There are two sources of laws - Legislatures and Courts. The Lawmakers pass codes, statutes, regulations, etc. The Courts interpret those things, in light of the specific facts in front of them in a particular case. Overriding any legislature (state or federal) or any court (state or federal) are the principles of the Constitution (state or federal). The Constitution represents the framework. The overriding principles by which everyone, but especially, the government must “play”.

The Court in Roe v Wade decided that women have a Constitutional Right to Privacy (so far so good) that included the right to decide if/when to abort a fetus (say what?). So, like it or hate it, the Roe v. Wade case was based upon the interpretation of the US Constitution by the highest court in the country.

If the Neo-con judges are a majority, the liberals rant and rave, then they’ll throw Roe v. Wade out like yesterdays’ rotten garbage, and truth to tell lots of ultra-right wing types are hoping that is what will indeed happen. And both are going to be disappointed.

Stare Decesis requires that ALL COURTS including the US Supreme Court follow legal precedent. They cannot simply ignore prior case law. They can distinguish it from the older cases, if the laws on which it was based have changed. They can find differences in facts that make the laws not apply in the newer cases. They can even look for loopholes in the older case, and provide wiggle room for changes.

But unless they ignore stare decisis entirely, the same court cannot simply say “the prior court was wrong in how they read the law”. Since the Roe v. Wade case was based on the Constitution, and last time I looked it had not been recently amended, they can’t find that the laws have changed. The courts can (and have been) finding ways to make abortion less easy to obtain, without completely banning it. In order to overturn Roe v. Wade. they’ll have to say that the other court was wrong. Flat wrong. And that is not going to happen any time soon. It may happen, but not in my lifetime. Plessy v. Ferguson was a famous US Supreme Court case. It’s the one from the 1800's where the court decided that slaves could in fact be owned because they were property. A century later, it was overturned by another bunch of US Supreme Court judges. But it took a long time.

So while all of the nut cases on both side froth at the mouth over Alito and his pals trying to end legalized abortion in this country, those who are calmer and saner realize that stare decisis will block any overt attempts to completely reverse case law. You can stop worrying about it, either way. I suggest that instead of stirring up mud and throwing around stupid epitaphs, those who really care about the women rights AND the poor little unborn babies do something positive to improve the situations and lives of those who are in such dire straights! Educate your young women, and men, about reproductive responsibility (and morality) and cram job training and education into these women and their children. And for God sake people, can someone get girls to stop equating having sex with getting love? Either that, or start passing out birth control pills with the milk at nap time.....

“Potentially Delicious” Scandal Bias

2006-01-12T09:01:00.000-06:00

by L. Brent Bozell III

You can just feel the media’s euphoria over lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to fleecing clients and throwing goodies at legislators. Overnight, Rush Limbaugh could play an audio montage of various anchors and pundits proclaiming it was the biggest scandal to hit Washington in decades. Everywhere you turned, it was “huge,” of “historic proportions.” Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz called it “potentially delicious.” The joy was reminiscent of old Post editor Ben Bradlee’s line about Iran-Contra: “We haven’t had this much fun since Watergate.”

This scandal is big – no questions about that. But by what measure is this story so huge and historic? How does it compare to the House Bank scandal of 1992, which resulted in a number of congressional careers ended? How does Abramoff compare to the related mess at the House Post Office, which led to the eventual conviction of House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski?

There was no glee in the newsrooms then, when it was Democrats.

When Speaker Jim Wright was forced out in 1989 for dozens upon dozens of ethical violations? “Mindless cannibalism,” Wright called it, and they agreed. When Majority Whip Tony Coelho scooted away behind Wright, the media mourned America’s loss.

How does Casino-gate, or whatever we’re going to call this one, compare to the Asian fundraising scandal of 1996? No one mentioned that, either. Investor’s Business Daily published a very informative graphic showing that 22 foreign figures and Democrat activists plugging away for Clinton-Gore and Democratic candidates were convicted by the federal probe of that scandal. (And that figure does not include the people that fled the country rather than testify.) How is the Abramoff plea already bigger than that?

As expected, Democrats and their gaggle of supportive bloggers are claiming it’s outrageous for anyone to suggest that Jack Abramoff could be connected to Democrats.
DEMOCRAT UNDERGROUND

They argue that because Abramoff was Republican and the majority of his funding went to Republicans, the discussion should end there. After all, the GOP is the Party of Corruption, is it not?

The very idea that Howard Dean & Co. think they can suggest to the public that it is Republicans who represent a “culture of corruption,” and not the party of the Clintons, Rosty, and Wright, is an exercise in self-delusion – or outright fabrication.

Last week, yet another old Democratic fundraising scandal emerged again, with barely a peep from the liberal media. The Associated Press sent out a squib of an article by reporter Devlin Barrett. The news? Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate committee agreed to pay a $35,000 fine to the Federal Election Commission for under-reporting the cost of a Hollywood fundraiser by more than $720,000. This is no tiny boo-boo in oversight. In fact, understating the fundraiser’s budget was essential to enable Hillary to hoard more “hard money” dollars in the late months of the campaign. To an ethical midget, the game was clear: cheat now, win the seat, pay a tiny fine later, and watch the liberal media whisper right past it.

Hillary Clinton is constantly touted as our next president, and it’s going to be amusing watching this cattle-futures bribe-taker running against a “culture of corruption.”But just as her husband could look straight into a TV camera and lie through his teeth, so too will Hillary pounce on rhetoric that is one part disingenuous and two parts hypocritical. She’ll do it because no one in the Run Hillary Run media club will expose her.

How was Hillary’s Hollywood-party fine covered? On January 6, The Washington Post just carried the 325-word AP dispatch inside the paper. The New York Times gave it little more than 100 words on page B-4 in a “Metro Briefs” section. It was buried even further still as story number six in that column. Nothing emerged on ABC. Or CBS. Or NBC. Or NPR. (CNN mentioned it briefly on “American Morning,” right before its brief item on the “Bubble Gum Bandit.”) USA Today, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News? Nothing.

Dave Pierre at Newsbusters.org had some fun exploring the bias by omission at the Los Angeles Times. This paper had no Hillary story, but on the 6th, it did carry 2,315 words in two articles on NBC’s liberal “Book of Daniel” premiere, 1,431 words on liberal Jon Stewart hosting the Oscars, 182 words on Pat Robertson’s bizarre Ariel Sharon remarks, and another 1,477 words (starting on Page One) on the decline in the popularity of tennis. Pierre was especially wincing over this factoid: the offending Hillary fundraiser was held in Hollywood, smack-dab on the paper’s stomping grounds.

But let it not be said that the Los Angeles Times doesn’t cover corruption. The day before, the front page carried a big, long Abramoff story with a tiny mention of Hillary Clinton’s Abramoff connection.

Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'

2006-01-12T07:59:00.000-06:00

BOO FUCKEN HOO!

An AOL chatroom named 'Romance — Older Men' was the scene of unbearable humiliation for one chatter, according to a new lawsuit.

By J.K. Dineen
Court TV

Mike Marlowe fully admits that he sometimes gave George Gillespie a hard time in that AOL chatroom.
But never in his wildest imagination did he expect to be sued in court for what he characterized as "razzing."
"We gave him crap," said Marlowe, a 33-year-old welder in Fayette, Ala. "I'm not going to deny it. I teased him and he teased me back. He gave it back better than he ever got it."
A generation ago, such petty personal beefs might have been settled with fists outside the corner bar, but now it's the Internet age — and Ohio resident George Gillespie instead filed a $25,000 lawsuit against two erstwhile cyber chums he met in the sprawling 900-room, mostly anonymous society that makes up AOL's chat universe.
Gillespie, 53, claims that Marlowe and Bob Charpentier, a 52-year-old Oregon resident, insulted him and harassed him in the AOL chatroom called "Romance — Older Men" to the point where it inflicted "severe emotional distress and physical injury that is of a nature no reasonable man could be expected to endure it."
The complaint, expected in court on Jan. 31 for a pretrial conference, also names AOL as a defendant for allowing the alleged harassment to take place.
Gillespie alleges that the duo intruded into his "private affairs." The complaint states that Marlowe actually drove from Alabama to Ohio to photograph the plaintiff's home, which he then posted on the Web. He also allegedly went to the courthouse in Medina to dig up personal dirt on Gillespie, which he then also disseminated over the Internet.
The case is not simply "someone conversing in a chatroom" but also involves "harassing someone in Ohio," which gives Ohio courts jurisdiction, according to Gillespie's lawyers.
"Had the defendants stayed in the chatrooms, there would be no jurisdiction here, case closed" Gillespie's attorney Theodore Lesiak stated in the complaint. "Defendant did not."
But Marlowe said he works 60 hours a week at an autobody shop and laughed at the notion that he would drive from Alabama to Ohio to take pictures of Gillespie's house.
"I have never been to Ohio and I have absolutely no desire to go to Ohio," Marlowe said. "There is nothing there — the Cincinnati Bengals are there, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame maybe, and that's about it."
Even if Marlowe did take a trip to Ohio, posting a picture of someone's house on the Internet does not violate privacy laws, according to Chris Hoofnagle, attorney with the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"Those norms require the aggressor to engage in behavior that is highly offensive to a reasonable person," he said. "Taking a picture of somebody's house and putting it up on the Web is not that."
Hoofnagle said Gillespie's emotional distress claim will also be tough to prove.

"We live in a rough society, as compared to Europe, where offending someone or directly cursing or attacking their dignity can give you a cause of action," he said.
Power Struggle in 'Romance — Older Men'
Charpentier said he first encountered Gillespie more than five years ago and at first, the two chatters were friendly. But Charpentier says he quickly became disenchanted by what he saw as Gillespie's mean streak.
Things really turned ugly four years ago when Charpentier traveled to Kentucky to meet another chatroom regular, a woman who was also a friend of Gillespie's. The blind date did not go particularly well, and when Charpentier returned to he discovered that Gillespie had gone on the attack.
"He just came in slamming on me, saying all kinds of derogatory crap: that I was a fat, bald, broke old man who sits around in a rusted wheelchair," said Charpentier, who has a chronic back injury. "I don't even own a wheelchair."
Charpentier, who has filed a response seeking to reserve the right to file a $125,000 countersuit against Gillespie, said Gillespie threatened to kill him and "made sick and disgusting remarks about the passing of my grandmother."
"He is an AOL computer thug, that is all he is," Charpentier said.
Marlowe characterized the dispute as a petty power struggle. He said Gillespie was the de facto leader of the "Romance — Older Men" chatroom, and didn't like it when he and Charpentier challenged his authority.
But Marlowe said he never took the chatroom antics personally — until he was served with a lawsuit.
"I don't know how four years of bantering back and forth led to this insane nonsense," he said. "It's just the Internet, for God's sake. It's nothing important."
Michael Gordon, an attorney for AOL, declined to comment, saying, "This is just the beginning stages of this thing."
Megan Gray, a Washington D.C.-based intellectual property attorney who specializes in cyber issues, called it "a loser of a case." She said the Communications Decency Act gives AOL immunity from chatroom misconduct.
"AOL cannot be held liable for the actions of people on the site," she said.
She also suggested the case against Marlowe and Charpentier was doomed.
"The Internet is such a vibrant, young medium, these types of cases are not taken seriously," she said.

Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy Had Racial Covenants

2006-01-12T07:58:00.000-06:00

It's particularly ironic that Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee would try to smear Samuel Alito as racist for his 1980s membership in a Princeton organization that was against affirmative action - especially given the backgrounds of Alito's leading critics on the Committee.
In fact, Senators Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden have some significant exposure of their own on the racial sensitivity front, given the fact that both their families owned homes that were restricted by "racial covenants" from being sold to blacks, Jews or other minorities.
The startling news emerged in 1986, during confirmation hearings for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Back then, Democrats were in the midst of skewering Rehnquist as a racist because a deed on a home he once owned had a racial covenant.
But the tables were turned when Republicans on the Committee learned that both Kennedy and Biden's families owned property with the same kind of racial restrictions.
United Press International picked up the story, reporting at the time: "The parents of Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., own a home in Wilmington, Del., that has an old deed prohibiting sale or occupancy by blacks."
Biden insisted that neither he nor his parents knew about the racist restriction. The Delaware Democrat announced that when his family found out they took immediate legal action to reverse what he called the "morally repugnant" agreement.
Sen. Kennedy's racial skeletons came tumbling out of the closet shortly thereafter, when news surfaced that his brother, the late President John F. Kennedy, had a racially restrictive covenant on the deed to his Georgetown home.
Kennedy, who was leading the charge against Justice Rehnquist, insisted his brother couldn't have possibly known about the racist agreement, which he called "deplorable."

YO! I POD, I TUNE, USERS!!

2006-01-12T07:00:00.000-06:00

I’m likely the only person in the world who does not have a freaken I Pod thingy, but this tis kinda interesting.....

iTunes Update: Apple's Looking Over Your Shoulder ·

From the blog Since 1968

As noted at TUAW, iTunes 6.0.2 contains a new feature: the MiniStore. It’s neat, at first. Sort of.
But not really.
Each time you play a different song, the MiniStore features information about the artist currently playing, as well as “Listeners Also Bought…” Here’s a full size capture of Apple marketing in action: as you can see, I’m playing Mary J. Blige covering U2’s “One”, and the MiniStore shows other albums from Mary J. Blige and U2.
This means, of course, that every single time I play a song the information is sent back to Apple. You can turn off the MiniStore at the click of a button, but it’s not clear whether turning off the MiniStore is the same as turning off the flow of data (one doubts it). And don’t bother looking for a way to turn this “feature” off in the Preference pane: it’s not there.
In fairness to Apple, I didn’t read the iTunes software license when I updated. So let’s have a look. I’ll be waiting here when you’re done.

Back so soon? Did you read the whole thing? OK, I didn’t either. But the music store receives scant mention:
This software enables access to Apple’s online music store which offers downloads of music for sale. This store is open in the United States and may be open in other select territories. Use of this store requires Internet access and requires you to accept additional terms of service which will be presented to you before you can use the store.

The iTunes software license doesn’t actually provide a link to the Music Store Terms of Service, but I do: read it here.
Here’s what Apple says about my information (emphasis mine):
Your Information. You agree to provide accurate, current, and complete information required to register with the Service and at other points as may be required in the course of using the Service (“Registration Data”). You further agree to maintain and update your Registration Data as required to keep it accurate, current, and complete. Apple may terminate your rights to any or all of the Service if any information you provide is false, inaccurate or incomplete. You agree that Apple may store and use the Registration Data you provide (including credit card and PayPal account information) for use in maintaining your accounts and billing fees to your credit card or PayPal account.
That’s it. Apple doesn’t say that it can transmit or store information about the songs I play back to the iTunes Store. In fact, the Music Store TOS expressly incorporates the Apple Customer Privacy Statement.

The Privacy Statement contains the following language:
We also collect information regarding customer activities on our website, .Mac, the iTunes Music Store, and on related websites. This helps us to determine how best to provide useful information to customers and to understand which parts of our websites and Internet services are of most interest to them.

But this caveat is cited specifically in the context of collecting billing information (such as address, phone number, and credit card).
Either the privacy statement means something, or it doesn’t. My sense is that it doesn’t: the general exceptions Apple carves out for itself in the Privacy Policy are large enough to drive a truck through, making the specific exceptions in the iTunes TOS meaningless.
What’s to be done? Probably not much, other than steal your music from file-sharing services and play it with open source players (presumably the sort of behavior Apple wishes to discourage). Either that or acquiesce as yet another corporation takes, without asking, just a bit more of your privacy.

Should race still matter to Generation Y?

2006-01-12T06:01:00.000-06:00

By DAVID TARRANT / The Dallas Morning News

To the coming-of- age-generation known as the Millennials, the world has never seemed more diverse.

DAVE PLUNKERT / Special to the DMN Popular television shows such as The Real World and Grey's Anatomy show diverse casts mixing and mingling on-screen. Teens are exposed to the hottest R&B and hip-hop artists on VH1 and MTV. And in this Internet age, access to other cultures, trends and styles is only a few clicks away.
Pop culture serves up a "multiracial, multicultural nirvana," says Charles Gallagher, a Georgia State sociology professor, contributing to an impression of the younger generation as the first "post-race" generation – one where race doesn't matter.
"I don't know very many people who flat out have a problem with other races," says Andrew Moua, 17, a senior at Duncanville High School and a member of The Dallas Morning News Teen Advisory Board. "Everyone I know listens to some kind of hip-hop."
Generation Y's perception of diverse cultures and racial issues has been shaped by pop culture and mass media. But what they see on TV isn't necessarily reality, and that disconnect can lead to everything from personal misunderstandings to cultural collisions in classrooms or dorms.

THE REST OF THE STORY

Black sergeant was 'loyal Klansman'

2006-01-12T05:00:00.000-06:00

SNOOP IS JEALOUS!!
By Deborah Bulkeley
Deseret Morning News

About 25 years ago, Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Ku Klux Klan chapter in Colorado Springs.
Brian Nicholson, Deseret Morning NewsRon Stallworth carries his KKK membership card as a memento. Problem was, the outgoing Klan leader didn't know that Stallworth is black.
"He asked me to take over the lead because I was a good, loyal Klansman," said Stallworth, who had been in constant phone contact with the Klan leader while leading a yearlong Colorado Springs police investigation into the Klan.
Stallworth later moved to Utah, where he recently retired after nearly 20 years as an investigator for the Utah Department of Public Safety. He says he's amazed that no one ever caught on to the investigation he led starting in 1979. After he was offered Klan leadership, he quietly disappeared.
As a memento Stallworth still carries his Klan membership card — signed by David Duke.

THE REST OF THE STORY

Interesting Reads

2006-01-10T19:25:00.000-06:00

By Neil Bortz:

According to National Review's Michael Ledeen, Osama Bin Laden died from kidney failure last month and is buried in Iran. I guess the only way to know for sure is to dig him up and do a little DNA testing.

We haven't had a candidate for Senate who has this much chance of winning since Alan Keyes ran against Barack Obama. John Spencer, who is running against Shrillary, criticized The Hildabeast for being weak on national security.

Paul Bremer, who used to be in charge in Iraq, now says the biggest problem in Iraq was....not enough troops. Of course, he's pushing a book...a motive the mainstream media never seems to recognize. How does government lift a million people a month out of poverty?

Thomas Sowell says you won't believe what country is doing it: China. This one should really make the left wet its pants. The Republican Congress is increasingly bought and paid for, sending pork home to their constituents and wallowing in the pleasures of power.

George Will reports. Ted Kennedy quoted a study in his opening statement at yesterday's confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito. The accusation: defendants don't get a fair hearing in Alito's court room.

Byron York takes a look at this so-called "study."The left is continuing their effort to demonize Samuel Alito...but David Limbaugh says it all comes down to the fact that Alito is just not enough of a right-wing extremist for liberals.

Gas prices are going up again....and while the left will jump up and down and blame George Bush, they will do nothing to actually bring the prices down. You know, like drill for more oil in the United States and build more gasoline refineries.

Senator John Kyl says Congress should make some New Years' resolutions of their own....and one of those includes border enforcement. Good luck...doesn't seem to be much political will on either side of the aisle to do anything about the problem of illegal aliens.

Speaking of illegal immigration, Mort Kondracke opines that the president needs to talk some sense into his fellow Republicans when it comes to immigration.

For a white man's execution, where are black protesters?

2006-01-10T11:57:00.000-06:00

Outcry on behalf of Tookie might be viewed as race-based
Jasmyne A. Cannick

Los Angeles -- In the wee hours of the morning of Jan. 17, another man will be put to death by lethal injection in the state of California. This comes exactly 36 days after the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams. But where are the protesters?
With just a few days to go before the scheduled execution of a 76-year-old blind and deaf man who uses a wheelchair, there has been no public outcry of support for clemency for Clarence Ray Allen, who is white. There have been no planned protests and celebrity read-ins in support of saving an old man's life. Community activists and civil rights leaders aren't organizing statewide tours to bring attention to Allen's execution. There hasn't even been one "Kill Clarence Ray Allen Hour" from KFI-AM's "John and Ken Show."
Which raises the question: Was the community cry for clemency for Williams because he was a black man, or was it because the death penalty is immoral, inhumane and cruel?
Granted, Allen hasn't written any children's books, been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, or had a Hollywood actor play him in a film, but that doesn't mean his life isn't worth saving.
The fight for clemency should not have died with Williams. With two more executions scheduled in California, including that of Michael Morales, who was convicted at the age of 21 for the rape and murder of a 17-year-old female, now is not the time for all of Williams' supporters to retreat to their separate corners of the world. In fact, it's time for the opposite. We need to get back into action and show the world that the fight for clemency for Williams was not solely based on the fact that he was a black man but rather that he was a man who did not deserve to have his life prematurely taken from him, no matter how heinous the crimes he was convicted of committing.
The state Legislature is considering a moratorium on the death penalty. Although a decision didn't come soon enough to save Williams' life, our work could aid in saving the lives of many other condemned prisoners.
Black Californians who supported clemency for Williams need to re-examine their reasons for wanting Williams to live. Was it because he was a black man? Was it because he co-founded the Crips? Was it because of his anti-gang and anti-drug work? Or was it because we abhor the death penalty?
Allen poses no significant risk. Blind and deaf, it's very unlikely that he will be ordering the killing of anyone if left to live his remaining days on Death Row.
Many of the black leaders who supported clemency for Williams vehemently denied they were racists when challenged by a pair of conservative radio DJs in Los Angeles who sponsored the repulsive "Kill Tookie Hour." Accusing the black leadership of getting involved in the fight to save Williams only because he was black, the shock jocks noted that these same activists were going to be nowhere to be found when the next execution of a nonblack person came up.
If all of the protests around clemency for Williams were not just for show, it should be no problem for the black community to reassemble for the fight to save Clarence Ray Allen. He may not have been our homeboy from back in the day, or demonstrated to the world that he is a redeemed man. He may not even be likable, but his life is worth trying to save. What kind of message does it send if we sit back and do nothing while another person is systematically put to death on our watch?

Are Black Men Retarded? No, really, what the hell!

2006-01-10T10:11:00.000-06:00

Even if you are not a sports fan many of you can still relate to the emergence of absolute ignorance and stupidity of some people right before your eyes.
Another young black dude with unlimited potential fucks up his chance at millions of dollars and a promising career because he acts like a fucken jackass.
First you had Clarett , now Marcus Vick, whom his brother says is better than he is.
I’m so sick of seeing these young brotha’s fuck up opportunity after opportunity it’s not even funny. Hence the re-post of the “Are Black Men Retarded.”
This is getting real old, and this is why it harder and harder for young black MEN to get opportunities in this country. Oh don’t get me wrong the doors are open and the opportunities are there, but for every triumph of the likes of Vince Young you get the idiot fucks like Clarett and Vick.
Yes somewhere down the road “whitey” will be blamed for his misdeeds.
Will dude get an opportunity in the NFL? Of course because some greedy and hungry NFL executive will say fuck it and throw caution to the wind hoping he can be the one who “rehabilitates” his crazy ass.
Dude is broke and a big phat NFL contract will only make him a bigger idiot than he already is.

Marcus Vick's new issue: Gun charges

By Kristen Gelineau
Associated Press

RICHMOND, Va. -- Former Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick, booted from the team last week for his behavior on and off the field, was charged Monday with pulling a gun on three teenagers during an altercation in a restaurant parking lot.

Timeline of Marcus Vick's Troubles - Yahoo! News

Marcus Vick's new issue: Gun charges - Chicago Tribune

Marcus Vick arrested on gun charges - Reuters

No way Marcus Vick should be allowed in NFL - MSNBC

Holier-than-Vick attitude found disconcerting

Vick turning pro after dismissal from Virginia Tech
Sports Illustrated

------------------------------------
ARE BLACK ME RETARDED?
By Minister Paul Scott

All my Brotha's eatin' chicken and watermelon, talk broken English and drug sellin' See I'm tellin' and teaching real facts. The way some act in rap is kinda wack.
("My Philosophy" -Boogie Down Productions)
Every family has one, that cousin who got stuck in a 1980's time warp and just refused to grow up. You see him at every family reunion walking around in a Members Only jacket with a 40 ounce braggin' about how he has 10 children by 10 different women and is too smooth to pay child support. While the rest of the grown folks slip away to the family room to discuss important family business, Cousin 'Junior' stays outback with the children trying to do the Cabbage Patch off of the Whisper Song, not much different than what he was doing 20 years ago....
If we look in the dictionary, we will see the definition of retarded as 'slow or backwards in mental or emotional development ' along with a big picture of one of the Ying Yang twins. While the off the chain behavior of some Brotha's has been discussed in detail by some of our greatest scholar's such as Dr. Frances Cress Welsing, this issue is rarely discussed in a Hip Hop-centric context.
Historically, white supremacy has made it virtually impossible for Black boys to become Black men. Back in tha day (and even now in a small town just south of Tupelo, Mississippi) it was common for 70 year old Black men to be called 'boy' by 10 year old white children. The system has put so many obstacles in our way that it is hard to live up to the basic meaning of manhood: one who provides food, clothing, shelter and security for his family. So much so that many Black men choose to live in a perpetual childhood instead of risking the wrath of white supremacy by asserting their manhood. This is why, in 2005, we see that our development has gone way beyond being arrested; it is on major lockdown.
So today, you have 35 year old men acting like they are 14 year old teenie boppers. They may not be going around singing that jingle from the commercial from back in tha day 'I don't want to grow up, I'm a Toys R Us kid, but they are singing the Hip Hop remix, 'It's plain to see, you can't change me cuz I'm a be a nigga for life...'
While back in the day a rapper was shipped off to the Happy Valley Hip Hop Retirement Home on his 21st birthday, thanks to the industry's potent Hip Hop viagra, a rapper can still be pimpin' all over the world well into his 40's. So the natural progression to manhood has been altered.
While many Brotha's come into the rap game in their late teens with the 'product of my environment/ just keepin' it real like it is on tha streets' excuse,' it becomes problematic when the 18 year old kid becomes a 33 year old multimillioniare who has traveled the world several times over but still kicks lyrics about standin' on tha block with a 40oz, hollerin' at ho's. There is something very wrong in a society when in 2005, Snoop Dog is talking about virtually the same thing he talked about in 1992.
Also, problematic is the 'school yard brawl' mentality where instead of threatening to beat someone up after 6th period woodshop class, grown men like 50 cent and the Game threaten to annihilate each other if they cross paths in the hotel lobby after the after party.
Most disturbing is the crunk music coming out of the Dirty South which has done more to destroy Black manhood than when JJ Evans from Good Times was running around in those red pajama's screaming 'Kid Dy-no-mite !!!' With few exceptions, like Durham's 'Street Ambassador' Crown King, who is developing a sound called 'Conscious C.R.U.N.K. (Consciousness Raising Unleashing Nubian Knowledge) the subject matter is pretty much the same. It usually doesn't go much deeper than a Brotha threatening to shoot another Brotha over a parking space in front of the strip club or a Brotha whispering to a Sista like some sick pervert calling one of those 900 numbers at 3 in the morning threatening to do things to her that are illegal in most states. (Wait till ya see my.....OOOOh!!!)
This Father's Day, in communities across the country, Black men should join together and put a mandatory age limit on actin' the darn fool. We must develop a Rites of Passage for the Hip Hop Generation that doesn't include a 10 year bid in the federal pen.
Just as in some countries every male is required to serve in the military, we should require every Black man to do a tour of duty in the Afrikan Liberation Army (or at least enlist in the Hip Hop DROP Squad). Also we must join efforts to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery, like Bro. Sile, National Chairman of the RBG SOULdiers, is doing with the Take Back Black Music Campaign.
We, as Black men, must join together and boldly proclaim the words of Eldridge Cleaver, [We shall have our manhood or the earth will be leveled by our attempts to gain it!]
Minister Paul Scott represents the Messianic Afrikan Nation in Durham NC.

I love liberals..........

2006-01-09T18:00:00.000-06:00

FROM CHUCKIE!
Mercury Rising

The fact is that the American people are abysmally informed. Many right-wingers want to be misinformed, because keeping themselves misinformed is the only way to justify to themselves the deep wrongs against their country they are complicit in. Some examples we're all familiar with:

1. we offered a thread to right-wingers to argue the case for invading Syria. Months have gone by, with no takers.
2. we have offered another person, who claimed in e-mail to be seeking a dialogue, a thread to argue the case for Iraq. Unfortunately, he wasn't interested enough in dialogue to actually read our offer.
3. we have witnessed the unfortunate self-humiliation of another right-winger who tried to use misdirection, ad hominem, and even outright falsehood to try to diminish the gravity of Bush's lawbreaking in eavesdropping on Americans without a FISA warrant.

I happen to be working on a longer piece that deals with rhetorical techniques and can supply the Latin names for each of these kinds of game playing, but think there's a single Anglo Saxon noun that provides a far better description.

But it's not people like the right-wingers with ADHD that are the problem. Such people have always been with us and always will be. Usually they are kept in check (and at the margins of power) by ordinary citizens who realize that their own long-term self-interest lies with making sure that the budget gets balanced more or less, that corporations don't get too powerful, and that the poor don't get ground down too far. Absent blind hubris, all of us know that disaster or illness could reduce us to the straits of the shopping cart people. A small dose of "there but for the grace of God go I" does wonders to achieve political balance.

No, the problem is that most Americans have put the slave collar on themselves. They don't pay attention to politics, they don't challenge their assumptions, they don't visit the other side of the tracks, and they don't vote. When they see wrong, they stay silent. Until the tens of millions of disengaged people get off the sidelines and start doing their duties as citizens, America is not really a democracy, no matter which party is in office.

One of the Web's finest moments--so far!-- was when the British ambassador to Uzbekhistan released his correspondence to the British government showing that the Blair Administration knew about American complicity in the vile tortures going on in that nation. The British government threatened every publication that reprinted them with prosecution, at which point many websites picked published the documents themselves. The cry, from a thousand blogs, was "I am Spartacus!"... as they reprinted the articles.

These are people who know what freedom is, and that it comes at a price. That price, at a minimum, is staying well-informed and involved with neighbors and community, seeking out other points of view (and wanting to be sure they are represented in the public square), and refusing to grant wrongdoing the darkness it loves. We are people of the light not because we are in any way Elect or morally superior, but to the extent that the light of truth gives us joy, even when it illuminates our own error for the world to see.

The darkness is already lifting from America as the people see that the so-called "conservative movement" was never about anything more than money. And so, as I reflect on this day of rest, I give thanks for my colleagues PW and MEC, for our readers, and for every other person who loves the light.

-----------------------
Perfect entry for outlining my contempt for liberals.
People like Chuckie wake up each morning looking in the mirror and believing in their moral and intellectual superiority.
Mutherfuckers like this write this crazy bullshit and I bet gazing lovingly at their own blogsterbation.
Some of you liberals need to get over yourselves. You are not that smart and you sure as hell are not that bright.
I oft wonder how do you manage to tolerate the rest of us in YOUR world?
Fucken arrogant bastards.

