politicalpartypoop.com

Before you read actual story dated 8/31/06 (below), read this year old story from WSJ online. No editorial needed you read, you decide.
 

By TED HAYES
Wall Street Journal Editorial

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hayes is a homeless activist in Los Angeles

Now read current story

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

Post courtesy of Right Wing News, he mentions this stupid poll from the Impeach Bush crowd, these people need a drink or some quality meds. 

The Democratic Underground Poll Of Day: Impeach And Imprison Bush!

The Democrats have been trying to downplay the fact that one of the first things they’ll do, if they regain control of Congress, is try to impeach George Bush. But, what you have to understand is that impeaching Bush is right up there with supporting abortion, cutting and running in Iraq, and raising taxes on the liberal agenda. If the Democrats run Congress, there is a 100% chance that they’ll try to impeach Bush because their base will absolutely insist on it.

If you want to get an idea of how strong the pro-impeachment sentiment is on the left, just take a look at this poll from the Democratic Underground: “Poll question: Do You Support Impeachment Of George W. Bush?”

 

 

In the initial post, there’s not even a reason listed for impeachment because, quite frankly, they hate George Bush so much that any excuse to impeach him will do.

Would it really be good for the country, in the middle of a war, to have the Democrats trying to impeach the Commander-In-Chief for purely political reasons? If Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the other liberals in the Democratic leadership gain control in November, we’re certainly going to find out the hard way.

By Amil Imani
FrontPageMagazine.com

Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” that Lenin identified as those who lived in liberal democracies and furthered the work of communism. This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies but serves the cause of Islamofascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
 
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society. The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
 
Arguably, the most dangerous Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception. 
 
The Useful Idiot derives satisfaction from being anti-establishment. He finds perverse gratification in aiding the forces that aim to dismantle an existing order, whatever it may be: an order he neither approves of nor he feels he belongs to.
 
The Useful Idiot is conflicted and dishonest. He fails to look inside himself and discover the causes of his own problems and unhappiness while he readily enlists himself in causes that validate his distorted perception.

Understandably, it is easier to blame others and the outside world than to examine oneself with an eye to self-discovery and self-improvement. Furthermore, criticizing and complaining—liberal practices of the Useful Idiot—require little talent and energy. The Useful Idiot is a great armchair philosopher and “Monday Morning Quarterback.”
 
The Useful Idiot is not the same as a person who honestly has a different point of view. A society without honest and open differences of views is a dead society. Critical, different and fresh ideas are the life blood of a living society—the very anathema of autocracies where the official position is sacrosanct.

READ THE REST FROM: FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE

 Former US president Jimmy Carter speaks with DER SPIEGEL about the danger posed to American values by George W. Bush, the difficult situation in the Middle East and Cuba’s ailing Fidel Castro.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Carter, in your new book you write that only the American people can ensure that the US government returns to the country’s old moral principles. Are you suggesting that the current US administration of George W. Bush of acting immorally?

Carter: There’s no doubt that this administration has made a radical and unpressured departure from the basic policies of all previous administrations including those of both Republican and Democratic presidents.

SPIEGEL: For example?

Carter: Under all of its predecessors there was a commitment to peace instead of preemptive war. Our country always had a policy of not going to war unless our own security was directly threatened and now we have a new policy of going to war on a preemptive basis. Another very serious departure from past policies is the separation of church and state, which I describe in the book. This has been a policy since the time of Thomas Jefferson and my own religious beliefs are compatible with this. The other principle that I described in the book is basic justice. We’ve never had an administration before that so overtly and clearly and consistently passed tax reform bills that were uniquely targeted to benefit the richest people in our country at the expense or the detriment of the working families of America.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington’s call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn’t Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don’t think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that’s justified, no.

READ THE REST HERE

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week’s primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November’s election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Democratic voters selected Lamont as their candidate on August 8 with 52 percent of the vote after an increasingly bitter race dominated by Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war.

Lieberman vowed to stay in the race as an independent candidate in order to face Lamont and Schlesinger in the general election in November.

