politicalpartypoop.com

 Here is a good post from Red State.

I have read past articles detailing that President Bush was responsible for Hurricane Katrina and and is actually covering up the facts on global warming, so I really did not think that any other examples of BDS inspired commentary would surprise me. I was wrong. You could color me more than surprised when I read John Brummett’s column in the Las Vegas Review Journal titled It’s Bush’s fault that Democrats can’t come up with a plan for Iraq.

It stands as a testament to the vastness and thoroughness of George W. Bush’s debacle in Iraq that Democratic leaders must contort like pretzels to fashion opposition. It’s as if Bush has snookered the Democrats, not with good pool-shooting, but by so damaging the table that Democrats don’t have a shot. 

In essence, Brummett is saying that our President has so screwed up the war in Iraq, that it is now impossible for the Democrats to salvage it. Now what seems to a trash job on the President does little to promote the intelligence of the Democrat party who can muster little more opposition to the President’s plan than politically motivated symbolic votes. In fact, it seems that Brummett is going out of his way to criticize the actions of Reid and Pelosi with this comment:

Well, it might do two other things, actually. It might signal America’s lack of resolve to our enemies and distress our troops with an official stamp of congressional disapproval back home. But that surely won’t come as news to anybody. 

While I am sure that this sort of perverted reasoning long ago lost its power to raise more than an eyebrow of most conservatives, I think there may be more here than meets the eye.

In summary, Democrats are positioned to get shared blame — unfairly, sure — when in the end, whenever that end comes, America leaves Iraq in what will be wholly Bush’s folly and failure… With the war subsequently revealed to have been waged on false pretenses, and when that war becomes hopelessly stalemated, it is the role and responsibility of the duly authorized warrior, the president as commander in chief, to possess the good sense to cut his country’s tragic losses… The opposing party dare not take away funding for actively engaged troops… The best responsible course for the opposing party is to run somebody better for president at the very next opportunity, which ought to be easy enough. 

So what it is John, are we to cut and run or stay and fight?

It sounds like the beginning of a whole new meme to me, one of those things that will be a known fact ™ by the time the 2008 election rolls around. I mean if things are so screwed up in Iraq then the next President may have no other choice than pull out… or stay involved out of tragic necessity. Perhaps this is the convenient alibi for when a Democrat Presidential candidate has to explain her position to the grassroots antiwar establishment?

Did I mention that Brummett is a Clinton diarist; I wonder who he would support as our next “duly authorized warrior”?

The post says it all but just another example of just how Democrats are a bunch of whining, sniveling, gutless pussies.

Not only do they not have the political ballz to stand up and honor the commitment they conned the voters in supporting, but as I watch all of these talking head shows they are coming up with every damm excuse in the book and now you have some idiot actually spelling it out for you.   

Powerful black activists in the U.S. remain surprisingly cool to a White House run by African-American Senator Barack Obama.

At a recent meeting of activists in New York, Rev. Jesse Jackson, the first black candidate to run for president, declined to endorse Obama, saying “our focus now is not on who’s running, because there are a number of allies running.”

Rev. Al Sharpton, who ran in the 2004 Democratic primaries, said he was considering another presidential run in 2008 and observed about Obama: “Right now we’re hearing a lot of media razzle-dazzle. I’m not hearing a lot of meat, or a lot of content. I think when the meat hits the fire, we’ll find out if it’s just fat, or if there’s some real meat there.”

And singer and civil rights activist Harry Belafonte said America needed to be “careful” about Obama, the Sunday Times in London reported.

“We don’t know what he’s truly about,” Belafonte said. “He’s a young man in many ways to be admired. Obviously very bright, speaks very well, cuts a handsome figure. But all of that is just the king’s clothes. Who’s the king?”

One Democratic strategist told the Times that veteran civil rights leaders “are basically jealous. They’ve been toiling in the trenches for decades, and along comes this son of a Kenyan farmer and suddenly he’s measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.”

The Times noted: “The unexpected coolness between the old civil rights guard and the new Democratic hopeful has added an intriguing twist to the budding rivalry between Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton, who hopes to emulate her husband . . . in attracting support from black voters.”

Although I personally think BO is a complete fraud, I find it funny that the old guard Negro poverty pimps are “playa hatin”

How dare this high yella half breed SOB steal their thunder!

Jessie, Al calm down. As soon as Barrack starts to open his mouth and have to answer some tough questions on the economy, the war, healthcare, national security ect dude will fold like a cheep tent.

Eventually you will see Obama appearing with Jay-Z in Budweiser commercials, using ghetto slang in speeches, doing black power salutes and eating more fried chicken and watermelon on camera in his attempt to court the Negro vote. 

This post from LaShawn Barber 

Evangelical Christians say the issue of illegal aliens in the United States often creates a conflict between their allegiance to the Gospels and their loyalty to the government. - from “Christian groups torn over illegals,” Washington Times

George Bush wants amnesty for illegal aliens, and now he’s got the Congress he needs to make it so. But I don’t want to talk about him. I want to discuss Christian “compassion,” illegal aliens, and illegal aliens who call themselves Christians.

I don’t like when people try to make the ludicrous argument that because I’m a Christian, I can’t speak out against illegal “immigration.” I expect such ignorance from unbelievers, but it’s 10 times as irritating when Christians say it. “Ministering to all people” and spreading the Gospel are not in conflict with my opposition to giving criminal aliens the gift of American citizenship.

Whenever some Christian starts ragging on me about how “un-Christian” my views on illegal aliens are, I ask them to tell me what criticism they’ve leveled against illegal aliens who profess Christ. In anticipation of the sounds of chirping crickets, I give them an out: Hypothetically, what would you say to the illegal alien who professes Christ?

Still… crickets.

READ THE REST

By Tanya K. Hernandez, LA Times Article

THE ACRIMONIOUS relationship between Latinos and African Americans in Los Angeles is growing hard to ignore. Although last weekend’s black-versus-Latino race riot at Chino state prison is unfortunately not an aberration, the Dec. 15 murder in the Harbor Gateway neighborhood of Cheryl Green, a 14-year-old African American, allegedly by members of a Latino gang, was shocking.

Yet there was nothing really new about it. Rather, the murder was a manifestation of an increasingly common trend: Latino ethnic cleansing of African Americans from multiracial neighborhoods. Just last August, federal prosecutors convicted four Latino gang members of engaging in a six-year conspiracy to assault and murder African Americans in Highland Park. During the trial, prosecutors demonstrated that African American residents (with no gang ties at all) were being terrorized in an effort to force them out of a neighborhood now perceived as Latino.

