politicalpartypoop.com

Uberprotestor Cindy Sheehan has made her voice heard in the Pyongtaek Base Consolidation fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where the hell do you left wing nut types get the money to troll around the world protesting shit?

If I join you crazy people can a negro get a free trip somewhere?

I’m not going to be spelling Nazi cause I misspell crap all the time, but I was under the impression that liberals were smarter than the rest of us and being “professional” protesters knowing their pictures will be taken would you not make sure your sign is spelled correctly.

Just askin!

 

 Snoops Rant:

Don’t you just love that [tag]pedophiles[/tag] now have a political party.

It’s good to see that these sick twisted fucks are starting to make a more visible presence in society. So we know where we have to aim…

Although I have another grand baby on the way, I don’t envy people having children nowadays.               This world is getting sicker and crazier by the day. Sick freaks are breeding more and more sick freaks.

Drug induced worthless bastards, to non stop boozing slobs, child molesting men of God to child molesting atheists.

Little girls are now hoes in training, little boys are growing up to be wife beating, cheating morons.

Watching these idiot people attempt to kill each other to spend money they don’t have, people are just becoming increasingly rude and crude fucks.

We’re just screwed. This is why pedophile political parties will eventually become accepted in this sick twisted society.

It’s just the natural evolution process right?

Sorry for the rant, but I can’t help it.

***********

By Kate Monaghan
CNSNews.com Correspondent - link

(CNSNews.com) - A [tag]Dutch political party[/tag] that failed to qualify to participate in the country’s general election Wednesday has blamed harassment from “far right” elements that took issue with its [tag]pro-pedophilia[/tag] platform.

The PNVD was forced to end its campaign recently after it was unable to obtain the signatures required for it to contest the election.

Although the party only needed 570 signatures - 30 from each of the [tag]Netherlands[/tag]’ 19 regions - and had failed to reach even that modest target, a conservative family organization in the U.S. warned that the episode should be taken seriously despite the fringe nature of the group.

“I think we should take it as warning here in America,” said Janice Crouse, senior fellow at [tag]Concerned Women for America[/tag].

“Certainly this is coming here and there are people already in America who want to say that children enjoy sex and that children ought to be taught sex by adults,” she said.

PNVD party secretary Norbert de Jonge told Cybercast News Service in a telephone interview that people who wanted to sign in support of the party’s candidacy had been threatened and intimidated.

People who were willing to sign had been afraid that opponents - “especially right-wing parties and their fans” - would gather the names and addresses of signatories and harass them, he said.

“They were afraid that they would be made [out to be] pedophiles or that they would be outed if they actually were pedophiles,” said de Jonge.

“And so people were afraid to sign. That’s why eventually only a very small percentage of what we needed … signed for our party.”

PNVD’s Dutch acronym transliterates to [tag]Party for Neighborly Love, Freedom, and Diversity[/tag]. It bears the Latin motto “sapere aude” which means “Dare to know” or “Dare to be wise.”

The party is known for lobbying to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 in the Netherlands and having the eventual goal of eliminating the age of consent entirely among other controversial issues.

De Jonge said the failure to gain enough signatures to run in the 2006 election was a setback but by no means a failure: The party would keep on trying and believed Dutch society’s views on sex with children may shift by the next election.

“We’re just not the kind of people to give up so we’re going to continue, and maybe if we do not succeed in four years maybe we will succeed in eight years,” he said.

Warning for US

De Jonge said the party had been encouraged by developments in recent years.

“We think that things are changing, because in the last 10 years or so, the whole aspect of pedophilia could not be discussed by anyone, especially not in the media,” he asserted.

“Part of what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to change the mentality of the people. This is something we think is changing and … we call that a small success in what we’re doing as a party,” de Jonge said.

Getting the required number of signatures would not be that difficult, he argued.

“We see that it is possible for people again to talk about this, and we think that’s a good thing, because we don’t want there to be any taboos. We don’t need that many people to support us in order to be able to get a seat in the chamber.”

Crouse said the situation in the Netherlands should trigger an alarm in the U.S.

She told Cybercast News Service that although the U.S. does not have a formal political party advocating pedophilia, the attitudes exist.

“The same arguments that they are using in the Netherlands are being used here in the United States. They just have not gained public attention in quite the same way and have not moved to launch a political campaign in quite the same way,” she said.

“There’s no question that this is the logical next step,” continued Crouse.

“The radical left is going to push every door possible to see what will open and provide greater opportunity to do the kinds of things that they want to do that have supposedly no consequences. They want to convince the American public that anything anybody wants to do is okay,” she said.

‘Breaking taboos’

De Jonge insists that his party is not just for pedophiles but also promotes “child emancipation.”

“People [need to] change the opinion. It’s not just that we would do this for pedophiles but also that it’s better for the child to have more freedom in regards to how they want to experience their sexuality and how they want to discover their sexuality.”

The PNVD’s platform also covers issues including legalization of what it calls “soft” drugs for 12-year-olds, vegetarianism, and radical expansion of social benefits.

De Jonge said the platform covered a much wider spectrum than pedophilia and expressed frustration that the child sex aspect had garnered the most attention. He freely admitted, however, that he and the party’s two other leaders, are in fact pedophiles.

“Nearly the only thing that’s being talked about with regard to our party is the pedophile aspect of it - that we want to change the age of consent,” de Jonge said. “We do not agree. We are not a pedophile party. But personally I don’t think it’s strange that people started calling us a pedophile party because the board members - we are, all three of us - pedophiles.”

Despite this, de Jonge said he wished the media would maintain “a much more neutral position” when reporting on the party.

“We want to break through taboos and dogmas in the hope to take away fear and intolerance.”

Crouse cautioned that Americans should not dismiss such attitudes lightly.

“I would stress the fact that it would be easy to dismiss this story and say, well this is the Netherlands - that’s how they are and many of the weird ideas that are in the public square come from the Netherlands,” she said.

“But I think we should take it as a warning that there is nothing to keep people who are radical left in our country from taking encouragement from cases like this,” Crouse added.

In Wednesday’s parliamentary election, Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s center-right Christian Democrats are facing a strong challenge from a left-leaning Labor-led alliance. The [tag]Netherlands[/tag] has a population of 16.5 million, of which some 12.3 million are eligible to vote.

(Greg)Just to let you know. I’m posting my response on PPP because the purpose of this blog is for me to express my opinions (in public) and let folks peep into Snoops head from time to time.

This response will give further insight into my opinions and beliefs to help clarify why I write about the things I do and why I post some of the articles I do.

People can join in on this conversation if they wish.

********************* 

First of all, the idea that [tag]Koreans[/tag] abhor Americans because we are racists is a big laugh. Surely you know or realize that Asians are generally considered to be among the most [tag]xenophobic[/tag] people in the universe. That’s a stereo type that is well documented!

Are there exceptions? Sure. Your wife for example. And times and people change (thank God!). Just like the increase in black-white marriages, more Asians are realizing that their culture could use a little bit of “invasion.”

However, most Chinese think Koreans aren’t much better then the average dude. And vice-versa. The Japanese believe they are descended from the gods and the rest of all people’s are mongrel mutts. The Indians and Pakistani peoples (who are Asian) have caste systems that are still alive and well.