Ramsey Clark Exposes the Left's Agenda

2006-01-09T08:30:00.000-06:00

by Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

The Big Lie has been exposed again: While the Left preens as the champion of the oppressed, the defender of the weak, and the advocate of liberty, one of its most venerable contemporary exponents, Ramsey Clark, has become the foremost apologist for a blood-spattered dictator. Has Clark betrayed the Left? By no means. He has just revealed yet again that behind the rhetoric of love and peace is a thinly-concealed taste for the boot on the face and the shackles on the mind -- tools so favored by the regimes most beloved of the international Left, from Stalin’s Russia to Mao’s China to Saddam’s Iraq.
Clark says he is doing what any good defense lawyer does: taking even the most noxious case, not out of any love for the defendant, but because every man deserves a fair shake. He has thundered: “the idea that you don’t represent someone because they’re awful, if they are, is contrary to the idea of the right to counsel.”
But does Clark actually think Saddam is awful? Clark declared in 2004 that “Saddam Hussein was demonized. … It must be observed that all the rogue states, the victims of the many U.S. interventions and the U.S. captives mutilated, or humiliated as Saddam Hussein has been, are members of the great majority of the world’s population that has beautiful darker skin.”
Does Clark love Saddam only for his “beautiful darker skin”? No, there is much more to it than that: Ramsey Clark has seen the enemy and it is us. The one constant that runs through his career since the Johnson Administration is not the Left’s vaunted but empty quest for justice. Clark’s advocacy for Saddam is of a piece with his defense of Mohammad Daoud al-Owhali, who bombed the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi in 1998, killing 213; with his participation in a “Crimes of America” conference in Iran in 1980; and his work for the likes of Nazi war criminals and Slobodan Milosevic.
It has become habitual for all too many Leftists to embrace anyone who is opposed to the United States, and commonplace for Leftists to espouse the totalitarian agenda (and a totalitarian intolerance for dissent that manifests itself today in many ways in the Leftist-controlled mainstream of the America media and academic spheres) in search of the earthly utopia for which they long. Yet the Islamic jihad aims not to establish a just and equitable society in which the state will wither away, but one in which life is hard, punishments are draconian, and mercy is absent -- but of course, that is just the kind of society that Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot constructed, to paroxysms of ecstasy from Leftists.
Clark is as ridiculous as Lynne Stewart, lawyer for the blind Egyptian Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Convicted of smuggling messages from Sheikh Omar to his disciples, she explained her actions by saying: “To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don’t think that can come nonviolently.” The idea of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman as a champion of the struggle against sexism and racism is beyond absurd, but so was Stalin’s self-portrayal in the 1930s as a beloved figure leading his people to a just society -- yet New York Times reporter Walter Duranty, who spiked stories of the Stalin-induced Ukrainian famine, and others were all too happy to peddle the myth.
Saddam, of course, is no Sheikh Omar. With his mistresses, Sinatra records, and liquor cabinet, Saddam’s Islamic bona fides were always suspect to the most devout among his citizens, try as he might to use the language of jihad to fire up support for his regime in its dark days, as well as in its last days. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that he is a bona fide anti-American -- and a ruler who did not hesitate to unsheathe the sword against his enemies.
That was probably all that Ramsey Clark needed to know before he caught the next plane to Baghdad.

Lawsuit: Bank Hired Women as 'Eye Candy' YUM! You women know you like it...

2006-01-07T19:51:00.000-06:00

Six female employees have filed a $1.4 billion class-action sex-bias lawsuit against an investment bank, claiming they were hired as "eye candy.”
According to the suit filed in Manhattan, one attractive female employee at the German bank Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC was openly called "the Pamela Anderson of trading” by her boss.
The six women – five of whom work in New York and one in London – also allege that executives brought prostitutes to the office for lunch.
Plaintiff Jyoti Ruta claims she was once pressured by a boss and a colleague to leave a dinner celebrating a deal so that male employees could go to a strip club, the New York Post reports.
Another plaintiff, Kathleen Treglia, said salesmen admitted they chose female junior hires based on appearance because they wanted "eye candy” in the office, according to the suit, submitted on behalf of any female employee of the bank in the U.S. or any female U.S. citizen who works for the bank overseas.
The women alleged in the suit that the company condoned relationships between top executives and female subordinates, and one married boss dated his personal assistant and impregnated her.
The six stated that they wanted to end unfair promotion practices and unequal pay for men and women at the bank, according to the Post.
Said Ruta: "The glass ceiling is unfortunately alive and well at Dresdner.”

In Case Y'all Missed it.........

2006-01-07T09:45:00.000-06:00

Clinton Knew Iran Was Working on Nukes

TRANSCRIPT of Rush:

just remember........
NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 2005

Newspaper fails to inform readers "news break" is tied to book publication
on the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that "months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials."
Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.
Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.
But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many "explosive newsbreaking" stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!
The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.
"STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration" is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.
The book editor Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

"At the center of the article's backstory is Risen, who unsuccessfully pushed to publish the wiretap report last year, then took a leave to write a book, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. It now appears he may pay a price for the disclosure: last Friday the Justice Department opened an investigation into who leaked the existence of the NSA program to the Times, raising the prospect of Risen's being compelled to reveal the identities of the "nearly dozen" current and former officials who spoke to him about the program or face jail time for contempt of court."

THE REST OF THIS STORY

Democrats GOT PAID BIG TYME! WHO HOO!!

2006-01-06T14:45:00.000-06:00

OK LIBERAL BLOGGERS EXPLAIN THIS ONE AWAY!!!
GOD I LOVE BLOGGING!!

ANOTHER UPDATE! UPDATE!!

Most Senate Dems Took Abramoff Cash
Nearly ninety percent of Senate Democrats took money linked to disgraced "Republican" lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a list compiled by the Republican National Committee.
Though reporters continue to insist that the Abramoff imbroglio is "a Republican scandal," 2008 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton took more than $12,000 in tainted cash.
Compared to the party's 2004 standard bearer, however, she's a piker. John Kerry raked in nearly $100,000 in Abramoff-linked donations.
In fact, 40 of the party's 45 U.S. senators made the Jack Abramoff dishonor roll, including:

• Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least $22,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least $6,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least $20,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least $21,765 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least $12,950 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least $8,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least $14,792 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least $79,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least $14,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least $1,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least $45,750 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least $9,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least $2,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least $14,250 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least $3,300 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least $98,550 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least $28,000 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least $6,000 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least $29,830 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least $14,891 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least $10,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least $78,991 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least $20,168 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least $5,200 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least $7,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least $2,300 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least $3,500 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least $68,941 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least $4,000 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least $4,500 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least $4,300 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least $29,550 in Abramoff-linked cash.
• Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash. • Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least $6,250 in Abramoff-linked cash.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (DEMOCRAT-Nev.), who received at least $68,941

Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."Questioned about the donations last month by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Reid immediately turned testy."Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff. I've never met the man, don't know anything," he insisted.
REMEMBER WHEN (DEMOCRAT) HARRY REID SAID

We Need Help With Our Image

2006-01-06T13:34:00.000-06:00

The following blog: http://slcspin.blogspot.com/ had the zone listed as one of the blogs with stories about the racists builder who touted the absence of Negros as a selling point.

Now I have the links dude had listed on the blog. I had no idea how much this was circulated throughout blogland. Now this tis not the reason for my post.
I’m just wondering....

Do you white people have to be SOLD on the absence of Negros in a given area?
It’s not like white people have to go out of their way to get away from Negros.
If I’m not mistaken Negros are still only 12.5 percent of the population and, not a whole lot of them own homes. In addition, most Negros try to avoid areas with “significant” white populations.
Unless there are no alternatives, Negros will actually “buy down”, by that I mean they will look to purchase homes in lesser neighborhoods to be closer to other Negro families.
In order for Negros to even have a chance at purchasing homes in nicer neighborhoods there must FIRST be job opportunities!
If you don’t see Negros working near you, they sure as hell won’t be living near you.

This does not have to be Utah, shit this could be anywhere!

Utahania - "bigg"er just got WHITER!-

Tales of Wit and Charm - Lack of Diversity a Selling Point???-

Eagle Mountain News - Web Site for Development Cited Below-Average Black Population-

KSLUtah developer pulls racial data from site-

Salt Lake TribuneBuilder's racial boast spurs controversy-

Deseret Morning NewsRacial Bias Boasted On Home Builder's Web Site-

KUTVSite boasts of low black population in Eagle Mountain-

Daily Herald - Hooray! No black people!-

Sploid - Web Site for Development Cited Below-Average Black Population-

The Snoop Zone - Utah homebuilder used race as selling point I REMOVED THE POST

Cocoposts - Lovely, lovely people-

Little Brown Bird Of Snark - Sad, yet effective(?) advertising-

blobert - How Many Black People Does It Takes to Make White People Uncomfortable?-

The Truth*Just Wow- Article Online

A disgrace to King's legacy?

2006-01-05T17:00:00.000-06:00

Ok Snoop in his quest to probe the most mysterious aspects of life............
Aw hell, I’m bored, and what do you do when you are bored? You think and ponder all kinds of stuff. Thankfully I have my little blog.

Now this topic is something I know some of you white people may have pondered at one time or another. Why are there so many streets named after the great Civil Rights Leader Martin Luther King Jr?
BUT the more important question is, why are these streets, named after such an icon in this countries history, tend to be the most fucked up streets in Anytown, USA?
As we are close to celebrating King's birthday, more than 650 streets in the United States bear the civil rights leader's name. No other American enjoys such a distinction.
Soon after King was assassinated on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Blacks began a campaign to get a holiday named in his honor and to get streets and buildings named for him.
In fact, a school in Arequipa, Peru, has been named for the Nobel Peace Prize winner, and so has a library in Lusaka, Zambia. City governments and other organizations are still considering ways to memorialize King by using his name.
However, few address the ugly side of the King-name phenomenon and is generally ignored.

Chris Rock tells a joke that goes something like this: When a white friend told Chris Rock that he was on a street called Martin Luther King and asked what he should do, Chris Rock answered, "Run!" At another time and on a more serious note, Rock said: "I don't care where you live in America, if you're on Martin Luther King Boulevard, there's some violence going on."

Trust me folks, particularly you white people out there. I am not aware of any such MLK Boulevard where I would be comfortable walking at night, hell DURING THE DAY!
But in the zeal to honor King, folks forget to ask a few fundamental question. Does most of the streets, boulevards and avenues named for King actually disgrace his great legacy?
I am from Oakland California. I remember reading some time ago about the street that was San Pablo Boulevard was being renamed MLK.
The street I remember was the center of prostitution, drugs, gang violence. I would be willing to bet that it is still a corridor of broad dilapidation, abandoned structures, vacant lots with junked vehicles and trash and debris, black-on-black beat downs, public drinking, ect. And yes even worse, perhaps, most of the viable businesses on this stretch of MLK are owned by people other than blacks a glaring testament to black powerlessness.
The reasons for this state of affairs are many and complex. From the beginning, streets named for King (at least significant segments of them) were in poor black neighborhoods. From the beginning, these streets were themselves symbols of segregation and decay. From the beginning, streets named for King were a "black thing." Black folks happily settled for streets in these places because this was all they were going to get from whites who were under fire from fellow whites to resist change.

Martin Luther King III, head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the organization his father co-founded: uttered the following typical (anti-whitey rant)
"Most of the streets are still located in areas where they have been neglected. Their (white leaders') intentions were honorable, but, unfortunately, what they didn't do in most cases was to create the kind of street or area that would be an appropriate tribute."
On the surface, King's words are correct. But he fails to see the real source of the "neglect." The fault does not lie with white people. It lies with black people.
Martin Luther King Jr. was born and reared on a clean, quiet, middle-class street in Atlanta, that he grew up with strict conservative values, values such as serving your community, protecting and respecting your neighbors, hard work, thrift, sobriety, cleanliness?
You won’t find that on any MLK Boulevard.
We should resolve to transform all King roadways into clean, well-lighted places that will attract businesses of all stripes, that will entice residents and tourists alike to spend time and money.
Simply naming a street after someone is not a tribute to King's legacy. It is an outrage. It disgraces the memory of one of the greatest figures of the last century.
Neither is it symbolic of a transformation of racial solidarity in our society.
Remember James Byrd, Jasper, Texas, where you can find the MLK street that James Byrd was walking on in 1998 when he accepted a ride from a group of white men who murdered him and dragged his body three miles with a pick-up truck.
Many of these street tributes are phony attempts to appease ignorant black folks into thinking that all is well, whitey cares.
Here in Lawrence I wonder if changing our beloved main downtown Street, “Massachusetts” to Martin Luther King Street would go over with the liberals here?
Sounds like a letter to the editor. “To the Residents of Lawrence, its time we name some streets after black folks and not these damm states.”

Sincerely, Snoop

P.S. I use to be a Republican, does that help?

Nicknames blame game

2006-01-05T14:56:00.000-06:00

By George F. Will

WASHINGTON - The University of Illinois must soon decide whether, and if so how, to fight an exceedingly silly edict from the NCAA. That organization's primary function is to require college athletics to be no more crassly exploitative and commercial than is absolutely necessary. But now the NCAA is going to police cultural sensitivity, as it understands that. Hence the decision to declare Chief Illiniwek "hostile and abusive" to Native Americans.
Censorship - e.g., campus speech codes - often are academic liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now the NCAA's censors say: The chief must go, as must the university's logo of a Native American in feathered headdress. Otherwise, the NCAA will not allow the university to host any postseason tournaments or events.

This story of progress, as progressives understand that, began during halftime of a football game in 1926, when an undergraduate studying Indian culture performed a dance dressed as a chief. Since then, a student has always served as Chief Illiniwek, who has become the symbol of the university that serves a state named after the Illini confederation of about a half-dozen tribes that were virtually annihilated in the 1760s by rival tribes.
In 1930, the student then portraying Chief Illiniwek traveled to South Dakota to receive authentic raiment from the Oglala Sioux. In 1967 and 1982, representatives of the Sioux came to the Champaign-Urbana campus to augment the outfits Chief Illiniwek wears at football and basketball games. But one of America's booming businesses is the indignation industry that manufactures the synthetic outrage needed to fuel identity politics.

The NCAA is allowing Florida State University and the University of Utah to continue calling their teams Seminoles and Utes, respectively, because those two tribes approve of the tradition. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe starchily denounces any "outside entity" - that would be you, NCAA - that would disrupt the tribe's "rich relationship" with Central Michigan University and its teams, the Chippewas. The University of North Carolina at Pembroke can continue calling its teams the Braves. Bravery is a virtue, so perhaps the 21 percent of the school's students who are Native Americans consider the name a compliment.

The only remnant of the Illini confederation, the Peoria tribe, is in Oklahoma. Under its chief, John Froman, the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about Chief Illiniwek.

The NCAA ethicists probably reason that the chief must go because no portion of the Illini confederation remains to defend him. Or to be offended by him, but never mind that, or this: In 2002, Sports Illustrated published a poll of 352 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames.

But in any case, why should anyone's disapproval of a nickname doom it? Civilization depends on, and civility often requires, the willingness to say, "What you are doing is none of my business" and "What I am doing is none of your business." But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility.

In 1972, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst replaced the nickname Redmen with Minutemen. White men carrying guns? If some advanced thinkers are made miserable by this, will the NCAA's censors offer relief? Scottsdale Community College in Arizona was wise to adopt the nickname "Fighting Artichokes." There is no grievance group representing the lacerated feelings of artichokes. Yet.

By George F. Will

WASHINGTON - The University of Illinois must soon decide whether, and if so how, to fight an exceedingly silly edict from the NCAA. That organization's primary function is to require college athletics to be no more crassly exploitative and commercial than is absolutely necessary. But now the NCAA is going to police cultural sensitivity, as it understands that. Hence the decision to declare Chief Illiniwek "hostile and abusive" to Native Americans.
Censorship - e.g., campus speech codes - often are academic liberalism's preferred instrument of social improvement, and now the NCAA's censors say: The chief must go, as must the university's logo of a Native American in feathered headdress. Otherwise, the NCAA will not allow the university to host any postseason tournaments or events.

This story of progress, as progressives understand that, began during halftime of a football game in 1926, when an undergraduate studying Indian culture performed a dance dressed as a chief. Since then, a student has always served as Chief Illiniwek, who has become the symbol of the university that serves a state named after the Illini confederation of about a half-dozen tribes that were virtually annihilated in the 1760s by rival tribes.
In 1930, the student then portraying Chief Illiniwek traveled to South Dakota to receive authentic raiment from the Oglala Sioux. In 1967 and 1982, representatives of the Sioux came to the Champaign-Urbana campus to augment the outfits Chief Illiniwek wears at football and basketball games. But one of America's booming businesses is the indignation industry that manufactures the synthetic outrage needed to fuel identity politics.

The NCAA is allowing Florida State University and the University of Utah to continue calling their teams Seminoles and Utes, respectively, because those two tribes approve of the tradition. The Saginaw Chippewa tribe starchily denounces any "outside entity" - that would be you, NCAA - that would disrupt the tribe's "rich relationship" with Central Michigan University and its teams, the Chippewas. The University of North Carolina at Pembroke can continue calling its teams the Braves. Bravery is a virtue, so perhaps the 21 percent of the school's students who are Native Americans consider the name a compliment.

The only remnant of the Illini confederation, the Peoria tribe, is in Oklahoma. Under its chief, John Froman, the tribe is too busy running a casino and golf course to care about Chief Illiniwek.

The NCAA ethicists probably reason that the chief must go because no portion of the Illini confederation remains to defend him. Or to be offended by him, but never mind that, or this: In 2002, Sports Illustrated published a poll of 352 Native Americans, 217 living on reservations, 134 living off. Eighty-one percent said high school and college teams should not stop using Indian nicknames.

But in any case, why should anyone's disapproval of a nickname doom it? Civilization depends on, and civility often requires, the willingness to say, "What you are doing is none of my business" and "What I am doing is none of your business." But this is an age when being an offended busybody is considered evidence of advanced thinking and an exquisite sensibility.

In 1972, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst replaced the nickname Redmen with Minutemen. White men carrying guns? If some advanced thinkers are made miserable by this, will the NCAA's censors offer relief? Scottsdale Community College in Arizona was wise to adopt the nickname "Fighting Artichokes." There is no grievance group representing the lacerated feelings of artichokes. Yet.

Liberals are having a collective orgasm today!!

2006-01-04T09:00:00.000-06:00

Happy New Year to Liberals, finally something to give them hope.
Big fucken deal.

This will turn out to be one of those...

“republicans are more evil, no no democrats are more evil, no but republicans are really really evil, no, no, no democrats are more super duper evil, no, no republicans are mega super duper, evil, no democrats are warp ten infinity evil, no no...DEMOCRATS SUCK, SCREW YOU MAN REPUBLICANS SUCK!!!!!

Check out more...Democrats there are two sets of rules, one for Republicans and none for themselves. SDP notes this South Dakota GOP press release:

Rats Scurrying

Gingrich recommends the Republicans abandon DeLay, Ney is SHOCKED, SHOCKED that Abramoff was crooked. Meanwhile, Ney and DeLay and several others will be going to jail as a result of Abramoff's deal yesterday. Meanwhile, the rats are scurrying, while Republican strategists are pulling the barn door shut well after the corruption has been exposed. They are calling for legislation that will prevent their fellow Republicans from succombing to bribes. Here's a clue, Republicans. . . this horse has already escaped and shown what your corruption for the world to see. Someone at this point needs to connect Abramoff with Bush/Cheney. Who is involved? Ralph Reed, Conrad Burns, even a couple Democrats? I hope they all go down, whoever is involved.

THE STORY REVERBERATES AROUND BLOGSPHERE!

The All Spin Zone

It Affects You Blog

The Juan Cole Blog

Who Hijacked Our Country

The Democrat Underground

How Low Can the GOP go?

More liberal links:http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/03.html#a6561

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/01/03/house-that-jack-built /

http://www.dccc.org/stakeholder/archives/004125.html

Abramoff Cracks.
http://onthelefttip.blogspot.com/
This is big. I won't even begin to tell you that I fully understand that shell game that Jack Abramoff was running to funnel money, favors and trips to members of Congress in exchange for votes on behalf of Abramoff's clients. There has been some great reporting on it over at Daily Kos - I recommend visiting a few of the recent stories posted on the subject:

From: http://www.rawstory.com/
Abramoff plea may remake Congress 20 in Congress under fire as lobbyist takes deal; Hastert dumps linked contributions.

something all of the links leave out.........
Harry Reid Caught in Abramoff Plea Deal?

Tuesday’s announcement that Washington super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff has reached a plea bargain deal with the Justice Department has reporters salivating over what they hint is going to be a Republican mega-scandal.
But it turns out that the most prominent player in Abramoff's web of influence was reportedly none other than the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid.
In a little-noticed story in November, The Associated Press revealed that Reid had accepted tens of thousands of dollars from an Abramoff client, the Coushatta Indian tribe, after interceding with Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton over a casino dispute with a rival tribe.
Reid "sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002," reported the AP. "The next day, the Coushattas issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second tribe represented by Abramoff sent an additional $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations between 2001 and 2004."
Questioned about the donations last month by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, Reid immediately turned testy.
"Don't try to say I received money from Abramoff. I've never met the man, don't know anything," he insisted.

TIMEOUT!! REMEMBER WHEN (DEMOCRAT) HARRY REID SAID

When Wallace protested: "But you've received money from [one of his Indian tribe clients]," the top Democrat shot back: "Make sure that all your viewers understand - not a penny from Abramoff. I've been on the Indian Affairs Committee my whole time in the Senate."
When the Fox host pressed again on the Abramoff-linked donations, a flustered-sounding Reid continued to stonewall, saying: "I'll repeat, Abramoff gave me no money. His firm gave me no money. He may have worked [at] a firm where people have given me money. But I have – I feel totally at ease that I haven't done anything that is even close to being wrong."

Bottom line folks when you read shit on blogs do your homework. Fucken liberals and the mainstream media will try and make this into a GOP ONLY issue. Use a little common sense!

Spy story could bite Democrats

2006-01-03T18:01:00.000-06:00

By Dick Morris

Whom did the Valerie Plame leak hurt?
Valerie, who went from undercover to on the cover when she posed for Vanity Fair?

Joe Wilson, who got a best-selling book out of the deal?

The current leak, however, of classified material relating to National Security Agency tactics in intercepting conversations between people abroad and those within the United States is a vastly serious proposition that may have materially compromised investigations in progress and tipped terrorists off to our methods so that they can hide among us undetected.
This leak, far more than the Valerie Plame incident, deserves a full investigation to identify who spilled the beans and to whom and how. The consequences of this leak alone merit an independent investigation and, perhaps, a trial for treason.
Why does President Bush need to use taps without warrants in the fight on terror? The answer is obvious: We often don't know who or what we are looking for.
Our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- predicated on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on, and only an inductive approach -- amassing lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.
For example, in 2002 the federal government tipped off the New York City Police Department that there was a lot of chatter about the Brooklyn Bridge. The resulting police tactics stopped the attack and eventually led to the apprehension of the would-be bomber.
What warrant could the anti-terror investigators have gotten to allow such a search? They had no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for. But a careful analysis of the data averted a massive tragedy.
Politically, the Left is making a big mistake in focusing on the issue. Bush is well-served by bringing the terrorism debate home. Isolationists -- about 40 percent of the nation, divided between the two parties -- will not back him on a war in Iraq but sure will support him against attempts to handcuff homeland security in the name of privacy or civil liberties.
By raising this issue and the concomitant issue of the Patriot Act renewal the Democrats are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Iraq is a winner for the Left. Homeland security is a loser.

Hillary's strings

Anyone who wonders about Hillary Clinton's nuanced position on the war in Iraq need look no further than the polls she is seeing.
To outside observers, Mrs. Clinton's position -- that she takes "responsibility" for her vote but that she wouldn't have voted for the war if she knew then what she knows now, but we shouldn't withdraw, but we should set a series of milestones to use in deciding when to withdraw, but we shouldn't set a timetable for pulling out -- seems a trifle tortured. But to her pollster, Mark Penn, it makes perfect political sense.
Unable to keep the puppet strings from showing, Penn blabbed to Washington Post political writer John Harris. In a strategy memo to Democrat moderates, Penn and Democratic Leadership Council President Al From warned that "Democratic leaders could be playing with political dynamite if they call for an immediate pullout of American troops."
Penn and From argued that a middle path is better, in which Democrats reject troop withdrawal but endorse "clear benchmarks" to measure progress and set a path to a victory and a pullout.
Curiously, that is exactly what Hillary said.
A warning to Mark Penn: Hillary doesn't mind being a puppet. But she does mind if the strings show.

High Maintenance Women

2006-01-03T16:00:00.000-06:00

During a New Years eve gathering with friends and family the discussion of High Maintenance Women was hotly debated. Several of us men tried to explain the concept to some of the women in attendance.
This is not a complicated issue, especially for me since I would describe myself as High Maintenance.
Therefore, this is my literary 2 cents worth of knowledge and perspective on the issue.
First thing, you need to ask yourself some basic questions. There are quizzes all over the net, but I narrowed the questions down to the basics:

Do you change relationships often?
Do you get upset when your mate misses your birthday an anniversary?
Do you like it when your mate buys things for you? REPEAT!
DO YOU REALLY LIKE IT, IS IT A TURN ON, DOES YOU PULSE RATE GO UP?
Which do you prefer small, thoughtful gifts chosen for their personal value, or extravagant, possibly expensive PUBLIC displays of affection?
Do you expect things how you want them, when you want them?
Do you like to go out to expensive restaurants/clubs?
Do you often throw temper tantrums because of something he did but refuse to tell him?
Is social and or monetary status (particularly that of your mate) critical to YOUR existence. NOTE I SAID YOUR EXISTENCE! Is the need to disclose that important to you?

“High maintenance women are like high maintenance sports cars. They are lots of fun when you are out on the town together, but for every hour of showing off, there are another 10 hours spent on upkeep and repair behind the scenes.”
I stole that one but it fits!
HM women are those who NEED many things (money, material goods, affection) to be happy.
I REPEAT, THEY NEED IT!
High maintenance women love dressing up whenever possible, and are obsessed with all aspects of their personal appearance and grooming in general. This almost obsessive attention to detail usually extends beyond their person, to their homes or apartments, their pets, and yes, evens their men.
In addition, they tend to be perfectionists, overachievers, self-centered, and a ridiculously vain.

More questions:
Do you pick out you own gifts on your birthday and at Christmas because people think you are so fussy that you would only return the gift anyway?
Do you often send back food in restaurants if it's not exactly to your liking?
Does you put make-up on whenever you go out, even if it's just to the grocery store?

HM women are arm candy, pure and simple. Their fascination with their own looks means that whenever they step out of the house, they look perfect.
HM women insists on being with a man who can match her when it comes to looks and status. They will NEVER date down (in their mind), under any circumstances.
HM women try to encourage and may even buy things on their own initiative that they think will better their mans appearance. They will give constant advice on grooming, whether it's about haircuts, which styles suit you, or what the heck you should do with that facial hair.
HM women insist on attention, (GOOD OR BAD) constant compliments and fancy dinners, they will demand the best of all these things.
HM women are straight shooters who are eager to let you know when they are not pleased. However, the problem is they cannot be satisfied! REPEAT, THEY CANNOT BE SATISFIED!
HM woman always want more of everything. She will find faults in ANY MANS best efforts, and for MOST men, some women just aren't worth the bother.
If they have lots of money to keep you away and happy for awhile fine, but if you have to spend too much time around them you will want to strangle them.
HM women are often victims of the "Princess Syndrome," or excessively precious behavior stemming from the belief that they are somehow above certain people, things and tasks. Some HM women may just flatly refuse to shoulder their share of the load. For example, HM women will always makes her mate do all the yard work and mowing because she is too "delicate" for it. Typically, they hate camping, hiking, loud parties, and more. This behavior is not good for developing and equal partnership.
But above all else, being HM means “Its about you”, every waking hour, every conversation, every trial, tribulation, IN FACT the sun revolves around THEM.
Every conversation, personal relationship, friendship hinges on themselves.
They will only care about what’s going on in your life IF it affects THEM!

Liberals are so transparent

2006-01-03T05:00:00.000-06:00

“I love the smell of defections in the morning,” That is the tag line at the end of a post on the Daily Kos referring to a letter written by some schmuck claiming that he is some disgruntled Republican.
Remember I always mention that if you want to know the talking points of liberal blogs you focus on Kos and what shit they are throwing against the walls hoping that it sticks.
Well even before, I read this letter on Kos I wondered why so many liberal blogs were publishing letters from so-called defecting Republicans.
Instead of solidifying their base of support, they are trying to forward the notion that Republicans are leaving the party in droves.
Ask yourself something. Why would you give a fuck about what some John or Jane Doe utters on some letter to the editor?
You could also ask, why read the rantings of some crazy Negro who calls himself Snoop?
Both are legitimate questions. Lol! Yes we do like to use each other for our own political, personal, social or whatever gratification.
This certainly is no different that posting editorials here reflecting my political bent.
But my question is, if someone has an axe to grind with this administration does announcing their political affiliation in the piece give them some credibility?
I hear more and more on radio talk shows people start out by saying the oft used phrase “I love your show BUT.” Then they feel as if they must explain that “I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A REPUBLICAN” So Fucken what? Your point is.
I have written a number of pieces that were published, both letters to the editors and guest editorial pieces on all sorts of topics. Few people knew my political affiliation because I have always believed that divulging my political preference would actually hurt my credibility in addressing various topics.
If you want to bitch about G Dub and his policies, the War, Spygate, whatever, your political leanings frankly do not mean jack in the grand scheme of things.
However, liberal Democrats are scanning the net hunting for examples of Republican angst and using these to convince SOMEONE, that SEE even Republicans hate Bush.
Here are a few examples I found:

I have been a registered Republican all of my adult life, but after observing the Bush administration for the past five years, I feel obliged to express my public outrage at the actions of a president who claims to represent my party.
The Republican Party I joined 25 years ago believed in fiscal responsibility.
Under the "leadership" of President Bush, domestic spending has risen at the fastest rate since Lyndon Johnson's "great society," and of all the pork-filled bills passed by Congress, Bush has not vetoed even one.
Consequently, the deficit has ballooned, and future generations face an ever-growing mountain of debt.
Is this fiscal responsibility?
The old Republican Party championed the individual against the might of Washington, D.C., but this president in his arrogance thinks checks and balances don't apply to him.
He asks us to trust his judgment with our civil liberties, but why should we?
His judgment must be questioned because the only thing that matches the administration's arrogance is its incompetence.
One only has to consider the prosecution of the Iraqi occupation, the shambles of post-war reconstruction or the hurricane response to realize that this administration is not fit to be trusted with the rights and liberties that generations of Americans have sacrificed to acquire and preserve.
President Bush has called for an investigation to find out who leaked the information about his domestic spying program.
In reality, it is this appallingly arrogant administration's blatant and egregious abuses of power that should be investigated.

William
Portland Press Herald”

SOUNDS LIKE HOWARD DEAN!