For example, one African American resident was murdered by Latino gang members as he looked for a parking space near his Highland Park home. In another case, a woman was knocked off her bicycle and her husband was threatened with a box cutter by one of the defendants, who said, “You niggers have been here long enough.”

At first blush, it may be mystifying why such animosity exists between two ethnic groups that share so many of the same socioeconomic deprivations. Over the years, the hostility has been explained as a natural reaction to competition for blue-collar jobs in a tight labor market, or as the result of turf battles and cultural disputes in changing neighborhoods. Others have suggested that perhaps Latinos have simply been adept at learning the U.S. lesson of anti-black racism, or that perhaps black Americans are resentful at having the benefits of the civil rights movement extended to Latinos.

Although there may be a degree of truth to some or all of these explanations, they are insufficient to explain the extremity of the ethnic violence.

Over the years, there’s also been a tendency on the part of observers to blame the conflict more on African Americans (who are often portrayed as the aggressors) than on Latinos. But although it’s certainly true that there’s plenty of blame to go around, it’s important not to ignore the effect of Latino culture and history in fueling the rift.

The fact is that racism — and anti-black racism in particular — is a pervasive and historically entrenched reality of life in Latin America and the Caribbean. More than 90% of the approximately 10 million enslaved Africans brought to the Americas were taken to Latin America and the Caribbean (by the French, Spanish and British, primarily), whereas only 4.6% were brought to the United States. By 1793, colonial Mexico had a population of 370,000 Africans (and descendants of Africans) — the largest concentration in all of Spanish America.

The legacy of the slave period in Latin America and the Caribbean is similar to that in the United States: Having lighter skin and European features increases the chances of socioeconomic opportunity, while having darker skin and African features severely limits social mobility.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Dear CODEPINKer,

Martin Luther King, Jr.’s tireless work for peace and non-violence continues to inspire our own work. In honor of his birthday today, we have put together a powerful Flash movie of Dr. King speaking out against war. His cautionary words are just as resonant now. We need to listen to him again with fresh ears, to keep his work for peace alive.

In 1966, King said “I’m still convinced there’s nothing more powerful to dramatize a social evil than the tramp tramp of marching people.”

In this last week alone, we have harnessed the power of marching people. We protested Guantanamo, both in the streets around the world, and outside the detention center itself. We disrupted Condoleeza Rice’s testimony. We took to the streets to stop Bush’s plan for escalation, to stop funding war and bring the troops home. Thanks to all of you who added your footsteps to the powerful tramp tramp of marching people across the globe.

On January 27, we will be taking our tramping feet to Washington DC to bring the Mandate for Peace to Congress and the Bush administration. Won’t you join us? The more people on the street, the more loudly our message will be heard.

Forty years ago at Riverside Church, people of conscience declared that “a time comes when silence is betrayal.”

“We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest,” King preached that day.

Let’s make our protest on January 27 powerful enough to stop the war. We can think of no better way to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s memory.

I tried to come up with something to post today but why bother. I had the day off so I just rested and played my video game.
This is what MLK day has come down to as far as I’m concerned.
White liberals use it to promote their own tired ass rhetoric.

Palestinian media use racist terms including ‘colored dark skin lady’

This was originally posted back in July 2006. This is where Boxer got her inspiration.

Story Link

This is why I hope Israel bombs your sorry asses back to the…..shit I started to say stone age, but they were fucken there before the bombing started! Sorry folks.    

By Aaron Klein
2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – While U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in the Middle East meeting regional alongside Israel’s military campaign in Lebanon, media outlets controlled by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party the past few days have been using racist rhetoric in their reports, referring to the American representative as the “black woman,” “raven,” “colored dark skinned black lady” and “black spinster.”

The Palestinian media coverage follows an article last week in which WND reported senior Fatah members staged an anti-American protest outside the main government building in Ramallah while Abbas met with Rice. Most media coverage of last Wednesday’s Ramallah protests claimed ralliers were affiliated with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
According to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA daily Al Hayat detailed Wednesday’s Ramallah protests in which Rice was described as a “raven” who “brings only destruction.”
Al Hayat featured pictures of ralliers brandishing anti-Rice placards, some reading, “Murderer Rice go to Hell” and “Get out.” One placard had Rice drinking the blood of dead babies and stating, “I need more blood.”

A cartoon last week in the PA controlled Al Quds depicted Rice pregnant with a monkey. A caption read, “Rice speaks about birth of new Middle East.”
In a previous article by Al Hayat, Rice is described three times as the “black woman,” and her father, who was an ordained Presbyterian minister, was called the “black clergyman [who filled Rice’s head with Bible stories].” The article warned, “Beware of this ‘black spinster,’ we don’t want to say ‘the black widow’ out of respect for her femininity and her intelligence.”

A report this weekend by Palestinian Media Watch stated, “In addition to the offending news articles, the PA society is orchestrating demonstrations, children’s activities, and hateful visual displays all personally attacking Condoleezza Rice.”
WND reported from the scene in Ramallah last week as hundreds of protesters gathered outside a meeting between Abbas and Rice, many chanting, “Down with America,” “[Hezbollah leader Hassan] Nasrallah hit America,” “Fire rockets into Tel Aviv,” and “We don’t need American money.”

Palestinian police clashed with some protesters who tried to shove their way into the government building.
A group of ralliers who said they were affiliated with Fatah told WND they would try to charge Rice when she emerged.

The main protest organizer, who was outside leading the crowd, was Zyad Abu Ein, a senior Fatah official and general manager of the PA’s Ministry of Prisoners. Ein is well known to be a close Abbas confidante and is considered one of the most important members in Ramallah of Fatah’s Revolutionary Council.
Ein told WND aside from last week’s street protests near the Abbas-Rice meeting, he asked Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to stage what he called a “day of rage” against Rice’s visit by not cooperating with prison wardens.

by Rebecca Hagelin - Human Events 

Barbara Boxer seems to have forgotten a great American tradition: The fact that we are a nation of unity and patriotism when it comes to supporting our troops. That’s why her attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s patriotism is so outrageous.

When our country fights evil, our hearts and souls are engaged not because my son or daughter, or your children, or your neighbor’s children fight for freedom; we unify over the fact that America’s sons and daughters are fighting for freedom.

As the mother of three and the wife of a retired naval officer, it has never occurred to me that my single friends feel any less patriotic, any less of a loss when a warrior falls in battle, or that they feel any less pride over our men and women in uniform than do I.

Yes, some families suffer far more deeply than others—but for Barbara Boxer to imply that the single or the childless care less deeply about America and our future, or that they have any less voice than she does, reveals a level of arrogance and selfishness rarely seen even in the worst of political climates.