So when your Korean students point out how badly we in America treat blacks or other races, why don’t you explore with your students how Asians (Them or their parents or country men & women) feel or act towards people of other races?

I know there is currently a wave of WE LOVE BLACK people sweeping Asia. One of our friends recently went to Japan and was treated like a diva the whole time. She loved being told how beautiful and wonderful she was, and her 200 plus frame actually believed they would treat her like that for life. However, while the Asians she met LOVE black people who are rappers and athletes, and enjoy paling around with them for the sheer novelty of it, would they actually marry a black person? Or want their child to do so? And would their parents not disown them for doing so? I doubt it. The Vietnam war resulted in a whole generation of children whose fathers went back to America without them. These children were treated as outcasts their whole lives. And which children were the lowest on the totem pole? The ones with black GI fathers. Look it up in the history books Greg. The Negro is simply a fad in Asia right now. Like most fads, it will pass.

It’s far easier to see the skeletons in someone else’s closets, rather than clean out your own attic. (Jesus was real clear on that one; take the plank out of your own eyes before going after the splinter in the eyes of your brother).

Secondly, please be specific when you say I’m being [tag]racist[/tag] or espousing racism? Give me specific examples of when I was doing that.

I believe I am not a racist. I do not look down on any race as a whole. I do not think my race is better or more intelligent or anything then any other race. I think you need to get a better grasp of what racism is as opposed to personal prejudices.

I like talking about racism. I expose racism. I explore racism. But I am not a racist. I do not believe myself or any race to be superior (or inferior) to any other. That means that while I have personal prejudices, I am not being racist. Just human.

It is one of the great things about this country that we can and do take a look at our own foibles and follies. I know all too well how badly America treats black people, in general. And yet I still believe that of all the countries on this earth, this is the one place (Africa included) where I as a Black man can achieve the most happiness and success. Only in America can I live with a chance at attaining the best and easiest life on earth. Even with all the B.S. and KKK folks around, I still can succeed better here than anywhere else (and yes, I’ve been overseas).

So you tell your students that while America is far from perfect, it comes a darn sight closer to it then any other country that ever existed or exists today. Does that make me prejudiced? I guess so!

But before they start throwing stones my way, they might want to come visit America for awhile. Chances are good that they’ll want to stay here! Most people are JEALOUS of Americans, but hide it by feeling superior towards us. That is [tag]racism[/tag] my friend.

Do I have personal prejudices? You bet I do. I know I do and I am not shy about expressing them. For instance, I’ve not had very many good experiences with people of Arabic decent, and my personal view point is colored by those personal experiences. However, I know that there are probably lots of individuals of Arabic extract that I might like personally, if I got to know them one on one. At least that is what my wife tells me! LOL.

So I know what it is like to have a closed mind to new ideas or peoples. For good or bad, most people have personal prejudices. I just admit mine more freely then do some. I don’t care if Mr. Red-neck doesn’t like me. I don’t care much for him either.

As for your Mexican child being offended by some of the articles in my blog - first of all, please note that a lot of what I post is simply copied from other sites, and I often do that NOT because I agree with it. Rather, I post stuff from the far left so that I can expose others to the silly shit that passes for ideas sometimes. But trust me Greg when I say that the Mexican boy or girl who comes to America knows (or will soon know) all too well that there are people who do not like them even before they meet them. My ex-wife and mother of my child is from Puerto Rico, so I know first hand about being black and Hispanic. I am ALL for legal immigration. I think America is stronger and better because we do have so many races here. But I still want those here to realize that this grand experiment can only work if they join in the culture of this country. Not even the Amish insist on being totally outside the country they have chosen. Render unto Caesar….

You can’t escape racism in any country (unless it is occupied solely by indigenous races [is that possible any more? Maybe in the Australian outback?}). So anyone in a minority is used to that kind of thing. If you are now living in Korea, you may know something about that.

So, if you know there is racism out there, one way to combat it is to first name it when you see it, and then be on your best behaviors in public, so as to not perpetuate the negative stereo types. But if I get Negro in public once in awhile, I figure I’m making some red-neck’s day by living up to the stereo type he already had formed in his pointy head. We can’t live our lives trying to change people’s mind set. They’re entitled to be stupid. I do not care if people might not like me because of my skin tone. That’s their loss and I don’t need more white friends. I already have a white wife! And we can’t live our lives walking on egg shells. I say what I think. Maybe that makes me rude, but at least I’m honest. I think that the world would be far better if more people were worried about being truthful more then they worry about being political correct!

Finally, if you truly want to get information to help educate your students about America, why don’t you go to school books or university web sites? You are not going to get cerebral content from blogs. If you want actual news, go to one of the main stream media sources or to drudge report type sites. Not blogs. The purpose of a blog is not to report or teach. If you want personal opinions, you go to blog land. And each blog is as unique as it’s author.

I am not representing all of America or all of Black America. I’m just one man spouting off on things that interest me. I think the fact that I am a Black man who is conservative points to yet another of America’s wonderful aspects. We have FAR more opportunity and diversity here than any other place on earth. We may be messed up in many respects, but we are not often boring!

From ABC News - Link  - Via Drudge

BOSTON, Nov. 22, 2006 — Joe Mroszczyk, president of the College Republicans at [tag]Boston University[/tag], admits he set out to stir up a hornet’s nest when he came up with the idea of offering a whites-only scholarship at the school. But he got a little more buzz than he bargained for.

“To tell you the truth, we didn’t see this coming,” Mroszczyk said. “The Drudge Report picked it up yesterday, and today I just finished a round of national interviews. It’s kind of overwhelming.”

All the media attention is focused on a $250 [tag]Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship[/tag] offered by Mroszczyk and the BU chapter of the College Republicans. Applicants must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.2 or higher; they must write two essays; and, here’s the kicker, they must be at least one-quarter Caucasian.

The application itself offers an explanation: “We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today.”

According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out “how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship.”

At BU, for example, students who are at least one-quarter Hispanic can apply for a National Hispanic Recognition Scholarship.

“There are plenty of poor, white, academically gifted students who need that money just as much,” Mroszczyk said.

It isn’t the first time a group of students has tried this kind of stunt.

Two years ago a chapter of the [tag]College Republicans[/tag] at Roger Williams University also offered a $250 whites-only scholarship. That’s where the BU students got the idea.

“We are not doing this as some kind of white supremacy thing. I wanted to have a dialogue about racial preference,” Mroszczyk said.

It seems as if Mroszczyk has gotten his wish. People from across the country are now weighing in on the idea through e-mail and the radio. And closer to home, some BU students are having their say too.

“It’s a poor way to talk about affirmative action,” said David Coreas, the 21-year-old senior who is president of the Latino fraternity Phi Iota Alpha at BU. “If they want to have a scholarship, then let them have a scholarship, but they’re stirring up controversy in the wrong way.”

Coreas said he believes that racially based scholarships are necessary to level a very uneven academic playing field.

“We have to look at the situation honestly,” he said. “Caucasians tend to have a higher per capita income than Latinos and other minorities. We have to have scholarships to survive.”

