politicalpartypoop.com

Via Dell Gines 

I know this topic all too well. Despite my many skills, talents and references if the employer found out I was a nigga, I did not get an interview.

One of the few interviews I did get with a local hospital I had to file a discrimination claim because first, the bitch lied and basically said that I did not meet her qualifications.
In addition on the discrimination interview testimony I received when the claim was denied, she told the interviewer that I was “overbearing”, that she “could not get a word in during the interview” and that she felt “intimidated” by me.
Think about that, a dude who had been out of work for more than a calendar year was “overbearing?”
Shit, I was sweating like a runaway slave, I was so nervous. 
However the Human Rights Commission was unable to see through this bullshit.

My first initial interview with Human Resources was perfect and this lady was so impressed by me she insisted that I get my second interview that same day, which I did.
Who knew I was gonna get interviewed by a racist fuck.
This bitch did not even shake my hand when we met.

If you combine all of the negative stereotypes listed in this story and combine that with countless numbers of racist whites that want to keep their work environments as white as possible, well the bottom line is black men are fucked.

This is again why the notion that Barrack Hussein Obama has a chance of being Prez is ridiculous.
Black men are at the bottom of the social totem pole and pretending otherwise is just silly.  

***

By Chance, Chancellorfiles

The employment rate for many young black men is very low, many American employers prefer to hirer immigrants, Mexicans, and other Hispanics over black males when it comes to low paying jobs. Many low paying jobs are semi skilled typed jobs that pay above minimum wage — but not enough to lift the employee up to the level of middle class. Minimum wage jobs are also low paying jobs; you can not make a decent living working a minimum wage job. Immigrants, Mexicans, and other Hispanics are often preferred over blacks when it comes to employment at minimum wage jobs, and not because of coincidence either - there are many reasons why employers prefer immigrants over blacks. Some of the reasons are because immigrants work for lower wagers, lingering racism, employers not wanting to give benefits, black pathologies, etc the reality is, that many employers view black males in a negative way.

Researchers from the University of Chicago interviewed many Chicago employers, and asked them why many employers refuse to hire Black males. Many of the Chicago employers described blacks as unskilled, uneducated, illiterate, dishonest, unmotivated, involved in gangs and drugs, poor role models, etc….
The agreement among these employers was that blacks brought their negative pathological behavioral patterns to the work place, and were to avoided at all cost. Also the researchers interviewed black business owners, and black business owners also shared the same opinions as the other employers. Unfortunately it is true, that certain black men are difficult to work with - and they do bring their pathologies to the work place.
All across America researchers from universities and intellectual institutions have done research and interviewed employers, and asked them why they (employers) will not hire black males. The answers have always been in general the same and that is, black males bring behavioral problems to work. Researchers have interviewed employers in Los Angels, New York, Chicago, and many other big cities across America and asked these employers why black males are not hired in large numbers by employers. The employers in these cities basically gave the same reasons as the employers in Chicago.
The Reasons Why Blacks Are Not Hired:

1. Uncooperative
2. Bad attitude
3. Unmotivated
4. Lack initiative
5. Rude
6. Negative
7. Lazy
8. Lower Family Values
9. Lingering racism (racial discrimination)
10. Illiterate
11. Uneducated
12. Dishonesty
13. Psychologically unstable due to being identified with negative thoughts and feelings
14. Poor role models
15. Unskilled
16. Involved in Drugs and gangs
17. No Charm
18. Short temper
19. Uncompassionate
20. Unsympathetic
21. Sexually harassing co-workers
22. Intimidating Co-workers
23. Low Morality level

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

 This from Right Wing News. I posted the top 17 because I very much agree with these.
You can visit the site for the others.

17) “If a young fella has an option of having a decent career or joining the army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq.” — Charles Rangel

16) “The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.” — Natalie Maines

15) “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.” — John Kerry, in what he later claimed was a botched joke.

14) “I just want to say that George W. Bush is the syphilis president. The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Hitler was elected.” — Kurt Vonnegut

13) “I’m gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I’m gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there.” — Tom Cruise to GQ magazine in what may or may not have been a joke.

12) “Which leads me to ask: is Karl Rove planning a terrorist attack during the Super Bowl, in order to set the stage for building towards war with Iran over the coming year?” — Bob Fertik from Democrats.com

11) “You can talk, you can talk, you’re brave now motherf**ker. Throw his *ss out. He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! He’s a n*gger! A n*gger, look, there’s a n*gger! They’re going to arrest me for calling a black man a n*gger.” — Michael Richards

10) “If I got (Condi Rice) a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them.” — Spike Lee

9) “Again, (America is) a stupid country with stupid people who don’t pay attention.” — Bill Maher

8) “Is there such a thing as a man made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?” — Joy Behar, on The View, wonders if Republicans gave Senator Tim Johnson a stroke.

7) “Quit supporting my country and supporting crimes against humanity.” — Cindy Sheehan in Australia

6) “In Vietnam, our soldiers came back and they were reviled as baby killers, in shame and humiliation. It isn’t happening now, but I will tell you – there has never been an [American] army as violent and murderous as our army has been in Iraq.” — Seymour Hersh

5) “F*****g Jews… The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?” — Mel Gibson in a drunken tirade, after he’d been pulled over by the police

4) “Why not go kill a Muslim? Don’t leave it up to the soldiers, don’t leave it up to the middle east. You’ve got Muslims in New Jersey. Why not go kill some?” — Mike Malloy

3) “Check out this startling excerpt from George Monbiot’s new book Heat. It’s about the climate-change “denial industry,” which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I’ve read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details. When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.” — David Roberts, Grist Magazine

2) “What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost? I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism. If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under. If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate…” — Russell Shaw at the Huffington Post

1) “Karl (Rove) is a shameless b*stard. This could explain why his mother killed herself. Once she discovered what a despicable soul she had spawned she apparently saw no other way out.” — Ex-CIA agent Larry Johnson

 Is this woman stupid or what?
Someone needs to give her a Political Campaigning 101 lecture.
When the U.S. median income is $35,000 per year, don’t say stupid shit like
“my income is pretty low” particular after your husband signed a million dollar book deal!
First Hussein’s shady real estate deal, now this from his idiot wife!
This media circus won’t last long; we can just sit back and wait for Mr. and Mrs. Hussein to do or say something stupid real soon.
Hillary must be quite pleased. 

From the American Thinker 

Poor Mrs. Barack  Obama! “My income is pretty low compared to my peers“ she says.

How much is she scraping by on?

According to a tax return released by the senator this week, the promotion nearly tripled her income from the hospitals to $316,962 in 2005 from $121,910 in 2004.

Her income coincidentally jumped when her husband was elected to the United States Senate. She handles “community outreach” for the University of Chicago Hospitals, which does indeed sound like vital work, right up there with open heart surgery.

But wait, there’s more, as the late night television commercials assure us. Hubby bashes Wal-Mart, following the union boss catechism:

The Chicagoan who would be president - maybe - told members of a union-backed coalition that they have “a moral responsibility to stand up and fight” the big retailer. “The battle to engage Wal-Mart and force them to examine their own corporate values and what their policies and approaches are to their workers . . . is absolutely vital,” the Associated Press quoted the U.S. senator as saying.