Barbara Boxer should be deeply ashamed of herself. The senator should immediately apologize to the U.S. Senate for representing her colleagues so poorly in an official hearing, to Secretary Rice for the disgusting display of disrespect, and to all Americans for insulting our collective patriotism.

 Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Whites

Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Negros

Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Canadians 

Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Filipinos

Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Germans

Oklahoma car crash kills 7 Muslims
No, that is not my headline, here tis the story link…

OKLAHOMA CITY (Reuters) - Seven Mexican nationals were killed early on Sunday in Oklahoma when their minivan skidded into a tractor-trailer truck in icy conditions, police said.

The accident raised the death toll on the state’s highways to 11 since an ice storm began lashing it early on Friday. The powerful front has dumped rain and ice elsewhere in the central and southwest parts of the United States, disrupting air traffic and leaving tens of thousands without power.

“It’s a mess out there. You can’t go anywhere,” said Oklahoma highway patrol spokesman Pete Norwood.

He said Sunday’s accident occurred in the early morning hours in the western part of the state. The van was carrying 12 Mexican nationals. The other five were injured and were hospitalized.

Over 90,000 homes and businesses were reported to be without electricity in Oklahoma early on Sunday as sleet once again pounded parts of the state. A state of emergency remained in effect in all 77 counties.

In north Texas, icy conditions were once again causing delays and cancellations at the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport. A spokesman for the airport said 312 departures had already been canceled for Sunday.

*** 

Ok I’m browsing through some stories and I see this headline.
I obviously go to the article and I see

“Seven Mexican nationals…”

What the fuck is that suppose to mean?

Was Reuters like, HA! You racist bastard you thought that the story was about 7 ILLEGAL Mexicans getting killed of the highway while “sneaking” into the country. 

They however were Mexican NATIONALS, so screw you!

Maybe it twas just me.

 By Thomas Sowell - via Townhall  

They say that man cannot control the weather. But every time I buy photographic equipment, it rains.

Who says that there is no difference between the political parties? When Democrats are criticized, they counter-attack. When Republicans are criticized, they whine that they are innocent.

We all enter the world knowing nothing but, by the time we are teenagers, we know it all. Sometimes it is decades later before we know enough to realize how little we know.

Nothing is called “second-hand” any more, except “second-hand smoke.” Why is it not called “pre-owned” smoke?

Civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.

Some people seem to think that we live in more “liberated” times, when all that has happened is that one set of taboos has been replaced by another and more intolerantly enforced set of taboos.

If people had been as mealy-mouthed in centuries past as they are today, Ivan the Terrible would have been called Ivan the Inappropriate.

Sometimes you need a vacation just to recover from all the preparations you made before going on vacation.

Why would a boxer agree to a match in another boxer’s home town?

Whatever the political benefits of making decisions by committees, the need for consensus virtually guarantees the lowest common denominator. A bipartisan committee with people of widely differing views has to paper over these differences and issue mushy pieties, like those of the Baker-Hamilton report on Iraq.

I don’t feel any different as I get older. However, I do notice that, when I am out biking, a lot of other bikers seem to be passing me and I don’t seem to be passing anybody.

What is especially disturbing about the political left is that they seem to have no sense of the tragedy of the human condition. Instead, they tend to see the problems of the world as due to other people not being as wise or as noble as themselves.

The next time somebody says that the government is forced to intervene in the economy to protect the poor, ask why the government is forcing taxpayers to subsidize municipal golf courses, the ballet, opera and — the biggest subsidy of all — surrounding affluent communities with vast amounts of expensive “open space.”

Some days I don’t seem to have much energy. Perhaps worse yet, I don’t particularly want much energy.

One of the scariest aspects of our times is how easy it is for glib loudmouths to turn us against each other, weakening the whole framework of society, on which we all depend.

Despite the shameless propaganda of the environmentalist zealots about the loss of animal habitat, more than 90 percent of the land in the United States is undeveloped. Animals already have vastly more habitat than human beings have. How much is enough?

As much as I have enjoyed traveling, the older I get the sooner I become homesick.

The Detroit “big three” top automobile manufacturers in America have already become the “big two,” as Toyota replaced DaimlerChrysler as the third largest seller of cars in the United States. An internal memo from the Ford Motor Company indicates that they expect Toyota to replace them in the number two spot.

It is hard to think of any word that has confused more issues than the word “rights.” Nowadays, almost anything that anybody wants is called a “right” — a magic word that does away with the need for evidence, logic or even common sense.

Many of the same people who are urging us to get out of Iraq are also urging us to go into Darfur. They say we should “do something” about the murderous horrors in Darfur. But you cannot simply “do something.” You have to do something specific. Those who are urging intervention won’t take the responsibility for specifying what we are to do — and at what cost in American lives.

Compact disks are especially valuable to people who listen to classical music. Through CDs, they can now enjoy the music without having to watch the antics and rituals of classical concerts.

We can only hope that the rumor that Israel is going to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities is true. If they do, Israel will be widely condemned by governments that are breathing a sigh of relief that they did.

(Link) Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York’s own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush’s tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

“Who pays the price? I’m not going to pay a personal price,” Boxer said. “My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young.”

Then, to Rice: “You’re not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family.”

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It’s hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer’s assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike - until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: “The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course.”

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president’s speech as “a new surge without a new strategy.”

Frankly, we’re not surprised by Hillary Clinton’s rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she’ll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November’s midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)

Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this “McCain’s surge.”)

Said McCain: “I’d rather lose a campaign than lose a war.”

As for Schumer, we’re profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he’s always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he’s been elevated to a top position in his party’s Senate leadership - and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards - with Clinton, presidential aspirants - as they trash Bush’s plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America’s enemies - and of course it does - he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party’s bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don’t hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge - and he’s not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: “Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work.” Instead, Kyl rightly noted, “some declared the president’s proposals unworkable even before they were announced.”

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

“I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq,” said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country’s uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.

More posts on this issue on Hot Air , The Anchroress,  Wizbang, Bills Bites

I found an entry on Right Wing News. He uses a different photo.

Someone from Zombie took some photos of some idiot liberals and their protest in Berekeley.

Reason #3,945,137 why I can’t take liberals seriously. I mean c’mon, why do all of these liberals who engage in these protests look like they came from the drug rehab wing of an insane asylum?    

 The House Judiciary Committee, under the new leadership of Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, is planning hearings on the laws, starting later this month or in early February. One of the first issues planned for review is the sentencing disparity between offenses involving powder and crack cocaine.
Read full article.