“My grandparents always registered Republican but voted Democratic. That’s what you did in those days if you didn’t want your kids to go to Vietnam. Philly is working class and Democratic but local politics in those days was always Republican bully politics where we lived. Being a registered Republican could be helpful in getting deferments or getting in the guard to avoid the war in the jungles of South East Asia. This mentality was pervasive in our community. You just didn’t register as a Democrat when Nixon was in charge. If you needed anything from the local government you better be a Republican. Vote Democratic quietly. Politics was reserved for talk around the dinner table. In our house you didn’t discuss your democratic proclivities with anyone on the outside. You might end up on the “list”.”

TRANSLATION, REPUBLICANS WILL KILL YOU, BEWARE!!

"I am 40 yrs. old & have been a registered Republican my entire adult life. Although I agree with the party's position on taxes, and other related issues, I am ashamed of their "war" on the environment. I appologize to the American people and promise to continue working to protect wilderness and wildlife.”

“A Registered Republican Since the 70s - Me!
I've always supported the Republicans' tight fiscal policies.
However, their support of monopolies, big religion, expensive
military and their war on the environment have always been
disappointments. As a Republican, I'll continue working to attempt
bringing honor, reason and decency to the Republican party.”

JUST HOW THE FUCK DO YOU PLAN ON DOING THAT?

“What disturbs me the most is the moral climate being established by President Bush and his Administration. President Bush is absolutely right when he says that values should be a prominent topic in this crucial election. As a registered Republican, I've felt this way for years -- long before my first child was born. It's why this dad will be voting for John Kerry. As a registered Republican, I am stunned that so many in our political party are so staunchly defending President Bush. It's time we put the good of our country ahead of our partisan interests.
I was a life-long Republican, my family members are all Republicans, but this year I reregistered as a Democrat because I can't stand what the Republicans are doing to our country right now. - Sue from Boulder, Colorado”

“In case you're wondering, (NO ASSHOLE I WASN’T) I've been an active Republican for years. As a grade-schooler in the early 1970s, I went door to door handing out GOP campaign literature. As a young adult in the early 1980s, I was such a party stalwart that friends called me Alex -- after Michael J. Fox's conservative TV character on "Family Ties." In the 1990s, I proudly served for seven years in the Voinovich Administration when he was governor.”

P.S. I USE TO BE A DEMOCRAT, UNTIL SOME TEACHER (FIRST GRADE) SAID THAT I HAD TO SHARE MY PAINTING SUPPLIES WITH THOSE WHO MAY HAVE FORGOT THEIRS.
DAMM LIBERALS MAKE ME SICK!

I don’t want to see blogs by....

2006-01-02T09:27:00.000-06:00

MY FIRST EVER BLOG ENTRY, GOOD FOR 2006 TOO!

My Favorite blogs…. Any blog that’s clever, insightful, passionate, cutting edge and real from the heart. No bullshit crap because you want free internet and cable. You know who you are, lazy bastards!

WARNING!
I know there seems to be a blog for everything, So I will attempt to list blogs that I don’t want to see or have people with the following “issues” to do blogs either.........
Gotta problem wit deez take it up wit me!!

NO BLOGS BY: Slackers, flaming gay activists, bitchy man hating single moms, Trailer court Nazi propagandist, Punk ass socialists elitists Vegans, 20-something atheists who have not experienced life rebelling against their parents,
***If you drive that piece of shit car I saw in the Walmart parking lot, license WEU878 the ugliest damm car I have seen in this time, even uglier than Commish Boogs (Lawrence, KS) ride.**** young pompous conservative hacks living off their parents money, liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh but have NEVER listen to his show, people who think the New York Times is a ‘good” news source, people who don’t know that white people have their own affirmative action its called DON’T HIRE DARKIES!
If you think its worth freezing your butt off in below freezing weather to go outside for a smoke, you fell for the advertisements for cordless screwdrivers, KNOWING that screwdrivers don’t have cords, you use phrases like 'alrighty then' or 'you can't handle the truth!' In everyday life, you believe the Ku Klux Klan is NOT a terrorist organization, people who will pay their cable bill before feeding their children, you think Dan Rather made an honest mistake, you actually think “bastard grass” is an acceptable musical format, people who drive and speak on the cell phone when the cell phone cost more than the car, sports fans of a team from a city they have never been to or seen play in person, anyone who thinks Yani is good music, you believed Michael Moore told the truth, the whole truth, you think Walmart is as American as Apple Pie, If you make public proclamations that YOUR religion IS BETTER than another.... trust me you will rot in hell anyway just for being dumb, you watched the movie American Pie and had to do... you know what, shows what sheep some people are and I bet you voted for Herman too, you hate that we went to war for oil but bitch at high gas prices, you have ever said “one of my best friends is black” or “yes I have invited A black person into my home”, pass on the right drive the speed limit on the left, don’t wash your hands after taking a dump, you think your tattoo will look as good at age 70 as it does today, you thought “All In The Family” was awful because of Archie but laugh their asses off at South Park, sneeze on the salad bar, STILL can’t set the time on your VCR, you STILL think Starship's 'We Built This City' is the best song ever made, you agree with TV Guide and think Seinfeld was the greatest TV show of all time... DAMM JOKE!, you think Laci Peterson's husband had NOTHING to do with her disappearance, You still think black people believe O.J. didn’t do it, you think Shrub stole another election and think we should spend more taxpayer money to investigate, you clap at the end of a movie in the theater, as if the director and actors can hear you, you “instant message” at work and are too selfish or just stupid to turn off the computer sound, you think AOL Instant Messenger should get rid of the 'angel' smiley face because it could offend those who do not believe in heaven, YOU SUBSCRIBE TO AOL!, you think bad body odor is a “good” thing, you refer to Colin Powell as “well spoken”, your favorite ethnic restaurant is not run by individuals of that ethnicity, you actually engage in geek snobbery i.e. my computer is better than yours, my iPod is cooler than your music gettin’ device, I have Xbox you suck because you have Playstation, you believe in ESP or extrasensory perception, the SOB who stole my grill!!, you believe that houses can be haunted, you think Kansas should have the confederate flag on top of the capital, you don’t know what the fuss is over the confederate flag cause you just think it's a cool flag, you think ghosts or that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places and situations, you believe in telepathy, or communication between minds without using the traditional five senses, you believe that extraterrestrial beings have visited earth at some time in the past, you believe that clairvoyance, or the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future, you watch that fraud jackass on TV who makes people believe that HE can hear from or communicate mentally with someone who has died, you think "Titanic" was the best movie of the 20th century, you can’t name a single TV network, you believe Elvis is possibly still alive, you want to see the questions on "Millionaire" become less difficult,
you have a sweet ride and you are too lazy to wash the car, you simply have no clue how to take care of your property, people in apartments who rag on people in double wides, you (insist) that JVC is better than RCA........ only audio geeks will get that one, you really think that putting a $1500 set of rims on a shitty ride is a good thing, because you say to yourself "I’ll fix up the rest later"....., you are a vegetarian because you think its healthier BUT you smoke, drink on a regular basis and NEVER exercise.....but you bitch at people who engage in flesh eating!, you have ever said “I only shop
at quality clothing stores,” not knowing the clothes from your “quality” clothing store were made by the same 12 year old overseas!, you have ever said to yourself “I MUST go to church TODAY!”, you have ever said “honey I don’t mind that your front teeth are missing, it shows off your eyes", you voted for Shrub on “moral grounds”, yet you think to yourself how cool it would have been for my history teacher to have screwed me.....meanwhile your wife who is 20 years younger parades around in her new bedroom attire, you have considered eating road kill, you bump to Jessica Simpson in your Escalade, you are considering buying a TIVO when you have never bothered to learn how to use a VCR, you have ever littered while in Downtown Lawrence, you think Don’s Steakhouse has the “best dern stakes in town”, chicks who wear Ugg boots AND you need your ass backhanded for paying $120 plus for those ugly ass wannabee footwear!!, you just can’t get enough redneck humor, you thought Martin Luther King was a trouble maker, you dis church goin’ folk but think the Salvation Army is a fine organization, you actually believe that gay boy scout leaders is a good thing, however you think hetero men should not be girl scout leaders, you drive faster in bad weather because you need to justify buying that SUV, you used child support money to buy yourself a new car AND you still think you don’t get enough child support from that bastard with whom you let knock you up in the back of his pick-up, anyone who has not said "I love you to their mom in the last month, anyone who slaps a bumper sticker on a $20k plus car, anyone who purchased a Yugo, if you STILL have a Herman for president on your car, you have attended a costume party dressed in a Nazi uniform, you introduced yourself to the guy at the next urinal, you have stuck your head over an occupied stall and ask for the time, you wear pajamas in public not cute people...
...Blogs that have Impeach Bush or indict Tom Delay graphic on them, if you thought the president was spying on you, you still believe Hurricane Katrina was racially motivated, if you believe Howard Dean is a smart man, If you believe the Democrats will take control of congress, If you think Snoop will mellow and try to get along better with liberals in 2006. LOL!
Happy 2006.

We’re the Liberals...

2006-01-02T01:02:00.000-06:00

We’re the Liberals, we’re so cool;
if you are not, then you’re a fool.
We know what’s right so listen well;
if you don’t want to go to hell.
We are kind, and good, and right;
we want peace, don’t make us fight.
We’ll show you all a better way
if you will let us have our say.
Just sit there mute, with open eyes,
and listen to why we despise
the other side, who want to steal
your government, and so we feel
only morons don’t realize
we clearly see why we despise
all those who took our power away;
they’re greedy thieves who want to sway
the hearts and minds of weaker folk;
if you believe them, that’s a joke.
We know the law and all the facts
you’re just stupid if you can’t see that
we know what’s best, in peace or war,
we’ve told you that ten times before.
We’re the liberals, we’re so cool
and if you’re not, then you’re a fool.
Why won’t you listen when we say
be just like us
for better days.
Where everyone is helped to be
the type of folks we like to see.
The ones with which we can agree
about what’s best for liberty.
We will speak out and tell you true
you are so dumb without a clue.
Why won’t you listen? You must be
another blight on history.
Our eyes are clear, our motives pure.
We’ve got the answer. We’re the cure.
We’re the liberals. We’re so cool.
Join us soon. Or stay a fool.

2006 ought to be great for Dems, but can they deliver?

2006-01-02T01:00:00.000-06:00

By Morton Kondracke
Roll Call
It's hard to tell who's in worse political shape right now: President Bush or Congressional Democrats. Polls show deep skepticism with Bush, but it's not clear that Democrats can take advantage.
Historically speaking, the 2006 midterm elections should be a bonanza for Democrats. Since World War II, the party out of power has picked up an average of 34 House and five Senate seats in a president's sixth year in office.

Polls indicate that Bush is now presiding over an unpopular war, and that's almost always bad for the incumbent party.

An early August Gallup poll showed that, by 54 percent to 44 percent, Americans now think it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Fifty-seven percent believe the war has made America less safe in the war on terrorism. Fifty-six percent want to withdraw some troops and 33 percent, the highest percentage yet, want full withdrawal.

In 1950, the Korean War had just begun, and only 20 percent of Americans believed that fighting it was a mistake. Yet President Harry Truman's Democrats lost 29 House seats and six Senate seats.

In 1952, when 52 percent of the country was against the war and the country was electing President Dwight Eisenhower, Democrats lost another 22 House seats and two Senate seats.

In 1966, only 31 percent thought that the Vietnam War was a mistake. Still, Democrats lost 47 House and four Senate seats.

In 1970, with 56 percent of the country against the war, Richard Nixon's GOP lost 12 House seats, while gaining two in the Senate.

Incumbent parties also tend to lose big when the public is dissatisfied with the economy. In the midst of a recession in 1958, Eisenhower's Republicans lost 48 House and 13 Senate seats.

The United States certainly is not in a recession right now. To the contrary, as Bush pointed out after meeting with his economic advisers last week, the economy grew 3.4 percent in the second quarter of 2005 -- the ninth straight quarter of growth exceeding 3 percent.

The economy has added 4 million jobs since the current recovery started in mid-2003 and, contrary to Democratic propaganda, Bush has presided over net growth during his presidency of 1.3 million jobs. Even in his first term, 350,000 new jobs were created.

But somehow Bush has been unable to make Americans think the economy is in good shape.

According to an August ABC News/Washington Post poll, the public, by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin, considers the economy "not good" or "poor," although 59 percent believe that their own personal finances are "excellent" or "good."

An August Newsweek poll showed that by 52 percent to 40 percent the public disapproves of Bush's handling of the economy. Sixty-one percent of voters disapproved of his handling of Iraq, and his overall approval was at 42 percent its lowest ever.

All this should be good news for Democrats. And there's more. The RealClearPolitics.com average of polls on approval of Congress is just 31 percent, and Democrats enjoy an average 6-point advantage on the generic Congressional ballot question.

On top of all this, Democrats may have an opportunity to gain from the scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff, a close friend of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and the alleged Bush administration exposure of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Scandals are always good for out-parties, as the 1974 and 1994 landslides show.

So, what's wrong with Democratic prospects? First, Bush and Congressional Republicans are in power, can get things done and have lots of bully pulpits. If they can figure out how to better communicate their achievements, they can highlight their energy and transportation bills, tort reform and the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Communications won't improve Bush's Iraq problem. That will depend on political and military successes that, for now, seem elusive.

The Democrats' dilemma is this: Even if the public is fed up with the GOP and anxious to scratch a six-year itch, Congressional district gerrymandering -- in which the Democrats are complicit -- makes only 35 or so House races truly competitive under normal circumstances.

That's certainly enough to deliver power to the Democrats, but it's going to take a massive pro-Democratic wave to achieve a turnaround akin to what the Republicans accomplished in 1994.

Worse, two recent studies show that Democrats are in trouble with key groups. The liberal Democracy Corps concluded from focus groups that "a large chunk of white non-college voters, particularly in rural areas, will remain simply unreachable for Democrats."

That's partly because they side with conservatives on cultural issues and national security. But also, "the unity Democrats showed in opposing President Bush's Social Security privatization plans was an important first step for a party seen as weak and standing for nothing, although it also served to reinforce the belief among many red state and rural voters that Democrats ... have no positive agenda."

An analysis for Third Way, a group of centrist Senate Democrats, showed that Republicans clobbered Democrats among white middle-class voters in 2004 and made inroads among middle-class Hispanics. "The self-described party of the middle class has a crisis with the middle class," the study concluded.

Democrats should be able to make gains in 2006 based simply on history. But for now, significant gains seem out of reach because they're trying to fight something with nothing.

Morton Kondracke is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

Meat is Murder. Yeah, So?

2006-01-01T19:30:00.000-06:00

By: Misty Nuckolls - Entropic Doom - Fear of a Neutral Planet

Snoop Zone Guest Blogger

PETA blows ass. Seriously, folks, these are some grade-A whiny-ass pussy leftist sissy morons.
Now, I'm not dogging on all vegetarians, vegans, macrobiotic Mooneys or anything like that. Someone who makes the choice to not consume meat based on A) dietary/health reasons, or B) the ecological/environmental argument (the amount of grain it takes to sustain a human vs. the amount it takes to raise one pound of beef, or the methane gas theory, etc.), or chooses not to wear fur because they have central heat and synthetic insulating garments seems, to me, to be making a logical and/or ethical decision, and nothing more. But folks like PETAfreaks just piss me off, because they're just riding on a wave of popular lemur-imitation disguised as opinion. It's not PC anymore to hurt the cute little furry animals, just like it's wrong to say that the majority of women led happier lives when not burdened by the pressures of economic providership.

I've just spent a mirth-filled evening reviewing the PETA site, propelled there by the NY Daily News' article on everybody's favorite bleeding heart pussyfest's plans for the season opening at the Metropolitan Opera. Mainly, they plan on flinging about a skinned fox and screeching "Here's the rest of your fur coat!" in a wearying repetition of their poster campaign starring some airbrushed UPN actress I've never heard of. Now, this raises a number of queries. First, where does the proposed skinned fox come from? Are they willingly sacraficed by noble foxes eager to martyr themselves for their brethren? And second, do these idiots actually think that it takes only one or two foxes to make a nice jacket? Pshaw, silly hippies, a quality coat is crafted from the pelts of many animals!!
The only thing I'll concede to PETA is that they have marketing down something fucking fierce. Their ads are visually compelling, and usually flawlessly crafted. They get your attention, all right, albeit for a stupid cause.

I have a number of beefs (pun probably intended) with screechy twats like this. First off, the most obvious. I like meat. And fur. I hunt, when I get the chance, and I've cleaned and eaten what I've killed, and been damned proud of it. I kill for food, not sport, and I come from a long line of folks who did the same. My dad, who's fucking awesome by the way, used to trap, back when a good racccoon pelt would get you 30 bucks (keep in mind this is when 30 bucks would actually pay the month's gas bill) and a fox more than that, and that's not counting beaver and muskrat and rabbit. The bunnies, of course, got eaten, but not having much use for squirrel and muskrat meat, his dogs got fat and happy. Is my dad a heartless asshole? Well, contrary to my petulant musings while grounded for something absolutely silly that of course seemed perfectly rational to a 14-year-old, no, he's not. He is a practical person doing practical things in an increasingly impractical and priority-skewed world.

I personally find nothing wrong with killing animals for my own gain, as long as that gain doesn't have anything to do with compensating for my lack of whatever via the stuffed spooky head of some once-majestic creature who almost certainly yielded only tough and inedible meat mounted on my wall. If my heartless murder of a furry fellow creature means food in my belly or necessary bills paid through its pelt, then more power to me and the whole grand damned cycle of life. I get a little fuzzy when it comes to fur farms, but of course that really comes from my deep-seated belief that there are far too many people on the planet, and if it all got balanced out there would be plenty of room for critters to trap and not so many damned bitches who are only out in the cold for the time it takes to get from a cab or limo into a Starbucks or Macy's. Same with mass-scale cow/pig/chicken farms. It's not that I'm against raising animals for their fur or meat, but simply that there are too many greedy gullets clamboring for said fur and meat who aren't producing it themselves.

But my biggest bitch with PETA and their cohorts is really the fact that they give the suffering of critters precedence over the countless atrocities that we commit against our fellow people.
Now, regular readers of my blog will possibly be scratching their heads at this point, since I'm a big advocate of less people on the fucking globe. I am, but that doesn't mean that I think that the majority of folks already here deserve to be subjected to lives of misery. Sterilization, maybe, but that's getting off subject.

Every fucking day, while the pasty vegans of the world assault hapless consumers and coworkers with stale catch-phrases and skewed facts, there are more and more reports of children being beaten to death because they wet the bed, mothers and fathers killing their children in spite-fits and murder-suicide dramas or sexually exploiting their genetic immortality, sadists and their waste-of-protien girlfriends violently enslaving hapless women, 14-year-olds raping 12-year-olds, fucked-up children shooting their peers (Which, by the way, PETA blames on animal dissection in biology classes).

Go look at PETA's media site, and then tell me that that sort of incredible talent isn't wasted on a useless but emminently marketable cause.
But more than that, go look at it because it's fucking hilarious!! I, for instance, got a huge kick out of their blind assesment of me, in which they say, ". . . one day you realized you would not eat your dog, so why should you eat a cow or a chicken?" Damned straight I would eat my dog, if I was hungry and there were few other options. My husband just said the most romantic thing to me tonight while we were discussing the site: "Honey, there are a damned few things I wouldn't eat if it came down to it, and you're one of them." Awwwww! How sweet!!!
The best quote on the whole freakin' site so far, though, has to be from their 'zine for kids, "Ggrrrr: The Zine That Bites Back!" (complete with pop-up ad from BURGER-FUCKING-KING, for Christ's sake), where they discuss "practical" animal rescue for the OshKosh set:
"• Don’t get yourself turned into roadkill when rescuing animals on the highway. Be careful—get your parents to block the lane with the car and turn on the flashers. You won’t do the animal any good if you’re dead!"

Prejudice - A MUST READ FOR LIBERALS!!

2005-12-29T12:50:00.000-06:00

By TED HAYES
Wall Street Journal Editorial

American blacks who are affiliated with the Republican Party are vigorously vilified by Democrats, especially black Democrats. Uncle Tom, sell-out, Oreo -- the list of slurs is long.
But it is not only insults. I am the founder and director of a unique, progressive homeless facility in downtown Los Angeles, known as the Dome Village. Yet the 35 men, women and children and their pets who call the Dome Village home are being "evicted" from privately owned property after 12-and-a-half years -- apparently on account of my political beliefs and activities. You see, though I am a leading homeless activist, I am also a conservative Republican and a strong supporter of President Bush.

Here's how the situation played out. Recently, I was invited to address a local Republican Women's Club; my landlord read an article in the local paper reporting on the event. Soon after, I received a notice raising the Dome Village rent from $2,500 a month to $18,330.

Shocked, I inquired as to the seriousness of the change and the property owner blurted out that the cause of our "eviction" was "because you are Republican."
He said that as a Democrat, he was tired of helping me and the Dome Village. In other words, let the homeless be damned.
And people think the Democrats are the party of compassion and tolerance. Private property should be protected, of course, and I have no intention of causing any trouble for this property owner as we part ways. Whatever he does with his valuable land -- it is only a few blocks from the Staples Center -- is no concern of mine, and I will not go to court.
Still, I cannot help but be saddened by the whole business. When I founded the Dome Village 12 years ago, we had an understanding that he could ask for his property back at any time for any reason, and I would say "absolutely" without hesitation. Still, his reason was prejudice against Republicans.
We see this across the country. Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland and a Republican candidate for the Senate, has been crudely denigrated on racial grounds. A prominent leftist Web site, for instance, depicted him as "Sambo," among other aspersions. When Condoleezza Rice was nominated as Secretary of State, she faced similar treatment: editorial cartoons depicting her as a racial caricature, personalities calling her "Aunt Jemima" on liberal talk radio, and so forth. Clarence Thomas, Ward Connerly, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell and other black conservatives regularly face similar smears.

These conservatives are attacked not because of the validity or judicious consideration of their views but because those views are supposedly heterodox for American blacks. Yet it is my opinion that many black people in the U.S. are politically and philosophically conservative -- and many are in fact actually closeted Republicans, fearful of persecution by friends, business associates, society clubs, school mates and even churches.

It is time for American blacks to have a conversation about the phenomenon of Democrats persecuting black Republicans. Why is this happening? What is it that the Democrats don't want black folks to understand about Republicans? What is it that the Democrats don't want black folks to know about Democrats? And how is it that we have come to this point -- after having endured so much -- where we have ourselves curtailed the freedom of political expression through the threat of retaliatory consequences?

Mr. Hayes is a homeless activist in Los Angeles

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO WOMEN FROM SNOOP!

2005-12-29T11:00:00.000-06:00

There is nothing on the news, so I have to revert back to my Oprah mode today.
In recent weeks, I have posted shit on the craziness of women, mainly because it’s all over the news, and on the web. I have even read some blogs of women who are frankly fucken nutz! Hell, even this morning I was peeping the Today show and the topic was about young teenage girl bullies.
I wish I could put my finger on it but young teen girls, young adult women and women in general are more fucked up today than ever.
Is it lack of dads growing up, sorry ass moms, television, movies, the web, hell I don’t know but the trend of craziness is growing.
Now keep this a secret..... but I have been watching this show called “L-Word”. So this topic is not something I have pulled out of my ass.

Now before you start ranting I love women. My mom and wife both live with me (and get along with each other, (I am blessed). I am moodier then both of them put together, so what I’m about to say isn’t about them. (Yes Mrs. Snoop reads this blog on occasion). And I love other women too. My surrogate sisters, my daughters, my daughter-in-laws. Even my interns at work! I’ve often said if I ever had my own company, I’d hire all women. They’re often better employees - harder working, smarter, and just nicer people in general. Plus, I like looking at the pretty ones. I’m not a woman hater or basher.
I have worked in two places where I was the only man in the department. Frankly I prefer to be surrounded by women.

NOW with that said, I’m just wondering: What is fuck is up with some of you women? Seriously. I can’t tell you how many otherwise normal females I have lately seem to totally wacked out over what are essentially small things, and then (this is the part that fucks with my head) they wonder why no one sane wants to be around them.
Hello!! Who wants to have anything to do with someone who is throwing things (whether its mean words or objects) at anyone who comes near?

The trigger can be something their man does or doesn’t do (he didn’t call me for a day, he forgot my favorite color, he didn’t notice my new perfume, etc). It can be over some slight at work (they praised her and not me, he implied I was lazy, she didn’t want to have lunch with me, etc.). Or it can be an upset caused by mere strangers (she acted like she was better then me, he stared at my tits, they cut me off in mid-sentence, etc.). Things that are truly aggravating, to be sure. However, my road rage or upset over losing a football game is nothing compared to the drama and chaos some women seem to engage in on a regular basis. Let’s get real for a minute.
If a man who normally means the world to you and who treats you like a princess does one tiny inconsiderate thing, does that mean you are going to be mad at him for weeks or that it’s entirely over with him? If it does, he’s lucky to out of your crazy world!

If you have a bigger issue with someone then just that “Straw that broke the camels back” then own up to it and stop pretending it was just that one small item that set you off. If it was that one small item, then get a fucken grip!

I’m not going to blame hormones or let the LADIES off with that excuse. If you are intelligent enough to figure out your own zip code, you have to know whether or not you get crazy once a month, and if so take steps not to nuke every person and relationship you value during your crazy time. Given warning, most males or people with a survival instinct will do all they can to avoid a crazy ass woman who is otherwise normal most of the month. But just don’t expect us to not notice and resent the craziness!

If the worst and the best day of your life happens in the same week, you have got “roller coaster” problems, and are probably addicted to drama and chaos. Those of you who have a habit of making poor life decisions should just stop blaming the rest of the world for the fact that you can’t seem to be happy....Whose fault is it if you cannot make it a month (or less) without blowing up over something.

Stop taking out your problems on other people. If you like drama that much, you might want to try acting! There’s plenty of community theaters looking for performers! If you need to abuse something or someone, join the roller derby or take up boxing, write a blog!

Most people (especially men) are not mind readers. If you have something to say, then fucken say it. Or step off. Don’t drop hints. Don’t be passive aggressive. Don’t wait for someone to care. (cause most of time we don’t) Say what you want to say, and then face the consequences (don’t expect someone to like being bitched at!).
Try to be logical!! If you want a male to understand what you are communicating, it is going to have to make some sense to them. So ranting will not get your message across, unless your message is “I am crazy. Run away fast!”

If you have an issue with someone, there is no need to communicate that fact while in tears, or through veiled innuendoes, or fucken losing your mind.
If you can’t be calm, then don’t try to do anything important while you are (mental) That’s not time to make important decisions.
If you need to vent, or some time to calm down, then explain that fact (quickly) and wait until you are “normal” (whatever that is for you) before trying to talk with another human being about what is bothering you. You won’t do nearly as much damage to yourself and your relationships! Most people, especially men, do not hear what you are saying if you are crying or yelling or just being an idiot!

If you want other people to figure you out, (you) better have yourself figured out first . If you are chronically unhappy but think that those around you need to cut you some slack, the odds are real high that you are a crazy person, and the only slack you deserve may be in the arms of your straight jacket!

Here’s a hint to women (or people in general) who can’t seem to EVER really be happy in life if every relationship, job, or activity in your life ends (often in pain) or at the very least is often on the brink of ending, THE PROBLEM MAY BE WITH YOU!! Nothing lasts forever, but most people don’t prematurely, and deliberately, kill off the good things they find! People who go from one thing to another (relationship, job, career, hobby, etc), but never find lasting happiness, are often subconsciously sabotaging any chance at a sustained contented life. Why? Because they are masochistic, they actually like the chaos, or they don’t believe they deserve good things!

OK, here’s a short quiz to help you figure it out if you are nutz.... oops if this pertains to you. Just answer “yes” or “no” to these 10 questions:

1. Have you had two or more spouses?

2. Have you broken up with the same someone (or just about) more than 3 times in one year? Extra points if the (near or real) break-ups were all within 6 months.

3. Has anyone ever told you that you were high maintenance (you get extra points for each person who’s said that to you)? It doesn’t matter if you believed them or agree.

4. Do you think that no one in your life has every really truly understood or appreciated you?

5. Do you often rely upon drugs or liquor to help you calm down?

6. Does your own family avoid being around most of the time, or vice versa?

7. Do you rarely go a full day without feeling “different” or “weird” or just extra “unique”?

8. Do you often think other people (especially other women) are jealous of you?

9. Was the last calm & happy period in your life so far back in time that you don’t really remember it very well?

10. Do you think most happy or content people are just settling for less than they could get if they just insisted on more, held out for better, or pushed harder?

Give yourself one point for each yes answer. If you score 5 or higher, you are approaching crazy and need to step back before you get that far. If you score 7 or more you are fucked up and need to either get professional help or get used to living alone without any truly good close friends!

Stop the madness. If you don’t want to be treated like some crazy bitch, then just don’t act crazy! Get some therapy if you are unhappy most of the time. Or get used to being a bitch and embrace all that comes with it. If you think it’s fine to be so crazy go for it - just don’t expect me or other sane people to stick around you for long! The world does not revolve around you. It revolves around me!

Lecturing Liberal Lions of the Old Media

2005-12-29T08:00:00.000-06:00

David Limbaugh

"You can call me anything you want, but do not call me a racist," said an indignant President George Bush on Dec. 12, commenting on the despicable, opportunistic suggestion that any inadequacies in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina were due to racism.
But veteran network media giants Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw don't quite see it that way. Indeed, they don't appear to see eye-to-eye with President Bush on much of anything if their joint interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" is any indication.
Russert was uncharacteristically tame toward these two, offering them repeated softballs concerning the past year's main stories. But the relaxed atmosphere gave us a clearer picture of the worldview these men share, which is doubtless representative of most of the Old Media players.
From race and taxes to health care and Iraq, they spoke in a monolithic liberal voice, accented by its familiar air of moral superiority.
Koppel began by vigorously defending the media for introducing the issue of race into Katrina. "But the question had to be asked," said Koppel, "if that had been a section of a city that was populated by middle-class white people, would the response have been the same? ... I think there was just a feeling that you didn't have to be as engaged as I think the federal government would have been."
Brokaw agreed. "I think Ted is correct when he says it was not overt or active racism." But it sure must have been subconscious racism, huh, Tom?
It bothers me deeply when race hucksters play the race card on Katrina for political gain, knowing it is outrageously unfair. But I think it troubles me more to hear these two supposed paragons of 20th-century journalism smugly level the charge and, apparently, actually believe it.
Superficially distancing themselves from the allegation that racism was directly involved didn't mitigate it in the least. In fact, if President Bush's alleged bigotry were so deeply rooted as to affect his actions without even stirring his moral impulses, he would probably be a more consummate racist than the guy who consciously considers race while discriminating.
Isn't it ironic that in their sanctimony against perceived racism, presumably because of the evil of one group feeling superior to another, these two sermonizers reveal their absolute certitude of moral superiority over those who reject their liberal worldview? And their self-righteousness wasn't limited to race but included almost all other issues they discussed.
On Iraq, Brokaw talked about "this disconnect between those people who are in uniform and fighting this war over there and a large portion of our population because no sacrifice is being asked of anyone at home. The president is not asking us to conserve oil or to ration gasoline or to push hard for alternative sources of energy in this conflict."
Then Koppel eagerly chimed in, "Or to pay a nickel more in taxes."
Let's not allow the inanity of their analysis to obscure the thrust of their message: "We are better people than average Americans, especially conservatives, because we care more, even if we don't personally sacrifice more than they do."
On health care, Koppel observed, "You can get the best medical care in the world. ... I can. Most Americans can't. And there are 43 million Americans who aren't getting any medical care at all. That is a scandal."
No, what is scandalous is that Koppel so glibly equates lack of insurance with no medical care. What is repulsive is his implication that we have so many uninsured simply because we don't care enough. And what is intolerably hypocritical is that he probably gave Bill Clinton a pass when he didn't put a dent in the number of uninsured despite campaigning on the issue. Clinton was excused because he pretended to care.
It was amusing to witness the elitist duo adopt the Democratic Party line on other issues as well, from President Bush's reputed refusal to admit his "mistakes" to his unwillingness to reach across party lines. And let's not forget his failure to give inspections "a little more time" and "to reach out more" to other nations before attacking Iraq.
But why all the fuss? These venerable heavyweights aren't liberal. They just see the world through clearer lenses and operate on a higher moral plane. Reporting, even editorializing, from this perspective doesn't betray a liberal bias but defines objectivity. And those who deviate from their worldview are simply flawed, and racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy, uncompassionate and – oh, yes – conservative.