But Mrs. Obama is a director of a certain company:

Michelle, make $45,000 a year serving on the board of a Chicago-area company that pays its executives a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in an economically deprived area, a company whose No. 1 customer is - you guessed it - Wal-Mart?

The story, by Greg Hinz of Crain’s Chicago Business continues:

In early 2005, Texas-based Dean Foods Co. spun off its processed-food subsidiary into an independent company, TreeHouse Foods Inc. Stock in Westchester-based TreeHouse began trading on June 15, 2005. Elected to its board of directors on June 6 of that year was Michelle Obama, who receives $30,000 a year plus $1,500 per board or committee meeting she attends. That totaled $45,000 in 2005, according to Mr. Obama’s Senate ethics disclosure. Ms. Obama got 7,500 stock options this year, company filings show. At the current price of TreeHouse stock, she has a paper profit of about $60,000 on the options.  

Now, I never thought there was that much money peddling pickles, non-dairy creamer, puddings and related goods to grocery stores, which is what TreeHouse does. Apparently I was wrong. In 2005, TreeHouse CEO Sam Reed was one of the highest-paid executives in Illinois. In fact, on Crain’s annual Fortunate 100 list of best-compensated execs, Mr. Reed ranked No. 2, with total compensation of nearly $26.2 million, just ahead of Motorola Inc. chief Edward Zander and Abbott Laboratories boss Miles White.

I am sure that Senator Obama and his wife, with a combined income of about half a million dollars (plus all those book royalties), will somehow manage to scrape by. And besides, the experience of low income will help them empathize with America’s poor. And Senator Obama can demagogue on about the gap between rich and poor, since his wife has given him an example of high compensation for executives.  

Wal-Mart board of directors veteran Hillary Clinton freely obeys the dogma of the union bosses and bashes her former benfactor. There’s no reason why the Obamas can’t learn from her example.

· President’s supporters vow revenge on protesters
· Activists forecast harsher crackdown on dissent

Story Link
Iranian student activists who staged an angry protest against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week have gone into hiding in fear for their lives after his supporters threatened them with revenge.
One student fled after being photographed holding a banner reading, “Fascist president, the polytechnic is not for you”, during Mr Ahmadinejad’s visit to Tehran’s Amir Kabir university. At least three others have gone underground after being seen burning his picture. Vigilantes from the militant Ansar-e Hezbollah group have been searching for them.

In a startling contrast to the acclaim Mr Ahmadinejad has received in numerous recent appearances around Iran, he faced chants of “Death to the dictator” as he addressed a gathering in the university’s sports hall last week. Several hundred students forced their way in to voice anger over a clampdown on universities since he became president last year.
While his aides played down the incident, the Guardian has learned details of the violent and chaotic events.

The disclosures came yesterday as early returns from Friday’s council elections indicated that Mr Ahmadinejad’s hardline supporters had failed in their attempt to take control of several key local authorities. Turnout was estimated at about 60% after reformers urged liberal-minded electors to vote in large numbers to protest against the government’s policies.

Last Monday’s university demonstration triggered violent clashes between student activists and crowds of Basij militia, who were there to support the president. A shoe was thrown at Mr Ahmadinejad while a student had his nose broken by an aide to a cabinet minister.

Protesters later surrounded the president’s car, prompting a security guard to fire a stun grenade to warn them off. Four cars in the presidential convoy collided in their haste to leave. Mr Ahmadinejad’s staff later insisted he had remained calm and ordered that the students should go unpunished. But some of those present say he accused them of being paid United States agents who would be confronted.

“He threatened us directly, saying that what we were doing was against the wishes of the nation,” said Babak Zamanian, a spokesman for Amir Kabir university’s Islamic students’ committee. “After that, the students protested even more sharply, calling him a lying religious dictator and shouting, ‘Forget America and start thinking about us!’

“We were chanting, ‘Get lost Ahmadinejad!’ and ‘Ahmadinejad - element of discrimination and corruption.’ You could see from his face that he was really shocked. He wasn’t flashing his usual smile, and at one stage I thought he was going to cry. He told his supporters to respond with a religious chant hailing Ahmadinejad, but he was so shaken he was actually chanting it himself.”

Another student said: “He was trying to keep control of himself, but you could see he was angry and upset.”

Witnesses say Mr Ahmadinejad also tried to ridicule the students by referring to the university disciplinary code, under which those with three penalty points are suspended from studies. “He joked that he was going to issue a presidential order for those with three stars to be enlisted as sergeants in the army. That made the students really angry,” said Mr Zamanian.

The university authorities’ contentious use of the disciplinary code was said to be a trigger for last week’s protest. About 70 students have been suspended and threatened with expulsion for various political activities, including writing articles critical of the government.

Last month, the authorities demolished two building belonging to the Islamic students’ committee - a moderate grouping representing diverse opinions. An elected student body was also disbanded. Women students have been told to wear conservative dress and remove any makeup.

In this atmosphere, activists at Amir Kabir university - a traditional hotbed of political activism - regarded Mr Ahmadinejad’s visit as a deliberate provocation and decided to protest. While many chanted, a hard core waved banners and burned his portrait, some ignoring instructions to cover their faces.

The 21-year-old student holding the “fascist president” banner was among those threatened with expulsion. He is said to be in grave danger after foreign news outlets, including the Guardian, published a picture of his gesture. Friends say he went into hiding after being confronted by two vigilantes.

“They said they would pull his father out of the grave [an ancient Persian threat],” said one student. “He is in real danger. Vigilantes have been standing at the dormitory doors asking for him.”

Students now fear an even fiercer crackdown. “We believe [the authorities] will react much worse than before,” said Armin Salmasi, 26, a leading activist. “We are already under constant surveillance. The student movement in Iran is going to be driven underground - just like it was before the revolution.”

 From the blog (A letter to my Children)

I have been wanting to write some posts about race for a while after reading and learning a lot from blogs such as American Family and Peter’s Cross Station and others. The doll incident has lead to a few conversations among family and friends. So, I thought now would be a good time to commit to doing one.

First, to answer Cheryl’s questions about the doll incident: I believe the clerk was Caucasian. And, yes, I do believe she asked me about whether I really intended to buy the black dolls because I was blind. That said, I think she went on about it a bit too long. And then afterwords she was really nice and went to great lengths to make sure we got a 10% off twin discount on another two identical items that we purchased. She was not mean about it. It was just weird. Things like this that have to do with race are often looked at in isolation. Like if someone screws up on the race thing then they are an evil Racist with a capital R, bad person. I have no indication that she had any evil intent towards my ownership of the black dolls. But just that she made way too big of deal out of it for my comfort.