Below is an article I posted back in November and my brief on the issue.

This is why I love blogging you don’t have to reinvent the wheel and find new stuff because the Democrats keep going back to the same old playbook.  
***** 

I have never understood the crack vs Powder cocaine sentencing crap.
Also being someone that has never injected, snorted, cooked, smoked crack or cocaine I thought the simple goal was to get high.
You mean to tell me that some white person out there when offered some crack would say “goly gee no I don’t want that crack stuff, only Negros smoke that shit, besides didn’t you know about the sentencing guidelines if you get caught?”
Sorry I just can’t process that.
If there is some crackhead or other dope fiend out there that can explain it to me please feel free.   

(Published Edited - Wall Street Journal - April 29, 1997, by Wayne J. Roques. Mr. Roques is a retired Drug Enforcement Administration agent.)

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court injected some reason into the debate over alleged racial disparity in sentencing for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. The justices let stand the 10-year prison sentence of Duane Edwards, a black man convicted for selling 126 grams of crack to an undercover officer for $3,400. Edwards’s lawyers had argued that their client was a victim of discrimination because a conviction for the sale of an equal amount (in weight, not dollars) of powdered cocaine — a drug preferred by non-minorities — would have garnered a lighter sentence.

Prison reformers and advocates of [tag]drug legalization[/tag] have played this race card in an effort to divide and conquer those who demand that drug traffickers be held accountable for their crimes. Unfortunately, two prominent black leaders, the Rev. Jesse Jackson and [tag]Rep. Charles Rangel[/tag] (D., N.Y.), have bought into this scam and declared the sentencing laws racist.

Yet Jackson and Rangel held a news conference in 1986 demanding that the federal government do something about the crack epidemic that was raging through inner-city neighborhoods. They understood that the introduction of this cheap, rapidly addicting form of cocaine posed a particular danger to the weakest denizens of those areas. Mr. Rangel, in fact, voted for the statute imposing tougher sentences for [tag]crack cocaine[/tag]. Now, it appears that these two gentlemen have forgotten whence the statute came.

The crack cocaine law is not racist. It was enacted to permit federal agents to lend their enforcement efforts to combatting the growing crack cocaine menace. Most drug investigations are conducted by local law enforcement officers functioning under state laws. In instances where the [tag]U.S. Drug Enforcement[/tag] Administration gets involved, intelligence denoting the relative significance of the trafficker or organization, in addition to the actual and potential violence of the drug-trafficking organization, is a vital consideration in targeting a particular group.

Crack, which is smoked rather than snorted, is far cheaper and more rapidly addictive than powder cocaine, and it renders its users more prone to violence. The only effective way to combat it is by going after the retail end of the market. With powder cocaine, on the other hand, the federal government generally reserves its limited resources for wholesale operations. That’s why cases involving wholesale distributors of powder cocaine normally involve multiple kilograms of the drug, while crack cocaine cases generally are measured in grams. The average amount of powder cocaine per inmate in federal prison on a powder cocaine violation is about 183 pounds. The average amount of crack cocaine per convict is about 700 grams, which converts to approximately 7,000 “rocks” (dosages), hardly the stock of a small-time pusher or addict.

There has been a great deal of sophistry in the discussion of the relative sentences for crack cocaine vs. powder cocaine. In truth, the sentencing statute doesn’t impose longer sentences for crack cocaine. Rather, it establishes a lower weight threshold to get to an equivalent sentence for crack cocaine as compared with powder cocaine. It is predicated on the relative importance of the defendant in the phase of the market in which he operates. If federal agents were subject to the same quantity thresholds for crack cocaine investigations as they are for powder, they simply wouldn’t be able to work the retail crack market.

In the Southern District of Florida, for example, the threshold for powder cocaine cases is three kilograms. The same amount of crack is the equivalent of 30,000 rocks. It is unlikely that a crack cocaine dealer would ever have sufficient quantity to meet such a threshold.

Do tough crack sentences [tag]discriminate[/tag] against blacks? Consider: A comprehensive 1991 study revealed that of 2,980 federal crack cocaine prisoners, 2,513 (84%) were black and 467 were non-black. (The most recent figure available for the number of federal prisoners incarcerated for crack charges is 3,771 — out of roughly 100,000 total federal prisoners–in 1995.) Crack defendants are a small percentage of drug criminals behind federal bars. The same 1991 study found that there were 16,528 federal powder cocaine prisoners, of whom only 4,439 (27%) were black. And of 6,015 federal prisoners serving time for marijuana charges, only 442 (8%) were black.

Do these numbers reflect discrimination against the non-black marijuana and powder cocaine criminals? Or is it simply reflective of who is involved at the upper levels of organizations trafficking in each of these drugs? (The average amount of marijuana involved for a federal marijuana prisoners is over three tons of the drug.) And the most important question is this: Why are we focussing all this time and energy on the “plight” of drug criminals? The object of our efforts and devotion should be the victims of crack cocaine — children who are seduced by it or addicted even before birth, and law abiding citizens whose communities are devastated by its effects–not those who profit by the misery and harm they visit on our society.

 

House Republicans yesterday declared “something fishy” about the major tuna company in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco district being exempted from the minimum-wage increase that Democrats approved this week.

“I am shocked,” said Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican and his party’s chief deputy whip, noting that Mrs. Pelosi campaigned heavily on promises of honest government. “Now we find out that she is exempting hometown companies from minimum wage. This is exactly the hypocrisy and double talk that we have come to expect from the Democrats.”

On Wednesday, the House voted to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour.
The bill also extends for the first time the federal minimum wage to the U.S. territory of the Northern Mariana Islands. However, it exempts American Samoa, another Pacific island territory that would become the only U.S. territory not subject to federal minimum-wage laws.

One of the biggest opponents of the federal minimum wage in Samoa is StarKist Tuna, which owns one of the two packing plants that together employ more than 5,000 Samoans, or nearly 75 percent of the island’s work force. StarKist’s parent company, Del Monte Corp., has headquarters in San Francisco, which is represented by Mrs. Pelosi. The other plant belongs to California-based Chicken of the Sea.

“There’s something fishy going on here,” said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina Republican.
During the House debate yesterday on stem-cell research, Mr. McHenry raised a parliamentary inquiry as to whether an amendment could be offered that would exempt American Samoa from stem-cell research, “just as it was for the minimum-wage bill.”

A clearly perturbed Rep. Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who was presiding, cut off Mr. McHenry and shouted, “No, it would not be.”
“So, the chair is saying I may not offer an amendment exempting American Samoa?” Mr. McHenry pressed.
“The gentleman is making a speech and will sustain,” Mr. Frank shouted as he slammed his large wooden gavel against the rostrum.