Coreas said he would welcome an honest dialogue on campus about race and affirmative action.

Moszczyk admits even some of his good friends are shaking their heads.

“They said I can’t believe you’re doing this,” he said.

ut for all the talk, there are still no takers for the scholarship. The application has been available online since Nov. 7, and so far not one student has filled it out.

hat’s money wasted, according to David Coreas.

I wish I could apply: That $250 could help me pay for my textbooks,” he said.

Coreas isn’t eligible, though.

But for BU students who have a pretty good GPA and can write a couple of essays, there’s still time, as long as they’re also 25 percent Caucasian. The deadline for applications is Nov. 30.

See this is where utter stupidity takes over for common fucken sense.
Although this was a retarded way to make a point under this idiots guidelines for qualifying for the scholarship a lot of black folks would actually qualify.

Although my skin has a touch of pigment, Snoop has lots of “white blood” pumping through the pipes.
Without sliding down the family tree both great grandparents were white Irish/German, I have Native blood in me as well. Bottom line I have more non “African/Negro” blood in me.
It’s not about the “blood” content, it’s about the “you are a darkie” bullshit.

On this racial quota crap I have said many times and I will say here again.
I am against racial quotas in hiring and I certainly don’t approve of lower admission standards for darkies vs white students.  All I want is a level playing field.

The thing is white people have their own form of affirmative action, it’s called “don’t hire darkies” or “hire people that look like me”
White people who continually bitch, complain and moan about how black folks on occasion get preferential treatment in some isolated circumstances are just full of shit.
We live in a white society and you white people have all of the obvious advantages, I don’t even need to go into them.

If you are white and you are struggling and you can’t make it in this society with all of the advantages you SUCK!, you are….you just FUCKEN SUCK!
No white person has any excuse for not making it in this society.
It’s these sorry ass boo fucken hoo white people who complain about how “those Negros get preferential treatment, and they get government help and they have their own Negro advancement society what about us?” Just shut up, if you are one of these people YOU SUCK! Don’t have any babies because your gene pool needs to end before you produce any more whining ass white people.

Note to white people trying to get into college I found from the Association of American Colleges and Universities it says there are 2,680 accredited four-year colleges and universities.  Most operate privately or as part of state governments.
If some Negro has taken “your spot” pick another school, stop bitching.
You can get your degree, find a job then (cause you know some other white person will hire you regardless of what university your attended)  you then can get back at darkies by not hiring them and start the cycle of discrimination all over again.

Don’t get mad at ole Snoop at pointing out the obvious.

 I’m recycling this for my man Greg, in case you did not see. This article fits my view on sam sex marriage to a T!
It helps that Shelby is one of my favorite conservative writers.

 NJ’s Gay Ex-Governor Says He Would Marry

Jersey Courts ProHomosexual Ruling Could Fuel Marriage Defense Efforts

(AgapePress) - New Jersey’s Supreme Court has ruled that homosexual couples are entitled to the same rights as married heterosexual couples. In its decision, justices said it was a violation of the state’s constitution to deny to same-sex couples the same marital rights and benefits enjoyed by heterosexual spouses.

————————————

Old piece from Wall Street OPJ.com, maybe I should give a shit, but I don’t. This article says all I need to say on the issue.  

BY [tag]SHELBY STEELE[/tag]

It is always both a little flattering and more than a little annoying to blacks when other groups glibly invoke the civil rights movement and all its iconic imagery to justify their agendas for social change. I will never forget, nor forgive, the feminist rallying cry of the early ’70s: “Woman as nigger.” Here upper-middle-class white women–out of what must have been an impenetrable conviction in their own innocence–made an entire race into a metaphor for wretchedness in order to steal its thunder.

And now [tag]gay marriage[/tag] is everywhere being defined as a civil rights issue. In [tag]San Francisco[/tag], gay couples on the steps of city hall cast themselves as victims of bigotry who must now be given the “right” to legally marry in the name of “equality” and “social justice.” In the media, these couples have been likened to the early civil rights heroes whose bravery against police dogs and water hoses pushed America into becoming a better country. “I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history,” a San Francisco radio host said about gay marriage. “Maybe we’re looking at thousands of Rosa Parks over at city hall.”

So, dressing gay marriage in a suit of civil rights has become the standard way of selling it to the broader public. Here is an extremely awkward issue having to do with the compatibility of homosexuality and the institution of marriage. But once this issue is buttoned into a suit of civil rights, neither homosexuality nor marriage need be discussed. Suddenly only equity and fairness matter. And this turns gay marriage into an ersatz civil rights struggle so that dissenters are seen as Neanderthals standing in the schoolhouse door, fighting off equality itself. Yet all this civil rights camouflage is, finally, a bait-and-switch: When you agree to support fairness, you end up supporting gay marriage.

But gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue. It is not a struggle for freedom. It is a struggle of already free people for complete social acceptance and the sense of normalcy that follows thereof–a struggle for the eradication of the homosexual stigma. Marriage is a goal because, once open to gays, it would establish the fundamental innocuousness of homosexuality itself. Marriage can say like nothing else that sexual orientation is an utterly neutral human characteristic, like eye-color. Thus, it can go far in diffusing the homosexual stigma.

In the gay marriage movement, marriage is more a means than an end, a weapon against stigma. That the movement talks very little about the actual institution of marriage suggests that it is driven more by this longing to normalize homosexuality itself than by something compelling in marriage. The happiness that one saw in the faces of the newly married in San Francisco seemed to come primarily from the achievement (if only illusory) of ordinariness. After all, many of them had lived together into old age. Love does not require marriage but, for gays, ordinariness does. And happiness for these couples was in the imprimatur of ordinariness.

But marriage is only one means to innocuousness. The civil rights framework is another. To say that gay marriage is a civil rights issue is to imply that [tag]homosexuality[/tag] is the same sort of human difference as race. And even geneticists now accept that race is so superficial a human difference as to be nothing more than a “social construct.” In other words, racial difference has been made officially innocuous in our culture, and its power to stigmatize has been greatly reduced. Evidence of this is seen in the steady, yet unremarked, rise in interracial marriage rates for all of our races. So if gay marriage, like race, is about civil rights, then homosexuality is a human difference every bit as innocuous. Thus, America should treat homosexuality like it treats race and give gays the “right” to marry as it once gave blacks the right to vote.

So gays benefit from the comparison to both race and civil rights, and this has provoked hostility and even outrage in black America. Black leaders as liberal as Jesse Jackson have distanced themselves from the gay marriage issue, and among black churches an actual movement against gay marriage is unfolding. There is a religious dimension to this, but more broadly there is a simple resentment at having blackness implicitly compared to homosexuality.

The civil rights movement argued that it was precisely the utter innocuousness of racial difference that made segregation an injustice. Racism was evil because it projected a profound difference where there was none–white supremacy, black inferiority–for the sole purpose of exploiting blacks. But there is a profound difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the former, sexual and romantic desire is focused on the same sex, in the latter on the opposite sex. Natural procreation is possible only for heterosexuals, a fact of nature that obligates their sexuality to no less a responsibility than the perpetuation of the species. Unlike racial difference, these two sexual orientations are profoundly–not innocuously–different. Racism projects a false difference in order to exploit. Homophobia is a reactive prejudice against a true and firm difference that already exists.