The thing about race in this country, is that there is no way of not looking at things through the race lens because we are all embedded within a racist culture. Each generation, we peel back the layers to expose it for what it really is, but we are still all stuck in the middle of that ugly, rotten onion. I am a racist in the general, denotative definition of the word. I am not an evil, intentional, hateful, overt racist. It may be more accurate to say that I reluctantly have racist tendencies. I try to peel back the layers and expose the truth for what it is and try to prevent others from covering that truth up with their own hatred. Yet, I still am stuck in the middle of the racist culture that we all are embedded in. Unless you’ve been living on another planet or have been stuck in an attic your whole life, you are most likely a racist as well.

Would I have bought a white doll if one had been available (and I could differentiate it visually from the black one?). This is the question some people have been asking me. (As if the answer is yes, then it negates the whole issue we have to deal with here.) I don’t know for sure, but I suspect I would have bought the white dolls. Then I would have rationalized it by saying that there were so few black dolls in the store (true), that I should not take a black doll away from a black child. Although it does not bother me one iota that my kids will get and play with black dolls and I even think that it might be a positive thing for them to play with and care for black dolls. I probably would have picked up a white doll with very little thought. The fact that I even have to ponder this whole doll issue shows how embedded we are in the murkiness of racial issues in our society.

I can easily trace back my racism to my upbringing. Both within my family and community and the culture at large. My earliest memories of race–and by race I mean people of color, because I really didn’t know that myself as a white person was just another race–are negative. I never heard the “N” word or other such derogatory racial slurs from my immediate family, but I heard them often from my extended family. I had some uncles and a step-grandfather that spewed trash talk about people of different races on a fairly regular basis. Even though my mother reinforced that this language was unfair and inappropriate, it still ensured that I was aware that people of color were “other,” “different,” and maybe even “less.”

I remember a specific time when I was at my grandparents house and was coloring in a coloring book that I had gotten free from the grocery store. I think it was a “Harlem Globetrotters” coloring book, but at the time, I had no idea who the Harlem Globetrotters were. To color in the basketball player’s face and body, I picked up the only crayon I ever picked up to color skin. It was crayola beige (or whatever they called it. You know the crayon I’m talking about.) My step-grandfather (one of the few humans on the face of the earth I have ever met with absolutely no discernible redeeming qualities) completely started yelling at me. “You can’t color that N— white, he’s black. Look at that fat lip! You need to learn to tell the difference between a white person and a N—!” Then he picked up the black crayon, and violently scribbled all over the face in the coloring book that I had colored beige. I still can see that big black ugly and mean blob of scribbles that ruined my whole picture. I remember feeling really stupid. Like I should have known, and I had done something horribly wrong. I remember him calling my Asian uncle and cousin “chinks.” I had never met them before as they lived far away and I had this picture that they somehow looked like or had something to do with chain link fences???? I just thought chink sounded like a chain link fence. I don’t know.

Read the rest here

WELLINGTON, Ohio - An artist who was forced to remove his Nazi gingerbread men from the window of a hardware store has set up the display in an empty storefront in another town.

“The Secret Lives of Gingerbread Men” depicts a small gathering at a Nazi rally. Keith McGuckin set up the display in this northeastern Ohio city Thursday night, a day before the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah begins at sundown.

The owner of a hardware store in nearby Oberlin made McGuckin remove the display last month after getting complaints.

McGuckin, 50, said the subject is meant to provoke thought, not offend.

“I remember thinking to myself, ‘What’s the worst thing a gingerbread man can do?’” he said. “They’re just copying things that people have done. There are no hidden messages here.”

Last winter, McGuckin used the hardware store window to display a “caroler-bashing” snowman and a little boy excited about using his chemistry set to create the illegal drug crystal meth.

He said he wasn’t aware he had set up the Nazi gingerbread men so close to Hanukkah.

“This one does seem to rub people the wrong way,” he said. “But I hope it’ll stay up for a little while.”

McGuckin received permission to use the empty storefront from the owner, The (Elyria) Chronicle-Telegram reported Friday.

House Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) has pledged to take up a lobbying reform proposal that would impose new regulations on speech by grassroots organizations, while providing a loophole in the rules for large corporations and labor unions.

The legislation would make changes to the legal definition of “grassroots lobbying” and require any organization that encourages 500 or more members of the general public to contact their elected representatives to file a report with detailed information about their organization to the government on a quarterly basis.

The report would include identifying the organization’s expenditures, the issues focused on and the members of Congress and other federal officials who are the subject of the advocacy efforts. A separate report would be required for each policy issue the group is active on.

“Right now, grassroots groups don’t have to report at all if they are communicating with the public,” said Dick Dingman of the Free Speech Coalition, Inc. “This is an effort that would become a major attack on the 1st Amendment.”

Read the rest

Found while blog surfing, funny, no!?

Posted by Megan McCormack on Newsbusters
 
On Thursday’s edition of The View, the ladies, along with guest co-host Dari Alexander of Fox News, discussed Democratic Senator Tim Johnson’s emergency brain surgery and the potential political fallout. Alexander explained to the audience that if Johnson had to resign from the Senate, the Republican governor of South Dakota would pick an interim senator to fulfill the remainder of Johnson’s term, thereby creating the potential for an even split in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans. Joy Behar chimed in and put forth another tin foil hat worthy conspiracy theory:

Joy Behar: “Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?”

Alexander joked that perhaps he had been given polonium, referencing the recent death of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, who accused the Kremlin of poisoning him:

Dari Alexander: “Maybe they gave him polonium.”

O’Donnell [laughing]: “Oh no, no.”

Elisabeth Hasselbeck laughed off Behar’s ludicrous question, referring to her suggestion as a conspiracy theory, but Behar refused to back down:

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “Let me ask you something. Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a conspiracy? This is a conspiracy.”

Behar: “I know what this–that party is capable of.”

The full transcript of the exchange follows below:

Rosie O’Donnell: “His name is Senator Tim Johnson. He’s a Democrat, and sadly he, he was ill, and he’s had brain surgery. They think he may have had a stroke.”

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “Yes.”

Alexander: “And the thing that is quite interesting about this, I think, is that it started this whole political brouhaha because, as you know, the Democrats took over in November by a 51-49 majority, and now if he has to resign, it will make things 50-50, because the governor of that state, who is a Republican, is in, in, he’s in charge of basically putting an interim person in there for, for Senate, and–”

Joy Behar: “Is there such a thing as a man-made stroke? In other words, did someone do this to him?”

Alexander: “Maybe they gave him polonium.”

O’Donnell [laughing]: “Oh no, no.”

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: “Let me ask you something. Why is everything coming from the liberal perspective a conspiracy? This is a conspiracy.”

Behar: “I know what this–that party is capable of.”

Hasselbeck: “Help us.”

Alexander: “So, in any case, it started this whole political brouhaha, and you know, I think the thing that’s really sad about this is that it takes a political angle when this guy is really critically ill.”

Behar: “Yeah, we’re very sad that he’s critically ill, but there are millions and millions of people who depend upon this Congress. People in the world and people in this country. So it’s really–his, his illness is, is sad, but it’s not as important in the overall scheme.”

Alexander: “Well, that’s definitely true, but–”

Hasselbeck: “I guess it depends on what scheme you’re thinking of.”