The survey found that Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75 percent of the vote compared with Lamont’s 13 percent and Schlesinger’s 10 percent.

“Senator Lieberman’s support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing,” Douglas Schwartz, the university’s polling director said in a statement. “As long as Lieberman maintains this kind of support among Republicans while holding onto a significant number of Democratic votes, the veteran senator will be hard to beat.”

I don’t know if you folks who peep here is familiar with a blog called “Impeach Bush Coalition.”
When they started this I believe last year there were a bunch of people who jumped on the bandwagon.
Now I always considered these people to be the criminally insane wing of the liberal world.                     The momentum now has actually increased in some liberal havens
Several cities are actually putting presidential impeachment on the ballot.

San Francisco Puts Impeachment on November Ballot

Also from the Santa Barbara Independent.

“Can the American people impeach a president who has started an illegal war
of aggression in defiance of the United Nations, spied on the American people,
authorized the kidnapping and torture of innocent civilians, and repeatedly
declared his intent to ignore laws enacted by Congress? All across the country,
dozens of grassroots groups, city councils, and state legislatures are initiating
impeachment inquiries and actions in response to the crimes committed by
President George W. Bush and members of his administration. In May 2006, the
 Santa Barbara Impeachment Coalition (SBIC) joined their ranks.”

I swear you fucken people on the left are certifiable crazy.
This is why all of the shit you see in the media and on these crazy liberal
sites and all of the protests is geared towards “trying” to destroy this
administration and fundamentally trying to push the Democratic party and
it’s agenda further and further left.   

 

MacEachern
THE ARIZONA REPUBLIC - Link
Impeachment hearings? Nobody launches “impeachment hearings.”
Should Democrats reassume control of the House of Representatives this fall, an increasingly likely event, they will not convene hearings focused on the possible impeachment of President Bush. Just ask any Democrat in Washington except the delightfully candid Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., whose lust for impeachment is almost refreshing.
“Impeaching the president is so far-fetched it’s ridiculous,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid told me last week while in Phoenix for Democratic Senate candidate Jim Pederson.  
Reid said he was “very glad” for the opportunity to debunk the 350-page “investigative report” released last week by Conyers in anticipation of a Bush perp walk out of the White House.
“Regarding Conyers, he’s been called into (House Minority Leader Nancy) Pelosi’s office,” said Reid. “Don’t worry about that (report).”
Not that the Conyers report needed a lot of debunking. It is heavy with references to left-wing conspiracy-theorist Web sites of the “Bush lied, people died!” variety and columns by Bob Herbert and Frank Rich, both of the New York Times. We didn’t need a 350-page report to know that Herbert, Rich and their pals on the op-ed pages of the Times would like to see Bush impeached.
But if Reid really believes that, once in power, House Democrats will be able to resist hearings of the sort that invariably morph into impeachment hearings, he’s not paying attention.
For one thing, Pelosi can bark at Conyers now all she likes, but Conyers will become House Judiciary Committee chairman following a Democratic takeover. When that happens, Conyers won’t need Pelosi’s blessing to convene hearings.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

VIDEO - Vent with Michelle Malkin

Video library of McKinney on You Tube - Some Examples

Daily Show Bashing Congresswoman Cynthia Mckinney

“Cynthia McKinney: Twisting Words?”

Cynthia McKinney (literally) dodges questions

Cynthia McKinney: 911 Is a Joke

Bigotry and hate aren’t just for right-wingers anymore. WOW! i’M A BIGOT, IMAGINE THAT!

BY LANNY J. DAVIS - WSJ Online
WASHINGTON–My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.

This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing–in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against “communists and their fellow travelers.” The word “McCarthyism” became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right’s fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a “communist” or “socialist” who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field.

I came to believe that we liberals couldn’t possibly be so intolerant and hateful, because our ideology was famous for ACLU-type commitments to free speech, dissent and, especially, tolerance for those who differed with us. And in recent years–with the deadly combination of sanctimony and vitriol displayed by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage–I held on to the view that the left was inherently more tolerant and less hateful than the right.

Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony. Here are just a few examples (there are many, many more anyone with a search engine can find) of the type of thing the liberal blog sites have been posting about Joe Lieberman:

• “Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby” (by “rim,” posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• “Joe’s on the Senate floor now and he’s growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate” (by “ctkeith,” posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On “Lieberman vs. Murtha”: “as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on” (by “tomjones,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

• “Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife’s name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover” (by “gerrylong,” posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

• “Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot” (by “greenskeeper,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

And these are some of the nicer examples.

One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails–many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)–that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.

But the issue is not just emotional outbursts by these usually anonymous bloggers. A friend of mine just returned from Connecticut, where he had spoken on several occasions on behalf of Joe Lieberman. He happens to be a liberal antiwar Democrat, just as I am. He is also a lawyer. He told me that within a day of a Lamont event–where he asked the candidate some critical questions–some of his clients were blitzed with emails attacking him and threatening boycotts of their products if they did not drop him as their attorney. He has actually decided not to return to Connecticut for the primary today; he is fearful for his physical safety.

I do not blame Joe Lieberman’s political difficulties on the liberal blogosphere. Most Connecticut Democrats voting for Mr. Lamont are genuinely outraged at President Bush for his Iraq War policies. They are entitled to express that outrage by voting for him and against Sen. Lieberman on that basis alone, although Sen. Lieberman’s record as a progressive Democrat and his opposition to President Bush not only on most domestic issues but also on the conduct of the war cannot be disputed–despite egregiously distortive ads paid for by Mr. Lamont with $4 million of his own money.
Moreover, the support he gets from these haters should not be attributed to Mr. Lamont–nor should he be blamed for their extremism, bigotry and intolerance. But he ought to denounce them. He hasn’t as yet.

Mr. Lamont and all other liberal Democrats should remember the McCarthy era and not fall into the trap of the hypocrisy of the double standard–that it’s not OK when Ann Coulter dispenses her venomous hatred, but it is OK when our side’s versions of Ann Coulter do.

Mr. Davis, former special counsel to President Clinton between 1996-98, is the author of “Scandal: How ‘Gotcha’ Politics Is Destroying America,” forthcoming from Palgrave.

By El Borak

From Lawrence.com/blogs - “Safe in the Fire Swamp”

Below is a post by El Borak on the living wage argument from Lawrence.com/blogs.
Maybe I’m getting old and crabby, maybe I do way to much reading and study on such issues on both sides that never see the debate evolve past the point of basic common sense.
Keep in mind I don’t own a business, I have helped start several business and not for profit entities so I understand wage and employment principals.
I think however I am too set in my ways politically to get past some of the nonsense of arguments people have on an issue that they frankly could not know anything about unless they dealt with the issue from both sides of the fence.
People who start businesses take risks, they are investing their times and lives to see a business flourish.
 People who start businesses seek to gain independence from the daily grind many of us face by going to work for the massa’.
Some of us, myself included have a nice job enjoy the situation and circumstances and feel relatively comfortable salary wise.                                                                                                              Today we have an all out assault and a growing battle of social and economic status.
The key to this battle is basically: much needs to be taken from those who have to provide for those who have not.
In these arguments individuals refuse to take into consideration personal accountability.
I never have not will I every be one who envies at an individual achievement.
Many in this society have far more than I, some have earned it and some may have obtained that by less than legal means.
But I am where I am based on my choices, some good and some bad.
All I have ever asked from this society is that I be allowed to “be” what I choose to be.
And this country allows for that plain and simple.