Institutions that arise to accommodate these two sexual orientations can never be exactly the same. Across time and cultures, marriage has been a heterosexual institution grounded in the procreative function and the responsibilities of parenthood–this more than in either love or adult fulfillment. Marriage is simply the arrangement by which humans perpetuate the species, whether or not they find fulfillment in it.

The true problem with gay marriage is that it consigns gays to a life of mimicry and pathos. It shoehorns them into an institution that does not reflect the best possibilities of their own sexual orientation. Gay love is freed from the procreative burden. It has no natural function beyond adult fulfillment in love. If this is a disadvantage when children are desired, it is likely an advantage when they are not–which is more often the case. In any case, gays can never be more than pretenders to an institution so utterly grounded in procreation. And dressing gay marriage in a suit of civil rights only consigns gays to yet another kind of mimicry. Stigma, not segregation, is the problem gays face. But insisting on a civil rights framework only leads gays into protest. But will protest affect stigma? Is “gay lovers as niggers” convincing? Protest is trying to hit the baseball with the glove.

The problem with so much mimicry is that it keeps gays from evolving institutions and rituals that reflect the true nature of homosexuality. Assuming, as I do, that gays should have the option of civil unions that afford them the legal prerogatives of marriage, isn’t it more important after that to allow quiet self-acceptance to lead the way to authentic institutions?

The stigmatization of homosexuals is wrong and makes no contribution to the moral health of our society. I was never worried for my children because they grew up knowing a gay couple that lived across the street, or because several family friends were gay. They learned early what we all know: that homosexuality is as permanent a feature of the human condition as heterosexuality. Nothing is gained in denying this. But neither should we deny that the two are inherently different. The gay [tag]marriage[/tag] movement denies this difference in order to borrow “normalcy” from marriage. Thus, it is a movement born more of self-denial than self-acceptance, as if on some level it agrees with those who see gays as abnormal.

 Well when all of this went down I was in New Mexico. I saw a Headline News report of the incident and frankly all I could do was laugh.

This fucken hack of an actor from a grossly overrated show is obviously dealing with a truckload of mental issues stemming from his colossal lack of success after the end of Seinfeld.

The thing is people I believe that his racist rant is not that far from the mainstream.

He is being branded because of political correctness and the gushing of white guilt in our society.

There are a hell of a lot more white people who think like he does than we care to acknowledge.

The only difference in his tirade is that he did it on stage, in public and not in the friendly confines of a living room full of lily white martini sipping hypocrites.

Article Link 

The comedian who played sidekick [tag]Kramer[/tag] in TV’s [tag]Seinfeld[/tag] is fighting to save his career after an astonishing onstage racist rant.

Michael Richards, 57, was forced to apologise after a foul-mouthed tirade at a heckler during his stand-up show in Los Angeles.

Special video report featuring [tag]Michael Richards[/tag] on stage and his subsequent apology…
• (Windows Media Player)
• (Real Player)

He repeatedly branded black members of the audience “niggers” while yelling: “Fifty years ago we’d have you upside down with a fucking fork up your asses.”

Today Richards told US chat show host David Letterman: “I’m really busted up over this and I’m very, very sorry. I am not a racist, that’s what’s so insane about this. I said some pretty nasty things to some African-Americans, a lot of trash talk.”

His former co-star [tag]Jerry Seinfeld[/tag] said he felt “sick” about what he branded a “horrible, horrible mistake”.

“I feel terrible for all the people who have been hurt,” he added. “But I’ve known Michael many years. He’s someone I love. I know how shattered he is. He deserves a chance to apologise.”

The incident happened at the [tag]Laugh Factory[/tag] on Sunset Strip on Friday, when two black audience members heckled Richards, reportedly calling him “not funny”. He paced across the stage in a fury and unleashed a barrage of insults. Veteran publicist Michael Levine said: “I think it’s a career-ruiner for him.”

 Teacher quits after placing message in word-search calling on Allah to annihilate ‘evil-sponsoring U.S.’

 Article from WorldNetDaily.com

A high-school Spanish teacher has resigned his position after placing hidden messages inside a word-search puzzle calling on Allah to destroy America, which he called the “body of evil that is making human life so miserable.”

Khalid Chahhou, 35, a native of Morocco who was a first-year language instructor at Smithfield-Selma High School in North Carolina, quit after a student deciphered the anti-U.S. message which also voiced support for terrorists.

The secret message, when put together, read: “Sharon killed a lot of innocent people in Palestine. Hamas is not a terrorist group. They have the right to defend their country. This is something that forms part of our freedom and dignity. Allah help destroy this body of evil that is making human life so miserable. Destroy America, a country where evil is sponsored.”

“We were concerned quite a bit,” school board member Larry Strickland told the Smithfield Herald. “This is something that our school system would not and does not tolerate.”

Fred Bartholomew, chairman of the school board, said even though Chahhou resigned, he might not escape judgment, as legal options are being considered.

“We’ll let our investigation run its course and then see what we have to do,” he said.

When contacted by the Raleigh News & Observer, Chahhou confirmed the incident, but otherwise had little comment.

“I don’t want to talk about this dark page in my life any more,” Chahhou said.

Sophomore Chris McDaniels told the Observer the word search caught his attention because it was handwritten; they were usually typed.

“I think some of the people in the class were kind of afraid, because how the world is today, you never know with people,” McDaniels said. “Even if you’ve known them for a while, they could turn out to be someone completely different.”

His mother, Carla McDaniels, wondered how someone having what they see as extremist tendencies landed in a public class, where such views could be broadcast to students.

“With him resigning, who’s to say he’s not going to go to another school district to do the same thing?” she asked.

Shakil Ahmed, president of the Islamic Association of Cary, N.C., said Chahhou told him he created the puzzle when he was upset after viewing news reports of deaths of Palestinians at the hands of Israeli troops.

“He must have gone through an outburst of emotions at that time,” Ahmed told the News & Observer.

Ahmed said Chahhou is a mild-mannered man, who has taught Arabic and religious studies to children at a mosque of about 200 members since he moved to the local area five months ago.

“He’s the most softest-spoken, most gentle, kindest person I’ve come across,” said Ahmed, adding Chahhou was embarrassed by his actions.

By [tag]Rush Limbaugh[/tag] - From Radio Show

Every Thanksgiving we read from my book. See, I Told You So. Book #2. That book also sold over 2.4 million copies in hard cover. The first two million copies were sold in eight weeks during November and December, when the book came out. It was the second book. Of course they said second books never do as well as the first. Just another one of these little bits of conventional wisdom that we here at the EIB Network have blown up. But it’s the true story, the Real Story of Thanksgiving is something that wasn’t even taught when I was in school. I was in school back in the ’50s and early ’60s in grade school when all this stuff was taught. Here’s the basic synopsis of what I was taught about Thanksgiving, what everybody, I think, was taught. And when I began to research this for the book, it’s why I was so surprised.