Behar: “Well, I’m thinking of, I’m thinking of human beings lives. That’s what I’m thinking of.”

 By Lisa Fabrizio -  The American Spectator - Link

The other day I was watching NFL highlights on ESPN where they were showcasing the latest feats of the incomparable LaDainian Tomlinson. Apart from his great athletic talents, something else strikes you about him. After scoring a touchdown he does a strange thing; he simply hands the ball to the nearest official. No dances or similarly planned gyrations; no jersey-grabbing and no “look at me” demonstrations.

It is indeed a welcome respite from the barrage of hedonistic narcissism and charges of racism a la Barry Bonds that nightly pervade my TV set under the guise of sports coverage. Anyone familiar with American sports has come to expect such behavior whether they are watching the NBA or Little League baseball. But where did it all begin?

A good place to look is ESPN’s Ali Rap — a TV special where various celebrities mouth some of Muhammad Ali’s most notable quotes, with sometimes disastrous results — which seems to posit the theory that Ali somehow inspired that art form. The show seeks to buttress the reputation of a man Spike Lee has called “Our shining black prince; to black people, he was like God.”

Many like to hold Ali up as a beacon of courage for “speaking truth to power,” especially on issues of race and war. But he was much more than that. He was the first to realize that, much like today’s entertainers, racism sells and, when combined with cartoon-like displays of narcissism, it sells like hotcakes.

Prior to Ali, sports figures and other entertainment personalities were held in high esteem and, in return, were expected to respect those who made them rich and famous; the ticket-buying public. The heavyweight championship in particular was still considered the most prestigious title in sports before Ali ascended to its heights.

Although some boxers verbally sparred with each other to promote their bouts, they generally comported themselves in the ring with a gentlemanly brand of sportsmanship and a mutual respect born of the nature of the sport itself. And at a time when racial segregation was still legal, most of America cheered all of its heavyweight champs, white or black.

My late father, who was prone to cheering for Italian Americans, thought Joe Louis was our greatest champ, both in and out of the ring. For my dad and others of the World War II era, Louis represented all of America in his epic rematch with Max Schmeling in 1938. That he was later called a shuffling Uncle Tom by Ali earned the ire of such men much more than any of his other remarks.

And what remarks they were! Though he started out as something of a self-promoting clown; mugging for the cameras with bulging eyes and exaggerated facial expressions, he soon graduated to poster boy for those radical groups who were unsatisfied with the peaceful civil rights gains being wrought by heroes like Martin Luther King. Add to this his opposition to the Vietnam War and it’s easy to see why he was the first real icon of the burgeoning liberal media. (more…)

Sphere: Related Content

For now, Obama’s scandal is too small to hurt.

By John Dickerson - Slate

If Barack Obama decides to run for president, we’re going to hear a lot more about Antoin “Tony” Rezko, the senator’s neighbor.

Rezko is the kind of neighbor you want—the absent kind—and he might be absent for a long time—in the federal pen. That move upriver might keep Obama from his own residential upgrade to that big white house he’s got his eye on in Washington.

OK, I’ll stop. When you read the Chicago columnists having fun with the relationship between Obama and Rezko, the wiseacre rubs off on you. Here’s the story, without the mustard: Barack Obama has a little real-estate scandal that raises questions about his judgment.

The Chicago Tribune broke the story back in November. It begins in 2004 with Obama’s $1.9 million book advance for The Audacity of Hope. In June 2005, Obama used the money to purchase a $1.65 million Georgian revival home on Chicago’s South Side—$300,000 less than the asking price. On the very same day, Rezko, a Democratic Party fund-raiser and developer, bought the adjacent empty lot at the asking price from the same owner (the house and the lot were previously owned by the same person). Rezko, who had raised money for Obama and known him since the senator attended Harvard Law School, did not develop the empty lot. In January 2006, he sold a 1,500-square-foot slice of it to Obama for $104,000, a fair sum in that market.

Here’s the question: Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase of the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break on the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal? And did Rezko never intend to develop the lot, giving Obama a nice roomy side yard, a favor which he’d call in later?

READ THE REST HERE

By Jonathan E. Kaplan - The Hill
 
Noting that Democrats have pledged to increase transparency and accountability in government, C-SPAN Thursday called on House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to give television viewers the same real-time access to views of the House floor as anyone sitting in the gallery would have.

In a Dec. 14 letter, C-SPAN CEO and Chairman Brian Lamb asked Pelosi to roll back the three-decade old practice that put the House Speaker in charge of the cameras. C-SPAN and the House reached the current agreement in 1979 when cameras were first introduced to the chamber. He wrote that he sought a similar agreement in 1994 when Republicans captured control of the House, but he did not get it.

Lamb wrote that the current 28-year-old arrangement is “an anachronism that does a disservice to the institution and to the public…Congressional technicians are limited to taking static, head-on shots of the representative who’s speaking at the podium.”

Rules and established practices prevent cameras from taking individual reaction shots or from panning the chamber, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of what’s happening in the House,” he added.

In addition, Lamb asked Pelosi to immediately post how individual lawmakers voted on a piece of legislation. Currently, the parties’ totals appear on screen, but the individual tallies are not posted until hours later.

“Frequently, by the time individual voting records are released by the [House] Clerk, the House has moved on to other issues. The net effect is that this important information is rarely included in C-SPAN’s live telecasts of House floor proceedings,” Lamb wrote. “Members’ votes are the most critical part of the public record.”

Pelosi has just received the letter and will review the request, said Jennifer Crider, Pelosi’s spokeswoman.

C-SPAN is pressing the House first because its initial coverage of Congress started with the lower chamber, according to a C-SPAN spokesperson.

For some reason Mrs. Snoop sent this to me. I saw no other names attached to this particular e-mail so I assume she either wants me to responds to this post it or maybe I’m exhibiting more “rude” vibes than normal.
Check out first and I’ll give my two cents on the backside.   

It seems most people these days agree that good manners are waning.
Rude comments, bad attitudes and uncivil behaviors seem to be increasing. And as this type of behavior increases, so does the overall number unhappy human beings.  

I think there may be a connection. 

There are a variety of reasons for the increase in bad manners:   Too much information too little time; Lack of respect (for self or others); too many people; violent entertainment; too little money; too much money; a decline in morals; fear of the future; lack of hope; smug certainty that your side is right or is going to “win”;  lack of self
confidence; mean humorists; lack of home-training, etc.   Pick one (or more).   

Whatever the reason(s) or causes, the results are the same; a world that is becoming increasingly hard to tolerate or feel safe in.   And lots of unhappy people.  

I believe that the worse it gets, the worse we will all feel. And the worse off the whole world will eventually be!    

So what can one single person (like you or I) do if they are concerned about the decline in civil and kind behaviors?   

Well, here is a short list of things to try (and teach children). It’s not original. It’s from wikkapedia, the font of all on-line information.
  It’s a start at least.   What have you got to lose by trying?

*****************************************************
Common norms of etiquette

Though etiquette depends on culture, some expectations are widely shared.

* ALWAYS say “please” when you need something from someone
else, even if this person is your subordinate.