REVEALED AT LAST... THE THINGS WOMEN REALLY THINK ABOUT WHILE HAVING SEX!

2005-12-29T04:19:00.000-06:00

By Mark Miller

TOP HUMAN sexuality research team has just revealed the answer to one of man's greatest, age-old quandaries about women -- namely, what women think about while having sex!

The results of the five-year research study, published in the current Journal of Psychological Sexuality, make it clear that while in the midst of the typical act of intercourse, women have quite a lot on their minds.

"This contradicts the popular theory that during sex, women's minds go blank so they can focus totally on giving and receiving pleasure," reveals research study leader Rana Thomas, of the Spaulding Institute. "According to our research, the only time women's minds actually go blank is when they're attempting to watch and understand a sports game."

For the study, women were asked to fill out detailed questionnaires of their thoughts during each sex act. Some enthusiastic participants even filled out the questionnaires during their sex acts. The results -- 97 percent of women think about some or all of the following while making love:

•Whether or not she loves her partner and he loves her.
•If his sexual technique is "pleasing her."
•Her next shopping excursion.
•Brad Pitt.
•"While I appreciate the energy he's expending to find my G-Spot, he's no Christopher Columbus."
•Haagen-Dazs Chocolate Chocolate-Chip ice cream.
•"That ceiling could sure use another coating of paint."
•Shoes.
•Whether her partner might think her rear end is too fat.
•Jackhammers. The remaining 3 percent of the women surveyed, who are primarily members of the Religious Right, were preoccupied during sex with the following thoughts:
•Hoping it ends soon.
•Jesus.
•"Things would be so much less icky if people didn't have genitals."
•President Bush.
•Mel Gibson.
•Her husband in a nice suit.
•Shoes. In comparison, a similar research study directed toward men, revealed that 100 percent of all men, during sex, are thinking about:
•Pamela Anderson.
•Angelina Jolie.
•Halle Berry.
•Salma Hayek.
•"Oh, yeah, baby, I bet you never had it this good!"
•Friends, neighbors, and relatives they'd like to "bang."
•Beer.
•Favorite sports teams.
•Their dream job -- being a photographer for Playboy magazine.
•Acquiring the superpower of X-ray vision to see through women's clothing.
•Winning the state lottery.
•Jackhammers. Thomas is already at work on related studies, including what gays and lesbians think about during sex, what animals think about during sex, and what space aliens think about during sex.

Jose Melendez-Perez, one of the great unsung heroes of 9/11

2005-12-28T12:00:00.000-06:00

Parts of original Story Text
By Michael Smerconish
and American RadioWorks

Check out the story in the USA Today(link), then also peep the story below.
5 years after 9/11 common sense is finally kicking in.

USA TODAY STORY: Airport security uses talk as tactic

Arguably, it is Melendez we can thank for the fact that Flight 93 never completed its mission of striking a symbol of democracy in Washington, and instead crashed into a field in Western Pennsylvania.

A month before the September 11 attacks, a customs inspector in Orlando, Florida refused admission to a Saudi man. The inspector was Jose Melendez-Perez. He told the commission that Saudis come through Orlando often. They're on their way to Disneyworld, but this traveler was different.

"My first impression of the subject was that he was a young male, well groomed with short hair, thin mustache, black long sleeved shirt, black trousers and black shoes," said Melendez-Perez. "He was about 5'6" and in impeccable shape. He had a military appearance. I had the impression of the subject that he had knowledge of interview techniques and had military training."

"I noticed that he did not have a return airline ticket or hotel reservation. My first question to the subject through the interpreter, why he was not in possession of a return airline ticket. The subject became visibly upset and in an arrogant and threatening manner, which include pointing his finger at my face, stated that he did not know where he was going when he departed the United States. What first came to mind at this point was the subject was a hit man. A hit man doesn't know where he's going because if he's caught, that way he doesn't have anything or any information to bargain with. My wife said that I was watching too much movies."

It was Melendez, working as an immigration inspector, who stopped Mohamed al Kahtani when he sought entrance to the United States at the Orlando International Airport. Kahtani was then a Saudi national who came before Melendez as he worked in secondary screening, simply because Kahtani had incorrectly filled out a Customs Declaration Form. Kahtani claimed not to speak English. Melendez put Kahtani's basic data into his computer, and it came up negative. His documents appeared genuine. And a check of his possessions was also unremarkable.

But Melendez still didn't let him pass.

To the consternation of his colleagues who were concerned about the political power of Saudi nationals, Melendez kept probing.

Why?

"My job requires me to know the difference between legitimate travelers to the U.S. and those who are not," he told the 9/11 Commission. "This included potential terrorists."

Keep in mind - this is a month before 9/11.

"Upon establishing eye contact, he exhibited body language and facial gestures that appeared arrogant. In fact, when I first called his name in the secondary room and matched him with papers, he had a deep staring look."

"I then told him that without knowledge of the English language or a hotel reservation," said Melendez-Perez, "he would have difficulty getting around Orlando. He answered that there was someone waiting for him upstairs. When asked the person's name he changed story and said no one was meeting him. The subject was very hostile throughout the entire interview that took approximately one and a half hours."

As Melendez would later tell the 9/11 Commission about Kahtani, "He just gave me the creeps".

Of significance, the would-be terrorist who claimed not to speak English, found a command of the language when Melendez rejected him, saying "I'll be back". The next time Kahtani encountered the United States, it was fighting our soldiers in Afghanistan, post 9-11. He is now at Guantanamo.

And here is the kicker. What we now know is that at precisely the moment that Mohamed al Kahtani was being given his walking papers by Jose Melendez at the Orlando Airport on August 4, 2001, there to pick up the new arrival was 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. That was one of the more interesting details to emerge from the work of the 9/11 Commission. And that is why Democratic 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, told Melendez, in front of the 9/11 Commission, that his conduct had arguably spared the Capitol or White House an attack. In other words, Ben-Veniste reasoned, with the added muscle of Kahtani on board Flight 93, the terrorists could have fended off the passenger revolt and continued toward Washington.
-------------------------------
It is entirely plausible to suggest that the actions of Melendez in doing his job efficiently and competently may well have contributed to saving the Capitol or White House, and all the people who were in those buildings. Liberals would of course argue that this dudes rights were violated and other bullshit. Screw the civil liberties crap. We are fighting a war, with the extremists pricks want to harm Americans. America must be technologically, socially vigilant and aware to combat the threat of terrorism.

Snooprant: From shopping to Civil liberties

2005-12-23T02:59:00.000-06:00

A SALE IS USUALLY “NOT” A SALE!

Ok Snoop got out amongst the world to do some Christmas shopping over the last few days and it was a subtle reminder why I hate shopping so much.
It's clear why people are in such debt today. People are more than willing to part with their money with a minimal attempt by stores to deceive the shopping masses.
I peeped the mens section of “The Jones Store” a store that I usually like and a store that on occasion has some good deals. But I looked at the prices at their shit and was completely caught off guard by the prices and the not so subtle deception.
They has shit marked off (30, 40 and 50 percent) and basic shirts, polos, pants, ties were ridiculously overpriced. I do enough shopping to know the basic value of various clothing items and shoes to know what is a good price and what is not.
I overhead one lady talk about how she thought the prices “could not be beat.”
I overheard people rave about the bargains in these stores and I was just dumbfounded by the utter stupidity of these folks.
Think for a minute people, if you are Christmas shopping for lets say your husband and you rarely, if ever shop for shirts, pants and ties how the fuck would you know if it’s a good bargain if you only did this type of shopping during the holiday shopping season?
Kohls is the best example of a store that has “sales” every fucken day. Their shit is not on sale people if it’s the same fucken price everyday!
If stores say a price is marked 40 or 50 percent off does it not occur to people that the baseline price was raised to get it back in line with the regularly posted price.
The “sale” sign at the top of the rack is only for “effect”.
Snoop’s not tryin’ to tell you how to spend your money but damm, I swear these idiots were out in mass.

SHOPPING WITH KIDS

It’s apparent that I don’t peep the malls much. We don’t have one here in Lawrence
(thank God)but Mom and I browsed the one in Topeka.
In addition to my astonishment with stupid shoppers, I was equally as astonished with the rudeness and belligerence of the children accompanying many of these parents.
Now I know children are generally more fucked up today, but DAMM!
I listened as one loudmouth teen basically verbally bitched slapped her mother, even at one point referring to her mom as “retarded” and “stupid.”
Another kid threw a toy at her mom, after her mother informed her that she would not be receiving that particular toy for Christmas.
Other kids either hitting (yes physical contact) or just flat out ignoring their moms was commonplace.
The one thing that stood out was that most of these were little girls.
What is in the water these days that causes little girls now to grow up and be such crazy little bitches.
Have I missed something?

WHAT CIVIL LIBERTIES?

As I mentioned in the other post liberals are bitching and moaning about how the Bush administration is striping the American citizens of civil liberties.
I keep thinking about this more and more because I honestly wonder are people truly concerned about this issue because they are concerned about society at large or is it just bullshit talk?
I think back to when my kids were little, hell I regularly phone tapped their conversations and paid close attention to visitors and on certain circumstances would search through possessions.
I have always believed that kids don’t have rights, fuck em. My house was a dictatorship and rightly so. My belief was the better your grades were in school, the more freedom I would give you. Hence my oldest daughter was given far greater leeway that my two younger children.
But I use to always say to them, why would you care if you don’t have shit to hide?
All of these pretend civil liberty advocates bitching about the perceived loss of freedoms makes me wonder. What do YOU have to hide?
Typical liberal hypocrisy on this issue.
Remember when Robert Bork was eyeing the Supreme Court, liberals went through his video and library rentals to dig up dirt on him.
Liberals had no problem with going through Clarence Thomas’s trash to dig up dirt on him.
Thanks to Charles Schummer (New York - D) Michael Steel’s credit report circulated through blogsphere. You just know all niggas credit is fucked up.
Liberals wanted to peep into the medical 411 of Rush Limbaugh to discredit him. I wonder why?
You people need to get over yourselves and your grandstanding on this issue.
I posted about a website where individuals trap perverts into having conversations with them.
Some of these sick fucks would argue that this activity somehow violates some form civil liberties.
These perverts are actually trying to get laws changed to make it easier for them to molest children. Is monitoring these bastards some violation of civil liberties?

When Clinton monitored the projects for suspected drug and gang activities, where the fuck were you liberals then? It was ok, to have niggas peeped on by the President, but Bush can’t peep in on Terrorists who want to attack this country. I feel ya!

Some of you people monitor and eavesdrop on your neighbors, girlfriends, boyfriends, husbands, wives, children. Employers monitor e-mails of employees and prohibit inner office relationships, is this a violation of civil liberties.
You can buy a scanner that monitors individuals phone calls. How many of you have engaged in such activity?

Bottom line if you not planing on blowing up a building, or running a fucken plane into a building Bush does not give a fuck about what you do.
So go back to monitoring your girlfriends e-mails. After you find out who the mystery man is, then give my your rant on Bush’s violation of civil liberties.

WHITE'S ONLY COMMENTS SECTION!!

2005-12-22T03:00:00.001-06:00

12/25/05 UPDATE

When Snoop is bored I troll some of the extremists blogs and I find some of the most ridiculous shit white people comment about.
I tried to comment on these blogs but to no avail. I got outed by one redneck racist site. They don’t let Niggers comment, imagine that!
Since I can’t make fun of them on their sites I will post regular stupid shit they say here on the Zone.
You want to know why there is racism and why it will NEVER go away, because these bastards breed. This country is diseased with intellectual ignorance and stupidity.
These bastards lay quiet and dormant. Hence the careful screening on their blogs.
They jack off to each other’s utter stupidity.
But, keep in mind. These people are everywhere, our neighbors, friends, co-workers, church buddies.
Racism is rarely open, blatant, obvious.
Racism and racists attitudes don’t just slap you in the face where you can say: THERE IT IS! The comments are funny in some respect and alarming at the same time.
Snoop likes to have some fun at “whitey’s”” expense.
----------

jn6
Re: The Retardation of Black Africa
Quote:Originally Posted by Trivialator
Yes because it's the main reason why blacks want to leave Africa and risk their lives just to get here. Do you think it's because they like the scenery or something?

Yes! Seriously, they come here because America is so much better. Better technology, better legal system, better politics, you name, we got it and it's better. Even our women are better. They know that, and they want that.They can't have that in Africa because while they may have been around a lot longer than some other races, they know nothing about how to build a country. America was built generation after generation after generation. In the time that America was created, 1700's to today, what happened in Africa? And the same with native Americans. Maybe they were happy living like they were. That's fine. Go grab a tipi and eat some fried rat, I don't care. Maybe the negro tribes had knowledge that we didn't. Maybe Who knows? Who cares???? I sure don't. Nor do I "have to". Maybe in another star system the negroes were a superior race. Personally I don't see how, but I do know they aren't now. They may have had the knowledge. But if you don't use it, you lose it. And they ain't using it now nor were they then. And right now it's the White Race that pushed into outer space. It's the White Race that pushed nuclear power into existance. Where are these super-brain negroes at? They're living in grass huts eating insects. And that's just fine. Let them.There are clearly very intelligent negroes. I won't discount that. Just like there are from nearly every race on Earth. But those are rare. If they want to build a space shuttle and put it into orbit, be my guest. But do it in Africa. Or Asia. Or wherever their tribe is from. I just want them to GO HOME!!!!

White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

By: 357magnum
Hmm that's a tough one.

I guess that I do see whites as superior to other races in alot of ways. But, I mean, at the same time I don't really wish any harm on other races in general. I just want whites to shed the self hating inferiority type mentality that many of us seem to have these days. Revival of the culture. Revival of our pride. We sure do have alot to be proud of. More than any other race.
This doesn't mean of course that I don't wish death upon blacks who rape white women or rob and attack white people. And it doesn't mean that I don't wish we could ship all these Zionist jews who have infiltrated our government to Israel. I just mean in general. Let them live how they want to live and let them have all the racial pride in the world if they want to. But not at my house. White folks rule over here.

By: Franz Mageson
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

Being brutally honest about the reality of nature, equal does not exist no two people are equal, let alone Races. The non-White Races when compared to the White Race are marked by there own example as being inferior, with the black Race being the bottom feeders of the Racial totem pole.
Nature has declared that there most be a superior and inferior, a top and bottom. Culture seems to be the new code word for Race. Without the Race that built the Culture, Culture means nothing. We must work to de P.C ourselfs totally in all areas.

By Molitor
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I bitterly object to the Jew program of integrating Negros and Whites. Turn on the TV, all you see anymore is Blacks with Whites, as if drilling it home to the subconscious. Grinning Mullato faces. Makes me very angry.
Blacks didn't invent anything in Africa in 4,000 years, not even the wheel. They are still primitive, and when confronted with White culture and society, they resist and revert back to their primitive savage ways, as evidenced in South Africa today or New Orleans. They learn the White man's magic, but a spade is a spade is a spade.
You could say I am a White preservationist.

From: abig_WASP!
Re: White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I am under the idea that the term 'White Supremact' means those who adhere to the idea that Whites should rule over non-whites, which I am completly not interested in. Let them rule themselves and let them fail. At the same time there is no denying that White culture is higher than that of other races. Even people like Michael Savage (radio personality) admits that, and he is a Libertairian racial jew.
So 'yes' I believe the White race is superior, I have no interest in Whites ruling non-whites, and at the same time, I am proud of my people and culture. So all of the above with a tiny exception.
The white race always was and always will be the master race! Don’t let the Jews influence you else wise. I would love to own a plantation. We already support most minorities with taxes, might as well get some work out of them.
I can still taste the mint juleps from earlier years.

From: aprilness
White Pride or supremacy, which are you?

I assure you 'the jews' are not influencing my not wanting to rule over non-whites. We can do our own work and send the non-whites back to their own lands. Not only do I not want them working for me, I don't want to see them or live anywhere near them.
Plantations are nice, I would hire hard working Whites. Non-whites don't deserve to be anywhere near my land. Having non-whites around causes lots of problems. Namely keeping them from mating with Whites. As you should already know, 90% of Africans living in America have some amount of White genetics in them. I wonder what caused that?
Whites who want to own Negros or any other race need to move to that country and keep these non-whites out of mine.

As we celebrate this joyous holiday season....... PEACE AND GOODWILL TO ALL MEN..........LOL!

How to Stay Out of Power

2005-12-09T21:01:00.000-06:00

Why liberal democrats are playing too fast and too loose with issues of war and peace
By Joe Kline

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democrat, engaged in a small but cheesy bit of deception last week. She released a letter, which quickly found its way to the front page of the New York Times, that she had written on Oct. 11, 2001, to then National Security Agency director General Michael V. Hayden. In it she expressed concern that Hayden, who had briefed the House Intelligence Committee about the steps he was taking to track down al-Qaeda terrorists after the 9/11 attacks, was not acting with "specific presidential authorization." Hayden wrote her back that he was acting under the powers granted to his agency in a 1981 Executive Order. In fact, a 2002 investigation by the Joint Intelligence Committees concluded that the NSA was not doing as much as it could have been doing under the law—and that the entire U.S. intelligence community operated in a hypercautious defensive crouch. "Hayden was taking reasonable steps," a former committee member told me. "Our biggest concern was what more he could be doing."

The Bush Administration had similar concerns. In the days after 9/11, it asked Hayden to push the edge of existing technology and come up with the best possible program to track the terrorists. The result was the now infamous NSA data-mining operation, which began months later, in early 2002. Vast amounts of phone and computer communications by al-Qaeda suspects overseas, including some messages to people in the U.S., could now be scooped up and quickly analyzed.

The release of Pelosi's letter last week and the subsequent Times story ("Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show") left the misleading impression that a) Hayden had launched the controversial data-mining operation on his own, and b) Pelosi had protested it. But clearly the program didn't exist when Pelosi wrote the letter. When I asked the Congresswoman about this, she said, "Some in the government have accused me of confusing apples and oranges. My response is, it's all fruit."

A dodgy response at best, but one invested with a larger truth. For too many liberals, all secret intelligence activities are "fruit," and bitter fruit at that. The government is presumed guilty of illegal electronic eavesdropping until proven innocent. This sort of civil-liberties fetishism is a hangover from the Vietnam era, when the Nixon Administration wildly exceeded all bounds of legality—spying on antiwar protesters and civil rights leaders.
Henry Kissinger even wiretapped his own aides. But the "all fruit" assumption doesn't take into account the strict constraints placed on the intelligence community after the Nixon debacle, or the lethally elusive nature of the current terrorist threat. The liberal reaction is also an understandable consequence of the Bush Administration's tendency to play fast and loose on issues of war and peace—rushing to war after overhyping the intelligence on Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program, appearing to tolerate torture, keeping secret prisons in foreign countries and denying prisoners basic rights. At the very least, the Administration should have acted, with alacrity, to update the federal intelligence laws to include the powerful new technologies developed by the NSA.

But these concerns pale before the importance of the program. It would have been a scandal if the NSA had not been using these tools to track down the bad guys. There is evidence that the information harvested helped foil several plots and disrupt al-Qaeda operations.
There is also evidence, according to U.S. intelligence officials, that since the New York Times broke the story, the terrorists have modified their behavior, hampering our efforts to keep track of them—but also, on the plus side, hampering their ability to communicate with one another.
Pelosi made clear to me that she considered Hayden, now Deputy Director of National Intelligence, an honorable man who would not overstep his bounds. "I trust him," she said. "I haven't accused him of anything. I was, and remain, concerned that he has the proper authority to do what he is doing." A legitimate concern, but the Democrats are on thin ice here. Some of the wilder donkeys talked about a possible Bush impeachment after the NSA program was revealed.

The latest version of the absolutely necessary Patriot Act, which updates the laws regulating the war on terrorism and contains civil-liberties improvements over the first edition, was nearly killed by a stampede of Senate Democrats. Most polls indicate that a strong majority of Americans favor the act, and I suspect that a strong majority would favor the NSA program as well, if its details were declassified and made known.
In fact, liberal Democrats are about as far from the American mainstream on these issues as Republicans were when they invaded the privacy of Terri Schiavo's family in the right-to-die case last year.

But there is a difference. National security is a far more important issue, and until the Democrats make clear that they will err on the side of aggressiveness in the war against al-Qaeda, they will probably not regain the majority in Congress or the country.

Howard Dean in Abramoff Cash Fib

2005-12-09T20:01:00.000-06:00

WELCOME BACK TO THE ZONE YOU IDIOT BASTARD!

Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean denied on Sunday that any Democrats had taken money from lobbyist Jack Abramoff, even though several top Dems - including Sen. Hillary Clinton - have already announced they were giving their tainted Abramoff cash to charity.
That little detail didn't faze Dean, however - who insisted with a straight face to CNN's Wolf Blitzer:
"There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat." Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican.
Dean continued: "This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true."
Last week, Sen. Clinton's office announced that she would be donating $2,000 of her Abramoff jackpot to charity. The Republican National Committee says she took a total of $12,900 in Abramoff-linked cash.
Other Democrats who have pledged to return tainted donations include Sens. Tim Johnson and Barbara Mikulski - as well as leading House Democrat Charles Rangel.

LETS TRY THIS AGAIN......

If you liberal Democrats want to play the semantics game here go ahead.
This is just a further example of the Democrats grasping at ANYTHING to make their case.
When the news broke a few days ago you liberals were quick to say SEE THOSE GREEDY REPUBLICANS, then after it came out that Democrats took money as well, you called it Republican spin, NOW, fuckhead Dean makes a statement on CNN trying to deny it all together now the blog troops go out and try to sell his statement to the ignorant masses. GET A FUCKEN CLUE PEOPLE!

Democrats Also Got Tribal Donations
Abramoff Issue's Fallout May Extend Beyond the GOP
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Derek WillisWashington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 3, 2005
But Abramoff didn't work just with Republicans. He oversaw a team of two dozen lobbyists at the law firm Greenberg Traurig that included many Democrats. Moreover, the campaign contributions that Abramoff directed from the tribes went to Democratic as well as Republican legislators.
Graphic
Bipartisan Spread Many of the top beneficiaries of the campaign contributions that Jack Abramoff and his team of lobbyists directed from Indian tribes were Democratic legislators.

------------------------------------------------
Abramoff, Indian-Tribe Money Reached Deep Inside U.S. Congress - May 19 2005

Dorgan returns Abramoff money - December 14, 2005

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., received more than $55,000 in contributions from Indian tribes represented by Jack Abramoff and a colleague of the controversial lobbyist, campaign disclosure reports show.

-----------------------------
Reid, other Democrats also feed at Abramoff hog trough
by steverino
Thu Nov 17, 2005 at 01:37:40 PM PDT
DAILY KOS ENTRY
"Update: Please, let’s not have anybody try to defend Reid (and Ensign) on grounds that they were defending Nevada gaming. A number of California Indian tribes, much closer to Las Vegas and Reno than Louisiana is, already have casino gambling. I can accept that excuse for Breaux and Landrieu defending local gambling, but not for Reid (or Ensign). And, again, $66,000 isn't exactly pocket money.Now, more Republicans than Democrats, especially higher up the leadership ranks, participated in this. But, with Reid himself signing off, it's a lot harder for Democrats to raise this as a partisan issue. That means it's much less likely that, outside any trials, Congress will take any official further looks at it."

------------------------
but them you have this.......

What was that about Abramoff giving money to Democrats? by John in DC - 1/04/2006 01:15:00 AM
Here is the list of who Abramoff gave money to, per Michael Petrelis' research:
$172,933 - Republican$88,985 - special interesttotal: $261,918That's 229 donations and not a DIME to Democrats.The list of donations is long, but it makes a great visual, so I'm posting it anyway. Next time you hear someone say that this is a bipartisan scandal, whip out this list and laugh.

FROM AMERICABLOG

I'M GONNA ASK AGAIN.....ARE YOU LIBERALS HIGH ON CRACK OR JUST DRUNK?

Clinton Knew Iran Was Working on Nukes

2005-12-07T09:05:00.000-06:00

TRANSCRIPT: Rush Limbaugh Show

The Risen book, the excerpts in the Risen book. What's the name of this book, the idiot book? I can't remember. "State of War," is the name of the book. This is a guy that wrote the New York Times piece December 16th, got all this hullabaloo going, and here's the story, and the story misses about 30% of the import of this, I think. (Story) "The CIA, using a double-agent Russian scientist, may have handed a blueprint for a nuclear bomb to Iran, according to a new book which has ruffled the US national security establishment. 'State of War' by James Risen, the New York Times reporter who exposed..."

I'm sorry, the New York Times advocate and arbiter "who exposed the Bush administration's controversial domestic spying operation, claims the plans contained fatal flaws designed to derail Tehran's nuclear drive. But the deliberate errors were so rudimentary they would have been easily fixed by sophisticated Russian nuclear scientists, the book said. The operation, which took place during the Clinton administration in early 2000, was code-named Operation Merlin and 'may have been one of the most reckless operations in the modern history of the CIA,' according to Risen." Now, when you read that, "Wow!" You focus on Clinton, and you focus on the fact that the CIA was trying -- and this is, by the way, from what I understand, pretty common. If you know people around us and they need to steal technology, or they need to get it through counterespionage, and you know they're trying to get it, give it to them. Just give them a bunch of garbage and give a bunch of garbage that won't work once they put it together.

Now, Risen thinks that the important thing about this is that the CIA botched something real badly and that the CIA didn't take into account that the Russians would be able to notice the errors in the leaked instructions, talking about a firing set here. What they did, the plan, "called for the unnamed scientist, a defector from the Soviet nuclear program, to offer Iran the blueprint for a 'firing set' -- the intricate mechanism which triggers the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion. According to Risen's book, the agent, posing as a greedy Russian scientist keen to steel secrets, delivered to plans as instructed by the CIA to Iran's mission to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. He had been told by CIA officers that the Iranians already had the technology detailed in the plans -- and that the ruse was simply an attempt by the agency to find out the full scope of Tehran's nuclear knowledge.

"But, contrary to orders not to open the packet, [the double agent] added a note which made it clear he could help fix the flaws -- for money. The CIA declined to comment in detail on the book's claims on Iran -- but issued a vigorous condemnation of Risen's work and methods. Jennifer Millerwise, CIA Director of Public Affairs, said, 'Readers deserve to know that every chapter of State of War contains serious inaccuracies. The author's reliance on anonymous sources begs the reader to trust that these are knowledgeable people. As this book demonstrates, anonymous sources are often unreliable." All right. Now, this happened in 2000. That's six years ago. Okay, so this is the first thing that jumped out at me. If the CIA has put together this secret plan called codename Operation Merlin, and its purpose was to foul up the Iranian's attempt to successfully build firing sets that trigger the nuclear explosion, the chain reaction needed for a nuclear explosion, what is the first thing you conclude from that?

They were working on a nuclear bomb as far back as 2000! The Iranians were working on a nuclear bomb as far back as 2000, because if they weren't, if they weren't working on a nuclear bomb, then why would you need this operation? Why would you need Operation Merlin? The second thing that sort of stands out at me is, if you read more of the story, the excerpt, you find out the Russians were the ones helping the Iranians. So you have to know that this plan was kind of screwy because you have to figure that the Russians are going to figure out they've got a bad set of instructions here, whether you got this bogus agent or not. The whole plan seems kind of... It just doesn't seem to be all that well thought out. This plan seemed easy -- easy to figure out on the part of the Iranians and the Russians. The Russians are helping the Iranians. Forget the double agent here. That's not even important.

You had a greedy double agent who offered to sell to the Iranians the corrections to the mistakes the CIA was trying to get him to feed to the Iranians, but you don't even need that -- the Iranians don't -- because they're working with the Russians already, and the double agent is a recalcitrant, fed-up, teed-off Russian nuclear scientist. So they're already working with people who can spot the error. That's the incompetence. Whoever put this program together at the CIA didn't stop to think about it. Now, there's a third question. There's a third question, and that is was this a rogue operation or did Clinton know about it? And the reason I ask that question is this: If they had taken this to Clinton, would Clinton have authorized it? I don't get the impression Clinton cared a whit about this kind of stuff. He didn't want to tackle big issues. He hadn't tackled terrorism. He hadn't tackled anything that was big. He didn't want to upset his approval numbers.

These are things that we don't know, but I'm guessing here that the CIA learned six years ago Iran's working on a nuclear bomb, that's the big deal out of this. So if you want to take the big news out of this, it's that: Iran's been working on this for a long time. Some people don't believe that to this day, and the reason that's important, you've got that (sigh) hack ElBaradei at the UN running around saying they're only months way. You have the European Union negotiating and trying to use diplomacy to get this insane lunatic that runs Iran to give up the program or to stall it. He's saying, "Hell, no! We're going to go ahead with this plan, and who do you think you are? We want to become one of the nuclear club, and we're getting close and close and close." Now, in the current climate with the CIA having botched weapons of mass destruction along with everybody else's intelligence prewar -- and we're still not sure that they botched it. We know that Saddam had it, but let's just take the current template, the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is the CIA blew it on weapons of mass destruction. They blew it on prewar intel. Everything they knew was wrong. They didn't get anything right. They haven't been able to do a decent job on anything in the last 25 years, blah, blah, blah, blah.