Some Republicans who voted in favor of the minimum-wage bill were particularly irritated to learn yesterday — after their vote — that the legislation did not include American Samoa.
“I was troubled to learn of this exemption,” said Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, Illinois Republican. “My intention was to raise the minimum wage for everyone. We shouldn’t permit any special favors or exemptions that are not widely discussed in Congress. This is the problem with rushing legislation through without full debate.”
A spokeswoman for Mrs. Pelosi said Wednesday that the speaker has not been lobbied in any way by StarKist or Del Monte.

 This from the New York Post via Drudge

January 12, 2007 — WASHINGTON - Powerhouse New York Rep. Charles Rangel is butting heads with fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi just a week into the new Congress controlled by their party, The Post has learned.

Rangel yesterday swatted down a tax hike that Pelosi has floated, and he made an end run around her decision to bypass House committees in a rush to bring bills to a vote.

“There’s a lot of tension there,” one Democratic lawmaker said of the relationship between Rangel and Pelosi.

Rangel, who took over the powerful Ways and Means Committee after 36 years in Congress, smacked down the idea Pelosi raised on Sunday of repealing tax cuts for those earning more than $500,000 per year.

“We haven’t gotten that far to be talking about tax increases,” Rangel told The Post. “She hasn’t discussed it with me . . . We haven’t gotten into tax policy.”

Pelosi had said nixing tax cuts for half-million-dollar earners “might be more important to the American people than ignoring the educational and health needs of America’s children.”

But Rangel, whose committee handles tax policy, dismissed Pelosi’s idea as unlikely to happen, since the speaker didn’t bother to vet it with him in advance.

“Saying it to me in private is far more important than whatever she says nationally,” he huffed, referring to her weekend TV appearance.

By calling out Pelosi, Rangel, a liberal firebrand himself, has emerged as the first old-school committee “baron” with the political juice to spar with the ascendant speaker.

In another swat at Pelosi, Rangel sided with Republican lawmakers by opposing his leadership’s high-profile push to jam through legislation in the first 100 hours of Democratic rule.

Pelosi decreed that none of the early legislation would go through the normal committee process, hoping to keep her party in lockstep to enact key agenda items and boost her own and the party’s national image.

“I don’t think the chairman [Rangel] likes the idea that there were no hearings on a lot of the bills that were coming up in the 100 hours,” said the Democratic lawmaker.

Sources say Rangel went to Pelosi urging that his committee be allowed to review legislation allowing the feds to negotiate with drug companies over prices and taking away tax breaks for big oil companies - but she refused.

Rangel got around her by setting up closed-door committee forums that were essentially hearings anyway.

Yesterday, the Republican and Democratic committee members met with health experts on the drug bill, and an energy meeting is set for next week.

“He said he was disturbed also,” said Rep. Jim McCrery (R-La.), the top Republican on Ways and Means.

New York Daily News - Link 

A Queens city councilman is on a mission to abolish the N-word. Democrat Leroy Comrie is so disgusted by the rampant use of the racial epithet that he has submitted a resolution to the Council calling for the “SYMBOLIC moratorium on the use of the N-word in New York City.”“Stop using the N-word,” Comrie (D-Jamaica) demanded yesterday. “It’s racist, it’s negative, it’s demeaning. It boils my blood, the usage, even in a personal tone between people.”

Comrie said the resolution will be formally introduced to the Council Feb. 1, the first day of Black History Month.

“The timing is right,” he said. “Monday is Martin Luther King’s birthday. February is Black History Month.”

The widespread use of the N-word gained considerable attention last year during the hate-crime trial of Nicholas (Fat Nick) Minucci.

Minucci claimed he used the slur as a friendly greeting before beating a black man with a baseball bat in Howard Beach in 2005. He was convicted and sentenced to 15 years in prison.

“The word has gone from one of a violent tradition to one that is acceptable,” said Pastor Curtis Norton of Merrick Park Baptist Church in southeast Queens. “It’s insidious.”

But, can the N-word be abolished?

“I don’t know if you can abolish it,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton. “But you can certainly make it unacceptable.”

Ah shit, I read this piece from the NY Post and I debated whether or not to post this.

I already know some who visit already think I’m hyper critical of Negros here, but it is shit like this that just dumbfounds me.

So you mean to tell me the people in his district voted for this jackass so he can get some fishwrap time denouncing the word NIGGER? (screw this N-word bullshit, just fucken say it)

Why is it that everything you idiot Democrats do is SYMBOLIC?

Out of all the problems facing black folks in this country and I bet in his own district THIS is his priority?

There is one simple way to help eliminate the word NIGGER from the vocabulary from our young black children.
GET AN EDUCATION!

Tell young black women to stop having babies and finish their education, tell black men to take responsibility for their families. Make kids go to school, improve the education system in black communities across the nation and stop electing do nothing idiot DEMOCRAT Negros who waist time and money by making up bullshit SYMBOLIC crap.

Snoop has spoken! 

 A comment from this individual prompted me to repost this. I forgot about this bullshit liberal conspiracy.

Posted by Brent Baker - Newsbusters - Link

Although a Monday CBS Evening News story included a soundbite from an expert dismissing the idea as “preposterous,” the newscast treated a far-left conspiracy theory — about how the Bush administration is somehow manipulating the pump 09price for gas to help in the election — as credible and worthy enough to deserve a broadcast network story. Citing how the price of a gallon of gas has fallen to the lowest all year, anchor Katie Couric wondered: “Is this an election year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans?” Over a shot of a “GOP: Grand Oil Party” bumper sticker laying on a dashboard, reporter Anthony Mason asserted: “Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so.” The man in the car insisted “I think it’s basically a ploy to sort of get the American people to think, well, the economy is going good, let’s vote Republican.”

Over headlines from Daily Kos and Huffington Post, Mason conceded you can “call the conspiracy theory crazy,” but he touted how “it’s spreading through Internet blogs and over the airwaves. And a recent poll found 42 percent of people actually believe the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated the price of gas to affect the election.”