* ALWAYS say “thank you” to people who help you, even if this person is your subordinate. Often, writing a note of thanks gains you significant emotional capital.

* Say “I’m sorry” when you have injured someone inadvertently, or when you have injured someone intentionally and need to reconcile.   And don’t ruin it but adding a “but….” afterwards, to excuse or explain away the wrong-doing.  

* When someone has injured you, but says “I’m sorry,” try to forgive the person. You can do this by saying, “I forgive you,” or “Thanks for apologizing.”

* Use insulting humor very sparingly. While common in entertainment, many people find insulting humor to be offensive and hurtful. Often, you can use your same skills at creating insults to create teasing compliments, which makes everyone feel good rather than bad.

* Follow the Golden Rule; Always treat others as you want to be treated.   

*Do not abuse other people, especially those weak or
disadvantaged.

I love Mrs. Snoop very much. She seeks to make the world better by trying to be a shining example of human kindness.
Unfortunately Snoop is far more cynical of humans and I cut through the bullshit when dealing with most.

Society is becoming ruder, more rude, whatever because of one simple word, RESPECT.

This is a world made up of a bunch of self absorbed, selfish, and self important. Jackasses.

If you place yourself in a superior posture looking down your nose at the entire world, why would you say “thank you” to a server in a restaurant, to an individual who opens a door for you, or the individuals who comes to pick up your trash.

I had a rant about simple hand washing and how most men (a lot of women too) don’t respect themselves or the people they come in contact with enough to rid themselves of potential fecal matter and other assorted germs.
If you won’t do something so simple and that is proven to curb health issues what makes you think this individual would exhibit general human decency and courtesy.

We are separated by religious faiths and the superiority complex that oozes from one faith assuming that they are superior to another.
Atheists are not immune from this syndrome as they malign individuals who worship fictitious characters.

We are separated by what neighborhoods we live in, what we do for a living, the university we attended, our political affiliation, the car you drive, hairstyle, hair color, boob size and did I mention skin color?

There is no need to apologize to someone who is beneath you on life’s proverbial totem pole or someone you deem not worthy of your apology, or a hearty “thank you”, a “please” or an “excuse me”.

This is a world made up of people who find farting in public as amusing and smoking in restaurants as “their right.”

Blaring loud music, taking up two parking spaces for your Hummer, hell even a new hybrid.
Tacky Christmas lights, barking dogs, poor lawn maintenance and bad breath are all rights of passage in our society.

When posting articles on civility is necessary, the battle is already lost. 

Society can’t disappoint ole Snoop, I already have little regard for most of society anyway. 

Sedan and wagon models to join coupe as Ford builds on pony car’s strong brand 

 By GREG KABLE AND BOB GRITZINGER

Ford’s iconic Mustang is poised to play a crucial role in Ford’s future by expanding beyond its traditional role as a single performance figurehead into a complete range of global models. And the company’s Australian arm looks like the source for all the necessary hardware.

In a secret product planning meeting last fall, key Ford executives discussed a bold strategy to take the legendary Mustang mainstream. Ideas include both sedan and wagon variants of America’s original muscle car, with those cars joining the traditional coupe when the sixth-generation Mustang arrives in U.S. showrooms in 2011, AutoWeek sources say.

Mrs. Snoop set this to me in an e-mail.

You want to know why American car companies are so fucked up and why they are struggling for market share. It’s retarded ideas like this.
But you know, there is some dude out there, recently married, young family and he thinks that he can hold onto some measure of “coolness” by purchasing a 4 DOOR MUSTANG!
Never mind the baby seat in the back, and the smell of spit-up on the seats.
Oh and lets not forget the “my kid is an honor student” bumper sticker in the rear.
Classic. 

This from Newsbusters

Barbara Walters ended her Tuesday night ABC News countdown special, “The 10 Most Fascinating People of 2006,” by touting, near the end of the program, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as the “most fascinating person of 2006.”

Walters celebrated Pelosi’s victory: “We picked our most fascinating person on election day this past November. Next month, Congress will get a Speaker of the House unlike any before. Our most fascinating person of 2006: Mother of five and Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi. In January, Nancy Pelosi will become the most powerful woman in America. She will assume office as the first-ever female Speaker of the House, two heartbeats from the presidency.” Walters soon pleaded to Pelosi: “You’ve talked about sometimes using your mother-of-five voice. Now I sit here, and you’re very gentle. Talk to me in the mother-of-five voice.” She also asked Pelosi to confirm that she thinks President Bush is “incompetent and irresponsible and not a leader?”

In her 1994 special, however, Walters did not make the then-incoming House Speaker after a party change, Newt Gingrich, her “most fascinating person of 1994.” That honor went to Nelson Mandela on the December 13, 1994 show and Gingrich was not one of the other nine, a list which included Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Rupert Murdoch (for getting NFL games on Fox), Barbra Streisand and Jimmy Carter (”In his post-White House years, he seems to have left the mark that alluded his presidency and brought the role of ex-President to a new state of grace”).
    
This year’s “most fascinating,” in order of presentation: Andre Agassi, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (count as one), Joel Osteen, “Jay-Z,” Steve and Terri Irwin (one), Anna Wintour, Sacha Baron Cohen, John Ramsey, Patrick Dempsey and Nancy Pelosi.

It figures that the only fascinating Negro she can find was a rapper. Remember she also had Kanye West as a fascinating person after his “Bush doesn’t like black people” meltdown. 

I guess Negros can’t be fascinating unless they are flaming liberals, anti-American ranting, money freezing, Hip Hop rapping, ass shaking, ghetto pimping, gold teephus, Cristal chugging…. You get my point.

SO, why is Barbara kissing Nancy’s ass? Maybe she likes her politics, ya think!?

But how can a person be considered “fascinating” when prior to the elections she had been out of public view for weeks. Why did she actively avoid speaking in public?

Dick Polman, in a The Philadelphia Inquirer article stated:

One can argue that targeting Pelosi is a fool’s errand, since her name won’t appear this fall on 434 of the 435 House ballots. And she’s not a household name, either; according to a June Gallup poll, 27 percent of Americans don’t know who she is, 31 percent know her and like her, and 29 percent know her and dislike her.

Helloooo Barbara Wa Wa Nancy Pelosi was considered poison for Democrats. Forget that most folks do not even know who she is:

“that crazy Snoop, trying to be logical, silly negro”

The Washington Times wrote this: A look at Pelosi’s voting record:

“In the National Journal’s 2005 ideological ratings, which were based on scores of votes, Mrs. Pelosi was ranked more liberal than 91 percent of her House colleagues on economic issues, 96 percent on social matters and 82 percent on foreign-policy issues.”

This lady is so liberal that they would call her a socialist in Europe.

“Typical for her 20-year House career, Mrs. Pelosi received a 100 percent rating from NARAL Pro-Choice America last year and a 0 rating from the National Right to Life Committee.

A Roman Catholic who has repeatedly voted to uphold partial-birth abortion, who has voted against parental notification when minor children seek abortion and who has shown no concern for the rights of the innocent unborn, Mrs. Pelosi has consistently opposed the death penalty.