My social, personal and educational choices have me exactly where I should be.
Yes has race played a role in where I am, of course. Actually because of the color of my skin I was denied countless others positions and opportunities they were no where near as good as my current situation finds me. But there was no way of knowing that back then.
I personally don’t care about the economics of this argument. Because you still have to ask yourself if you are not are not making what you think you deserve then why not? These are personal questions and reflections, just like who you choose to fuck, marry, where you live, what car you drive. When your wage becomes a central question you must challenge yourself to figure out how you got in your particular circumstance.
A business owner did not make some idiot teenager get pregnant at 15, yes times are tough for her but why is that left up to the business owner or the city of Lawrence to rectify her stupidity.
What about Meth head Bob, or crack head Jack, uneducated, unmotivated contributing nothing to society nor his employer but we are asked to debate how we can help him manage financially based on some arbitrary wage figure that some businessman must comply with, all because he is a fucken crack or meth head who are you people kidding.  
But cities like Lawrence and liberal communities around the country and forwarding this notion that businesses must reward the less educated and the less productive in our society by granting them pay that entitles them to live a I guess, peaceful and happy existence. Never mind that we can’t agree on that number. $7.00 per hour or $20
This brings out the oft used phrase by me at least Playa Hater.
People bitch and moan about the gap between the wealthy and the poor has increased, when 100 percent of the time the people doing the most bitching are the people who don’t have jack.
Certainly there are people in situations and circumstances that preclude them from being more productive members of society but in todays society its’ all about “I, I, I me me me.” gimmie some of what you got.
Check out the following post and I have added a couple of typical comments:

The Fort Wayne News-Sentinel asks, “Why bother?”
Those who advocate an increase in the minimum like to talk about a “living wage.” Where in this country is $7.25 an hour any more a living wage than $5.15? According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research, increasing the minimum to $7.25 would affect 4.4 percent of workers, giving them an average increase of 79 cents an hour, which would be an extra $1,580 a year. That would go a long way in San Francisco, wouldn’t it?
All this talk of a “living wage” is small minds with small solutions. If we raise the minimum wage to $7 or $9, we’ll just have to come back in a few years and do it again because of inflation. And besides, that’s for pikers.
We don’t need a “living wage.” We need a “Living Large Wage.”
We need a minimum wage of $500/hr. That’s right, a cool million a year.

The advantages of the “Living Large Wage” are overwhelming:

1) Everyone gets a raise but fatcat corporate CEOs - and they don’t need a raise anyway.

2) It solves unemployment, permanently. At a million a year, millions of people will retire to a life of luxury after just a few short years, freeing up those jobs for others. No more need for affirmative action or unemployment insurance. In fact, after a few years we may need to open the borders. I’m mean, someone’s gotta work and we’ll all be retired in Florida.

3) It solves the Social Security problem, permanently. Social Security and Medicare revenues would skyrocket. And besides, who cares about getting the $1000 a month or whatever from SocSec when you’re pulling in that every 2 hours by working?

4) It solves the budget deficit. Income tax receipts would skyrocket. With everyone paying the millionaires’ surtax, that would mean something like $360k/year PER WORKER in Federal government revenue. And the states would love it too.

5) It’s good for the economy. With all this new money, we’re going to need new houses, new cars, more boats and more bling. Consumer spending drives GDP, and it would be set on a rocket course.

6) It gives both parties a new lease on life. Democrats would have millions of new rich to hate, tax, and punish, and the GOP would have people who care about cutting taxes because they would actually have to pay them. Everybody wins.

Of course, I have only one thing to say to those who complain that this plan might have unforeseen economic consequences or that it may not work in reality as well as it seems to work on paper:

It’s obvious to me that you just hate the poor.

Ok I’m kinda merging the living wage and minimum wage discussions together. But one individual tries to define it: 

“it’s tough to define what the living wage is. But i’d say the basic point is that a person working an honest days work, 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year shouldn’t be living in poverty, which is what is currently taking place for millions of Americans.
I don’t know if it should be 7 or 8 or 11, but it SHOULD go up with inflation, which is currently doesn’t do. I think local cites and states should decide what they think it should be for their area, but there should be a base set by the feds.”

Shit I don’t know what it should be but lets make it all good for everybody.