Back in late September, CNN’s American Morning also gave credence to the conspiracy, as detailed in a September 27 MRC CyberAlert item, “CNN: Are Falling Gas Prices a Conspiracy Between Big Oil and GOP?”, which began:

For the third time in less then a month, CNN has aired a report investigating the connection between falling gas prices and the GOP’s fortunes in the looming fall election. This time, on Monday’s American Morning, reporter Ali Velshi looked into the conspiracy theory that oil companies are trying to help Republicans by dropping prices. Co-Anchor Soledad O’Brien teased the report: “Ahead this morning, is there a conspiracy behind the drop in gas prices? Bloggers say there is something fishy going on.” Velshi gave credibility to the theory: “Are lower gas prices a Republican plot? This blogger wonders if Republicans are trying to soften voters, who have spent the last year angry about high prices.” He even asked: “Could President Bush have had anything to do with plummeting gas prices?” Velshi doubted the conspiracy idea, but then offered up: “Maybe the oil companies realize that the Democrats coming in, it’s going to be bad for them, because the Democrats have pretty much said to the oil companies, we’re going to pile the taxes on if we, we take over in November.”

In late August, a NewsBusters posting by Megan McCormack recounted how CNN’s Jack Cafferty saw a conspiracy by the oil companies: “You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away.” The transcript of the October 16 CBS Evening News story, as provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth who corrected the closed-captioning against the video:

Katie Couric: “The way things are going at the gas pump, there’s no point in topping off your tank today. Chances are, the price will be even lower tomorrow. As of tonight, gas is the lowest it’s been all year, a nationwide average of $2.23 a gallon. It hasn’t been that low since last Christmas. But is this an election year present from President Bush to fellow Republicans? Here’s Anthony Mason.” Anthony Mason: “For two months now, gas prices have been in free-fall, plunging 81 cents a gallon since August and giving the President some rare good news.”

George W. Bush: “Gas prices are down.”

Mason, over “GOP: Grand Oil Party” bumper sticker laying on a dashboard: “Gas started going down just as the fall campaign started heating up. Coincidence? Some drivers don’t think so.”

Man in a car: “And I think it’s basically a ploy to sort of get the American people to think, well, the economy is going good, let’s vote Republican.”

Mason, over headlines from Daily Kos and Huffington Post: “Call the conspiracy theory crazy, but it’s spreading through Internet blogs-”

Unidentified male radio host: “Are you suspicious? Coincidence or collusion?”

Mason: “-and over the airwaves. And a recent [Gallup/USA Today] poll found 42 percent of people actually believe the Bush administration has deliberately manipulated the price of gas to affect the election.”

Prof. Larry Sabato, University of Virginia: “You don’t think gas prices matter? Just ask Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. They’ll all tell you that their victories or defeats depended in part on the cost of gas at the pump.”

Mason: “In fact, there’s an uncanny connection between President Bush’s popularity and the price at the pump. Take a look at this chart. As gas prices were rising, the President’s approval rating was sinking.”

Andy Laperriere, ISI Group: “You see what appears to be almost a perfect correlation that the President’s approval is really driven by gas prices.”

Mason: “But analyst Andy Laperriere says there’s no conspiracy.”

Laperriere: “It’s preposterous.”

Mason: “Supply and demand determine gas prices, he says, and apart from controlling the relatively small Strategic Petroleum Reserve-”

Laperriere: “There’s virtually nothing the President can do to impact oil prices and gas prices.”

Mason concluded with how lower gas prices are not benefitting Bush because of Iraq: “In any case, Iraq is now weighing down President Bush’s poll numbers. Lower gas prices have made Americans feel better about the economy, but they’re not making them feel better about the President. Anthony Mason, CBS News, New York.”

I’m not going to bother linking to this or any related stories, because this is just so fucken stupid it tis simply incomprehensible.

Look at the picture, why would I give a shit about a sport with such enduring images.

David Beckham can’t dunk. He can’t throw for 4000 yards in a season.
He can’t rush for 1500 yards. He can’t stop Kobe Bryant or Shaq, he can’t bat .300 or hit 50 homers or steal 50 bases.
He does not know how to throw a curveball or slider or turn a double play.
He can’t skate, so hat tricks are out of the question and no redneck is likely to have a Beckham sticker on his pick-up.

So what the fuck is this $250 million for?
I swear how come somebody doesn’t come to this blog and reckanize my writing talents and offer me some million dollar contract.

Shit, fewer people will watch this dude play soccer than will be reading this blog.

C’mon there has to be someone out there with money to piss away on this broke ass blogging Negro.

Help a brotha out, I’m fo sale!

 Interesting Romney stuff from a website/blog? eyeon08.com

The YouTube video of Mitt Romney during a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy shows him to be an eloquent defender of gay rights and abortion rights and dismissive of Ronald Reagan. Romney released a YouTube video of his own (per David All’s best practices) claiming that he had been wrong on some issues in the past. 

Trying to laugh off allegations that he is flip-flopping, Romney continues to misrepresent his record.

Let’s look at the most important part of his statement (full transcript below) which was designed, as AP’s Glenn Johnson pointed out, to tell “social conservatives key to his presidential campaign that he is one of them”:

If you want to know where I stand, by the way, you don’t have to just listen to my words. You can go and look at my record as governor. Frankly, in the bluest of states, facing the most liberal media in the country, I’ve led the fight to preserve traditional marriage. I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same-sex marriage. I’ve also taken action to protect the sanctity of life. I’ve vetoed bills that authorized embryo farming, therapeutic cloning, Plan B, emergency contraception, and, of course, a redefinition of when life was going to begin as well.

Here’s what social conservatives need to know about Romney’s assertions.

Romney said, “I’ve taken every legal step I could conceive of, to prevent same-sex marriage.” Deal Hudson, a Catholic scholar who is close to President Bush, recently showed that this is not true . Hudson said that Romney had an effective, legal way to take jurisdiction over marriage from the courts. Instead, he ignored pressure from conservative groups, taking the high-publicity route, turning the issue into the basis of his Presidential campaign. For more posts on Romney flip-flops on gay rights, go here.

Romney said, “I’ve also taken action to protect the sanctity of life.” Leon Wolf at Redstate has pointed out that Romney actually overturned his own Health Secretary to end the conscience exemption in Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts. Maybe he’s taken some “action to protect the sanctity of life”, but it certainly hasn’t been consistent even in the last two years.

Romney said, “I’ve vetoed … Plan B, emergency contraception, …”. This time Romney is telling the truth. However, it’s a flip-flop. He made a campaign promise to expand these. Will Romney win social conservative votes by breaking his promises?

Romney tries to dismiss this all as “13 year old history.” However even his “record as Governor” over the last 2-4 years does not live up to his words today.

While Mitt thinks 13 years is too long to be responsible for his own words, in 1994 he had no problem criticizing Ted Kennedy for something he said 21 years earlier. In 1994, Mitt argued that pro-choice voters couldn’t trust Ted Kennedy because Kennedy had flip-flopped on abortion 21 years earlier:

“The reason they don’t trust Ted Kennedy is that he flip-flopped on abortion . . . Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position.’’ Romney consultant Charles Manning during the Kennedy race.