In 1998, she opposed a constitutional amendment to permit school prayer in the classroom.

In 1999, she opposed allowing state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property, including schools.

She has voted against education IRAs.

Mrs. Pelosi has repeatedly voted for tax increases and opposed tax cuts, even the 2001 bill that doubled the child tax credit to $1,000, among other cuts.”

AGAIN, Why did the “fascinating” Nancy Pelosi hide prior to the elections? Because the Democrats did not want you to think of her as folks cast their ballots. Nancy is a San Francisco Liberal and everybody knows what that means!

Pelosi’s positions are those of a classic liberal. She voted against the welfare-reform bill signed by President Bill Clinton and supports same-sex marriage. She wants choice for children, but not for poor District of Columbia parents who need vouchers to send their children to private school. Pelosi voted against the war in Iraq and the 1991 Persian Gulf War.”

Liberals have strange definitions for what is “fascinating”

Barbara with the choosing of fat ass Rosie for the View (not to mention she could not find a suitable Negro to be on her fucken show) and this Pelosi sham has resulted in me completely losing my respect for her.

Like she give a shit. But hey, that’s what blogs are for right!?  

I started to post something else, but then I found this entry from a Moonbat website praising the Bush impeachment efforts of Cynthia McKinney. My favorite outgoing political Negro.

When I read stuff like this I wonder are people like this dude paid to write this shit?
Any individual who can honestly look at the political career of McKinney and believe that she served her constituents and this country well is frankly not firing on all cylinders.

I won’t hide the fact that I find McKinney repulsive and embarrassing, not only as a political figure but as a black woman.
I have said numerous times, individuals like McKinney sets back the political ambitions of all black Americans.

Unfortunately there will be more like her, unless Black America starts rejecting the “country ghetto” style of politics embraced by the Democratic Party.
William “freezer” Jefferson, Maxine Waters, Charlie Rangel, Alcee “bribemasta” Hastings, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and the list goes on.   

By David Swanson - Blog link

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has introduced articles of impeachment against George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice. In doing so, she alone has spoken for the 51 percent of Americans who Newsweek says want Bush impeached. A considerably higher percentage of Americans would, if asked, almost certainly acknowledge that the abuses with which McKinney charges Bush et al. have, in fact, been committed by them and are impeachable offenses. That is to say, there are those who recognize the grounds for impeachment but don’t want to see them pursued. There are even those who want impeachment pursued but wish it were not being pursued by McKinney.

McKinney charges that Bush, Cheney, and Rice manipulated intelligence and lied to justify war, and that Bush has engaged in illegal domestic spying. The former charge has been extremely well documented, and the latter proudly confessed to. The former charge was central to the concern of those who included impeachment in the U.S. Constitution. The latter charge is one of openly violating a law that was established in response to President Richard Nixon’s impeachable offenses.

So, why aren’t all impeachment advocates thrilled? Because McKinney’s courage and leadership are overpowered, in their minds, by their own fears. They’re afraid that impeachment will be painted as radical and that other people less insightful than themselves will, as a result, oppose it. They fail to recognize that silence is more damaging to the cause of justice than are attacks by its opponents, and that other Americans are just as smart (although just as scared) as they are. McKinney has put impeachment where Speaker-Designate Nancy Pelosi said it could not go: on the table. This can only benefit the cause of impeachment.

The media attacks on McKinney have begun, and rather than joining in them by condemning her for bravely doing what we know needed to be done, we should be defending her with a barrage of letters to editors and phone calls to radio shows. And we should be urging every member of Congress to join her. Associated Press reporter Ben Evans has published a vicious attack on McKinney in which he alleges that

“The legislation has no chance of passing and serves as a symbolic parting shot.”

But in which Evans does not comment on public support for the action or the merits of the case, or McKinney’s own remarks. Instead, he suggests that McKinney has launched an attack directed as much at Pelosi as at Bush. But McKinney said nothing about Pelosi and accused Bush of the highest possible crime. Where are Evans’ priorities?

Evans does not even say what the charges against Bush are. Rather he launches into an attack on McKinney:

“McKinney, a Democrat who drew national headlines in March when she struck a Capitol police officer, has long insisted that Bush was never legitimately elected. In introducing her legislation in the final hours of the current Congress, she said Bush had violated his oath of office to defend the Constitution and the nation’s laws.”

And she said nothing of the legitimacy of his election. McKinney was tried and convicted in the press, and was never indicted.

Evans later writes:

“McKinney … has increasingly embraced her image as a controversial figure.”

How has she done that? By acting on behalf of a majority of Americans using a tool that appears centrally and in six places in our Constitution, a tool that has been vital to U.S. and British democracy for 700 years?

Evans isn’t done yet:

“She has hosted numerous panels on Sept. 11 conspiracy theories…”

McKinney hosted a day-long briefing that included academics, authors, and former government and intelligence professionals, some of whom questioned the work of the 9-11 Commission, but none of whom presented theories.

“…and suggested that Bush had prior knowledge of the terrorist attacks but kept quiet about it to allow friends to profit from the aftermath.”

McKinney asked about the reports that over a dozen foreign intelligence agencies had provided early warnings. She did not say that Bush kept it quiet to allow friends to profit. She asked whether his associates were making a profit, as of course many of them are through the “war on terror.” Greg Palast has produced a film called “American Blackout,” which addresses the media’s misquoting and misrepresenting of Congresswoman McKinney on this issue.

Evans keeps going:

“She introduced legislation to establish a permanent collection of rapper Tupac Shakur’s recordings at the National Archives and calling for a federal investigation into his killing.”

The Tupac Amaru Shakur Records Act did not establish a permanent collection of his music at the Archives or create an investigation, but required the release of all government records relating to his life and death at federal, state, and local levels.

Evans persists:

“But it was her scuffle with a Capitol police officer that drew the most attention. McKinney struck the officer when he tried to stop her from entering a congressional office building. The officer did not recognize McKinney, who was not wearing her member lapel pin.”

A Grand Jury heard these charges and dismissed them.

Evans says as much, but twists this fact with the words that follow:

“A grand jury in Washington declined to indict McKinney over the clash, but she eventually apologized before the House.”

Now, what does any of that have to do with whether our President used fraud to take us into the current war? Nothing, of course. But in the U.S. corporate media it is only those who supported the war who have the right to speak against it. If you opposed the war from the start, if you saw through the lies while it still mattered, you are disqualified now from commenting further.

Matthew Daly, another Associated Press reporter, wrote an article on Friday that contrasted with the one by Evans. The headline was “Smith says Iraq war may be ‘criminal’”. And the article began:

“Republican Sen. Gordon Smith, who voted in favor of the Iraq war and has supported it ever since, now says the current U.S. war effort is ‘absurd’ and ‘may even be ‘criminal.’”

Of course, it is. But Smith called it such in the vaguest of terms. McKinney laid out the evidence in an Article of Impeachment. Look at the treatment the AP gave Smith:

“In a major speech on the Senate floor, the Oregon senator called for rapid pullouts of U.S. troops from Iraq and said he would have never voted for the conflict if he had known the intelligence that President Bush gave the American people was inaccurate.”