Okay, now, here's ElBaradei out there saying, "Well, we're six, seven months away from the Iranians having a nuclear weapon." There was a story yesterday: Iran's already figured out how to separate uranium from the ore and get yellow cake, and that means they didn't have to send Joe Wilson to Niger to try to buy some. I mean, it's already taken care of. The CIA comes out and says all that stuff now, is anybody going to believe 'em? If the Bush administration came out and said, "We've got a big problem in Iran. They're this close to a nuclear weapon. We've got to do something about it," you know what the catcalls in this country would be from the American left or from the Democratic Party? "There goes Bush again, lying to get the American people all ginned up in fear so we can get another war going in Iran so we can go beat up some more Muslims," and so forth. Nobody would believe it. That's what the important part of this story is to me is. Risen doesn't even get this. This is something he didn't even get. This guy is not even smart enough to know what he's learned in his own reporting. This guy doesn't figure it out. He's off on some tangent about how the CIA blew their program. The fact is, Risen, this is a tantamount admission or evidence that Iran has been working on a nuclear plant at least for six years -- and I don't think that's insignificant in the context of the Middle East or in the context of the world.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: In the break I've been pointed to a column on this very subject that I opened the program with by Michael Ledeen at National Review Online. He was friends with James Jesus Angleton. James Jesus Angleton is the greatest counterintelligence agent Langley has ever had. Bill Buckley has written a book about him, and as Ledeen writes his piece he gets out the Ouija board and contacts Angleton up in heaven to get the input of what's going on, and I missed something in this when I speculated the CIA might have done this because Clinton didn't know, apparently. Let me just read to you from Ledeen's column. (interruption) No, no, no, no. They did make the case. They did (interruption). Well, one more thing. "Well, maybe the CIA had a political problem. They certainly knew that Clinton wasn't going to do anything about it, so why should they make the case? Just go ahead and implement the program," and Angleton said, "No, no, no, no, no. They did make the case."

That's Risen's real scoop and he doesn't even know it. They had to make the case to Clinton in order to justify the operation. You couldn't have Merlin unless you knew there was an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Remember that Risen makes a big deal about the fact that the Russian defector was carrying a technical design for a firing set for a Russian-designed nuclear weapon, and now Operation Merlin was to use a double agent to give a false set of instructions on assembling the firing set. We give the false instructions, but the point is that the program was silly because the Russians were working with the Iranians and could spot the error and could spot the subterfuge and could spot our effort, so what we were trying to do in a clandestine way was not clandestine at all. It was spotted immediately, and the end result is, is that the Iranians were able to put together the firing set necessary to trigger the reaction to cause a nuclear explosion.

Then you might say, "Okay, so Clinton ends up giving the Iranians the bomb." That may be a bit of a stretch, but it certainly is worth considering. But still to me, the really fascinating thing about this is that the Clinton administration knew, and now I'm convinced had to sign off on this CIA operation to try to sting the Iranians into building a device that didn't work. So they knew that they were building nuclear weapons or had their eyes on it -- and the way we went about it was absolutely foolhardy. It was destined to be found out. The plan was idiotic. It had no chance of success, and in the process, the Iranians figured out the correct set, firing-set instructions, and it moved them even closer to the day that we're even closer to now, than we were back in the year 2000.

So I wanted to pass this on because I haven't seen excerpts of Risen's book, at least these two stories anywhere but in the Guardian and in the Times of India, folks, great mainstream organizations that they are, and I wanted to pass this on to you. Anybody in the next two or three months, four or five months or whatever, somebody says, "You know, we got a problem in Iran. They're developing nukes," and you're going to hear a chorus of catcalls from the left and Democrats in this country: More Bush lies. More Washington lies! Bush trying to change the subject. Bush trying to get the bad news of whatever they're going to call bad news off the front pages and get people focused on nukes again. Remember, Bush lied and Cheney lied about Saddam and nukes. So when that happens, and it's going to happen, you just remember that we've got evidence now from the Clinton administration and the CIA program that the Iranians having working on a nuclear weapon for at least six years, if not more.

END TRANSCRIPT

Snoopitorial: Ignorant or Stupid, pick one.

2005-12-06T08:26:00.000-06:00

U know I have said it many times and I will continue to say it every time Howard Dean opens his mouth. I am so happy he is the DNC chair. (story above) Every time he opens his mouth means the chances are less likely a Liberal Democrat will win the White House. First John Kerry says this on Face the Nation: JOHN KERRY: “I think what we need to do is recognize what we all agree on, which is, you've got to begin to set benchmarks for accomplishment; you've got to begin to transfer authority to the Iraqis, and there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the -- of -- of -- of -- historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not. Iraqis should be doing that.

The man who lied about American soldiers in Vietnam is making this jackass statement.

U know I don’t know how many liberals read my blog. But the more I read what you liberals say on your blogs, and the more I read and hear what people like Dean and Kerry say I truly don’t can’t grasp the utter lack of BASIC logic and common sense from liberals.
If you are of college age you may have some excuse for general ignorance, but anybody 30 years of age or older MUST know better.

Below are from Rush’s site but anybody who seeks the truth can easily find these.
Either you people are willfully closing your eyes to the truth just to put your types in power or you are just plain stupid.

I’ll say again the reason why I don’t like nor trust liberal politicians is because in order to win an election they MUST hide their true beliefs. They MUST deceive the voting public.
So here are the quotes again: I know you liberals have seen them, hundreds of times. I know that you “choose” to ignore them because these are your heros and mentors, and you can’t stand the thought of your heros being a bunch of lying fucks who are anti-America and who are people willing to sacrifice and undermine the well being of this nation and our troops for political gain. Throw out your Neo-Con labels and right wing nut phrases. But I thank GOD, (yes you atheist morons, GOD ALMIGHTY), I’m not a liberal Democrat.
------------
October 9th, 1999 Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

Chuck Schumer > October 10, 2002
"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

Nancy Pelosi > December 16, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998
"He'll use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has 10 times since 1983."

Senator Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

2005-11-21T11:00:00.000-06:00

_____________________________

Are Poor Whites Trashed?

2005-11-18T13:32:00.000-06:00

Mainstream America rejects its 'rejects'
By Bud Johnson
African-American News and Issues

A 1996 UC-Berkeley/Harvard study found that poor whites, motivated by racial pride and hostility toward other ethnic groups, are less likely to take advantage than their minority counterparts. Similarly lack of education has presented with a myriad of problems from unfulfilled special educational needs to long bus rides from coming from poor families with undereducated parents. But, maybe the greatest insult of them all has been the stereotyping of poor whites and southern whites in general as ‘white trash,’ ‘brier hoppers,’ ‘red necks,’ ‘lint heads’ and ‘hillbillies’ with bad genes, bad English, lazy, stupid—not to mention bad teeth.
“The life of poor whites is so powerfully depicted in our culture; you only have to read John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, or Erskine Caldwell's Tobacco Road, Jacquelyn Jones' The Dispossessed, and even TV reruns of the Beverly Hillbillies.”
Trailer Park Trash notwithstanding, the preceding text is the primary reason poor Made-in-America Europeans harbor such hatred for Made-in-America Africans, according to (Auburn University Professor and Historian,) Dr. J. Wayne Flynt, a long time crusader for poor White Americans. But, that’s not true. Yet, far too many struggling Blacks, indigenous to impoverished, crime and drug infested urban jungles in the land of the free also buy into that over simplification. Truth is, poor Blacks and White America’s rejects have historically been forced to coexist in underserved ‘hoods.
Our premise is validated by Ann Laura Stoler, who notes in her book Race and the Education of Desire, “The ‘race’ of the rising English industrial class pertained not to their color or physiognomy but to their bourgeois class status, mores, and manners. Accordingly, racial superiority, and thus the right to rule, came to be equated with middle-class respectability.
“The poor, by definition, could never belong to this new bourgeois race. With a swelling slave population, the masters faced the prospect of white freedmen, with disappointed hopes, joining forces with slaves of desperate hope to mount ever more virulent rebellions. The elites’ race strategy decreased the probability of such class rebellions. The problem of how to redirect the ‘rabble’ so that they would not bond with slaves was resolved through the sinister design of racialization. The answer to the problem, obvious if unspoken and only gradually recognized, was racism, to separate dangerous free whites from dangerous slave blacks by a screen of racial contempt. Racial contempt would function as a wall between poor whites and blacks, protecting masters and their slave-produced wealthy from both lower-class whites and slaves.”

Stoler based her premise on research of social historian Edmund Morgan, who documented: “Some of the ‘alien,’ bedraggled and penniless Englishmen and women were shipped to Virginia, and when their masters began to place people of another color in the fields beside them, the unfamiliar appearance of the newcomers may well have struck them as only skin deep. There are hints that the two despised groups initially saw each other as sharing the same predicament. It was common, for example, for servants and slaves to run away together, steal hogs together, and get drunk together. It was not uncommon for them to make love together.”
What happen? One only has to understand the power of the media to answer that question. Affirmative action aside, Black America has always shown more drive than poor White Americans.
Early on, White America romanticized their illiterate “Country Kinfolks,” but began to reject their social rejects after the Civil Rights Bill initiated Black’s phenomenon progress and forced a change of strategy. The mainstream media stopped lauding the “First Black” (glorifying the America dream), and focused on our losers instead.
That strategy is still working, according to Ebony’s December 1992 report: “Despite prevailing stereotype, Whites, not Blacks, collect greatest share of public aid dollars. SAY the word ‘welfare’ and immediately the image of the lazy Black welfare queen who breeds for profit surfaces in the minds of those who have come to believe the hideous stereotype. It is a myth that persists despite government figures and authoritative studies showing that Whites overwhelmingly reap the lion's share of the dole.”

Cutting to the chase, believe it or not, more Whites live in poverty than Blacks. The 2000 Census Bureau reported that, “In spite of Whites median net worth being $81,700 (compared to Black’s $10,000), 21,922,000 Whites live in poverty compared to 8,360,000 Blacks.”
History repeats aside, Stoler’s book concluded, “Clearly, the poor white masses, like the black slaves, were also racial victims of the upper class. The two exploited, racialized groups differed, however, in their degree of self-awareness. Virtually all slaves knew they were victims of white racism, while very few whites knew that they were, too.”
Prophetically, that’s exactly what time it is in 2005 America’s “Land of the Free.”

Hey whitey, U can’t use that word!!

2005-11-18T03:00:00.000-06:00

SINCE FOLK KEEP ASKIN AND NEW PEEOPLE PEEP HERE I THOUGHT I WOULD RECYCLE...

I Snoop use this particular term, well.....because I can. If it was good enough for the history books back in the day why not here on The Zone.

The term Blacks is often used in the West to denote race for persons whose progenitors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa. The anthropological term for these peoples, now considered somewhat archaic, is Negroid. "Blacks" also may be used more broadly to refer to members of other dark-skinned groups, such as Africans, Australians, New Guineans, Tamils, South Indians, Sri Lankas, Pakistanis, and others.
In many countries, there is still a strong (though weakening) social stigma against those persons identifying themselves as part of more than one perceived racial category. Hence, it may be truer to say that people who perceive themselves or are perceived by others as a member of a black cultural group often are called "black."
The term Negro (from negro, Spanish and Portuguese for 'black') was widely used
until the 1960s, and remains a constituent part of the names of several African American organizations. Another term given currency at the time was coloured. However, following the Black Power movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the terms Negro and coloured usually were deemed derogatory and inappropriate. By contrast, "black" has gained increasing acceptance worldwide. In the United States often is used interchangeably with an even newer, more politically correct name African American.
In English-speaking North America and some parts of Europe, mixed-race people with some African ancestry are often referred to simply as being "black," with no distinction made between them and people fully of African descent. In other places, persons of mixed race and part African descent are not called "black" due to caste systems in their countries of origin. Some are called "white" because they have an especially light complexion or European-looking features. When such people are perceived as using their complexions to personal advantage by hiding or denying the African part of their heritage, it is often called "passing."

Big Lie Democrats

2005-11-17T06:02:00.000-06:00

Political Hay
By Brandon Crocker

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was "a slam dunk." Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq -- George W. Bush lied us into the war.

This has been the mantra of leading Democrats since the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, pulled his stunt to force the Senate into "closed session" as a "protest" over the supposed foot-dragging of Senate Republicans in the "Phase II" investigation looking into the matter. ("Phase I," which looked into allegations that the administration pressured the U.S. intelligence community to "cook" the intelligence to support the war, concluded, without a single Democrat dissent, that no such pressure took place). And now, to complete the farce, Senator John Kerry, during a press conference on November 14, proclaimed "the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history."

Senator Kerry, one might recall, built his political career on his status as a "war hero" in Vietnam, due to the fact that he amazingly, in four months time, was awarded three purple hearts (giving him a free ticket home), for wounds that, upon further scrutiny, appear, well, hyped. His most serious wound seems to have been unintentionally self-inflicted, and the first, of unknown origin, required treatment with a dab of Neosporin ointment. Upon returning home he made a name for himself by accusing U.S. soldiers of routinely committing atrocities, which he now admits he never actually saw, and which may not have been true. And then, of course, there is his famous story of his Christmas incursion into Cambodia, "seared" into his memory, strangely seared, since it, too, never happened. And during his presidential campaign he gave the distinct impression that he had met with "foreign leaders" who endorsed his candidacy, "negotiated treaties" while serving as a senator, and had been a much better college student than the idiot George W. Bush -- all of which turned out to be untrue.

Senator Kerry is, in fact, the Great Deceiver. So it is fitting that he has now taken up the Democratic crusade against George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to the Senate and to the American people on the basis of, well, let's be honest, next to no evidence, and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So far, the heart of the Democratic case seems to be one CIA document, declassified with great fanfare by Senator Carl Levin, which questions the credibility of one source regarding one issue (the training of al-Qaeda personnel in Iraq). But it is not clear that Bush was ever given this particular document, or that members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees did not have access to it. What is clear, however, is that the CIA had other sources that corroborated the story, and CIA chief George Tenet felt that the overall evidence supported the story, regardless of the credibility issues of one source. It is certainly ironic that this cherry-picked document, in the Democrats' eyes, qualifies as damning evidence that Bush "cherry picked" intelligence to "mislead" the country into war.

It is also fitting, and ironic, that the Democratic leadership, which has used language comparing the actions of U.S. military personnel with that of Nazis
(as in Senator Dick Durbin's infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, broadcast throughout the Middle East via al-Jazeera)

THE QUOTE:"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings."

he eventually felt compelled to apologize, now seems so adept at employing the propaganda strategy described by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as "the Big Lie." Unfortunately, this Big Lie has been working (with the "mainstream" news media reporting the Democrats' daily accusations, with barely a mention of inconvenient facts to the contrary), and a majority of Americans now say that they believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied about Saddam's WMD programs in order to push an "unnecessary war." But as any watcher of public opinion polls knows, these sentiments can change.

Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that "the primary rationale for the war" has been "discredited," whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this "rationale" for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs -- which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making "regime change" in Iraq official U.S. policy -- was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not?

The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so. It is what the Michael Mooron base of the party desires, and with the American public showing weariness of the war and of hearing the casualty figures reported daily in the media, the time is ripe, they calculate, to hammer Bush on the war. The only problem is, much of the Democratic leadership supported going to war. That dilemma is solved, in their mind, by pushing the argument that they were "misled" by Bush into doing so. This may turn out to be a bit uncomfortable for the Democrats' probable 2008 presidential candidate -- Hilary Clinton -- who is already on record as admitting that the intelligence used by the Bush administration was consistent with the intelligence assessments during the Bill Clinton presidency. But the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, it is the Democratic priority to discredit the U.S. Commander in Chief, in time of war, simply because he's a Republican.

History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush "lying us into war." And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership's current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can't continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats' smear campaign.

What Snoop knowS about Abortions. The Negro Side..

2005-11-14T12:26:00.000-06:00

SINCE JENNINGS THINKS OLE SNOOP IS IGNORANT ON THE ABORTION ISSUE I THOUGHT I WOULD THROW THIS POST OUT THERE.....

Snoop is well aware that Negros are conducting their own genocide.
I am well aware of the racist nature of abortions, something liberals refuse to address.
Liberals also refuse to study their history regarding the practice.
Lets review:
Abortion mostly targets poor people, Negros, and Hispanics. Anybody paying attention already knows that.
A research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood of America, indicated that those three demographic groups represent 57%, 36%, and 25% respectively of all abortions in the U.S. With blacks making up 12.7% of the U.S. population, that group has a disproportionately greater number of abortions when compared to other racial group categories in America.
Read about the founder of Planned Parenthood of America, Margaret Sanger
Sanger died in 1966, but she has a number of documented statements and positions on record pertaining to family, race, and population control.
In 1939 Sanger and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called ‘Birth Control and the Negro,' which asserted that ‘the poorer areas, particularly the South, are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.' Her ‘religion of birth control' would, she wrote, ‘ease the financial load of caring for, with public funds, children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.'"
In 1934 Sanger published her Code to Stop Overproduction of Children, in which she said that "no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child without a permit, no permit shall be valid for more than one child."
It is widely known that Sanger associated with followers of the Marxist, Vladimir Lenin, and with advocates of national socialism and eugenics. Again, refer to the post. The latter being "the science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race (by the control of human mating)" . Malthusian eugenics played a big part in Nazi Germany's promotion of ‘a master Aryan race.'
The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, author George Grant claims Sanger "was thoroughly convinced that ‘inferior races' were in fact ‘human weeds' and a ‘menace to civilization.'Sanger had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a ‘symptom of a malignant social disease' because it encouraged the influence of ‘defectives, delinquents, and dependents.'"
Leninists and eugenicists at the time viewed “religious” people with much disdain and consternation because they saw the church as a threat. basically because it was proven that when Negros turn from God, the Bible and the church, they find themselves frequently in abortion clinics.
Planned Parenthood of course disputes the "racist" accusations involving Sanger as false, stating that her quotes are taken out of context. Just do Google University research on her and see for yourself.
What are the facts:
Three out of five pregnant Negro women will abort their child.
An estimated 1,452 Negro children are killed each day by abortions.
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States, a number surpassed in less than three days by abortion.
Approximately one-third of all abortions are performed on Negro women.
With so much money at stake, it appears that the beneficiaries of the abortion industry go out of their way to defend individuals such as Margaret Sanger.

BECAUSE LIBERALS HAVE SELECTIVE MEMORY....

2005-11-14T04:36:00.000-06:00

Posted by Snoop (anonymous) on August 26, 2004 at 5:47 p.m. Yellow Dog, Lawrence.com

Yellow Dog states:
"at worst or 'culpable incompetence' at best apply to President Bush as well,"

Snoop: Well lets just hang ole President Hedge, Shrub, Bush.........
Now Your Honor, I would like to call to the stand....Presidential candidate Kerry....

Kerry Said Iraq's WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. "I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/15/02)

JOHN KERRY ON THREAT OF SADDAM: "It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. ... He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ... We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Kerry Said "It Would Be Irresponsible" To Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC'S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: "I know you said you're agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?" SEN. JOHN KERRY: "George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table." (ABC's "This Week," 6/15/03)

Man that Kerry dude sounds like an idiot..Imagine fooling two such smart men such as Blair and Kerry....
Lets sting em all up and start over.....

Some of you liberals are "Stuck on Stupid" STILL.
I still don’t get the contradictions, either Bush is a moron, stupid, dimwit OR he is a masterful diabolical, brilliant, masterful individual at manipulating ALL HUMAN BEINGS!
Hey Demokrats, libs which is it?

Abe Lincoln Just loved Dem black folk……

2005-11-13T11:28:00.000-06:00

Anybody who has read this blog for some time and anybody who knows me personally know that the one subject that will usually set me off is for someone to mention
Abe Lincoln.
Anytime I am in a setting, I hear someone speak so glowingly, and admiringly about Lincoln as if he was the second coming of Jesus H. Christ, I get a massive headache!
Hence the post below. I recycle almost anytime someone mentions his name just to relieve the headache.

Hence the following:

Abraham Lincoln "was a racist who opposed equal rights for black people, who loved minstrel shows, who used the N-word, who wanted to deport all blacks," a veteran journalist and historian says.

Where did this come from you say…… Well the other day at work a co-worker showed me an old picture of a black family during the civil war era and they were gathered around the fireplace and a picture of Ole Abe with two candles flanking it as they gazed lovingly at it.
I thought is this a fucken joke?
Even as a little kid I never understood why American history looked so favorable at Lincoln. In school I was hardly a good student. I got D’s in history constantly (except when dealing with current event or political stuff). But even as the only black in many of my classes and hearing the history teachers speak so eloquently about ole Abe I was thinking myself that fucker Abe did not give a rats ass about Slaves or Blacks. But nobody even today seems to want to acknowledge that.
Below is some stuff you won’t see in history books nor come out of the mouth of historical scholars.

*Lincoln publicly referred to blacks by the most offensive racial slur. In one speech, Lincoln said he opposed the expansion of slavery into the territories because he didn't want the West "to become an asylum for slavery and niggers."

* Lincoln was, in the words of one friend, "especially fond of Negro minstrel shows," attending blackface performances in Chicago and Washington. At an 1860 performance of Rumsey and Newcomb's Minstrels, Lincoln "clapped his great hands, demanding an encore, louder than anyone" when the minstrels performed "Dixie." Lincoln was also fond of what he called "darky" jokes, Mr. Bennett documents.

* Lincoln envisioned and advocated an all-white West, declaring at Alton, Ill., in 1858, that he was "in favor of our new territories being in such a condition that white men may find a home ... as an outlet for free white people everywhere, the world over."

* Lincoln supported his home state's law, passed in 1853, forbidding blacks to move to Illinois. The Illinois state constitution, adopted in 1848, called for laws to "effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this state."

* Lincoln blamed blacks for the Civil War, telling them, "But for your race among us there could not be a war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way or another."

* Lincoln claimed that "the people of Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that there is not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white."

* Repeatedly over the course of his career, Lincoln urged that American blacks be sent to Africa or elsewhere.

In 1854, Lincoln declared his "first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia; to their own native land." In 1860, Lincoln called for the "emancipation and deportation" of slaves.

In his State of the Union addresses as president, he twice called for the deportation of blacks. In 1865, in the last days of his life, Lincoln said of blacks, "I believe it would be better to export them all to some fertile country with a good climate, which they could have to themselves."

MORE ABOUT OLE ABE!

Lincoln said: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I ... am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."

Sounds like a fucken white supremacist!

He also said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.."

His intentions of fighting the South did NOT lie with abolishing slavery, but to save the Union. Even though Lincoln died in April of 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment which abolished slavery was not instituted until eight months later, nearly three years from his "slave freeing" Emancipation Proclamation.

Another Lincoln quote was, "Your race suffers greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should be separated." - quoted from John Hope Franklin's book, "From Slavery to Freedom"

So Lincoln had little experience with black people. There was terrible problems of slave unrest and white violence in older states like South Carolina and Virginia where slaves had been bought and sold for generations. In Illinois the problem was ignorance and prejudice. Along with his neighbors, Lincoln believed that Negroes were probably inferior to white people. He didn't believe they had the mental capacity to hold the same rights as white people like voting or serving on juries. As a result of his beliefs, he called grown adult black men 'boys', and told stories about "pickanninnies", "Sambos", "darkies", and "niggers".

It wasn't until he was 19 that he traveled out of Illinois and experienced slavery markets in other states. On his trip he and his partner were attacked by seven negroes and had to fight them off. It wasn't until he was 28 that he finally spoke out publically against slave markets. However, on another one of his trips out of the state, he saw "12 negroes' chained together, who were enjoying themselves, joking amongst themselves and having a good time. He commented later that they were the happiest creatures on board the ship and it was a blessing that God didn't give them the awareness of their plight. Most southerners believed that the slaves had a good life as 'they were a child race' as Jefferson Davis was quoted to have said.

Snoopitorial - Coats for Kids

2005-11-11T04:57:00.000-06:00

Ok I Snoop will undoubtedly piss off a bunch of folks with this Snoopitorial but, hey U know I don’t give a shit what you think.
Anywho, I’m driving to work and listening to the beginning of the Darla J morning radio show and she starts the show by running a guilt trip on people to get them to donate to the “Coats for Kids” program in Kansas City. She states how sad it is that some kids are waiting at their respective school bus stops without a coat and how sad that was.
Well silly ole Snoop the skeptic that I am is thinking what the fuck! If there is a kid out there, without a coat, this kid is either stupid or his or her parents want them to die. Now I don't have anything against D.J or her statement but c'mon folks lets use some common sense here for a moment.
There are literally thousands of programs like this throughout the country. Hundreds if not thousands of coats are distributed each year in communities throughout this country ever winter.
Have you stopped and asked just what the fuck happened to the coats from the previous year? While you are pondering that, think about how many communities have Salvation Army or Goodwill Stores with hundreds of coats for kids and adults for $2, $3, $4! Yes Snoop does on occasion peep these stores. Hell some of my best ties are from there. But I digress.
I do not have any problems with people wanting to reach out to those in “need”, but I have learned from experience that folks have a “need” to believe they are helping people when there is not real need.
This country is overrun with spoiled greedy ass people who believe that its your damm duty to help them.
I remember a program I started at a former employer where we gave out school supplies to kids at the beginning of the school year.
I remember how dumfounded I was when people who may have waited 10 or 15 minutes in line complained how long the wait was. Others complained that a certain type of pen was not included or complained about the color of the bags remaining.
I remember my boss, wanting so much to help these folks gong to the store to pick up more supplies and having one fat ass woman complaining about how long it took her to pick up additional items. THEN this bitch had the audacity to call her older daughter from her home to come and stand in line again to get another set of items.
We did a coats for kids program one year, even went to far as to have the coats cleaned and had the all hung and arraigned in the parking lot under a tent so you did not have to rummage through piles of coats.
Motherfuckers still complained that some of the coats were ugly, kids complained that certain “teams” were not available. YES, THAT'S RIGHT “TEAMS”! Apparently, the dumbass kids did not grasp the concept that the coats were “donated” and “free”.
The rudeness and ungratefulness of our society is astounding. However, the simple element is utter stupidity and greed are never factored in, while people like Darla J. tries to guilt people into participating in “giveaways” for the perceived needy.
The underclass in this country continually seeks to defraud the rest of society and suck every penny they can out of the rest of us.
Look at all of the scams executed after the hurricanes of this past season.
Here in Lawrence, the community raised I believe $16K to bring a family or two here forced out by Katrina. The families decided to relocate elsewhere. OK, so where is the fucken money!
Individuals in Florida are STILL defrauding the feds for disaster assistance in areas that (WERE NOT AFFECTED) by the hurricanes.
My angst to this conniving underbelly can be focused on one incident. While working at my former clinic, early on because of staff size and with our venture being new I had to fill in at several positions. One day while staffing the payment area, there was one patient who was behind on her Medicare co-pay payment, which was $2. YES $2 FUCKEN DOLLARS!
Anybody who has ever worked with medical payments knows even though its a small amount of money that co-payment MUST be collected. We tried to work with people who may be short on cash a time or two.
But this bitch, tried to run the (I don’t have any money on me today) line.
I looked at her payment history and she had no paid the last four times she visited the facility. I calmly explain to her the payment policy (Snoop being calm is a major task), she started to run a bunch of sob stories for a couple of minutes but then she (apparently forgetting she was trying to run a scam) pulled out a new package of cigarettes. THEN her little nappy-headed son brought back her change from the store across the street after purchasing a candy bar. Subsequently ole Snoop snapped.
I gave her a few choice words. She still tried to convince me that she was short on cash. I finally said fuck it (YES I SAID FUCK IT) pulled out 10 dollars and paid her past co-payments and told her get out, and that she would not be allowed back here unless she made the co-payment upon scheduling.
Note: our payment process was at the end of the visit, instead of the beginning like most medical offices.
Its this pervasive mentality that annoys the hell out of me and causes me to be more skeptical.

Anywho, the next time you see a kid without his or her COAT, ask them where it is.
Likely in a locker, under his bed or he lost it. If the little bastard freezes to death, calk it up to my favorite term “Gene Pool Eradication.”
If you still feel guilty then call child protective services!
I'll keep my coat in my closet thank you!

The Loveable Left

2005-11-10T15:28:00.000-06:00

The California Democrat claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union.
Unions are, in her words, "fighting for America's working families" and battling "the union-busting, family-hurting" Bush administration. But Schweizer has uncovered that the $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop!

But Pelosi's hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.
But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif.
The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, it is strictly a non-union shop.

The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.

But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food.

"As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis' commitment to organized labor ends at the front door." Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment.

"With us," she proclaims, "the environment is not an issue – it's an ethic. It's a value."

One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.
To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a "public course" providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.
But after the facility opened, the county's Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private – and the club had "ignored" many of its permit requirements concerning the environment.
What's more, the course was causing a drawdown in the freshwater aquifer, which could have serious implications for wildlife in the area. So much for worrying about the environment.

The Democrats' Manifesto of Lies

2005-11-10T07:02:00.000-06:00

David Limbaugh

The following is a non-exhaustive sampling of certain important precepts one must believe, pretend to believe, or advocate in order to be in the Democratic leadership fraternity, that bizarre cadre of partisan creatures dedicated to destroying President Bush personally as an alternative to devising a coherent, politically viable policy agenda:

Nazi and Communist propagandists were on to something in teaching that if you repeat a lie – even an outrageous one – often enough, people will begin to believe it.

This principle holds true even if you are guilty of precisely the same thing as those you accuse (talking up Saddam's WMDs) and your complicity is conclusively demonstrated on audiotape and videotape.

When your obvious duplicity in this affair is illuminated by reference to the uncontroverted fact that when you made similar claims about Saddam's WMDs you had access to the same intelligence as the administration, you simply say the president pressured the intelligence community to doctor the data.

When this specious assertion is contradicted by unequivocal findings of bipartisan investigative commissions, you simply demand, with righteous indignation, more investigations.

In the meantime, you also charge that President Bush cherry-picked certain intelligence and deliberately relied on other discredited intelligence in order to bolster his case for war against Iraq. And you do that knowing that it is you who are retrospectively cherry-picking the evidence and presenting it as irrefutable proof that Bush lied.

For example, you triumphantly cite a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document dated February 2002, stating it was probable that an al-Qaida informant had fabricated his claim that Iraq trained al-Qaida in the use of biological and chemical weapons. You smugly point out that since this DIA document predated, by months, public statements by President Bush and his team in which they referenced the "impeached" terrorist's claim in support of their assertion of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection, Bush had to have lied.

What neither you nor your New York Times enablers divulge is that the CIA manifestly didn't agree with the DIA's assessment. (According to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, CIA Director George Tenet, a year after the DIA report, testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that Iraq trained al-Qaida in document forgery, bomb making, poisons and gases.)

As another example, you figure that if you obfuscate artfully enough, the public will not realize that the infamous 16-word assertion in the president's State of the Union address that the Brits learned Saddam tried to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger is as true today as when he uttered it.

When confronted with the annoying detail that Bill Clinton likewise made bold assertions about Saddam's WMDs, you shrewdly calculate that this fact can actually be twisted in your favor. After all, though Clinton knew Saddam was hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, using them against us and distributing them to our terrorist enemies also to use against us, he chose – in his infinite wisdom – not to invade Iraq – apart from his cosmetic cruise missile volleys. And, since the Iraq War has proven to be such a delightful failure in your eyes, you declare that Clinton is vindicated for having chosen not to take out Saddam. Thus, those sour lemons are converted to lemonade.

Though you insist your foreign policy is guided both by humanitarian and national security interests, you are nevertheless unmoved by the remarkably positive developments that have occurred in Iraq as a result of our intervention. You essentially pooh-pooh our deposition of the murderous dictator Saddam and even moreso the Iraqi people's historic progress toward constitutional self-rule.

