politicalpartypoop.com

_____________________________

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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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

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.