So this is really nothing new. This history revisionism is not something that’s been going on since outcome based education. It’s been going on for quite a while. The supposed true story of Thanksgiving can be summed up very quickly. The Pilgrims came from England to escape oppression. They arrived in a new land and were immediately overwhelmed with their own incompetence as human beings. They couldn’t grow food. They couldn’t feed themselves. They couldn’t protect themselves. They had no clue what to do. The Indians, who greeted them with friendly leis and bouquets upon their arrival said, “Oh, we’re the Indians, we’re glad you’re here,” fed the Pilgrims and taught them how to grow corn and how to hunt and basically taught them how to live.
And that’s what the first Thanksgiving was, and then of course the Pilgrims continued to populate and propagate, and eventually killed all the Indians and took over their country and that was the thanks the Indians got for their niceties in feeding the Pilgrims and keeping them alive — and, hence, the evil white European tradition was born. That’s all poppycock. That is all absolute BS with a capital B and a capital S. It’s almost the exact opposite of that, in fact, the truth of the real Thanksgiving, and I’m going to have that. I’ve researched it and published it in this book and it’s a tradition on the day before Thanksgiving to read from those few pages of the book. It starts on page 66 in the hard cover edition of See, I Told You So, if you want to grab your copy when we do this. Maybe read along, or read it in advance and be prepared for what’s coming.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

It’s time for the real story of Thanksgiving and the George Washington 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation. The real story of Thanksgiving in my second book, See, I Told You So. It’s in the chapter that begins on page 66, and the title of that chapter is “Dead White Guys Or What Your History Books Never Told You.” Now, as is so often the case with much of what has happened on this program, the details of this story are now all over the Internet under other people’s names and bylines, which is fine with me. I’m like Ronald Reagan: I don’t care how the truth gets out. I don’t care who gets the credit for it, as long as it gets out. The more people that get it out, the more people that understand it, spread it, the better. But this book goes back to 1994 or ‘93, actually, and the true story of Thanksgiving prior to that time, I didn’t see it anywhere. Like I was telling you at the beginning of the program, I’m like everybody else.

When I was going to grade school and it was time to teach us about Thanksgiving, the basic synopsis of what I was told was the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock, a bunch of destitute white people. When they arrived; they had no clue what to do, didn’t know how to grow corn, didn’t know how to hunt, basically didn’t know how to do anything. And if it weren’t for the Injuns who befriended them and gave them coats and skins and taught them how to fish and shared their food and corn with them, the Pilgrims wouldn’t have survived and the Pilgrims thanked them by killing them and taking over the country and bringing with them syphilis, environmental destruction, racism, sexism, bigotry and homophobia.

That’s basically the Thanksgiving story we were all raised with. The latter part of that has been recently added as part of the politically correct multicultural curriculum. But basically the story of Thanksgiving that we all had was that the Pilgrims arrived, were basically inept, incompetent white people, the Indians were very compassionate and nice and shared everything that they had with them and for their thanks, the Pilgrims wiped them out, created the cavalry and basically took over the country, stole it from them, and then amen — and so we all grew up thinking that that’s what happened. The Indians were great people but now they live on reservations and how did this happen since they were so nice to us way back when. That’s not anywhere near the truth. It really is nowhere near the truth. I have the real story in the book.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Was out over the last several days on a trip to New Mexico to attend a wedding at the Loretto Chapel in Santa Fe.
Mrs. Snoop and I had a fantastic time.
I’ll have to have her write up a synopsis of the trip soon.

Posted by Noel Sheppard on Newsbusters

First Coast News in Jacksonville, Florida, did a fabulous piece Tuesday on how terrorists are using websites like YouTube and MySpace to recruit, train, and send messages to their cadre (hat tip to our friend Joe Myers). Some of the transcript was posted at FirstCoastNews.com, and the absolutely must-see video is here: 

It’s a video showing a room full of children sharing their dreams. They are not excited about being doctors, lawyers or teachers. Instead, the children shout, “We are the nation of Hezbollah. I shall sacrifice my life for Allah.”

A group of children in training to be a mujahideen, or holy warrior.

Online there are videos of those warriors. One suicide bomber announces he is readying himself to blow up a group of American soldiers.

The video goes on for eight minutes and even shows the explosion. In the background are cheers from those taking the pictures.

The video is just some of the many the First Coast News I-team found on the internet from sites like Youtube and Myspace.

“I think right now we are a ticking time bomb,”
says Tom Hayden, a retired Lt. Col Marine, who is also a counter terrorism expert.

Hayden says some of the videos, while disturbing, are online for a reason.

“Something like myspace, probably the most well known, popular website right now, it’s even being used to transmit messages,” says Hayden.

He says there are messages left on the internet for those recruited to carry out another 9/11 type attack. Hayden says those Jihad soldiers are getting messages in chat rooms and on message boards.

“There is a specific time that a message is coming. Then it’s on there and then it is taken off,” says Hayden.

He says hidden messages are also being sent in pictures and videos and the solider is already equipped with the code to unlock the secret. “It’s being used quite frequently.”

In fact, some of the videos we found and recorded were gone in a matter of days, removed by the user.

There was no trace of what was there or who the page belonged to. The experts will tell you that’s a problem, because there is a new breed of terrorist out there.

“You won’t see anymore like we have Mohammad Atta and that group that came,” says Hayden.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation agrees, saying the Internet has created a series of new problems.

Shocking.

(CBS/AP) A senior House Democrat said Sunday he will introduce legislation to reinstate the military draft, asserting that current troop levels are insufficient to sustain possible challenges against Iran, North Korea and Iraq.

“There’s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm’s way,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said on CBS News’ Face the Nation.

Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War who has unsuccessfully sponsored legislation on conscription in the past, said he will propose the measure early next year.

At a time when some lawmakers are urging the military to send more troops to Iraq, “I don’t see how anyone can support the war and not support the draft,” he told Bob Schieffer.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is a colonel in the U.S. Air Force Standby Reserve, said he agreed that the U.S. does not have enough people in the military.

“I think we can do this with an all-voluntary service, all-voluntary Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy. And if we can’t, then we’ll look for some other option,” said Graham, who is assigned as a reserve judge to the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

READ MORE HERE

 

ALSO checkout

 From the blog Pardon My English.

Na, na, na, na, boo, boo, If you conservative white folks write about this stuff, you get called a racist, and other really bad stuff. ME on the other hand, I can’t be a racist ha ha ha. I get to play the “Liberal Victim Card” even though I’m a hard core conservative. Ironic huh?

A very strange thing happened today.

Essentially, a little boy went to Mexico and asked the government there to ask President Bush not to send his mother back to Mexico. The Mexican legislature then agreed to do so. Apparently, even the people who run Mexico think it’s too awful to live in.

Let me go over this slowly.

A woman crossed the border of the United States illegally. Twice. After her second incursion, she had a baby, which, under the 14th Amendment, is an automatic American citizen. She, however, remains a criminal alien. (Did I mention that she was convicted of working under a false social security number at O’Hare Airport? Yeah. That, too.)