This is more for me to grasp so I did some Google University Research                

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics: Sixty-three percent of minimum wage workers receive raises within one year of employment, and only 15 percent still earn the minimum wage after three years. Furthermore, only 5.3 percent of minimum wage earners are from households below the official poverty line; forty percent of minimum wage earners live in households with incomes $60,000 and higher; and, over 82 percent of minimum wage earners do not have dependents.
The U.S. Department of Labor also reports that the “proportion of hourly-paid workers earning the prevailing Federal minimum wage or less has trended downward since 1979.”

The U.S. Department of Labor reports: “According to Current Population Survey estimates for 2004, some 73.9 million American workers were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Of those paid by the hour, 520,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15.”
Workers earning the minimum wage or less tend to be young, single workers between the ages of 16 and 25. Only about two percent of workers over 25 years of age earn minimum wages.

Yes I know the argument is about living wage, but again I’m lumping the two.

But Sniff that is bullshit, it still boils down to compassion and greed:

“The question isn’t where wealth comes from, I think that’s clear…the question is why is it so much an aspiration that we ignore, and become apathetic to, the insanely large, growing gap between the rich and poor. Being “rich” is our greatest collective dream. Until we put a cork in our greed, reign in corruption, see this problem as EVERYONE’S problem, and start paying attention to what’s really important, real progress won’t be made. At this point, “Working poor” is only a start, and with the spectacle of the evening “news” programs, just something to keep us busy and entertained. I, however, will settle for the small step of raising the min. wage.” 

Ok, so now we are greedy, and society is corrupt and!? But after much debate? whatever, El Borak has this:

“I LOVE that “human nature” stance, assures you of a long life on a pedestal without having to worry about looking at yourself or helping change minds.”
Sorry, but it’s simply a fact, and one that many have attempted to change through suasion and force, the rosary and the gulag. People act in their own self-interest, and they act to improve their own lives materially, often at the expense of others. If that could be changed, it would have been changed long ago.
But that’s also a perfect example of how many in the debate don’t deal with things as they are but as they wish them to be. Then they wonder why it never works out as they thought.
“There has to be a bottom line or thousands of people will fall below it, as they have. Tell me that’s not wrong.”
Which is fine, because I’m perfectly aware of the fact that 99% of people disagree with me on this. But the bottom line is that the bottom line does not make anyone’s labor worth any more than it was worth before. It simply separates the have-nots from the have-mores.

What the hell, if you people want me to jump on this minimum wage and living wage bandwagon why don’t you tie social and educational standards to it.
To earn this increased federally mandated minimum wage or a local living wage  you must have a high school diploma, you must pass a competency test to prove you are not a total moron and have the capacity to be productive. Can you fucken add, can you count change, do you recognize the difference between the Big Mac picture and the Quarter Pounder picture.
How about this, if you beat your wife you will not qualify, if you are a drug fiend and a crackhead you do not qualify.
If you are a pedophile, you do not qualify, if you are a convicted felon you do not qualify. If you owe back child support the portion of the living wage you would have received goes to the child.
Tie performance to it as well. How many times are you late for work, how many days do you call in sick, how many times does your boyfriend and girlfriend call work asking for you.
Have you been involved in an altercation with a boyfriend or girlfriend at work, were customers present.
Have you been reprimanded on your appearance or body odor, do you “require” smoking breaks at work, (remember you’re a fucken minimum wage worker show some restraint and try to impress).
Is this raising the minimum wage and living wage bullshit really a means of helping the least of those in our society or is this another example of someone trying to squeeze more out of society on the backs of others.

LEFTY NET OFF WLIB

Man I bet you liberals are just fuming. Your radio station Air America can even get an audience in NYC, and the network is as broke as a Katrina victim and had to scam a charity to help pay the bills.
How will you get your message out to America to save us all from the evil Republicans!!
The horror!!! 