Why was his speech “major”? Because he supported a criminal war on the basis of evidence that millions of us and half the Democrats in Congress saw through at the time.

The article went on to quote Smith on his reasons for charging that the war is criminal, but added nothing about his embracing controversy, splitting with the Republican party, or having done anything unpopular in the past:

“Citing the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and the nearly 3,000 American deaths, Smith said, ‘I for one am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal. So either we clear and hold and build or let’s go home.’”

This treatment continued for seven more paragraphs.

Congresswoman McKinney is not only a more intelligent and responsible public servant than Senator Smith, but she is also someone who foresaw the current attacks on her record and forged ahead anyway. She understands her role as public servant to involve serving the public. And, in the long run, she is serving the interests of the Democratic Party, whether everyone in that party grasps the point or not. She’s stuck her neck out for us, for our democracy, for the rule of law under our Constitution. Now, we need to support her.

Sunday, December 10th, is Human Rights Day, the 58th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document that lays out, in 30 short articles, rights that every human should have protected. Eleven out of the 30 have clearly been violated in the United States by President Bush and his administration, rights including:

Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence….

This Human Rights Day, many of us have worked to organize rallies for impeachment all over the country. They will now also be rallies to honor and thank Cynthia McKinney. Find an event near you.

Wikipedia Research to pass on, in case liberals who visit PPP forgot.

Is my disdain for this stupid biatch that obvious!?

The Race Card

The story was picked up by many blogs and internet opinion sites with overwhelming rebuke for McKinney coming from conservatives, and even liberal-leaning sources offering negative portrayals of Rep. McKinney, as on the comedy show Saturday Night Live, which lampooned her repeatedly on their 4/8/06 show for “playing the race card.” On April 3, former Wonkette editor Ana Marie Cox, interviewed on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC show Scarborough Country, said that “I worry that she [McKinney] makes us [Democrats] all look a little crazy.” [7] Within a few days of the first reports, McKinney had been variously described as a “crazy bitch”, “race baiter“, “freak”, etc. Some columns even went so far as to analyze her hairstyle in a negative light and question the quick participation of Harry Belafonte, who is generally regarded as a political polarizing agent and also the recipient of frequent negative commentary due to his public statements.

Reacting to the sudden rise in stakes reflected by the potential for criminal indictment, McKinney’s attorney, James Myart, spoke in a March 31 news conference, suggesting that the officer involved be criminally investigated for accosting (”inappropriately touching”) the congresswoman. This charge was not taken seriously by most commentators and media outlets. Myart went on to say the case typified a pattern of police harassment of black Americans: “my belief is this is no different than that: ‘they all look alike’.^[26] On April 25, 2006, CNN reported that one of Rep. McKinney’s lawyers was no longer representing her, that lawyer being Myart. Recently retired U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer rejected Myart’s charge in an interview with CNN:

“I’ve seen our officers stop white members and black members, Latinos, male and females . . . It’s not an issue about what your race or gender is. It’s an issue about making sure people who come into our building are recognized if they’re not going through the magnetometer, and this officer at that moment didn’t recognize her . . . It would have been real easy, as most members of Congress do, to say here’s who I am or do you know who I am?”

She has repeatedly stressed that in her view the incident arose from the police failure to recognize her face, suggesting that in her view the above-mentioned pattern of incidents in which Capitol Police failed to recognize her as a Member of Congress had to do with a general tendency by police in the United States to engage in racial profiling of blacks, where blacks are stereotyped as more likely to commit crime than other groups in society, and therefore tend to handle blacks more roughly.

 Controversies

Cynthia McKinney has been involved in controversies before. In the wake of the March 29 incident with the Capitol Police officer, Rep. McKinney was still very much “in the news” and her office invited the media to attend one of her monthly “District Days,” where she spends one full day meeting with constituents to discuss issues of concern. At her April 23, 2006, “District Days” event, Rep. McKinney was being interviewed by WGCL’s Renee Starzyk, who rather than asking questions about District Days as McKinney would have liked, repeatedly questioned her about the March 29th scuffle with a Capitol Police officer. Frustrated, McKinney stood up, and forgot she was still wearing the microphone. Her off screen comments were captured on tape. She was heard saying, “Oh, crap, now you know what… they lied to Coz and Coz is a fool.”^[33] She was referring to one of her aides, Coz Carson. McKinney realized the embarrassing mistake and returned on screen with the microphone, this time with instructions on what parts of the interview CBS 46 was allowed to use, “anything that is captured by your audio…that is captured while I’m not seated in this chair is off the record and is not permissible to be used… is that understood?”^[34] Her comments were immediately aired on CBS and eventually across the nation: CNN video Link to video: McKinney Caught On-Air Blasting Aide.

In a 2002 interview on Pacifica Radio McKinney questioned the Bush administration’s possible prior knowledge of the September 11, 2001 attacks:^[35]

We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11… Those engaged in unusual stock trades immediately before September 11 knew enough to make millions of dollars from United and American airlines, certain insurance and brokerage firms’ stocks. What did the Administration know, and when did it know it about the events of September 11? Who else knew and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered?

—”Flashpoints” with Dennis Bernstein, KFPA Pacifica Radio

These remarks provoked criticism, and many Democrats distanced themselves from McKinney’s statements. On April 12, 2002, McKinney issued a statement saying that “I am not aware of any evidence showing that President Bush or members of his administration have personally profited from the attacks of 9-11. A complete investigation might reveal this to be the case.”

In a controversial remark, McKinney said that on September 13, 2002, Judge Joe Brown had stated unequivocally that the purported murder rifle was not the weapon that killed Dr. Martin Luther King.^[36]

On October 12, 2001 (approximately the one-month anniversary of the September 11 attacks), McKinney sent a letter to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal that was highly critical of the way Israel responds to terrorist attacks, and not at all critical of the terrorist attacks upon Israel. [9] McKinney further suggested that the money that the prince donated for 9/11 relief that had been rejected by Rudolph Giuliani be redirected toward charities chosen by McKinney. McKinney’s supporters say the letter was appropriate; her critics describe it as “fawning” and “disgraceful.”

During the 2000 presidential campaign, McKinney wrote that “Al Gore’s Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I’ve never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time.” The Gore campaign pointed out, however, that his campaign manager was black.^[20]

Good riddance. I certainly hope her political career is over, for all our sakes. 

From Hot Air 

It wasn’t Al Franken this time:

A New York state senator stole $423,000 in charity money to pay for indulgences like a Dominican cigar-making company, authorities said on Tuesday as they announced charges against him.

Between 1999 and 2005 Efrain Gonzalez Jr., 58, directed the state legislature to send grant monies to a Bronx charity, where a friend redirected the funds to a shell charity that was the senator’s “conduit for paying personal expenses,” the U.S. attorney’s office said.

How do I know Efrain Gonzalez Jr. is a Democrat? For one, the article doesn’t note his political party, so one can assume he is a Democrat. Two, a Google search revealed his party.