And, despite the terrorists' single-minded focus on preventing the democratization of Iraq, you still deny it's part of the War on Terror. The fact that we've sustained casualties apparently negates, in your mind, any good that has accrued, giving rise to the obvious question: Is any foreign policy cause worth dying for?

You also must conveniently ignore that, no matter what 20/20 hindsight may reveal after the fact, reasonable people agree that Saddam had WMDs, used them on his own people, had a legal obligation to prove he'd disposed of them and failed to meet that burden, choosing instead to submit a 12,000-page document of lies.

You must flagrantly disregard the inconvenient but undeniable fact that Saddam could have prevented an American attack if he'd complied with his treaties, cooperated with weapons inspectors and proven he'd disposed of his WMDs as required. By flipping us off instead, he invited the War.

You must also ignore that virtually all the world's intelligence agencies believed Saddam still had WMD stockpiles. Did Bush trick all of them, too?

You must steadfastly maintain that the Libby indictment directly taints Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and the entire administration, even though special prosecutor Fitzgerald did not issue any indictments on underlying crimes and explicitly denied that the indictment speaks to the propriety of the war.

Indeed, using liberal logic, you are utterly undeterred by the lack of indictments as you clamor for a presidential "housecleaning." Such a disingenuous, nonsensical strategy might just fool people into believing your false claims that the administration "outed" Valerie Plame to punish her "useful idiot" husband and advance your fantasy of criminalizing the war and, ultimately, impeaching President Bush.

Snoopitorial

2005-11-08T18:04:00.000-06:00

Crap I did not take my meds at bedtime and I am up early and in a really cranky mood.
When I’m cranky I process “stuff”, and one thing I have been processing is the ridiculous amount of times I have watched or read the news in recent weeks and had poll number shoved down my damm throat.

I’m not particularly annoyed at what the numbers display because I, apparently unlike the major
of Americans don’t weigh my politics based on poll numbers.
So, Snoop sits down and scans some of my favorite columnists from the Drudge list, I am too lazy right now to even re-edit the all caps but I almost always read the following folks, most conservatives, but I do peep some liberals but my daily reads generally are:
DAVE BARRY, BRENT BOZELL, DAVID BRODER, DAVID BROOKS, BILL BUCKLEY
MONA CHAREN, STANLEY CROUCH, LARRY ELDER, MOLLY IVINS, DAVID LIMBAUGH, RUSH LIMBAUGH, BILL O'REILLY, WES PRUDEN, ANNA QUINDLEN
WILLIAM RASPBERRY, JOE SOBRAN, THOMAS SOWELL, GEORGE WILL and
WALTER WILLIAMS.

Now I wish like hell I had the writing talent of these folks, Hell, I wish I had the writing talents of Misty, my guest bloggist below or El Borak. I’m certain these individuals would be able to better articulate my feelings. However, sometimes rants like this are better left to the grunts like myself because maybe members of the media and individuals will understand it better.

So anywho, this is a post specifically for the following: CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, FOX News, CBS news, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, George Steph, (sorry dude its too early) and any other talking head bullshit show or any other news organization I might have missed.
In plain spoken Engrish, (humor me folks)
I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR POLL NUMBERS REGARDING PRESIDENT BUSH!
Repeat it, feel your lips burn as you say it, cool huh?

Let me be real here for a moment. If you asked me, 1) Are you satisfied about the presidents overall job approval over the last month or so? My honest answer would be NO!
2) Am I satisfied with the presidents overall job performance over the past month or so? My honest answer would be NO!
3)Did I approve of the presidents choice of Harriet Miers to the Supreme court? My answer would be NO!
4) Do I approve of Alito as his choice to the Supreme court? My honest answer would be NO!

WHY you say, because I STRONGLY believe he should have selected either a WOMAN or at least a person of color. We did not need any more fucken old white guys on the Supreme Court.
Sorry old white guys who read this but frankly you bore me and you are too predictable.

NOW, having said that, if you asked me because of my answers does that make me more likely that I would support a Democrat for president of the United States my answer would be, not no, but, HELL NO!

Bush is not perfect, he has made mistakes, his administration has screwed some things up. HOWEVER, there is not one single Democrat that I would consider for the White House at this time. There is not one single Democrat I would trust to lead this country. There is not one single Democrat I could get behind and believe that the decisions they would make would lead this country in a positive direction.

Therefore, all of you idiot news organizations who keep trolling out these bullshit poll numbers thinking that they give you (liberal news organizations) some advantage to (Democrats) in the 06' elections and hopefully in 08' elections, you are either grossly out of touch with reality or you are “stuck on stupid!”
Your poll number don’t mean JACK.

Another thing, until I have a polling agency contact me personally as to my opinion about the current political scene I think your numbers are bullshit anyway.
I turned 43 recently and I have been active in local politics for a number of years and I have been a registered voter since I was 18, (not counting the jackass Democrat who forged my name in Alabama). I have NEVER, EVER had a polling agency contact ME, about any damm thing.
In fact I personally don’t know anybody who has ever been contacted by a polling agency.
So again in my mind your numbers are bullshit! Think I’m wrong, just look at the last two Presidential job interviews folks.
Making up numbers to make this administration look bad is silly and a waste of time.
Nobody gives a fuck. Is that clean enough for you.
Nobody is paying attention, except for desperate jackass Democrats, or confused individuals who have no political ideological core.
And you know what, if a POLL NUMBER can change an individuals perception or mind set I would not want their vote anyway.
Until the Democrats come up with real ideas and a platform that people can get behind and understand, the media’s manipulation of bogus numbers is useless and counterproductive.
You do not need to be an award winning author or writer to understand and articulate this.

George F. Will: Post-Katrina Liberalism

2005-11-07T10:09:00.000-06:00

By George F. Will

WASHINGTON -- It took exactly one month -- until the president's prime-time news conference of Oct. 11, 2001 -- to refute the notion that 9/11 "changed everything." When a reporter said "you haven't called for any sacrifices from the American people," he replied, "Well, you know, I think the American people are sacrificing now. I think they're waiting in airport lines longer than they've ever had before." And that was before the sacrificing became really hellacious with the requirement that passengers remove their shoes at security checkpoints.
The idea that Katrina would change the only thing that matters -- thinking -- perished even more quickly, at about the time Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, a suitable symbol of congressional narcissism, dramatized the severity of the tragedy by taking a television interviewer on a helicopter flight over ... her destroyed beach house. "Washington rolled the dice and Louisiana lost," she said in a speech on the Senate floor that moved some senators to tears. You can no more embarrass a senator than you can a sofa, so the tears were not accompanied by blushing about having just passed a transportation bill whose 6,371 pork projects cost $24 billion, about 10 times more than the price of the levee New Orleans needed. Louisiana's congressional delegation larded the bill with $540,580,200 worth of earmarks, one-fifth the price of a capable levee.

America's always fast-flowing river of race-obsessing has overflowed its banks, and last Sunday on "This Week" Sen. Barack Obama, Illinois' freshman Democrat, applied to the expression of old banalities a fluency that would be beguiling were it without content. Unfortunately, it included the requisite lament about the president's inadequate "empathy" and an amazing criticism of the government's "historic indifference" and its "passive indifference" that "is as bad as active malice." The senator, 44, is just 30 months older than the "war on poverty" that President Johnson declared in January 1964. Since then the indifference that is as bad as active malice has been expressed in more than $6.6 trillion of antipoverty spending, strictly defined.

The senator is called a "new kind of Democrat," which often means one with new ways of ignoring evidence discordant with old liberal orthodoxies about using cash -- much of it spent through liberalism's "caring professions" -- to cope with cultural collapse. He might, however, care to note three not-at-all recondite rules for avoiding poverty: graduate from high school, don't have a baby until you are married, don't marry while you are a teenager. Among people who obey those rules, poverty is minimal.

In 1960, John Kennedy of Choate, Harvard and Palm Beach campaigned in West Virginia's primary and American liberalism experienced one of its regularly recurring rediscoveries of poor people, an epiphany abetted three years later by Michael Harrington's book "The Other America" receiving a 50-page review where liberals would notice it, amidst The New Yorker magazine's advertisements for luxury goods. Between such rediscoveries, the poor are work for liberalism's constituencies among the "caregiving" professions.

Liberalism's post-Katrina fearlessness in discovering the obvious -- if an inner city is inundated, the victims will be disproportionately minorities -- stopped short of indelicately noting how many of the victims were women with children but not husbands. Released during the post-Katrina debacle, scant attention was paid to the National Center for Health Statistics' pertinent report that in 2003, 34.6 percent of all American births were to unmarried women. The percentage among African-American women was 68.2.

Given that most African-Americans are middle class and almost half live outside central cities, and that 76 percent of all births to Louisiana African-Americans were to unmarried women, it is a safe surmise that more than 80 percent of African-American births in inner-city New Orleans -- as in some other inner cities -- were to women without husbands. That translates into a large and constantly renewed cohort of lightly parented adolescent males, and that translates into chaos, in neighborhoods and schools, come rain or come shine.

This will become of intense interest to the "czar" or "czarina" -- this republic has a fascinating reflex for cloaking improvised offices with the dignity, such as it was, of defunct Russian royalty -- who is charged with "overseeing" the "rebuilding" of New Orleans. He or she can exchange notes with our "nation-builders" in Iraq, now learning conservatism's core truths about the limits to government's abilities to know and control things. Or he or she can glance at Ground Zero in Manhattan where, four years later, the "rebuilding" of a few square blocks is not going well.

200,000,000!!

2005-11-07T07:45:00.000-06:00

Another recycled post, Since my new friend Negro Stevo likes to attack conservative Negros, for those who missed this awhile back I had this on about another DEMOCRAT, hero, a Negro who was either just plain dumb or confused. Anywho, this is who the liberal democrats want to trot out as a choice for black voters. I would say the people in this idiots district should be ashamed of themselves for voting this jackass into office, but you know they simply don’t know any better.
------------------
While driving home the other afternoon, I laughed so hard I almost got into a wreck. I literally had to pull my car over.
Rush repeated (my first time hearing) a clip from Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) that he first aired in 1996. He currently has an article on his website (for subscribers) but hell Snoop has the gist.
Anybody who is a long time listener to the Rush Limbaugh show or listened to the show back in the Clinton era may remember this information about Rep. Owens.
Rush highlighted in his show an ABC World News Tonight report in June of 1996, by Carole "Jennings" Simpson reported that 100 million slaves were thrown overboard during the slave trade.
This is what Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) claimed in a speech a year earlier on the house floor, in an except he said 200 million slaves were thrown overboard and that this genocide changed the ecology of the ocean so much that the sharks still swim the slave routes!
I thought OH MY GOD! You know I hear and read a whole lot of stupid shit but to hear it come out of an elected officials mouth and the dumbass said it on the house floor was nothing less than stunning.

This idea was first expressed by Owens during Special Orders a year earlier 1995.
So dude had been processing this info for quite some time.
Owens insisted that 200 million slaves on their way to America had been thrown overboard during the slave trade and that this had changed the ecology of the ocean to the point that sharks still swam the old trade routes in the hope of finding more bodies to feed upon.
Rush of course found this claim of 200 million a bit absurd. The population of North America at the time was far less than 100 million, and it is hard to imagine that 200 million slaves could have been transported across the Atlantic over 200 years.

Rush’s staff ran the numbers and found that to be have 100 million drowned slaves, the slave traders would have had to put out nine ships a day with 152 slaves in each ship. This would have had to continue every day for 200 years, which works out to 1,370 slaves a day and 499,977 slaves per year thrown overboard, not counting leap years.
No matter how the numbers are worked, this figure of 100 million drowned slaves would still be impossible, especially since some of these slaves had to reach the New World alive. And Owens originally claimed that the number of drowned slaves was 200 million, which means all of these numbers would have had to have been doubled.

Rush exposed the absurdity of Owens' claim on his radio and TV show at the time, and Owens then reworked the figures down to 100 million, claiming he had gotten some "bad data." (no he pulled it out of his ass) However, even 100 million drowned slaves is hard to imagine, but that didn't stop ABC from reporting this as fact.

Yes ABC was as stupid as Owens was. Where the hell was Peter Jennings then!?
The population of the world at this time, though, was only 400 million, which means that the slave trade would have killed nearly a quarter of the world's population over these 200 years.
This simply is not possible, so Rush has to wonder if he could check these numbers so easily, why couldn’t ABC?

My point to all of this is people process information all the time and come up with all kinds of bullshit to make their position more sound. Few of us actually process and challenge what we read and what we hear.
This is why we are a country of tired bullshit cliches. Major Owens trying to prove a point to forward his agenda on the supposed behalf of his constituents ended up tarnishing his reputation and permanently making him into a laughing stock.
But what is worse is that this crazy bastard is still in office!
Can you begin to comprehend how either out of touch or flat ignorant the constituents in the 11th congressional district of New York must be to have kept this idiot in office for so many years?

I looked long and hard for credible information on just how many slaves were lost. After exhaustive Google University Research I determined that........we have no fucken idea. And what the hell difference does it make today.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, whatever information you process be sure to study BOTH sides of an argument.
I state over and over that the reason why I STUDY liberals, not only what they say but how they say it is what consistently drives me to the conclusion that liberalism is not only wacked but sociologically corrosive. To make their points liberals will do what Major Owens did and do it with a straight face hoping nobody is paying attention.
Oh you better believe Snoop is paying attention.

The potential to be enslaved and to make our tentative way to freedom is perennially within us. It's not simply that each generation is commanded to feel as if it was personally brought forth from Egypt, but that at every moment we are presented with the opportunity to liberate ourselves

Roberta Israeloff

Racists Left...

2005-11-07T06:00:00.000-06:00

Since I have new folks visiting the Zone and still are dumbfounded why Negro Snoop is so hard on Liberals, I feel I should recycle some old funny or not so funny stuff.
Here is one Democrat Hero!

March 4th, 2001, FOX News Sunday. Tony Snow's guest is Robert "Sheets" Byrd, the former "Grand Dragon" of the KKK, and here's what Byrd said.

BYRD (Democrat): I just think we talk so much about (racism) that we help to I think create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have goodwill. My old mom told me, "Robert you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody." If we practice that. There are white niggers, and I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word.

March 28th, 1968. This is Robert Byrd, Sheets Byrd, bashing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King.

BYRD (Democrat): Martin Luther King fled the scene. He took to his heels and disappeared, leaving it to others to cope with the destructive forces he had helped to unleash, and I hope that well-meaning negro leaders and individuals in the negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble and then takes off like a scared rabbit.

Four years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is passed, Robert Byrd makes these comments about Martin Luther King.

Snoopitorial - The war of science and religion

2005-11-07T04:48:00.000-06:00

The war of science and religion is fairly recent.
We all know that it really only arose in the last third of the nineteenth century, after the publication of Darwin's book on evolution. In the wake of the furor over Darwin's idea that humans were descended from apes, chimps whatever.
Some individuals on both sides tried to paint the other side as "the enemy".
There was a time were many people both scientists and religious believers and did not see a conflict between the two worlds,
This warfare view became deeply entrenched in many people's minds, as started to influence thinking (politics) throughout the twentieth century. This is particularly prevalent in America, where today conflicts between science and religion tend to be much more bitter and divisive than in other Western nations.

America has seen a significant rise in the number of Christian "creationists" who believe the biblical story of creation must be taken literally, and that the universe was therefore created in six days just over six thousand years ago. There are some Christians who insist on taking the Genesis account literally, the majority of Christian believers understand this story metaphorically.
Christian until recently agreed that evolution was not in conflict with Christian faith, and that on the contrary it could be seen as the way in which God goes about being creative within the world. For these believers, (an understanding) of the processes of evolution could indeed enhance their faith.

Darwin's book suggested that instead of being specially created by God, humans were the product of biological evolution. Darwin states: "Man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits." Many religious believers in the nineteenth century felt that Darwinian evolution had robbed humanity of its dignity, for how could humans be created in the image of God if we were the descendants of apes? Faced with this dilemma, they rebelled against Darwin's theory.
The KU professor in his infamous e-mail made the statement that “God did not create man, but man created God in the image he needed him to be”

But, in the nineteenth century there were many theologians and ministers, both Catholic and Protestant who did not see a conflict between their faith and Darwin's science. These more (liberal) thinkers often went to great lengths to convince the public that evolution could be harmonized with traditional religious views and values.
Many biblical literalists continued to insist that creation was a once only event that happened at the beginning of time. What TIME I do not know.

But there are those who still believed that evolution IS compatible with the Christian ideas, the notion that God is continuously creating. "Whatever we meant by God being creator, it wasn't something that God did once in the past, and then walked off. It is something that is going on all the time.
The point being is that one must see God in the process of evolution, but rather that there is nothing inherently incompatible between an evolutionary view of life and a commitment to the Christian scriptures.

So why the WAR today? If you want to demean and malign your perceived enemy the best thing to do is attack their faith, their spirituality, the one thing that could make an individual feel complete and give their lives purpose. Their God!

The problem is God has crept into our political ideologies, law making, and even on our football fields.
Yes when some idiot scores a touchdown and points up to the heavens to indicate that God has successfully parted the defense to allow me my victory. A constant reminded that some Christians are confused lost retarded souls. But I digress.

People who seek to attack God are really attacking their own meaningless miserable sorry ass lives!!
Face it, if your life is shitty, if you cannot find a way to make your life have meaning or purpose you attack someone’s faith.
When that Jackass from KU wroth his stupid e-mail maligning people of faith he is speaking more to his own emotional and spiritual shortcomings. Why then is he in religious studies? He thinks that ALL religions are mythology, so what is the fucken point in studying them, other than malign those invested in their faith. Not to mention that fact that he did not have shit else to do with his college education. I digress again, sorry.

Yes, when you look at videos of the fat woman (Trading Spouses) and the hypocritical behaviors of the vast majority of today’s one day or seven day Christians it does makes you ill.
It makes you want to question and malign how people loose their minds under the banner of religion and their GOD.

But THE WAR as I referred to it, is so amazingly pointless it is incomprehensible.
This is a world of exceedingly flawed confused and fucked up people.
If you are an atheist or an individual who attends church 7 days a week you are both frankly equally confused and lost. There is this thing called balance.
It’s too easy to attack Christians or participants of any other religion whether this perceived faith come from, habit, parental manipulation, fear, and or peer pressure or Tom Cruse.
Atheists on the other hand has this grandiose notion of superior intellect and understanding, they could not even conceive of the notion of being “fooled” into following some perceived “mythology” as the jackass puts it. But frankly, faith is a powerful thing. Without it you might as well be an animal. You can't at a basic level respect your fellow humans if you don't think of them as any more than a walking pile of soulless flesh.

The bottom line folks is you are HUMAN, regardless of your belief system until something cleanses your psychotic thoughts, rampant prejudices, child molesting tendencies, thieving, wife beating, sexually deviant, drug abusing, slothful, evil tendencies you are both missing the point and you are BOTH wrong. For all practical purposed you Atheists, Christians, Scientologists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists are in the same corner. Atheists choose their path because they believe (or know) there is nobody to “judge” them and all others can attempt to pray their miserable hypocritical tendencies away and beg for forgiveness.
This war of the “faiths” or non-faiths is not only counter productive but pointless.

Snoop Stuff from the Past!

2005-11-07T01:46:00.000-06:00

Posted by Snoop on October 26, 2004, Lawrence.com

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good…….
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad…

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia -good……
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad…

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
terrorists-good…
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator -
bad…

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good…
Bush bombs terrorist camps -bad…

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good…
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad…

No mass graves found in Serbia -good…
No WMD found Iraq - bad…

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good…
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad…

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good…
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad…

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good…
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad…

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good…
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad…

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good… ‘
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad…

Milosevic not yet convicted - good…
Saddam turned over for trial - bad…

Ammunition for poverty pimps

2005-11-06T21:08:00.000-06:00

by Walter E. Williams

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans, President Bush gave America's poverty pimps and race hustlers new ammunition. The president said, "As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action."

The president's espousing such a vision not only supplies ammunition to poverty pimps and race hustlers, it focuses attention away from the true connection between race and poverty.
Though I grow weary of pointing it out, let's do it again. Let's examine some numbers readily available from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey and ask some questions. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Among whites, one segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. The other segment suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations among blacks?
Would you buy an explanation that it's because white people practice discrimination against one segment of the black population and not the other or one segment had a history of slavery and not the other? You'd have to be a lunatic to buy such an explanation. The only distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage -- lower poverty in married-couple families.
In 1960, only 28 percent of black females ages 15 to 44 were never married and illegitimacy among blacks was 22 percent. Today, the never-married rate is 56 percent and illegitimacy stands at 70 percent. If today's black family structure were what it was in 1960, the overall black poverty rate would be in or near single digits. The weakening of the black family structure, and its devastating consequences, have nothing to do with the history of slavery or racial discrimination.
Dr. Charles Murray, an American Enterprise Institute scholar, argues in an article titled "Rediscovering the Underclass" in the Institute's On the Issues series (October 2005) that self-destructive behavior has become the hallmark of the underclass. He says that unemployment in the underclass is not caused by the lack of jobs but by the inability to get up every morning and go to work.

In 1954, the percentage of black males, age 20 to 24, not looking for work was nine percent. In 1999, it rose to 30 percent, and that was at a time when employers were beating the bushes for employees. Murray adds that "the statistical reality is that people who get into the American job market and stay there seldom remain poor unless they do something self-destructive."
I share Murray's sentiment expressed at the beginning of his article where he says, "Watching the courage of ordinary low-income people as they deal with the aftermath of Katrina and Rita, it is hard to decide which politicians are more contemptible -- Democrats who are rediscovering poverty and blaming it on George W. Bush, or Republicans who are rediscovering poverty and claiming that the government can fix it." Since President Johnson's War on Poverty, controlling for inflation, the nation has spent $9 trillion on about 80 anti-poverty programs. To put that figure in perspective, last year's U.S. GDP was $11 trillion; $9 trillion exceeds the GDP of any nation except the U.S. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita uncovered the result of the War on Poverty -- dependency and self-destructive behavior.

Guess what the president and politicians from both parties are asking the American people to do? If you said, "Enact programs that will sustain and enhance dependency," go to the head of the class.

Do Statistics Lie, Or Do Liberals Lie?

2005-11-06T20:50:00.000-06:00

A Snoop disclaimer. I know those of you who read this will come to one obviously conclusion and that is there is a bunch of lying on both sides of the isle. However, what you have to take into consideration is when you are on the outside looking in you MUST lie to gain the trust of the American people and to con voters that your side is right.
Liberals cannot win elections based on their own merit. Liberals must deceive, they must distort, they must demonize.

By Ken Hughes
The American Standard

Liberals continually come up with allegations no one bothers to disprove, especially the media. There are hundreds of false allegations against President George Bush the public has no way of knowing if they are true or not.

The Bush family is making billions off Iraqi oil. At this point not even the Iraqis are making billions off their oil. George Bush went to war to avenge the attack on his father. First there was never an attack, there was a planned attack by Saddam. The Japanese shot the hell out of Bush I. Nearly killing him, wouldn’t common sense tell us Japan would be Bush II first target for revenge,

These things the liberal come up with are just to silly to have any truth to them. George Bush dodged the draft by joining the Texas Air National Guard, daaa….. Like flying Jet Fighter Planes isn’t dangerous work. On the other hand, Bill Clinton dodged the draft by leaving the country until he could qualify for an exempt status. Teddy Kennedy unlike two of his brothers got a plush job at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The degree of risk is determined by your politics, Liberals Dodging the draft isn’t the something. in their eyes. We continually hear from liberals how congressman’s sons don’t go to war. How about these static’s, .0003 % of the publics families sons and daughters serve in the military. .002 % of congresspersons sons and daughters serve in the military, [trust me, all the periods and zeros are in the right places.] Rep. Todd Akin R-Mo. Rep Duncan Hunter, R-Ca. Sen., Tim Johnson D-SD. Rep. Joe Wilson R-SC. Have sons in Iraq or Afghanistan. Sen. Joe Biden D-MD. Sen. Kit Bond R-Mo. Rep Joe Kline R NM. Rep Marilyn Musgrave R-Co. Rep. Ike Skelton D-Mo. Have sons serving in the military. Celebrities Doris Kerns Goodwin and Dr. Lauria have sons in Iraq or on their way. Very few who e-mail the liberal propaganda out are in Iraq or on their way.

When we hear outlandish accusation regarding President Bush, We should ask ourselves, does it sound reasonable, what are the probabilities it’s true. What effect will it have on my life? Is going back 5, 10 , 20, 50 years into a president life accomplishing any good for the country? What is the purpose of the information, does it have a positive or negative effect on current events. When Pigs smell dirt they don’t hear it.

I have a “what if”, what if liberals in congress stopped pandering to the media cameras and started legislating? What would happen, the energy crises may be
resolved. A better plan for conducting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may be worked out. Educating intercity children may improve. Homeland security would defiantly improve. Rather than pandering to the media why don’t these discontented congressional representative address their complaints to the other side of the isles of congress? The media can’t resolve their differences, only a cooperative congress can do that.

It’s time we held congress accountable.

The Negro Project;

2005-11-06T04:16:00.000-06:00

Hey since my man J mentioned he is a pro-life liberal he will like this story.
By Tanya L. Green

"…I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing’
therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live."
--Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the "Say So" march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade "rights" in t he latter–converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

‘"Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!" declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and "purtiy"," particularly of the "Aryan" race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the "fit" to reproduce and the "unfit" to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the "inferior" races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this "population crisis." According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more "scientific" approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more "practical and acceptable ways" to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group "produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless." Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the "scientifically verified" threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that "virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists." Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of "revolutionary" literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services "almost without the exception." And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed "unfit" to reproduce.

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

THE REST OF THE STORY

THE NICE VERSION FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Democrats Are Blinded to Our Common Enemies

2005-11-04T15:17:00.000-06:00

David Limbaugh
NEWSMAX

David Political parties, by definition, engage in politics – obviously. It's what they do. But the Democratic leadership is so singularly driven by partisan politics that they appear incapable of recognizing our common enemies. They sometimes even seem disinclined to stand behind America when Republicans are running it, for fear of strengthening the latter's standing.
For example, instead of recognizing the potential avian flu pandemic as a common enemy and joining President Bush in combating the problem, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy, to name a few, reflexively chose to castigate Bush for not reacting soon and forcefully enough to prepare the nation. Their remarks were hysterical, and grossly political – even for them.
Their reaction was virtually indistinguishable from their reaction to Katrina. They were simply unable (or unwilling), through their donkey-stained lenses, to see the hurricane as the common enemy and marshal their efforts toward finding solutions. The national disaster provided too grand an opportunity to demonize President Bush.
They read of 2,000 American deaths in Iraq and think, "President Bush's deceit, imperial adventurism and mismanagement of the war have caused 2,000 Americans to die." I doubt it ever occurs to them that the casualties, though utterly tragic, have been for a noble cause – one they daily undermine.

It is even less likely that news of American deaths evokes in them a visceral contempt for our common enemy, the bloodthirsty murderers responsible for them. Such an emotion doesn't square with their delusional "Bush lied" template.

I was reminded of their monomania yet again when watching Fox News' "Special Report with Brit Hume," reporting on the terrorists' ingenuity in devising new techniques for bombing our troops and Iraqis with IEDs (improvised explosive devices).
The thrust of the story was not all negative. Fox's Bret Baier interviewed the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. James Lovelace, who said a new IED training facility is opening in Iraq to prepare incoming soldiers for the ever-changing tactics of the enemy.

"We're making every opportunity to take lessons learned and within 24 hours be able to teach that and put that back out in the field so that the leaders and the soldiers know what they're up against," said Lovelace. He said that 40 percent of the IEDs are found and identified before they blow and the casualty rate for each attack is down 45 percent.

My immediate reaction, and I would hope that of most Americans, was: "Our brave soldiers are facing daunting challenges in Iraq from a ruthless enemy and are doing everything they can to overcome them. But above all, they're dedicated to the cause of Iraqi autonomy and freedom and American security."

That was not everyone's reaction. Fox's cameras next turned to Senate Democrats Barbara Boxer and Chris Dodd, who had just emerged from a meeting with the U.S. ambassador to Iraq and were champing at the bit to slam the administration for its "lack of strategy" on Iraq.
Dodd said, "A lot more needs to be done to get this right, or you're going to continue to see an erosion of support here at home and abroad for these policies which have no end in sight."
Boxer said, "There's a growing frustration, I think, on both sides of the aisle at how slowly the training of the Iraqi troops and police force is going."
Bret Baier went on to report that our senior commanders say Iraqi forces now number more than 200,000, with a goal of 325,000. Gen. Lovelace explained that though most Iraqi units still need U.S. support, "the little-reported fact is that Iraqi troops are controlling more and more battle space." He pointed out, for instance, that U.S. troops have moved out of a large part of Baghdad as Iraqi forces are controlling security there.
According to Lovelace, the transition may not be occurring as fast as the American people want, but he sees considerable "progress." You can be sure that "the glass is 90 percent empty" Democrat leaders are among those who see little progress.

But Senate Democrats really outdid themselves this week in creating a false crisis to invoke an esoteric Senate rule to call a closed meeting to demand resumption of a redundant investigation that was already in the process of being wrapped up. To call it a political stunt is euphemism on stilts.

The profound irony of all this is that as long as Democrats continue in this mode – and they seem to have abandoned all others – they radically decrease their chances of returning to the position of national power they crave.

WHAT HAS SNOOP BEEN SAYING? hMMMM

Snoopitorial: Re-build New Orleans? Not with my tax dollars!

2005-11-04T10:53:00.000-06:00

I was peeping Meet the Press over the weekend and Tim Russert got on his little high horse about New Orleans. He talked about how Bush boldly jetted into NOLA with light blazing and told the people that we are about to embark on the largest reconstruction in world history. Or something like that.
I knew he (Bush) was bullshitting when he said it at the time mainly because by the time the city is shinny and new and the ribbon cutting ceremonies are taking place he would not be president!
You build your legacy while president, not after.
Unless you fucked up royally like Carter or you get blown by an intern, well you know.
Some of you won’t like this but hey, then I Snoop would not be doing my job.
When those dumbasses kept bitching and complaining about the “FEDERAL” response and you have people like that redneck who boo hooed on Meet the Press (we later found out he was lying anyway) and having it all come together when jackass Kayne South uttered the famous words “Bush don’t like NIGGERS!”
Trust me, that tis what he said. You just did not read between the lines.
Well, human nature being what it is, if I were president I would have said to myself “fuck you then". I won’t rebuild your tired ass city.”

Yes the human outcry of YOU MUST REBUILD NOLA, would ring in my ear but you all know the saying. “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
All of those people running their mouths, and in particular Nigga Nagin acting like a stupid fuck did not help matters.
Lets get real. As long as some crazy as Nigga is mayor I would not send one fucken dime to NOLA, period!
Its not racists. Its common sense. This city and state was oozing with corruption.
It’s been months since the storm and nobody, not one political leader from the State of Louisiana has come up with a plan of action. They have sat on their asses for months.
It is not the Feds role to hold these idiots by the hand and tell them what to do and how to do it.