When she realized she was in jeopardy of being deported, she took refuge in a Chicago church (despite the mythology, there is no legal status of “sanctuary”; nonetheless, the government is loathe to go into a church (even a Methodist one) and drag someone out (even a criminal.))

Now, she has sent her son to plead her case with Mexican authorities. She claims that deporting her (a criminal alien) is a violation of the Constitutional rights of her son (an American citizen.)

Okay, could someone show me the part of the Constitution that says you have a right to live with your natural parents? How is this different from sending a crack dealer to prison, even though she has a baby at home? Don’t we do that? I am fairly sure we do. All the time. Every day. And the children become wards of the state, and nobody sues (these last two words, by the way, are becoming increasingly rare in our society. Ask Sasha Baron Cohen.)

It seems to me that we never should have accepted the concept of “immigrant” as applying to criminals illegally crossing into the United States. It conjures up images of sepia pictures of women in babushkas who want nothing more than freedom, standing on a ship on its way to Ellis Island.

But that’s not what’s happening. Nobody is coming here, ready to submit to the citizenship process, spending weeks or months in quarantine so as not to bring any diseases with them, eager to learn American ways and English.

Instead, people are crossing the border under cover of darkness, sneaking in to have “anchor babies” in American hospitals, who then become their sympathy card with the media and the courts. “Awww, look at her! She’s a mommy! How can you send her back now?”

In handcuffs. On a bus. Under a judge’s order. And her son can either go with her, or be put up for adoption. Maybe some of those relatives who are escorting him around Mexico would like to keep him for a while, until his mother figures a legal way into the country.

Or maybe Madonna’s still shopping.

I love it, read the rest.

Sorry people, no links, no pictures (A FIRST FOR SNOOP), I’m amazed that everybody is posting about it, why the hell would I give a shit about another fucken terrorist propaganda network?
C’mon just call it the “Sand Nigga News Network”
I mean seriously people. This ranks right up there with the launch of BET 2.

WHO CARES!

HA HA H HA DEMOCRATS ARE THE CRAZIEST PEOPLES!!! 

By Scott Shepard - Story Link 

Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence.

Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.

The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.

Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.

He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.

Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.”

He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”

Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated.

“We should have chased them down,” Carville said. There was no immediate response from Dean or the DNC.

MORE STUFF

I missed this, cat fight, scratch scratch, hiss, hiss From KOS Fri Nov 10, 2006

It looks like Carville and his DC-elite buddies in DC want a war:

Some big name Democrats want to oust DNC Chairman Howard Dean, arguing that his stubborn commitment to the 50-state strategy and his stinginess with funds for House races cost the Democrats several pickup opportunities.

The candidate being floated to replace Dean? Harold Ford.

Says James Carville, one of the anti-Deaniacs, “Suppose Harold Ford became chairman of the DNC? How much more money do you think we could raise? Just think of the difference it could make in one day. Now probably Harold Ford wants to stay in Tennessee. I just appointed myself his campaign manager.”

Dean was elected. If Carville has a master plan to stage a coup against Dean, I’d love to see it. But I doubt the state party chairs who provided Dean’s margin of victory are going to get too torn up about the fact that Dean is helping fund their resurgence.

Carville needs to shut the fuck up. If he wants a war, we’ll give him one.

And it won’t be a war that DC can win.

There’s more of us than there are of them.

Dems fighting words…get it “Dems”, c’mon work wit me.

From Wizbang

The Blotter reports that the Feds are going to pay Mr. Senate Majority Leader-Elect a visit:

As convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff reported to federal prison today, a source close to the investigation surrounding his activities told ABC News that Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was one of the members of Congress Abramoff had allegedly implicated in his cooperation with federal prosecutors.
A spokesperson for Reid, elected yesterday as the Senate Majority Leader, said the senator had done nothing illegal or unethical.

“We have no idea what Abramoff is telling prosecutors to save his skin, but I do know that these kind of old allegations are completely ridiculous and untrue,” Sen. Reid’s spokesman Jim Manley told ABC News.

What’s there for Abramoff to save? He’s going to prison for God’s sake.

A source close to the investigation says Abramoff told prosecutors that more than $30,000 in campaign contributions to Reid from Abramoff’s clients “were no accident and were in fact requested by Reid.”Abramoff has reportedly claimed the Nevada senator agreed to help him on matters related to Indian gambling.

READ THE REST

Article Link 

By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor

(CNSNews.com) - Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys “a lot of good will” from Republicans from his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but his stance on social issues like abortion and gun control make him an unacceptable candidate in the 2008 presidential election, according to conservative analysts.

Giuliani, who announced Monday that he has filed papers to form an exploratory committee as the first step towards a White House run, is “absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances” as a presidential candidate, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, told Cybercast News Service.

“The core values of the Republican Party with respect to life issues — which is where our main concern is — and the issues of the homosexual movement, etc., cause his candidacy for the nomination to just be dead in the water,” she said.

Giuliani has described himself as “pro-choice” and said he would not support a ban on partial-birth abortions. He promoted gun control programs and civil unions for same-sex partners during his two terms as New York City mayor.

While serving in that post, Giuliani saw his private life become a regular subject of media scrutiny, especially in 2000, when he announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his second wife without first telling her of his decision.

“Despite Giuliani’s charm and his obvious leadership abilities, as far as social and cultural issues are concerned, not only his personal life but his public views make him unacceptable,” Parro said.

Supporters of a Giuliani bid launched a group a year ago called Draft Rudy Giuliani for President.

Co-founder Nicholas Tyszka said in a statement this week that, “with the current climate [of divisiveness] in Washington,” Giuliani would be an excellent nominee, as “he has such a broad base of appeal, even cutting across political lines.”

The group, whose other co-founder is veteran Republican political consultant Allen Fore, said that “America needs and wants this great man to lead our nation.”

“Named Time Magazine’s ‘Person of the Year’ in 2001, Rudy Giuliani has been a proven leader during one of the toughest periods in American history,” the organization’s website states.

“Giuliani exemplifies leadership, courage and compassion,” it says. “Rudy Giuliani has dedicated his professional life to serving the United States, including assistant attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department under President Reagan and as the crime-fighting U.S. attorney in the state of New York.

“He has an unrivaled record of honesty and integrity, always putting the people’s interest above politics,” the website continues. “His service as mayor of New York City, particularly after the devastating terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001, made him America’s mayor. Now it’s time to make him America’s president.”

Although forming an exploratory committee does not guarantee that an individual will run for president, Giuliani’s announcement Monday drew a quick response from the Democratic National Committee:

“It’s unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just ‘explain away’ the fact that he’s consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear,” said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney in a press statement.

“Throughout his career, Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate, but now that he’s vying for his party’s nomination, will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far right?” Finney asked.

The DNC also issued a speedy response after Sen. John McCain made a similar announcement on Sunday.

Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that “it’s going to be virtually impossible for Giuliani to woo voters who put the Second Amendment and family values as their top issues.”

However, Giuliani “clearly has a lot of good will with Republicans, and his goal should be to shore up his conservative credentials on the issues of federal spending and anti-terrorism,” Darling said.