Video: Rosie fights with Barbara Walters over who’s the least richest

Rosie is such a dumbass. I now know why the ratings for this show are up.
It’s like anticipating a scheduled major train wreck. I bet people tune in just to see what crazy shit she will say next.

I can’t say shit because I watch some of the courtroom shows during the day (yes I have a TV in my office, well I have several, anywho..) although you see some of the most ignorant bastards in our society, I sometimes marvel at how these people manage to survive day to day operating on massive amounts of ignorance and stupidity.

If you have not seen, check this out from Glenn Beck, The Perfect Storm:

Here is the intro text of the site (Thanks Trinity for the 411)

We are at a crucial time in not only our nation’s history, but also in the history of the entire Western world. There are powerful forces at work that, when looked at individually, are still quite serious but each seems somewhat manageable. However, when we examine these events and the possibility that they could happen collectively, well–then my friend, we’re facing something I like to call The Perfect Storm. Remember that George Clooney movie where the fishing boat gets caught in not just one storm, but many storms…coming at it from all angles simultaneously? Could it have braved one storm…maybe even two? Heck yeah, especially with Captain Clooney behind the wheel. But unfortunately, it wasn’t just one or two storms. The end result was that the collective power of a number of combined storms sank the fishing boat and killed her entire crew. And keep in mind—this wasn’t just a Hollywood movie, it actually happened. While they are rare, Perfect Storms do exist.

So with that thinking in mind, let me say that I firmly believe in what I’m about to lay before you, that if a number of the following events take place concurrently or in close succession, it will mean nothing less than the end of the West as we know it. Not just increased gas prices, not just our troops being overseas for the holidays, but a wholesale change in our country and the way we live our daily lives.

I’m not trying to scare you, but simply lay out some information so you can draw your own conclusions. I know these issues can seem daunting, and people often ask me, “What can I do?” The answer is easier than you might think: educate yourself–pass on what you learn to someone else, encourage them to pass it along, and so on. Getting informed, staying informed, and using that knowledge to help us act accordingly is our only chance. We need to realize that these problems aren’t about politics or party lines—at the end of the day, we’re not Democrats or Republicans, but Americans, and this problem applies equally to us all.

What follows hasn’t been run through any “spin” cycle so I can prove my point. I’ve simply done my homework and offer the cold hard facts. Do with them what you will, but think of these in the context of another Hollywood blockbuster—“A  Beautiful Mind.” Remember that scene where Russell Crowe has pasted up a number of newspaper stories and is making associations and drawing connections between them by running strings from one story to the next, and then that story to another, and so on? You could easily do the same with the stories here. It’s not a great leap to see a certain synchronicity between them. But it’s best if you decide for yourself. I’ll do my part by keeping this page updated and making sure you have access to the most current information. Then it’s up to you to inform yourself and share that information with those you care about.

Robert Spencer interviews from Hot Air. Click on Photo to view programs 

Jihad Watch
The Truth About Muhammad

 

 

 

 

 

Tucker Carlson on the flying imams
Jihad Watch
The Truth About Muhammad

 

 

 

 

 

.

 From the Blog Thinking Right.

Amazingly, there are still those out there who would deny Iraq’s pre-war terrorism connections. For those of you who read this blog (and you know who you are), I give you this from a speech given by Stephen F Hays:

In July 2004, a report from the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded: “The Central Intelligence Agency did not have a focused human intelligence collection strategy targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism.” And that same report quoted an unnamed Intelligence Community official who made this breathtaking admission: “I don’t think we were really focused on the [counterterrorism] side, because we weren’t concerned about the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] going out and proactively conducting terrorist attacks. It wasn’t until we realized that there was the possibility of going to war that we had to get a handle on that.”

Again, think about that. Saddam Hussein claimed that the Mother of All Battles, as he called the Gulf War, never ended. His government harbored several of the world’s most notorious terrorists—Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal among them. Within days of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, his government facilitated the escape from U.S. authorities of the Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for that bombing. Less than two months later, his intelligence service botched an attempt to assassinate George H.W. Bush on a visit to Kuwait. By the late 1990s, he was supplying chemical weapons expertise to terrorist-friendly Islamic fundamentalists in Sudan. He wired $150,000 to his intelligence chief in Prague to blow up the U.S. government’s headquarters of Radio Free Europe. An Iraqi government-run newspaper called Osama bin Laden an “Arab and Islamic hero” and there were several credible reports—including some from open sources—that Saddam Hussein offered bin Laden safe haven in 1998.

All of this, and yet the U.S. intelligence community wasn’t “really focused on the [counterterrorism] side” of the threat from Iraq. I’d submit to you that that was an oversight.

Let’s spend a moment on two of those matters:

On October 2, 2002, a young Filipino man rode his Honda motorcycle up a dusty road to a shanty strip mall just outside Camp Enrile Malagutay in Zamboanga City, Philippines. The camp was host to American troops stationed in the south of the country to train with Filipino soldiers fighting terrorists. The man parked his bike and began to examine its gas tank. Seconds later, the tank exploded, sending nails in all directions and killing the rider almost instantly.

The blast damaged six nearby stores and ripped the front off of a caf� that doubled as a karaoke bar. The cafe was popular with American soldiers. And on this day, SFC Mark Wayne Jackson was killed there and a fellow soldier was severely wounded. Eyewitnesses immediately identified the bomber as a known Abu Sayyaf terrorist.

One week before the attack, Abu Sayyaf leaders had promised a campaign of terror directed at the “enemies of Islam”—Westerners and the non-Muslim Filipino majority. And one week after the attack, Abu Sayyaf attempted to strike again, this time with a bomb placed on the playground of the San Roque Elementary School. It did not detonate. Authorities recovered the cell phone that was to have set it off and analyzed incoming and outgoing calls.

As they might have expected, they discovered several calls to and from Abu Sayyaf leaders. But another call got their attention. Seventeen hours after the attack that took the life of SFC Jackson, the cell phone was used to place a call to a top official in the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Hisham Hussein. It was not Hussein’s only contact with Abu Sayyaf.

One Philippine government source told me: “He was surveilled, and we found out he was in contact with Abu Sayyaf and also pro-Iraqi demonstrators. [Philippine Intelligence] was able to monitor their cell phone calls. [Abu Sayyaf leaders] called him right after the bombing. They were always talking.”

A subsequent analysis of Iraqi embassy phone records by Philippine authorities showed that Hussein had been in regular contact with Abu Sayyaf leaders both before and after the attack that killed SFC Jackson. Andrea Domingo, immigration commissioner for the Philippines, said Hussein ran an “established network” of terrorists in the country. Hisham Hussein and two other Iraqi embassy employees were ordered out of the Philippines on February 14, 2003.

Interestingly, if the Iraqi regime had wanted to keep its support for Abu Sayyaf secret, the al Qaeda-linked group did not. Twice in two years, Abu Sayyaf leaders boasted about receiving funding from Iraq—the second time just two weeks after Hisham Hussein was expelled.

Yeah, no terrorism connections what so ever. You know, be