Let me address some of the obvious rants for those of you ready to punch your monitor.
Nobody can deny New Orleans' cultural primacy or its historical importance.
After my first visit a couple of years ago, I too loved the place.
But use a little common sense. Do you think spending billions of dollars rebuilding levees that MAY NOT hold back the next storm makes sense to you?

C’mon folks just what sort of place did Katrina destroy?
Most of you white folks who want to tout the city's romance are not dealing with reality.
What “was” the reality for most who live there was a VERY poor place, with about 27 percent of the population of 484,000 living under the poverty line, and it's a very "Negro" place, where 67 percent were Negros.
65 percent of families living in poverty in NOLA, no husband was present.
Where the poverty cases lived, Katrina hit the hardest.
No, you conspiracy junkies, there was not some evil mysterious white person in a KKK robe who blew up the levees. You know why? Because geniuses, the poor folks were already rooted there.
Why flood them out and scatter financially and educationally challenged individuals all over the freaken country?
NOLA’s public schools, which were 93 percent black, were a miserable failure.
The state of Louisiana rated 47 percent of New Orleans schools as "Academically Unacceptable" and another 26 percent are under "Academic Warning." About 25 percent of adults have no high-school diploma.
The damm place was a third world country before the storm.
Oh and don’t get me started on the police there.
Tulane did a research study where researchers enlisted the police in an experiment in early 2004.
They had officers fire 700 blank gun rounds in a New Orleans neighborhood in an afternoon. Nobody, NOT ONE FREAKEN PERSON picked up the phone to report the shootings.
No wonder the city's homicide rate stands at 10 times the national average.
Want more evidence out of 188,000 occupied homes, about half were occupied by renters.
Anyone who owns a home know how disastrous that is.
Only a sadist (OR MY MAN JENNINGS) would insist on resurrecting this concentration of poverty, crime, and deplorable schools.
But that's exactly what NOLA cheerleaders, both natives and WHITE beignet-eating tourists are actually advocating. They predict that once they drain the water and scrub the city clean, they will restore New Orleans to its former "glory".
BULLSHIT!
But let me state something more telling.
The ONLY people that would benefit from the rebuilding of NOLA would be the
Wealthy white workers, the folks who provided the city's tax base. But they are not likely to return anyway.
Will the doctors, lawyers, accountants, and professors have jobs to return to?
Of course not.
Many businesses are expected to relocate completely. Unless the federal government adopts New Orleans as its ward and pays all its bills for the next 20 years an unlikely to ridiculous proposition NOLA won't be rebuilt.
Restoring NOLA would be reverse welfare. Instead of it going into the pockets of poor darkies it would go to money grubbing conniving white folks looking to get rich off the gubment.
C’mon, lots of us want to talk a good game of watching gubment spending. But when your own fucken pockets are being lined with dead presidents all of a sudden gubment spending don’t sound so bad!
Rich white people are still getting paid from the hurricanes of two years ago.
I wrote some time ago about one white dude who had his “summer” home rebuilt twice in the Florida Keys.
People buying new boats and Hummers off the gubment tit.
This kind of welfare is non-partisan.

New Orleans won't disappear completely. The French Quarter, the Garden District, West Riverside, Black Pearl, and other elevated parts of the city will survive until the ultimate storm takes them out and maybe even thrive as tourist destinations
They should just make the town one big museum and tourist stop.
As for resurrecting this cesspool of monumental liberal corruption and failure, if I were Bush I would ignore it too.

None of these people bitching and moaning about rebuilding NOLA has said one damm thing about what to do with the former poor folks who wasted away there.
This city was a glaring example of liberals gone wild.
There is actually talk of the state government paying for chartered jets to bring people back to vote in the next set of elections.
The liberals who ran the damm place did not give a rats ass about them before the storm wants to kiss their asses now. These people were too clueless to understand that voting for corrupt liberal fucks kept them in a perpetual state of helplessness.
“Please, come back we need your ignorance to keep us in power.”
Rebuild NOLA my ass.

Snoopitorial

2005-10-31T21:04:00.000-06:00

KEEP IN MIND I WROTE THIS POST BEFORE I FOUND THE WILLIAMS PIECE.

“George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Even if you thought this was true, who gives a shit?

I’m not going to focus on that idiot West who made this statement famous because dude only made the statements as a publicity stunt. He needs no further attention. Dude has far more money that I. Although I did just learn that Pepsi dropped his ass as a spokesperson. I will be buying some Pepsi today! But I digress, sorry.......

Just what does someone in the gubment have to do to “care” about someone?
What is the definition of “caring.” If the gubments compassion and empathy is measured by the amount of money it spends, shit then G Dub is a very generous dude.

However, get real people beyond his very real or perceived passion there is little substance to West’s charge. Under the Bush administration, spending on anti-poverty programs is up 42 percent. This administration created the homeownership challenge that has helped to raise homeownership among Negros above 50 percent for the first time in history, signed the prescription drug benefit for seniors, and instituted No Child Left behind in an effort to improve educational opportunities for inner-city children.
Ok, so that little idea sucks in theory but his heart was in the right place. NO?
One might not share the administration’s enthusiasm for some of these programs but you can’t reasonably argue that they lack compassion. The main reason is, even if you think G Dub is a racists fuck, his legacy is more important to him than any racial or racists tendencies.
If you think some political figure is racists and specifically screws one racial demographic you are simply wrong.
NOW having said that back in the day when you have Mr. Bubba as Mayor of Honkey town, well in that instance it was a selling point to say, NO NIGGAS, down with NIGGAS!
Let be real, if some dude can gain political capital by pretending, he likes Negros particularly if it keeps them in officeand gives them political capital you had better believe he would do it.

But let’s go back to idiot West. Suppose that by some other measure he is correct. Who cares? Government is not supposed to be our friend.
In exchange for certain of our freedoms, government has a duty to protect our lives and property. This agreement is similar to the one we have with our local store
In exchange for our dollars, they will provide meat, bread, washing stuff other edible items.
How much (the store) cares about us is of little consequence.
The cash registers are not divided in “Negro money” and “White money”
Laws against theft are not enforced because government “cares” about us, but because it is government’s duty to protect our property regardless of who we are. In fact, we might do better if government did not “care” so much.
That is not to say that Da Gubment is or should be our enemy or that government should be heartless and without concern for those less fortunate members of our society. A moral government recognizes the need to provide care and shelter for those who, due to age or mental incapacity are unable to provide for themselves. An energetic government seeks to open the doors of free enterprise and encourage habits of virtue, individual initiative and self-reliance not because it cares for us, but because as James Madison wrote (Snoop had to find this, El Borak will appreciate this, LOL!)“ the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions AIM…”

DEMANDING that government “care” is to invite chaos into our lives by requiring government to do that for which it is ill equipped. More importantly, we also distract it from the duties for which it is charged, leaving our nation vulnerable to the evils of man and nature. TERRIORISTS perhaps.......
Black folks are the ones that generally complain that the government “does not care about us.” If government does not now have compassion for black people in 2005, it certainly cared for us a great deal less in the 1940s and 50s. In the face of far more overt racism than we face today, Negros somehow found a way to expand the middle class, make inroads into professional and high-level occupations and cut the poverty rate by two-thirds. The movement for civil rights begun in 1955 was not a crusade to gain government sacrifice, but a demand for government obedience.

It may be better for folks ESPECIALLY entertainers to ask: do black people care about black people or more specifically do black men care about black people? Do black men care enough about black women to marry the mothers of their children? Do black men care enough about other black men not to shoot them in the streets or push drugs in their communities? Do black men care enough about black boys to provide role models of hard work and virtue?

The difference between these demands and that uttered by jackass West is that one places the responsibility and the power to change our communities in the hands of black people, black men, and does not rely on the benevolence or “caring” of government.

BROOKS: WHY ARE DEMS SO OVERHEATED?

2005-10-30T07:53:00.000-06:00

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not find evidence to prove that there was a "broad conspiracy to out a covert agent for political gain. He did not find evidence of wide-ranging criminal behavior. He did not even indict the media's ordained villain, Karl Rove,"

"Leading Democratic politicians filled the air with grand conspiracy theories that would be at home in the John Birch Society."
"Why are these people so compulsively overheated?.. Why do they have to slather on wild, unsupported charges that do little more than make them look unhinged?
Brooks quotes from an essay written 40 years ago by Richard Hofstadter called "The Paranoid Style in American Politics."
Hofstadter argued that sometimes people who are dispossessed, who feel their country has been taken away from them and their kind, develop an angry, suspicious and conspiratorial frame of mind. It is never enough to believe their opponents have committed honest mistakes or have legitimate purposes; they insist on believing in malicious conspiracies.
"The paranoid spokesman," Hofstadter wrote, "sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms -- he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization." Because his opponents are so evil, the conspiracy monger is never content with anything but their total destruction."

Brooks states: "Democrats were not content with Libby's indictment, but had to stretch, distort and exaggerate. The tragic thing is that at the exact moment when the Republican Party is staggering under the weight of its own mistakes, the Democratic Party's loudest voices are in the grip of passions that render them untrustworthy."

I know some of you libs are thinking you smell blood in the water from this crap, but c’mon people, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED..............I REPEAT, NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED.
Bottom line Dems, the average American does not give a shit about this. People are still reconstructing their lives after a few Hurricanes, Gas prices, and heating costs are still a concern.
Bush still has to get a nominee for the court.
I’m sorry but I don’t give a shit about Joe Wilson and his wife. Did Libby fuck up, yup, is dude lying about his “faulty memory” sure. But he did not intentionally “out” a CIA agent. If dude did he should face a firing squad.
These liberal news organizations need to get a fucken grip. All of this other hand wringing from liberal news sources, the talking head shows and the liberal blogs is just a bunch of crap.

2005-10-25T22:00:00.000-05:00

______________________

A MESSAGE TO SNOOP FROM A FAN!

2005-10-24T10:56:00.000-05:00

Impossible, Ridiculous, Repugnant--Keep sucking up to the Black hating GOP, you fool...

A lot of people are upset over comments made on the radio by the former education secretary and guardian of all things virtuous, Bill Bennett.
A Republican who served in the Reagan cabinet, Mr. Bennett told his listeners: "I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down."
After making the point that exterminating blacks would be a most effective crime-fighting tool, he quickly added, "That would be an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down."
When I first heard about Mr. Bennett's comments, I wondered why anyone was surprised. I've come to expect racial effrontery from big shots in the Republican Party. The G.O.P. is happily a safe haven for bigotry, racially divisive tactics and strategies and outright anti-black policies. That someone who's been a stalwart of that outfit might muse publicly about the potential benefits of exterminating blacks is not surprising to me at all.

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the G.O.P.'s Southern strategy:
"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
"And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger.' "
Atwater, who would manage George H. W. Bush's successful run for the presidency in 1988 (the Willie Horton campaign) and then serve as national party chairman, was talking with Alexander P. Lamis, a political-science professor at Case Western Reserve University. Mr. Lamis quoted Atwater in the book "Southern Politics in the 1990's."
The truth is that there was very little that was subconscious about the G.O.P.'s relentless appeal to racist whites. Tired of losing elections, it saw an opportunity to renew itself by opening its arms wide to white voters who could never forgive the Democratic Party for its support of civil rights and voting rights for blacks.
The payoff has been huge. Just as the Democratic Party would have been crippled in the old days without the support of the segregationist South, today's Republicans would have only a fraction of their current political power without the near-solid support of voters who are hostile to blacks.
When Democrats revolted against racism, the G.O.P. rallied to its banner.
Ronald Reagan, the G.O.P.'s biggest hero, opposed both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act of the mid-1960's. And he began his general election campaign in 1980 with a powerfully symbolic appearance in Philadelphia, Miss., where three young civil rights workers were murdered in the summer of 1964. He drove the crowd wild when he declared: "I believe in states' rights."
Bill Bennett's musings about the extermination of blacks in America (it would be "impossible, ridiculous ... morally reprehensible") is all of a piece with a Republican Party philosophy that is endlessly insulting to black people and overwhelmingly hostile to their interests.
But that white racist vote, once so important to the Democrats and now so important to the G.O.P., has been steadily shrinking. The U.S. is less prejudiced than it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, which is why George W. Bush had to try so hard to disenfranchise black voters in Florida in 2000; and why Jeb Bush had to call out the state police to try to intimidate black voters in Orlando, Fla., in 2004; and why Republicans in Georgia have come up with the equivalent of a poll tax (requiring people without a driver's license to pay $20 for a voter identification card), which will hurt poor, black and elderly voters.
Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future.

Liberals don't want a debate on race, They want a monologue.

LA SHAWN BARBER'S BLOG ABOUT BENNETT, I DITTO HER COMMENTS

SNOOP RANT - BEWARE!!!!

2005-10-24T09:48:00.000-05:00

Ok, daytime TV watching, peeping Oprah and I’m watching a segment on this crazy bitch Kathy Trant who apparently blew through $5 MILLION OF OUR FUCKEN TAX DOLLARS!
Now some of you are not going to like what I’m abut to say but, screw you, it my blog!
But I never fucken understood why the people in the Trade Center received any compensation from the Federal Government. Yes it was a tragic event, families suffered and so on but it was not like the people in the Trade Centers were a bunch of people on Welfare and were broke. Many worked for fortune 500 companies and were brokers on the Exchange.
When this story came out:

Late surge puts most families in 9/11 compensation fund
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Hundreds of families came forward in the final days before the deadline to register for the unprecedented government compensation offered as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
As of the midnight Monday deadline, a total of 2,823 death claims, representing 95 percent of the eligible families, were filed with the Victims Compensation Fund, said Camille Biros, a fund spokeswoman.
In the past week alone, more than 550 families applied for the tax-free, lump sum awards, which have averaged $1.8 million per death claim.

$1.8 Million dollars for what! The damm Gubment shells out hundreds of millions of dollars to Hurricane victims that received little or no damage to their homes, flood victims for crazy ass people building homes in flood zones, mudslide victims of crazy ass people building houses on sticks only to have them slide down hills. This is bullshit.
You talk about looting this is white people’s version of looting.
After a natural disaster, you mean to tell me its the Gubments role to completely put you fucken life back in order!?
How much you wanna bet those Negros in NOLA won’t be going on $5 million dollar shopping sprees!
Was there Negros fucking up in NOLA, yup! But look at the condemning articles about black people after NOLA. I have no problem putting the blame where it needs to be regarding those poor Negros putting themselves in a bad situation. Yes, Snoop has said it before, get a damm education, then get a fucken job, and don’t have babies before marriage and don’t have them after marriage until you can afford them. Sane advice for clueless jackass. But damm stories like this moron Trent is more common than it should be. I am also reading countless stories about white folks applying for federal aid for home repairs just because their house was “within” a certain amount of miles from a hurricane area. Yes, I said white people because the value of these homes were in the high six figures. Ain’t no Negros trolling in these homes.
One story I read where the government is about to pay for the second time, compensation to a homeowner in the Florida Keys who built his damm home basically on a sandbar.
$1.2 million dollar home! A bastard who has a Hummer and a couple of boats. My broke ass tax dollars going to subsidize this greedy fuck?
WHAT A COUNTRY! BUT ONLY BLACK PEOPLE STEAL AND LOOT, HUH?

Grieving 9/11 Widow Spends Almost $5 Million
Spent $500,000 of U.S. Taxpayer money on shoes
How much of my tax money did she spend?
Kathy Trant hopes that by coming out publicly with her problem, she can help other chronic shoppers. (ABC News)
ANOTHER FICTITIOUS BABY BOOMER CONDITION!
When her husband died in the attacks on the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, relatives, friends and strangers opened their hearts and their wallets to Kathy Trant, donating millions of dollars to Trant and her three children.
The money was meant to compensate for the income Dan Trant would have used to support his family for years to come. But to Trant it represented blood money, money that couldn't make up for what she had lost.
Fewer than four years after the attacks, she has blown through most of the money, and is coming out with her story now to warn others against the trappings of chronic spending, a major problem among Americans.
"It's blood money that I don't want," Trant said. "I want my husband back."
After her husband's funeral, Kathy Trant spiraled into deeper and deeper circles of depression. She turned to alcohol and antidepressants to numb the pain, and her weight fluctuated between 90 and 170 pounds.
But as she managed to get one set of problems under control, another problem emerged. Trant started spending out of control.
At the time of his death, Dan Trant, 40, was quickly moving up the ladder as a bond trader at Cantor Fitzgerald, making $130,000 in addition to tens of thousands in bonuses in his final year. Based on his estimated future earnings, the Federal Victim Compensation Fund awarded Kathy Trant $4.2 million, of which she received half. She got another $3 million from friends and family.
WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR THIS?
"I didn't know how to give back because so many people gave to me when I lost my husband," Trant said.
Trant began lavishing gifts on friends and family. She gave her former housekeeper $15,000 to buy a home in El Salvador, she spent $70,000 to take six friends to the Super Bowl and another $30,000 for a trip for 20 to the Bahamas.
She said Dan would have wanted to help others, and he would have liked to improve their home as well. So Trant spent $1.5 million to nearly triple the size of her suburban New York home. She spent $350,000 on the back yard, installing a full basketball court also equipped for volleyball, tennis and Rollerblading, a heated pool and a hot tub.
Trant designed a shrine of her husband's mementos, and put it on display in her new red-white-and-blue den. She added sports memorabilia to her walls, including a Boston Celtics ball autographed by players. Dan was drafted last by the Celtics in 1984, and though he never played for them, he played professionally in Ireland.
Trant also blew millions on frivolous items for herself. Her walk-in closet houses a $500,000 shoe collection, gowns by Versace and Capelli that go for $5,000 each and Fendi and Judith Leiber handbags, also $5,000 per bag.

Experts says overspending is not uncommon among the families of 9/11 victims, nor is it limited to one group of people. A Stanford University study estimates that 8 percent of Americans, or 23.6 million people, suffer from compulsive shopping disorder.
"The issue of survival guilt is a big one," said April Lane Benson, psychologist and author of the book "I Shop Therefore I Am." "People who lost someone on 9/11 feel a total lack of control for a long period of time. That's why they say, 'I might as well blow everything I have. I could be the next one to go.'"
Benson said it is important for shopaholics to recognize the triggers that start the spending sprees, such as certain moods or specific times of the year.
"For [Trant] it might be, 'If I keep shopping, I won't have to feel deeply the loss of my husband,'" Benson said.
Trant is down to her last $500,000. A stay-at-home mom for the last 20 years, she and a friend are opening a hair-removal and cosmetic tattoo shop in East Norwich, Conn.
While Trant worries about her future, she insists it's not about the money. She is concerned now with helping other chronic shoppers, and hopes her children will learn from her mistakes when they receive $800,000 earmarked for them when they turn 18.
THIS IS SUCH BULLSHIT I CAN’T SEE STRAIGHT!

"We're proud of being white"

2005-10-23T11:22:00.000-05:00

WHITE FOLKS ARE SO FUNNY, ARE YOU RACISTS FUCKS OUT THERE GETTIN’ DESPERATE? HOW COULD YOU NOT LISTEN TO THESE CUTE “WHITE” FACES AND NOT LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY?
WHITE PEOPLE NEVER CEASE TO AMAZE ME.

Thirteen-year-old twins Lamb and Lynx Gaede have one album out, another on the way, a music video, and lots of fans.
They may remind you another famous pair of singers, the Olsen Twins, and the girls say they like that. But unlike the Olsens, who built a media empire on their fun-loving, squeaky-clean image, Lamb and Lynx are cultivating a much darker personna. They are white nationalists and use their talents to preach a message of hate.
"We're proud of being white, we want to keep being white," said Lynx. "We want our people to stay white … we don't want to just be, you know, a big muddle. We just want to preserve our race."
Lynx and Lamb have been nurtured on racist beliefs since birth by their mother April. "They need to have the background to understand why certain things are happening," said April, a stay-at-home mom who no longer lives with the twins' father. "I'm going to give them, give them my opinion just like any, any parent would."
April home-schools the girls, teaching them her own unique perspective on everything from current to historical events. In addition, April's father surrounds the family with symbols of his beliefs — specifically the Nazi swastika. It appears on his belt buckle, on the side of his pick-up truck and he's even registered it as his cattle brand with the Bureau of Livestock Identification.
"Because it's provocative," explains April of the cattle brand, "to him he thinks it's important as a symbol of freedom of speech that he can use it as his cattle brand."

Teaching Hate

Songs like "Sacrifice" — a tribute to Nazi Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy Fuhrer — clearly show the effect of the girls' upbringing. The lyrics praise Hess as a "man of peace who wouldn't give up."
"It really breaks my heart to see those two girls spewing out that kind of garbage," said Ted Shaw, civil rights advocate and president of the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund — though Shaw points out that the girls aren't espousing their own opinions but ones they're being taught.

THE REST OF THE STORY

Snoopitorial:

2005-10-21T11:53:00.000-05:00

HEY LIBERALS What does this list prove?

While circulating liberal blogs and since none of them posted anything on the 403-3 vote, I ran across this list that is being circulated. I find this amusing because I guess liberal Democrats think that this list somehow demonizes Republicans and discredit them.
.................
TAKE A LOOK!
Service in the Armed Forces

Democrats:

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan. 1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V,Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries. Served in Congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars,and Soldier's Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Bill Clinton: Did not serve. Student deferments. Entered draft but received #311.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and AirMedal with 18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

Republicans

* Dick Cheney: did not serve. Several deferments, the last by marriage.
* Dennis Hastert: did not serve.
* Tom Delay: did not serve.
* Roy Blunt: did not serve.
* Bill Frist: did not serve.
* Mitch McConnell: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* Trent Lott: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments to teach business.
* Jeb Bush: did not serve.
* Karl Rove: did not serve.
* Saxby Chambliss: did not serve. "Bad knee." (The man who attacked Max Cleland's patriotism.)
* Paul Wolfowitz: did not serve.
* Vin Weber: did not serve.
* Richard Perle: did not serve.
* Douglas Feith: did not serve.
* Eliot Abrams: did not serve.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
* Jon! Kyl: did not serve.
* Tim Hutchison: did not serve.
* Christopher Cox: did not serve.
* Newt Gingrich: did not serve.
* Don Rumsfeld: served in Navy (1954-57) as flight instructor.
* George W. Bush: failed to complete his six-year National Guard; failed to show up
* B-1 Bob Dornan: enlisted after fighting was over in Korea.
* Phil Gramm: did not serve.
* John McCain: Vietnam POW, Silver Star, Bronze Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross.
* Dana Rohrabacher: did not serve.
* John M. McHugh: did not serve.
* JC Watts: did not serve.
* Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem, " although continued in NFL for 8 years as quarterback.
* Dan Quayle: Journalism unit of the Indiana National Guard.
* Rudy Giuliani: did not serve.
* George Pataki: did not serve.
* Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
* John Engler: did not serve.
* Lindsey Graham: National Guard lawyer.
* Arnold Schwarzenegger: AWOL from Austrian army base.

Pundits & Preachers

* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Rush Limbaugh: did not serve
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Michael Savage: did not serve.
* George Will: did not serve.
* Chris Matthews: did not serve.
* Paul Gigot: did not serve.
* Bill Bennett: did not serve.
* Pat Buchanan: did not serve.
* John Wayne: did not serve.
* Bill Kristol: did not serve.
* Kenneth Starr: did not serve.
* Antonin Scalia: did not serve.
* Clarence Thomas: did not serve.
* Ralph Reed: did not serve.
* Michael Medved: did not serve.
----------------------------
I’m confused, and I’m a reasonable smart guy. Members of congress vote on all sorts of things as a representative of their constituents.
If they vote on health care reform is it necessary that they have worked in a hospital?
If they vote on highway legislation is it necessary that they are engineers of some type?
If they vote on budget items, do they need to be an accountant or have budget experience?
If they vote on farming legislation, do they have to have experience in farming, worked on or lived on a farm?
What about the environment. Do they need to be a Botanists, Geologists or some sort of a scientist?

Lets look at my background.

I have served on the boards of several medical organizations. Also served as a fundraising chair for several other medical organizations.
Was one of the founding members of an inner city medical clinic. Co chaired the fundraising of the venture.
I served as an elected representative on a local city board.
I served on a municipal planning and zoning commission.
I served on a municipal budget committee several times.
I served on a school budget committee.
I served as chair on a school desegregation committee.
Served as a chair on a business development group.
Was a founding board member of a YMCA.
Served on my former medical centers Mission Outreach Committee.
Chaired on several community issues ranging from, illegal dumping, zoning a planning task force, neighborhood development issues, vehicle traffic, coal trains, discrimination issues and waste management.
There is more stuff that I don’t even remember.
What is my background, HS Grad, “some” college. My background is A/V production, video production, videography, photography, computer graphics. OH I NEVER OWNED A BUSINESS.
My work background received from the Air Force.
So seeing my background, and knowing I served in the AF for a time, does that make me more qualified to have an opinion on the war or if I were a member of congress would that make me “qualified” to vote on it as you liberal democrats are implying with this list.
Some of you liberals don’t have COMMON FUCKEN SENSE.
Most of the people circulating this list likely did not serve in the military.
SO LIBERALS WHAT IS YOUR DAMM POINT!?

2005-10-19T14:43:00.000-05:00

_________________________

“Most Americans Are Unconscious Racists”

2005-10-19T12:14:00.000-05:00

WITH THE DISCUSSION OF RACE ON THE LAW.COM BLOG A REPOST.
WHAT HAPPENED TO RON MEXICO ANYWAY!?

Beyond Liberalism
By Michael Eric Dyson

When Martin Luther King, Jr., was in jail in Selma, Alabama, during a 1965 voting rights drive, Malcolm X flew in to address a mass meeting at the request of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). SNCC, which would soon elect Stokely Carmichael as its chairman, was more militant than its parent organization, the SCLC, headed by King. King had avoided meeting Malcolm in the past, since Malcolm relentlessly attacked King as an Unde Tom. In fact, their paths had crossed only a single time, when they ran into each other at the U.S. Capitol as the Senate debated the civil rights bill early in 1964. Almost a year later Malcolm was in Selma to shake the rafters and stir the troops to fight segregation. Malcolm was introduced to King’s wife, Coretta, who reports that she was “impressed by his obvious intefligence” and his gentle spirit. Mrs. King says that Malcolm indicated that he would not be able to visit King in jail since he had to catch a plane to New York in order to leave for London for a speaking engagement. Before he left, though, Malcolm made a startling revelation to Mrs. King that is still largely ignored. “‘I want Dr. King to know that I didn’t come to Selma to make his job difficult,”’ Mrs. King says Malcolm told her. “‘I really did come thinking that I could make it easier. If the white people reaLize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King.”’

For most of their public careers, Martin and Malcolm brilliantly played off each other’s strengths and weaknesses. They sparred each other through the media and chided one another for following the wrong path to black freedom. King practiced nonviolence and preached to blacks that they should love whites as their brothers and sisters. Malcolm fearlessly encouraged blacks to be self-reliant, reject white allies in a struggle for freedom, and, if necessary, take up arms against violent whites. But as most Americans know, Malcolm had a dramatic change of heart. After journeying to Mecca and after his stormy 1964 break with the Nation of islam, Malcolm dedared that he no longer viewed whites as “devils” but as ordinary if flawed, human beings. Malcolm’s martyrdom in 1965 brought a tragic sense of loss of a towering figure who was just coming into his own, a man who had only begun to fulfill his potential as an internationally minded leader.

Martin Luther King, Jr., experienced an equally fateful change of thinking about racism in American society But unlike Malcolm, King lacked a dramatic event to parallel the Mecca conversion. If Malcolm was the prodigal son who strayed far from home before his partial return, then King was the son who never left but grew to question his inheritance. In some ways, King’s change was even more startling and consequential than Malcolm’s. Malcolm’s shift to a friendlier view of whites was widely seen as a belated nod to the wisdom of the civil rights movement. Chalk one up for King, the logic ran. But what is little appreciated is how, even if indirectly and in a less pronounced fashion, an element of Malcolm’s thinking got its hooks into King.

For the most part, King had been broadly trusting of whites. He believed that even the most vicious bigots would be won over by black suffering. But during the last three years of his life, King questioned his understanding of whites. Although he still believed in the possibility of transforming white society his tactics shifted as his beliefs about white racism changed. In the past, King believed in the essential goodness of whites. Later he doubted if whites could respond adequately to appeals to conscience. King started to insist on large-scale protests and a chastened view of the desire of whites to change their behavior fundamentally King’s mature thinking depended on the skepticism that Malcolm engendered: blacks could not get very far, or at least not as far as they needed to get, by playing to white morality King not only conceded the point, but went a step further: Most whites, he sadly conduded, were racists. Even when whites didn’t intend or want to be racists, they often gave in to racist beliefs and actions. King still loved whites, but more wisely and with greater insight about their limitations. For King, this recognition was not a source of bitterness but a prompt to revised strategy A belief that whites basically desire to do the right thing means taking one approach. But a belief that whites have to be made to behave in the right way means adopting an entirely different strategy For the last three years of his life, this was one of King’s mighty struggles.

King’s revised belief fly in the face of his sanguine image. His beliefs certainly don’t comfort liberals who deny, as King refused to do, the persistent, adaptive evil of white supremacy Liberals and leftists alike trap King in a view of race that he eventually discarded. As long as King waxed eloquent about how Southern segregation could be overcome with nonviolence, he was the darling of (Northern) white liberals. When he preached that blacks must sacrifice their blood and bodies to redeem whites, many liberals lauded his nobility When he insisted that blacks love whites, even hateful and violent racists, King was crowned an epic moral figure by many liberals. And when he risked his life time and again to make certain that “the brotherhood of man. [would] become a reality in this day” some liberals hailed him as a saint among mere mortals. The more King suffered and the more he encouraged black people to suffer, the more liberals praised King as a man who should be emulated by all blacks. (The distinction is crucial since many of these same liberals weren t about to implore whites to be beaten or killed for civil rights.) But when King began to say that racism was deeply rooted in our society and that only a structural change would remove it, he alienated key segments of the liberal establishment.

The left-liberal backlash against King was expressed in a biting passage written by cultural critic Christopher Lasch in 1991:
"In the early days of the civil rights movement, King had resisted the temptation to define black people simply as victims of white oppression. Instead he tried to encourage initiative, self-reliance, and responsibility He understood that people who thought of themselves as victims either remained helplessly passive or became vindictive and self-righteous. His later attempt to organize a national alliance of “disadvantaged” groups, however, forced him to rely on just this kind of morally flawed appeal.. . . By taking up the charge of “white racism,” he antagonized workingdass and lower-middle-dass whites without appeasing the black ......... Instead of appealing to the nation’s sense of justice, he now had to appeal to the mixture of pity and fear that came to be known, inappropriately (since it was activated less by conscience than by nerves), as “white liberal guilt.”