Since he was mayor of New York City during 9/11, Giuliani “can trumpet anti-terrorism as one of his major policies. But he also needs to talk about limiting the federal government and restricting out-of-control federal spending so he can shore up support among conservatives who care about pocketbook issues,” Darling said.

While acknowledging that Giuliani is “a presumptive front-runner” for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Darling said the former mayor is enjoying good poll numbers “merely because he has high name recognition.”

Strong approval figures don’t guarantee victories when the party’s primaries begin, Darling noted.

“Just ask [early 2004 Democratic front-runner] Howard Dean about that,” he said.

This is more of a brief reality check type of post. I’m watching Oprah (YES I WATCH OPRAH SCREW YOU!) she is about to do an interview with some dude who killed his twin daughters in North Carolina.
She quotes some figure saying that there are over 19 million people in the United States with some form of depression, whether it be a mild form of depression simple “sadness” or people about to go on the long walk off the proverbial short pier.
Shit I think that number is at least doubled.
It’s good to occasionally take a step back from the political ratings from time to time to understand that there are people who are suffering and who are fucked up to the point that they can’t process the simple aspects of life, much less politics.
More children will die at the hands of their parents whether it be by drowning, shooting or as this man did stabbing. It is a sad reality.
How the fuck can you have a discussion on “Democrat vs Republican” Liberal vs Conservative, political corruption, tax increases, voter fraud, Iraq, Korea whatever, when the human mind is in such bad shape.
My former boss who was a psych nurse told me that mental illness in no different than any other illness. I could not agree more.    
There are way too many crazy ass people out there dealing with much heavier shit than what Nancy Pelosi is doing in Congress or saying on Meet the Press.
I use the word crazy in a lite manner because without my favorite crazy pill this blog would be more outrageous, wink wink… I am just not in denial and I’m willing to admit it.
O’Reilly mentioned in a segment yesterday that a poll was taken and that 50 percent of “registered” voters did not even know who Nancy Pelosi was.
While on occasion I may scoff at the notion that people are too ignorant to know who the potential Speaker of the House may be, you do have to on occasion realize that paying your light bill, finding child care options, that next class exam, figuring out how to pay the rent, caring for a sick mother or friend may take precedence from time to time.
Even a crazy ass ranting Negro realizes that, but I along with everyone else just need to be reminded.

If you are depressed, please seek help. Tell the folks in the crazy house Snoop sent ya.

By Thomas Sowell

In just two short years, Republicans have gone from being champs to being chumps. In 2004, the Republicans were voted control of all three branches of the federal government and most state governorships. Today, they are left wondering what hit them.

Now that Democrats are in control on Capitol Hill, President Bush has expressed hopes of getting a bipartisan immigration bill. The only bipartisan bill that can get past a Democratic Congress is an amnesty bill, which can be a down payment on another Republican defeat in 2008.

If the people in the White House do not understand how outraged their supporters were at this year’s attempt to pass an amnesty bill for illegals — virtually guaranteeing that even more millions will come — then it is hard to know what message they got from the Republicans’ recent debacle at the polls.

Immigration was not the only issue but it was part of the more general issue of betrayal, which includes the Republicans’ runaway spending, among other things.

If the Republican leaders have learned nothing from their recent defeat, perhaps some Republican supporters will. Some of the most baffling e-mails received from conservative Republicans before the election were those which said that they were so disillusioned and/or disgusted with the Bush administration that they were going to vote for Democrats in order to send a message.

This is the kind of emotional self-indulgence common among liberals but apparently some conservatives have now also come to see elections as occasions to vent their feelings rather than to choose among existing options for the future of the country.

Sending a message may have its benefits but — as with all benefits — the question must be asked: “At what cost?”

On the left, it is considered OK to say things like “open space” or “alternative fuels” without any thought of the cost. What is new is finding the same spirit now flourishing among some conservatives as well.

As events unfold over time, perhaps those conservatives will reconsider whether it was worth it to “send a message” to President Bush at the cost of making Senator Pat Leahy chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Leahy’s control of that committee virtually guarantees that the only kind of federal judges who can get confirmed are the kind who are likely to spend decades on the bench creating new “rights” for criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists.

Was that price even considered by conservatives who indulged their anger instead of weighing alternatives? It is easy to say “the parties are no different” or “things couldn’t get any worse.”

People have said that before — and have been proved wrong before. Before the election of 1860, abolitionists said it would make no difference whether Lincoln or a Democrat was elected. But millions of people were freed because that prediction was wrong.

In Germany, the Weimar Republic was nobody’s idea of an ideal government and, in the desperate days of the Great Depression, no doubt many German voters thought that nothing could be worse. But they discovered during the dozen years of Nazi rule just how much worse things could be.

Congressional Republicans don’t have enough votes to stop any legislation or confirm any judges, especially since the Democrats stick together, unlike Republicans. Moreover, with a Republican President saying that he wants both a bipartisan immigration bill and a bipartisan minimum wage bill, there is not even a hope of a veto.

But the fact that you cannot stop something does not mean that you have to become an accomplice. There is no reason why a majority of Republican Senators should ever again vote to confirm another extreme activist judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nor is there any reason why Congressional Republicans should again outrage their supporters by voting for another illegal immigration amnesty bill. Not unless they want to be chumps again in 2008.

Even aside from moral issues, betrayal has had a bad political track record under both the elder President Bush (”No new taxes”) and the younger President Bush (”comprehensive immigration reform”). Congressional Republicans will have to face the voters again in 2008, even if President Bush does not.

I peeped an (old) article by a reporter for the Washington Post.  He was describing being awaken one night as an intruder entered his home. He stated: “At that moment, what I wanted more than anything in the world was a gun. What I wanted at that moment, and only that moment, I hasten to add was denied last month to airline pilots who just might have to deal with a terrorist somehow getting into the cockpit…. I am, like all reasonable people, in favor of the tightest restrictions on guns.”
 
How typical of liberals. The liberal paradigm of denying reality always rules, except when reality intrudes so sharply that the liberal paradigm breaks down for a moment. But the liberal never draws any larger conclusions from that experience, that is, he never thinks that since he needed a gun when there was a burglar in his house, other people need a gun for the times when there is burglar in their house, which would imply that gun ownership in general is a justified and necessary thing. Instead, the liberal only relates to the issue in personal terms. He is completely self-righteous in his liberalism, but when he wants to abandon his liberalism under the pressure of circumstances, then that instantly becomes the correct position. Liberal rightness is defined purely by the whims and feelings of the liberals themselves.

Being a liberal typically means living in a comfortable New England, Midwestern or left coast home discussing why gays should be allowed to get married, or why so many Negros are unemployed, or the horror of that homeless not having access to a quality shopping cart, over a cup of coffee at the local Starbucks, condemning all of those “ignorant Southerners” Bush lovers, religious zealots and racists republicans and then hopping back in the BMW, Volvo or some hybrid car. ( drive a BMW and did have a Volvo, but I don’t count LOL!)

I catch grief from my liberal critics at my attacks on liberals as they send me definitions of liberalism as if I had not seen them thousands of times before. But these definitions don’t mean anything. The definitions don’t focus on real issues. These definitions don’t say anything about their view of taxes, it says nothing about their views of homosexuality, it says nothing on their views of Affirmative Action,  it says nothing about their view of the right to keep and bear arms, or abortion, or feminism, or school prayer, school choice, international affairs or whether you vote Democratic or Republican or 3rd party or not at all.