Ted Kennedy (!!) was unreliable on abortion. Therefore, according to Romney’s campaign, they should vote for Romney because he’d been consistently pro-choice.

Mitt misrepresents his actions and doesn’t take responsibility for his words.

If 21 years wasn’t good enough for you to believe Ted Kennedy was really pro-choice, why is 2 years — at best — enough for conservatives to believe that Romney is really conservative?

Read the rest here

 Ok I had to read this article a couple of times to decide whether or not to post.
I wanted to convince myself that this article is not engaging in “playa hatin.” 
I’m still not sure the article is not leaning that way but here it is anyway.
One line in the article “

“is it lack of self-esteem that drives the newly (and not-so-newly) rich to “ostentatiously” display their riches?

The reason why I focus on that line is awhile back while working to raise money for a not-for-profit venture I was involved in there was this dude who was the chairman of this project. Very wealthy guy, not going to go into how he made his money because it will be easy for folks to find out who he is.
God knows what would happened if his homies would find out that he was working with an uppity, crazy conservative Negro.

Any time we had planning meeting and called the board to meet on fundraising strategy all of these other folks fell all over him trying to kiss his ass in their designer suites and fancy cars.

This guy has a very VERY modest office, basic furniture, and cheep. He dressed in basic short sleeve shirts, had a Mickey Mouse watch and shoes from Pay Less Shoes (cause he noticed that I was wearing the same shoes one day, and said he got them from there)
The only hint of extravagance was his red Mercedes Coup, it was seriously pimped out (I mean that in a good way)

His house was spectacular, but not overdone and it sat alone, far from the other million dollar cookie cutter houses that were being constructed in the area.

This man was a strong, confident, smart, down to earth dude.
Self esteem was hardly an issue for him.

In my many other endeavors I met folks who had far less money but almost in a psychotic manner flaunted the fact that they had mad money going on as if they were saying “I AM RICH, YOU ARE NOT, LA, LA, LA” (think of Pee Wee Herman saying this if you remember his old TV show).
They “needed” to make sure everyone knew that had money. They are fucken mental cases with large bank accounts. 

I never even considered the fact that only a completely lack of self awareness and self esteem can drive these rich bastards to engage in some of this ridiculous behaviors.

Having said that, I saw on Oprah (Tuesday) where this idiot mother brought her FOUR YEAR OLD, daughter diamonds and this other family who buys their kids EVERYTHING actually had to be invited to appear on Oprah to access why their kids were such spoiled evil little bastards.
Why some people breed is beyond me.

Anywho, here is the article, interesting to some degree it frankly focuses how fucked society is overall.
Idiot rich fucks buying diamond dog collars and spending millions on wedding dresses to broke ass folks rejoicing in those rich fucks having their homes burned to the ground.  

***By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon - Article Link

In the late afternoon of Monday, January 8, wind-driven flames tore over Malibu Colony Road in Malibu, California, destroying four multi-million dollar beachfront homes inside of two hours. As the sun rose Tuesday on those smoldering remains, we learned there were also embers burning on the radio waves. We have the greatest sympathy for anyone who loses a home, but to our surprise, most callers had little empathy for the misfortune of the affected Malibu homeowners.

Before readers arrive at the wrong conclusion, we wish to state we are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists who wholeheartedly believe everyone is entitled to the maximum fruits of their labor. The problem that disturbed many of the callers to the local radio shows is apparently the degree of conspicuous consumption in this country. It is having a fast-growing and deleterious effect on the middle to lower classes of our society. While we do not favor redistribution of wealth, or any other “ism” intended to strip the rewards of those who have earned their status, it was not difficult to understand where the callers were coming from.

It is the overexposure to and “flaunting” of wealth that engenders resentment in the hearts and minds of the working class. For now, let’s call it “Fungus from the Rich & Famous.”

We began by asking, “Are the less affluent in our society becoming weary—or perhaps resentful–of the excessively rich flaunting their hyper-wealth?” Do the wealthy really need to be reminded that the majority of less affluent Americans struggle to afford healthcare while they collar their dogs in diamonds and designer outfits? The idea that someone who can barely afford a small apartment with only enough money to ride public transportation not caring about a multi-million dollar home burning to the ground then becomes more palatable.

Does anyone, besides her most ardent fans, recoil when Oprah Winfrey can pend $40 million to build a school in South Africa after purchasing a jaw-dropping $50 million estate in Santa Barbara to live in alone? Reasonable human beings might wonder “how many fancy homes and cars does one really need?” F. Scott Fitzgerald said, “The rich are different than you and me” to which Ernest Hemingway replied “Yes, they have more money.” How they spend it has consequences beyond whether to drive a Prius and still commute by private jet.

Trendwatching.com informs its readers: “In a traditional consumer society, he or she who consumes the most, the best, the coolest, the most expensive, the scarcest, or the most popular goods, will typically also gain the most status.” Status—that would be the purchasing power of one individual in relation to another? Part of achieving status carries with it the repercussions of “in-your-face” acquisitions.

The New York Times ran a story on Tuesday, January 9 entitled “The Lure of Living Above It All.” It seems the wealthiest New Yorkers are becoming even wealthier, and developers can’t build $12 million to $14 million-dollar penthouses fast enough. As an example, at condominium residences on Central Park West, 15 penthouses in two buildings have been sold for as high as $45 million—that’s $45 million–each. One cannot help but wonder if the buyers are fully aware of the multiple illegal immigrant families who crowd into and share one and two bedroom apartments.

This is not an exercise in rich-bashing. Far from it. Exposure to opulence can be a positive influence giving impetus to our dreams and hopes for the future. But is it lack of self-esteem that drives the newly (and not-so-newly) rich to “ostentatiously” display their riches? Is it flaunted wealth and extravagant consumption that is in poor taste because they are anti-social and environmentally destructive, as Dr. Eckersley argues in his book Well & Good: How we feel and why it matters“? One need only look at how revolutions have evolved to understand that boorish behavior can and do beget a host of social problems.

Professor Thomas J. Stanley points out in his hugely successful books, “The Millionaire Next Door” and “The Millionaire Mind,” that most millionaires live balanced lives, and live far below their means. “They share basic ingredients to success: integrity, discipline, social skills, a supportive spouse, and hard work,” all of which we applaud. These, we believe, are not the qualities shared by narcissists who flaunt what their money can buy and hedge their own futures by leveraging goodwill with short-term gains.