Despite the harsh criticism of disappointed white liberals, King refused to shut his eyes or his mouth. It was his duty he believed, to tell the truth about white supremacy in all its guises, including its softer, subtler surface as well as its hardened underbelly Undoubtedly it was shocking to hear King reject his optimism about the “great resources of goodwill in the Southern white man that we must somehow tap.” In the end, he branched beyond the South to criticize America’s moral and racial illness, even as he predicted that recovery would consist of much more than tapping a vein of goodwill. In King’s mature prognosis, nothing could heal the nation except radical moral surgery. This is crucial to remember today, when blacks and whites use the same water fountains but the color of a black man’s skin can still cause him to be dragged to his death by a carful of white teens or brutally sodomized by white officers of the law

What were the roots of King’s earliest faith in the moral capabilites of whites? He had begun his journey to black leadership in traditional fashion. After pursuing seminary and doctoral degrees up North, King returned South in 1954 to accept the pastorate of Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, a small but prestigious congregation in Montgomery, Alabama. More than anything else, King wanted to improve black life in his native region. A little more than a year after going to Dexter, King won international acclaim for successfully leading the fight to desegregate public transportation in Montgomery through a widely heralded year-long bus boycott. King’s reputation was powered by his charisma and his oratorical brilliance. He was most famous, however, for advocating nonviolent passive resistance. In the face of white violence, King counseled blacks to return good for evil. He criss-crossed the nation in one campaign after another, urging blacks not to hate whites even as he helped to unravel the tightly woven fabric of Southern apartheid. King viewed nonviolence as both a way of life and a way of undoing unjust laws. It was also an effective means to challenge immoral social codes that made blacks second-class citizens. King’s grasp of how widely he could apply nonviolence~ was tested in the numerous racial conflicts he engaged. King’s hunger to find the best weapons of resistance was fed by his theology a simmering gumbo of neo-orthodoxy, the social gospel, evangelical piety liberalism, and, above all, radical black Christianity King’s social actions couldn’t help but be improvised since they grew from the dashing forces that shaped the movement. But the moral core of King’s activity lay in his vision of the “beloved community” where freedom and equality are ideally balanced.

King’s confidence in nonviolence was helped by his belief that whites really wanted to change. Beneath their masks of racial hatred and the unseemly scowls that whites flung at blacks, King insisted, was a deep desire to repent. In King’s mind, the depth of white bigotry was a sign of the great need for white forgiveness. The white soul slumped to repressed guilt for repressing blacks. Ironically, many whites often drowned their guilt by wading deeper in the fiery lake of hate. The sadistic habit of
attempting to escape shame by repeating the act that causes it is one that King, a fellow Southerner and Christian, completely understood. King’s claim that Southern whites really hungered for redemption was proof enough to his black critics that loving the hell out of bigots was a deluded, even destructive, strategy for social change. But to many whites, it revealed King’s uncanny insight into the white psyche. It cannot be denied that whites were grieved by King and grateful to him at the same time. Although they resented being seen through, Southern whites were nonetheless comforted by King’s emphasis on their humanity. In time, this led to a greater backlash because it suggested King’s and black people’s moral superiority an idea that was hard for whites to accept since blacks were supposed to be inferior. But King didn’t flaunt his ethical advantage in a game of racial one-upmanship. The point of the black freedom struggle, he argued, was not to embarrass whites but to embrace them along the road to equality (King believed that the Negro’s mission was to redeem America, a belief that surely presumed a special moral talent.)

Above all, King proved to be a master of the white psychology of race. He understood white racial anxiety and rescued whites by forcing them to face their spiritual contradictions. He encouraged whites to see themselves as participants in a cosmic struggle for right and wrong, even if they were often on the wrong side. The struggle to free blacks and redeem whites even gave white hatred a useful role. In King’s drama, violent racism was not simply a dreadful denial of the moral order but a way to bring it into existence. Since it was inevitable, racial terror was made into an unintended ally in the fight for racial progress. In King’s logic, obstacle was bent into opportunity King depended on the expression of racial violence to dramatize the Negro’s plight and to paint a searing portrait of American selfdestruction. For instance, in 1963 he ingeniously wrung a moral and legal benefit for blacks out of the racial chaos of Birmingham. Through his dramatic efforts to contrast black dignity and white brutality sharply King forced the nation to confront questions that it could no longer dismiss. Should America really seek to wash its hands of the whole racial mess by washing its black citizens off the concrete with firefighters’ water hoses? Should our nation attempt to bite into our racial maelstrom by training the incisors and bicuspids of police dogs into the flesh of black men and women? Is Birmingham police commissioner Bull Connor, the violent, implacable defender of Southern segregation, really the sort of figure that we want our children to see as the family retires from dinner to watch the evening news?

Even the denouement of bigotry was useful to King’s story of racial resistance. The possibility that prejudice could be partially resolved showed that blacks were willing to forgive whites and live peacefully King’s program of nonviolence was surely risky since it trusted whites and blacks to play their parts and then to treat each other as brothers and sisters. But King had a genius for making people believe that they had a moral gift they had forgotten, or never knew they possessed, and for making them proud to contribute to the common good. King, however, worked hard to deny whites the perverse pleasure of realizing that their bigotry was a spur to racial progress. He did this by suggesting that the moral values of American culture lie beyond race. Color-blindness so conceived was a crushing blow to the pigmented morality of white chauvinists. At the same time, King preached to blacks that their struggle was not between white and black but between right and wrong. By pegging black struggle to a universal moral foundation, King strongly affirmed black humanity, a fact that is today ignored by ahistorical advocates of color-blindness.

King’s love of Southern whites drew in part from their mutual love of a region whose ancient and competing loyalties have imbued it with a spiritual geography that transcends land. He saw their souls and knew their pains, even their fears, because he ripened in the same soil that fed their moral imagination. King nodded to Southern white identity while undercutting it, building into his nonviolent protest a fierce belief in white redeemability This notion ultimately won over whites but wearied blacks since the biggest burden was placed on their shoulders. Blacks had to love their hateful white neighbors. They had to “pray for those who spitefully use you.” Black blood had to spill to wash away the sin of segregation. Black life was vulnerable to white violence. And black pain led to white gain, too, since, as King was almost too fond of quoting, “unearned suffering is redemptive.”

King’s Southern roots showed in the dramatic drawls that dotted his public speech. King’s accent reminded the world of the negative hybridity of blacks in the minds of Southern segregationists: “They are from us but not ofus.” King’s accent permitted him to lay claim to an identity that had visibly and violently tried to purge itself of its black trace. Whenever King opened his mouth, he was renewing his and black people’s kinship with a tortured territory. Even as King necessarily harped on the South’s bad qualities to promote black liberation, he hitched himself and his cause to the South’s destiny by living, working, and, in the end, dying there. King seemed to understand how the South embodied social critic

Ernest Becker’s observation that while character may be a lie, it’s a vital lie. The South carefully shaped its character through byzantine social graces even as it teemed with suppressed longing and fear that were faintly disguised as courtesy and respect. For a long stretch of his crusade for justice, King seemed every bit the Southern gentleman. Above all, he understood how white nobility and honor worked: as a moral refuge for whites who felt betrayed by black freedom struggles and as a way for whites to save face as blacks challenged racist social habits.

It is not overstating the case to say that King was therapeutic for many Southern whites. He identified the psychic plagues that distorted Southern white culture. Many whites hated King for knowing them so well and for loving them just the same. Yet millions of Southern whites came to depend on a love they really didn’t deserve from a figure their culture taught them not to respect. Somehow, though, his strange talk of redemption through black suffering proved, finally, to be irresistible even when it was morally incomprehensible. King’s fight proved that although Southern blacks and whites in many ways lived in wildly different worlds, they had too much in common to make their quarrel easy or dean. They were joined by the Bible and the ham hock, by culture and cuisine. In fact, a mirror version of the Southern way of life operated in black life, even if it reflected a struggle against the inferiority imposed on it by white society Black self-hatred often stemmed from the fear that what whites believed about blacks might be true. Black guilt, on the other hand, had to do with the failure to demand dignity and respect. The self-loathing that resulted was a faithful barometer of the great need for black liberation. But many blacks, convinced they were inferior and undeserving of equality, shrank further into a .cocoon of self-hatred, denying their fitness to participate in the fight for freedom since they would be unworthy of its good results. They reinforced their chronic loss of self-worth by avoiding the struggle to achieve it. King understood both Southern white and black psychologies of race and worked to address the peculiar bruises of each community

When King turned his attention North, he faced a far more brutal and complex terrain. King discovered the difference in the two regions soon enough when he made up his mind to conquer Northern bigotry. But his view of American racism suffered the biggest defeat. After a string of stunning Southern victories—and some notable setbacks—King temporarily moved his family to a Chicago slum for a run at Yankee apartheid. There he ran into a more stubborn force of racial resistance than he had met in all his years in the South. In applying his technique of
nonviolent civil protest to Chicago, King uncovered the intransigence and intricacy of Northern racism. He was also shocked to discover the deep roots of black demoralization in the ghetto. Northern racism and black demoralization brought out the worst in King’s strategies, bitterly reversing the usual success of his campaigns in exposing to the world the worst in segregated communities. He was hit in the head with a rock as he led a march for open housing in Cicero, Chicago’s most notoriously racist community He was outwitted in the media, and in political strategy by Chicago’s shrewd, hardball-playing mayor, Richard J. Daley, whose ruthless political machine counted key black ministers and politicians among its loyalists. And Northern blacks cared far less about integrating white neighborhoods than about surviving the social brutalities of ghetto life. In his last three years, white racism and black poverty changed King’s mind about racism.

With the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on the books, King sought to expand the scope of the civil rights revolution into the hearts and minds of black and white Northerners. King discovered very quickly that he knew neither group nearly as well as he did their Southern counterparts. The North was a far different country It was an America whose rhythms and rituals were alien to King’s slow speech and his “corny~~ appeals to conscience. The huge morality plays that King brilliantly staged in the South were stocked with antagonists who were beset by buffoonery or belligerence. These traits helped to underscore the dignity of black victims, whose only crime was the desire to eat a hamburger or ride a bus seated next to whites, or to vote for a mayor like their white neighbors did. If evil found brash flesh in such figures down South, up North it preferred to remain diffuse and anonymous. King didn’t have a ioopy sheriff to outfox after he had beat up defenseless blacks. Neither could he heavily draw on symbols of culture that transcended color and were rooted in the desire to harmonize the races, even if, ironically enough, white segregationists sought to achieve such a goal through dividing blacks and whites. Thus, the races could get along if each knew its place: whites on top, blacks on bottom. This was rough equality in Southern whites’s minds, a view supported by their huge investment in the Jim Crow logic of “separate but equal.” As hard as it is to admit, hierarchy was at least a hopeful sign since it grew out of a yen by whites to preserve their fragile society and defend it against Yankee hypocrisy After all, what right did the North have to tell the South about racism when it couldn’t acknowledge its own racial problems? At least the South came clean about its dirt. It consciously, if imperfectly, sought a way to live with the mess. The North, on the other hand, daimed that it was already dean, and thus largely sidestepped the always difficult task of fixing what doesn’t appear to be broken.

King’s open housing marches in Chicago were greeted with what he said was the most “hostile and hateful” demonstration of white racism he had ever witnessed, more violent than even Selma or Birmingham. King acknowledged that “we had not evaluated the depth of resistance in the white community” and he accused Northern whites of practicing “psychological and spiritual genocide,” a stunning about-face on his earlier beliefs in the inherent goodness of whites. Not only in Chicago but in other Northern cities, like Cleveland, King faced a bewildering racial hostility. It gave him a greater appreciation for the rage of Northern blacks who doubted civil tights strategies because they didn’t free blacks from economic misery. But King continued to blast away digging himself deeper into psychological debt to a profoundly skeptical, even pessimistic, view of American race. He openly admitted that “I’m tired of marching for something that should have been mine at birth” and thundered that “if these agreements aren’t carried out, Chicago hasn’t seen a demonstration.” Throughout the nation, King preached his new gospel of coming racial apocalypse if white supremacy was not destroyed. King confessed that he was “tired of race” and, anticipating the Kerner Commission, daimed that white racism was the “destructive cutting edge” that would split America into “two hostile societies.”

More marches won't change poverty rates

2005-10-19T10:45:00.000-05:00

By Mona Charen - Creators Syndicate.

Ironically, his supporters always call him "the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan,'' though he is anything but honorable. Farrakhan is back, with a "Millions More'' march on Washington to commemorate the so-called Million Man March of a decade ago.
The whole notion that marches on Washington should be covered respectfully and even reverentially is outdated -- a throwback to the civil rights era, when marches led by true civil rights leaders really merited such attention. But the 1960s are ancient history. Today, if we want to hear from African-American leaders, we can consult the State Department daily briefing, the "Oprah'' show, the Fortune 500, the nightly news on television, our neighbor or our child's teacher. We can look to any realm of American life, because blacks are well-represented pretty much everywhere.
Still, it is true, as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina underlined, that parts of the black community remain poor and dysfunctional. Yet what can a march do for them? In his message (er, ranting) posted on the Internet, Farrakhan demanded "freedom for all political prisoners held in U.S. prisons and detention facilities, both foreign and domestic. We demand an end to police brutality, mob attacks, racial profiling, the herding of our young men and women into prisons and the biological and chemical warfare perpetrated against our people.''
Elsewhere, Farrakhan renews his demand for reparations to the descendants of slaves and calls for "the establishment of peace in the world. We demand an end to wars of foreign aggression waged by the United States government against other sovereign nations and peoples. We demand an end to senseless violence and advocate peace amongst street organizations (gangs) and youth.''
Okay. Now, back to planet Earth. More than 75 percent of African-Americans are middle or upper class in 2005. Among those who make up the 24.7 percent in poverty, the majority are unmarried women and their children. Family structure is the alpha and omega of poverty in America. You can slice the statistical pie in a thousand ways and still come to the same conclusion. For example: In 1995, the poverty rate for married couple black families was about 8 percent. In the same year, the poverty rate for families headed by white single women was 27 percent. As David Eggebeen and Daniel T. Lichter wrote in the American Sociological Review, "Children from female-headed homes are five times as likely to be poor as children in two-parent families and nine times as likely to be in deep poverty.'' Maggie Gallagher, massaging the data to include a comparison with families that start and remain intact, yielded this statistic: "A child that is born out of wedlock is 30 times more likely to live in poverty than a child that was born in a marriage and whose parents stayed married.''
The prisons are full of African-American youths. Some Farrakhan followers and others who are misinformed interpret this datum as evidence of racism in police departments and courts throughout the country. But not just any African-Americans crowd the prisons. The prisons are dominated by males raised without fathers. And while the illegitimacy rate among Americans at large is frighteningly high at 25 percent, it is stratospheric among blacks at 68 percent.
We are beyond the era of marches. The march on Washington Martin Luther King Jr. led in 1963 demanded, rightly, of course, that the white majority live up to its responsibilities and cease hindering and persecuting American blacks. But no march and no demand can cure what ails some black Americans today. Only a profound renewal of faith in the values of marital fidelity and commitment can hope to alter the landscape of poverty. These are matters of spirit and belief; they can come only from within a community, not from outside.
But it is not impossible to achieve such a renewal. In the 19th century, Britain underwent a profound reformation of mores and morals. Through Sunday schools, YMCAs, temperance societies and charitable work, they were able dramatically to reduce crime, drunkenness and family breakdown. Within the black community today, there are many similar efforts (for example, the ministry of Eugene Rivers and the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise). To succeed though, blacks will have to reconcile themselves to the hard truth that poverty among blacks is about family structure, not white racism.

What Lincoln Said at Thurmond's Party

2005-10-19T07:21:00.000-05:00

by Kevin Southwick

"Five score terrible years ago, Strom Thurmond was born. And Senator Thurmond, I’d like to be the first to praise you, for enduring so long in today’s political climate. If I believed in God, I would say that you must have had God’s protection all this time. Take it from me, if you try to govern against the will of the people, they will find a way to get rid of you. I envy your longevity. Had I lived to 100 and met you as a toddler, I would have suggested that when you grow up you should finish the work that was left undone at my untimely death. That is, deportation of all Negroes from this great nation of liberty.

"By the way, Senator, being among the dearly departed is good news and bad news. I can still vote, but only for Democrats. (Loud laughter.) Since 1865 I’ve argued against this among the thousands of Democrat and Republican officials I see on a daily basis, but our meeting room is much too hot for us to accomplish anything. Seems there’s fire everywhere.

"As to the undone work, your 1948 presidential campaign was a good try. But I would like to point out that the idea of racial segregation, for which many people have criticized you, was a bit shortsighted. It is good for what it is – or was. But keeping Negroes (Negro, can I say that today?) out altogether is a much better idea. My own state, Illinois, thought this was a good idea awhile back. We actually forbade the admission of free Negroes. But as to segregation, I say of it as I said of slavery, ‘eliminating it would be a greater evil, even to the cause of human liberty itself.’ But the final solution should be deporting all Negroes to have ‘their places be filled up by free white laborers.’ This goal is also based on my long held view that ‘there is a physical difference between black and white races which forbid the races from ever living together in terms of social and political equality.’

"Yes, Senator, though radicals did talk of freeing Negro slaves, many Northern states had the wisdom to pass laws to make sure that freed Negroes had to leave. And we were glad to see that the Southern states, being ignorant, did allow free Negroes to enter and actually own property. Present company excluded, Senator, but how could Southerners be so immoral? Can you imagine!

"At any rate, Senator, if I had been successful in deporting all Negroes to Africa, Central America – or, heck, anywhere – you would not have had to champion the noble cause of segregation. But since you did, you certainly should have been elected to carry out this great work of humanity.

"But of course, in the year 2002, talk of enforced segregation takes more courage than most people have. I understand that now there is even talk among the – can I say, paleoconservatives – that not only was forced segregation bad, but forced integration is worse. Now I’m beginning to appreciate the magnitude of your challenges, Senator. I can say that if you had at least stopped forced integration, the country would have been spared all the problems and tragedy of forced busing of children across all the cities in the nation (something I understand even the Negro despises because it destroyed the cultural and economic cohesion of their few prospering communities and neighborhoods). I do believe, Senator, that forced integration and busing caused more destruction, want, and misery in America than that glorious and prodigious march to the seas carried out by my wonderful General Sherman.

"So congratulations, Senator. You were doing the right thing. And America has a debt of gratitude, as you a wealth of gratification, in knowing that you at least tried to make this a white nation. It is a strange irony of history that you took only half my position yet many Americans think ill of you while they have made me into their greatest hero. Who can figure history?

"So, happy one-hundredth birthday, Senator Thurmond. May my remarks and your great work resonate throughout the halls and history of this hallowed nation so that we may someday achieve a government of the whites, for the whites, and by the whites.

Your friend forever,

Abraham Lincoln.

P.S. I disagree with you on that States Rights thing…"

December 23, 2002

Kevin Southwick

A CRUDE, RUDE SOCIETY........SO WHAT ELSE IS NEW?

2005-10-18T05:03:00.000-05:00

REPOST, BUT ON MY MIND.......

Parts By: Mrs. Snoop
Where did they go? I’m not talking about arcane or silly rituals. I’m referring to classic ways of behaving that take very little effort, but go a long ways in keeping the wheels of civility smoothly rolling.

Almost every day I witness someone being rude or acting like their fellow human beings are a burden to them and the world. Almost every day I speak with someone who cannot stand the majority of their fellow humans. And almost every day I hear exchanges that violate the good old fashioned manners my mom taught me.

A few examples -

When someone tells you “Thank you”, what do you respond? If you said “Thank you.” go to the back of the class. The correct answer and response is “You are welcome.” But if you didn’t know that, or don’t respond that way, you are among the majority. Listen to interviews on news programs. I have been listening for years, to no avail. Even if someone does say “you’re welcome” they always (not almost always, but always) add “thank you” to it. The proper response of “You’re welcome” is not archaic and without meaning. Responding “you are welcome” means that the other person’s thanks is acknowledged as valued and accepted. The return “Thank You” makes the exchange into a mini Chip & Dale routine. “Thank you.” “No, thank you” “Oh, no thank YOU.” Etc. Ad nauseam. I know - it’s a small thing, But it irritates me.

How about your manners on the phone. My parent’s taught me to answer the phone “S........ residence, T..... speaking”. To which the person on the other end was supposed to answer, “Hello T. This is......” Once identities were established, the conversation or request could commence with all parties knowing exactly to whom they were speaking. In this day and age of caller ID, the person answering the phone often has a pretty good idea of who is calling. But that doesn’t mean the caller has a clue who they reached. However, it is now an extremely rare thing for someone to identify themself, on either end of the conversation. I do not know about you, but I don’t always recognize people’s voices and it sure would be nice to know (for sure) who I’m speaking to, right from the start. I bet I could pay more attention, right from the start, if I was sure who was on the other end of the line.

These are small, and perhaps petty, observations and complaints. Maybe they don’t really matter to anyone but me. Yet, when I see an increase in the number of people who HATE all other people, who cannot stand to be around fellow human beings, who are surely and rude 24/7...I wonder. Are good manners dead because so many people feel that way, or do these people feel that way because good manners are dead?

Does the following sound like you:

Chomp on food to while talking at the same time, when you damm will know it is inevitable you will spit it at them. Just who taught you to do this?

Talking on a mobile phone on a train or bus. Sometimes it is necessary but it should be done, if at all, with a sense of apology for disturbing others. Virtually no call is that important. What is equally ridiculous is people act as if the call IS that important.

Spitting is a foul habit that spreads disease. When was the last time someone was fined for that? The 1950s? We should fine people for this again.
But some people routinely engage in this activity. These are the same people who scratch their crotch then shake someone’s hand.

However rudeness starts at home. The other day while in a restaurant that idiot mother “allowed” her 2 year old to scream at the top of her lungs, angry that she did not get her way. This jackass when leaving the restaurant continued to leave the door open because her kid did not want to go outside.
Pick up your damm kid and get the hell out!
I guess she called herself teaching her kid a lesson.
However, what she did was anger the patrons of the restaurant.
This is the same little bastard who will, tramp across someones’ lawn or flower bed, throw rocks at someone’s car, fart in a class thinking it funny, lounge on a bus seat while elderly people are forced to stand, talk in a movie theatre, talk on a cell phone in a theater.

Have you ever cut in line, NOT SAID thank you when someone opened a door for you, pounced on you car horn at 6am, allowed your dog to take a crap on someone’s lawn, threw trash or cigarette butts on a sidewalk?

People equate good manners with being "posh, or only for the classy folks" and bad manners with a lack of class. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Rudeness comes from all religious faiths, economic backgrounds, and races.
Thank goodness, my mother dignity and class rubbed off on me a bit.
Growing up in a household where crudeness and rudeness were not exhibited it no doubt helped my brothers and I.
Rudeness like any other human trait is LEARNED. How you speak, how you carry yourself and how you treat others is a direct result of parental nurturing.
Unfortunately, anybody can be a breeder, so the lack of parental skills translates into an increasingly degenerate society.

The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies

2005-10-16T20:57:00.000-05:00

Repost
Kay S. Hymowitz

Read through the megazillion words on class, income mobility, and poverty in the recent New York Times series “Class Matters” and you still won’t grasp two of the most basic truths on the subject: 1. entrenched, multigenerational poverty is largely black; and 2. it is intricately intertwined with the collapse of the nuclear family in the inner city.

By now, these facts shouldn’t be hard to grasp. Almost 70 percent of black children are born to single mothers. Those mothers are far more likely than married mothers to be poor, even after a post-welfare-reform decline in child poverty. They are also more likely to pass that poverty on to their children. Sophisticates often try to dodge the implications of this bleak reality by shrugging that single motherhood is an inescapable fact of modern life, affecting everyone from the bobo Murphy Browns to the ghetto “baby mamas.” Not so; it is a largely low-income—and disproportionately black—phenomenon. The vast majority of higher-income women wait to have their children until they are married. The truth is that we are now a two-family nation, separate and unequal—one thriving and intact, and the other struggling, broken, and far too often African-American.

So why does the Times, like so many who rail against inequality, fall silent on the relation between poverty and single-parent families? To answer that question—and to continue the confrontation with facts that Americans still prefer not to mention in polite company—you have to go back exactly 40 years. That was when a resounding cry of outrage echoed throughout Washington and the civil rights movement in reaction to Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s Department of Labor report warning that the ghetto family was in disarray. Entitled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” the prophetic report prompted civil rights leaders, academics, politicians, and pundits to make a momentous—and, as time has shown, tragically wrong—decision about how to frame the national discussion about poverty.

Full Article

SNOOPS RELATIONSHIP CORNER

2005-10-14T10:17:00.000-05:00

Ok, Snoop was peeping a morning show talking about relationship issues. The lady being interviewed was way to hard on men and their perception of these issues. Anywho, Snoop did Google University Research and found something more appropriate for you women who will no doubt engage in these behaviors this weekend.

WHO IS THE MORE GUILTY PARTY OF THESE RELATIONSHIP OFFENSES?
SNOOP COURT FINDINGS:

1. Forcing your desire for a relationship onto the other person, and because the other person doesn't know how to say "no," they stay with you. WOMEN GUILTY

2. Everything about the other person tells your head and "gut" they are NOT the one, but you ignore your intuition and mind and go ahead anyhow.
WOMEN GUILTY

3. You mix up someone being nice or friendly with you with romance.
MEN GUILTY

4. You fear or hate being alone, so you latch onto the first person who comes by and is available.
WOMEN GUILTY (although military men are the big abusers of this)

5. You look only at the person's looks and outside "package" and do not investigate or pay attention to what they are really like as a *person*.
MEN GUILTY but we have to be.

6. Even though you know this person has done bad things to other people in past relationships, you choose to believe that he/she will not do the same to you.
WOMEN GUILTY AS HELL!!

7. You mistake your great sexual adventures and fun with this person for love.
WOMEN GUILTY

8. You are in a relationship, but you don't express your feelings and needs to your partner for fear you will hurt their feelings or make them angry.
WOMEN GUILTY

9. You know your partner is deceiving you but you refuse to believe it, even though you know the truth. You stay in denial about it all.
WOMEN GUILTY

10. The other person shows a lot of interest in you and you respond quickly and passionately, without really finding out if this person is who or what you really want in a relationship partner.
WOMEN GUILTY

I FIND YOU WOMEN (GUILTY) OF RELATIONSHIP MALPRACTICE.
PLEASE SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP IMMEDIATELY!

2005-10-14T04:28:00.000-05:00

______________________

Snoopitorial

2005-10-13T16:01:00.000-05:00

More blog scanning and I find this piece (below) from Leonard Pitts Jr.
I wanted to add a few things.

As a young kid growing up in the Bay Area and settling in an all white neighborhood I did have my share of Nigger moments. Even as an adult in the civilian world I have had countless numbers of them.
I want to mention them prior to the editorial to show I get dudes side.
Pitts brings up AGAIN the comments by Bennett but I just don’t understand the outrage. The outrage is grossly misplaced.
Couple of briefs:
As a 10 year old while on the steps of my old elementary school a bunch of us who had just returned from baseball practice had out baseball bats and were clanging them on the base of the steps and on the wooden steps of the portable buildings surrounding us.
The sound echoed to the neighborhood above and apparently, someone complained about the noise.
The police arrived several of us were bouncing the rubber tips on the end of the aluminum bats. My back was turned as the office approached us. I, the lone Negro kid out of 16 was grabbed by the police officer, walked to the car, handcuffed, and taken for a 15-minute ride in the police car. While on the ride, the office never said a word.
Again after the 15 minutes or so he asked “where do you live?” I gave my address and he quickly said: “tell me the truth, where do you live?” I told him again and he said you better not be lying or you will go to lock-up. (Whatever that meant, hey I was 10).
We got to my home, the officer got out of the car went to the door, my mother answered and officer asked, “does Snoop live here” (humor me people) after mom acknowledged he came back to the car, unlocked the handcuffs (inside the police car) and told me to get out on the rear passenger side door. The driver side was facing the house.
Now keep in mind for the first several months I lived in that neighborhood I was peeped by the police countless numbers of times whenever I walked alone home.
Black folks can't live in this particular hood.
I was accused by white neighbors of supposed mischief, I had nothing to do with bunches of times.
Lord knows I got into some stuff as any kid does, but NEVER in my own hood and certainly nothing criminal.
Hell our house was egged, many times, items stolen out of our garage, including my brothers cherished mini-bike. All in this in a pristine white bread neighborhood.
One time, I had one old white lady accused me of poring root beet on her as I passed her house on my bike. She hated that I rode my bike and skateboard down the sidewalk in front of her house. So she flat lied to get me (tried) in trouble because she did not want the little nigger boy near her home.
Fast forward to adult life. A certain job opportunity upon my departure form the Force comes up dry as the owner of this company did not realize I was Negro. Several people in the company highly recommended me. I even had a conversation with him on the phone.
Upon seeing me, he told me he had selected someone else for the position.
This happened to me on several occasions upon my extended absence from the work force.
This is particularly the reason why this particular dumbass pissed me off to no end:

“Anyone can get a job anytimne he or she wants”
“Yeah, and where were you applying for jobs at? I find it hard to believe that anyone who is unemployed for a year really "can't find a job." It's more of "I can't find a job I like." I'm not saying it's easy, but I am saying that it's a matter of dignity. Are you willing to sacrifice a small portion OF your dignity to wait tables? Or carhop? Or deliver pizzas? Did you really ever apply for jobs at any of those places? Considering the large cities you've lived in, I can't see how someone with your skill couldn't find ANY job.”

Yes, people spoken like a typical white person who lacks common fucken sense and has no idea what some black folks go through.
Little does this individual knows people with “skills” CAN’T work in a McDonalds, Burger King, or some other service segmented jobs particularly in a college town.
As much as I like my town, the labor force is grossly devoid of Negros.
I was able to get temporary work as a distribution plant for a minute but that did not last long.
My point to all of this is through unequal treatment; hassle from racists’ police fucks, Racial or at the very least very prejudicial conduct from ordinary everyday people can fuck up an individuals perspective.
This is why I find the outrage regarding Bennett’s comments comical. Average white people engage in socially destructive behavior, that hinders the progress, hopes and dreams of black people every damm day. How in the hell would someone come to the conclusion that the out of text bullshit comments of some white guy add fuel to this already arsonists fueled societal blaze?
The Bill Bennett’s of the world don’t worry me, it the white neighbor who put a note on my car on night because we did not drive it often enough. Its the white co-worker who told my boss that “she was worried about her “safety” after I told her to fuck off. Yes this old fat white curmudgeon, receptionist thinks that I would risk my job by punching her fat ass I guess.
Its the stupid white lady who at my other job needed my assistance for a major project, which I could have easily helped her with, after several nice phone conversations she was eager to get started. When she finally visited my office, I got the “oh shit, he’s a negro” look. Needless to say she mysteriously did not need my assistance any longer.
Its the white guy who I replaced at my current digs, who upon introduction, the first thing that comes out of his mouth after the “oh shit he’s a Negro” look, was what were YOUR qualifications and what is your background?
It would be more comical if it were not so common.

Yes us Negros experience this crap much too much but you just have to say screw it and try to endure.
So to Mr. Pitts tough break but, been there and back many times.