If you take the typical liberal definition seriously that means, you could be a card-carrying member of the NRA, you could think homosexuality is sinful, or that taxes are much too high, you could think Bill Clinton was a horrible President, you could think that welfare checks cause crime and poverty and destroy the human soul, you could oppose socialized medicine, or think abortion is murder, you could believe that our Social Security system is a ripoff that steals from our children, or think our public schools can best be fixed by freedom of choice for parents,  or think legalizing medical marijuana is a horrible idea, or that the mainstream media is badly biased, hell, you could think all of that and more, and still be a liberal!

The problem is that when millions of Americans say “liberal,” they are referring to a fairly specific set of beliefs completely at odds with everything described above. Just as interesting, many people who hold typical liberal beliefs are, in fact, not at all “free of bigotry,” “favoring of reform,” “unorthodox,” “broad-minded,” or “anti-authoritarian.”

Google research revealed that in the late 20th Century, “liberal” came to mean, basically, a socialist. Usually, it’s a socialist who believes that the state is dangerous when it arrests criminals or wants to limit pornography or abortion, but should be free to regulate our lives in just about any other way. It is also axiomatic for them that, since taxes are an unavoidable aspect of life, any amount of taxation is moral. As long as we democratically elect those who impose the taxes, it doesn’t matter how much they take away from our fellow citizens. Indeed, the only caveat is that a “moral” tax will be leavied not just in higher amounts, but at much higher rates on vaguely-defined groups they call “the rich” and, of course, those “greedy corporations.”

Most folks who think like this also think tend to of themselves as free of bigotry and intolerance, although if you changed the words “rich” and “corporations” in many of their statements to oh, let’s say “Jews,” the nature of their views would be far more open to question. Ditto on many of their rants about “The Religious Right.”

Such people also usually think themselves to be intelligent, good and decent because of their obviously righteous ideals. (liberalism ended slavery, therefore its good! for example) They take it as a given that anyone who disagrees with them on any fundamental issue is, stupid, ignorant, selfish, mean-spirited, or just plain evil. This is especially ironic, because most of those opposed to their views are highly anti-authoritarian and unorthodox and are, at least some of the time, quite broad-minded and tolerant.

But the truth is that they are the closed-minded reactionaries of today. The laughable part is they actually think they’re the liberals.

 From Newsbusters - Posted by Clay Waters

Looking for an election-season boost, the Times opened up its exclusive Times Select product to non-paying proles last week, sending editor-columnist Frank Rich’s “2006: The Year of the ‘Macaca,’” to the #1 most e-mailed story of the week (the free window is now closed, so you have to pay for Rich’s deep thoughts on why Bush-style conservatism lost this year).

“This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean.

“It’s the kind of conservatism that remains silent when Rush Limbaugh does a mocking impersonation of Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s symptoms to score partisan points. It’s the kind of conservatism that talks of humane immigration reform but looks the other way when candidates demonize foreigners as predatory animals. It’s the kind of conservatism that pays lip service to ‘tolerance’ but stalls for days before taking down a campaign ad caricaturing an African-American candidate as a sexual magnet for white women.

“This kind of politics is now officially out of fashion. Harold Ford did lose his race in Tennessee, but by less than three points in a region that has not sent a black man to the Senate since Reconstruction. Only 36 years old and hugely talented, he will rise again even as the last vestiges of Jim Crow tactics continue to fade and Willie Horton ads countenanced by a national political party join the Bush dynasty in history’s dustbin.”

Rich gushes about the defeat of Virginia Sen. George Allen:

“Mr. Allen has a history of racial insensitivity. He used to display a Confederate flag in his living room and, bizarrely enough, a noose in his office for sentimental reasons that he could never satisfactorily explain.”

But if Allen’s Confederate flag makes Rich queasy, what does he think about the Southern pride expressed by his Democratic opponent James Webb in a speech at the Confederate War Memorial?

“[Confederate soldiers] had fulfilled their duty — as they understood it. To their community. To their nation. To their individual consciences. To their family….That returned to a devastated land and a military occupation. That endured the bitter humiliation of Reconstruction and an economic alienation from the rest of this nation which continued for fully a century, affecting white and black alike. I am not here to apologize for why they fought, although modern historians might contemplate that there truly were different perceptions in the North and South about those reasons, and that most Southern soldiers viewed the driving issue to be sovereignty rather than slavery.”

Makes Allen look like a poseur.

Rich again:

“Though the senator’s behavior was toxic, the Bush-Rove establishment rewarded it. Its auxiliaries from talk radio, the blogosphere and the Wall Street Journal opinion page echoed the Allen campaign’s complaint that the incident was inflated by the news media, especially The Washington Post. Once it became clear that Mr. Allen was in serious trouble, conservative pundits mainly faulted him for running an ‘awful campaign,’ not for being an awful person.”

Yet the Post’s ombudsman Deborah Howell agreed with “the Bush-Rove establishment” on the Post’s one-sided coverage:

“The macaca coverage went on too long, and a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage of what made him a popular governor and senator.”

For more post-election bias from the New York Times, visit TimesWatch.

From Drudge

CBS EVENING NEWS DOWN OVER YEAR AGO… For the first time since Katie Couric became anchor, CBS EVENING NEWS is down compared to a year ago, falling 4% from 8.069 to 7.758 million last week among total viewers, and the program also declined 9% among adults 25-54 from last year’s 2.2 to a 2.0 rating last week…

.

It’s official Greg is now my favorite er uh Liberal?, Centrist?, Buddhist?
Thanks for the laugh on the ROTC post.
FINALLY after over 100,000 plus visitors on my old blog and twice that in the short time I have had this blog, someone who is bold enough to steer Snoop in the right direction.
I will extend the invitation to you as I have too many (liberals) though you say you are not one, to free space on this blog to post any rebuttal to any post you view here.
If some liberal out there can help this poor negro conservative dude see the light and not have such a narrow point of view.
I can hear the Brady Bunch music in the background now…. Ahhhhhh! 

.

Democrats will not disappoint

We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history.

By Nancy Pelosi

WASHINGTON – The morning after the election, I received a powerful reminder of why so many of us choose public service as our life’s work. While walking into my office, I ran into a group of schoolchildren who had come to visit the Capitol.
Talking with them reminded me of the solemn responsibility each generation has to the ones that follow. Their enthusiasm and energy spoke more powerfully than any words could that they are inheritors of the future we choose to build today.

I COULD NOT GET PAST THIS…I’M NOW CLEANING UP CAPTAIN CRUNCH FROM MY DESK.

READ THE REST IF YOU CAN.

Nominations for The 2006 Weblog Awards are now open. Go to the master nomination post to start nominating blogs in 46 categories. There’s a bunch of new categories this year, but the number of finalists in each category will drop from 15 to 10 (with a few exceptions).

As always, we’re always looking for volunteers to help with the finalist selection process. Linkable logos are available in a variety of sizes, so start spreading the word!