We would therefore suggest to them that it would be wise if they get their noses out of their toys for two minutes and become more fully aware of the great divide that exists between the haves and have-nots, and pay attention to the socialist stew the Left is brewing in this country.

Found on Wizbang 

Macranger on the message Democrats are sending the U.S. military:

We of the newly entroned and coronated Democratic Party are writing to officially tell you that we can no longer support your sacrifice, or allow you to vindicate the honor of your fallen comrades by allowing you to win this war. We know that your moral is up and that by and large to a solider you have no problem serving or believing you can win and that retreat isn’t even your vocabulary, we morn your blindness. But we know better than you and because we suckered the American public into believing we could actually run a country (like Ted Kennedy runs his love life), well we’re working to end the whole thing and bring you home and spit on you just like we did in Iraq War I or as we affectionately refer to as, “Vietnam”.
…
So we want you to know that as we commence to harrass the President, hold endless hearings and continually leak classified information that directly puts your ass on the line, if you don’t like it, well, you can go sit on your rife knife or whatever you call that thingamajigy thing you have on the end those guns. 

In the meantime, Kiss our Ass, we won, we won!!

Read it all.

Interesting article on Rudy 

by Deroy Murdock - Human Events 

New York — Like a stack of scratched records, pundits repeatedly dismiss Rudolph W. Giuliani’s presidential prospects because of his “social liberalism.” True, the former New York mayor’s views on abortion, guns, and gays (despite his opposition to same-sex marriage) clash with those of many socially conservative Republican primary voters.

However, socio-cons care about more than just these three important matters. On school choice, welfare reform, adoption, and quality of life, evangelicals cannot quibble with Giuliani’s achievements. His Bush-like immigration proposals are no more liberal than the president’s. Socio-cons also like to see violent criminals incarcerated and terrorists incinerated. No Rightist calls Giuliani Leftist on that.

Significantly, Giuliani can hold his head up high as the GOP hopeful with the finest legacy on racial preferences — a key issue to conservatives of every hue.

In 1993, Giuliani ran and won on the slogan “One Standard, One City.” These words guided his administration.

In his first month, Mayor Giuliani scrapped New York’s 20 percent set-asides for minority- and female-owned contractors, and a 10 percent price premium that City Hall let such companies charge above the bids of white, male competitors.

As Giuliani told me at a December 3, 1997 Manhattan Institute forum:

“I, number one, thought that was very bad public policy. The city shouldn’t be paying 10 percent more. Remember, I was dealing with a city that had about a $3 billion deficit at the time. How we could possibly pay 10 percent more for anything seemed incomprehensible to me.”

“And second,” Giuliani added, “the whole idea of quotas to me perpetuates discrimination. It has exactly the opposite effect on people who support quotas think it would have. So, I did away with it.”

Instead, Giuliani offered all contractors workshops on how to prepare more competitive applications. Some projects were subdivided to qualify newer, less-capitalized bidders.

Giuliani also padlocked the city’s Balkan-style offices of African-American/Carribean Affairs, Asian Affairs, European-American Affairs, Gay Community Affairs, Jewish Community Affairs, and Latino Affairs.

Through these actions alone — in Gotham, not Green Bay — Giuliani enacted more equality before the law than the GOP Congress even debated in the 12 years between the 1994 “Republican Revolution” and 2006’s Republican Rout.

“I have focused on people as people and not had the sense that their first claim on me is because of the group they belong to,” Giuliani told Jonathan Capehart in the March 2, 1999 New York Daily News. “They have a very, very strong claim on me as human beings.”

Giuliani promoted other policies that happened to benefit minorities while advancing his colorblind philosophy.

• Giuliani privatized 69.8 percent of some 33,000 apartments the city previously had confiscated from tax-delinquent landlords. Families and individuals, many of them minorities, now occupy these roughly 23,000 private homes.

• Primarily, but not exclusively, Giuliani helped minority students by launching his Charter School Fund. He visited Milwaukee’s mainly minority voucher schools and forcefully advocated that Gotham adopt “vouchers.” (He actually uses that word.) Last June 13, he told a Manhattan Institute luncheon: “The only thing that I believe is going to change dramatically public education in this country is to go to a choice system and to break up the monopoly.”

• Giuliani and then-City University of New York chancellor Herman Badillo (whose new book, “One Nation, One Standard,” I helped edit) ended non-selective “open admissions” and increased graduation requirements and other academic standards. Despite calamitous predictions, CUNY’s minority enrollment and graduation rates grew after Giuliani and Badillo raised, not lowered, what they expected of students of all colors.

• As part of Giuliani’s now-legendary anti-crime crackdown, homicides plunged 67.9, mostly in formerly crime-plagued black and Hispanic neighborhoods. Asked once what he ever did for minorities, Giuliani replied: “They are alive, how about we start with that?”

Indeed, the New York Post estimated that, absent Giuliani’s law-enforcement initiatives, 2,299 additional black New Yorkers would have been murdered between 1993 and 1998. As Giuliani told police cadets on February 16, 1994, “the right to public safety” was that era’s “single most important civil rights struggle.”

“America’s Mayor” did not manage all this in lily-white Provo, Utah or right-wing Colorado Springs. Rudolph W. Giuliani courageously accomplished these things in a largely minority city notorious for its liberalism. That’s leadership.

Found this on Hot Air 

It’s not her praise for Fox that’ll excite the excitables. It’s the pronoun.

Story by Reuters but I’m using the CNN link. Just because.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice let slip her news media preferences Thursday, saying, “I love every single one” of Fox News network’s correspondents and also favors CBS anchor Harry Smith.

In comments overheard on an open microphone between morning television interviews, including one with Fox, the top U.S. diplomat said: “My Fox guys, I love every single one of them.”

Spruiell thinks it’s funny how mics keep “accidentally” getting left on around Bush and Condi, followed by the recordings “accidentally” making their way into the media. Not ha-ha funny, like a clown. The other kind of funny.

The ha-ha funny part is the fact that she names Harry Smith as her other fave. Harry Smith? Newsbusters’s perpetual whipping boy?

KGO - Members of a renowned choral group from Yale University were attacked outside a New Year’s Eve party in San Francisco, sending several of them to the hospital. Now the police department is coming under fire for its handling of the case.

This does not look good for the city. Yale sends its popular singing group, The Baker’s Dozen, on a holiday concert tour. And San Francisco sends the young men away bloody, bruised, and several of them seriously injured.

Read the rest

Here is story if you give a shit

Ok read the start of this article written by some dude who is bitching and moaning about how “highbrow” Negros and the media is always dissing black men.
Link to full article (Here)