By JOHN MAINELLI - New York Post
THE liberal Air America radio network is going to be harder to hear in New York.
Next month, it is switching stations - to a weaker AM station, WWRL (1600 AM).
Al Franken and his lefty colleagues are leaving WLIB (1190 AM) apparently because they couldn’t come up with enough cash for the owners, former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton and his son, Pierre.
Starting Sept. 1, Air America will be on WWRL, at the top of the dial where AM signals are weakest - especially at night, when greater FCC restrictions apply.
As The Post reported last March, the ratings-challenged liberal network failed to renew its two-year lease with the Suttons.
Relations between the Suttons and the network’s execs were rocky from the start and only got worse after the network’s shaky finances became known and a scandal broke out involving loans to Air America from a Bronx charity.
WLIB’s future after Sept. 1 is not known, although radio industry heavyweight Randy Michaels - the builder of 1,200-station Clear Channel - has expressed interest in leasing the station as a base for a new talk-radio network.
Michaels declined comment yesterday and the Suttons didn’t return calls.

By Jonah Goldberg - Townhall.com

For several years now, liberal eggheads have been having what seems like an important debate: Do they need “big ideas” like the conservative movement had during its long march to power? Serious-minded liberals launched what Democratic idea-broker Kenneth S. Baer calls “the battle of the battle of ideas,” in which they argue about whether it’s time to argue about important arguments.
Just this week, Baer and Andrei Cherny - founders of a new big-idea journal, “Democracy” - penned an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times calling for liberals to find new Big Ideas. In response to this effort, the New Republic’s Jonathan Chait says - and I’m not making this up - “Ideas? Feh.” 
A more eloquent statement was posted on the liberal blog TPM Cafe: “The problem isn’t getting people to believe in something - people can believe in anything. The problem is getting them to care.” That captures the essence of liberalism’s current plight. If it’s not about emotions - caring, hating, feeling - it’s about tactics. Big ideas have about as much animating force in liberal ranks today as Calvinism does at a porn studio.
Exhibit A is the liberal battle over Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman’s re-election. Lieberman, America’s favorite Jewish uncle, is in the fight of his political life because limousine liberal Ned Lamont is challenging him in the Democratic primary. Oceans of ink and pixels have been devoted to explaining the factions behind this “civil war” on the left. Some paint it as the “netroots,” or left-wing bloggers, versus the Washington establishment. Others talk of hawks vs. doves, or populists vs. elitists, the party line vs. independents, cats vs. dogs. …
Alas, Chait has it right: “Feh.”
For good or ill, there are no grand “big ideas” behind the anti-Lieberman cause. It’s driven by a riot of passions, chiefly against President Bush and “his” war. Any ideas are mere afterthoughts and rationalizations used to gussy up animus as principle. Several Lamont supporters, also known as “Nedheads,” have faulted Lieberman for such obscure transgressions as criticizing former President Bill Clinton’s behavior in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Please. There was no lack of enthusiasm for Lieberman when the sainted Al Gore picked Joe as his running mate.
It’s also nonsense to say this is about “the people” vs. “the establishment.” Lieberman’s a three-term junior senator. Ted Kennedy, scion of America’s leading liberal dynasty, has been in the Senate 26 years longer. Is he not the establishment? Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been in the Senate since the mid-Jurassic period. That old, calcified chewing gum stuck underneath the establishment’s chair? He put it there. But while Kennedy and Byrd (and Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton) outrank Lieberman in establishment credentials, they arouse little ire from the Net-mob because they say what the throng wants to hear. (Hillary is a slight exception.) “The establishment” is just code for “people we don’t like.”
The hawk-vs.-dove analysis has similar weaknesses. The netroots crowd is passionately antiwar, while Lieberman supports the war. But there are other Iraq war supporters whom the Democratic base hasn’t targeted, such as Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is also up for re-election.
Meanwhile, Lieberman claims that the war is the only thing distinguishing him from Lamont. That’s not exactly right. Lieberman isn’t only pro-war, he’s seen as pro-Bush - a far greater sin. While the netroots crowd calls Lieberman “scum” and a “lying” this or that, its most damaging attack is a picture worth a thousand dirty words. It’s of Bush kissing Lieberman on the cheek, and anti-Joe jihadists have posted it everywhere in the lefty blogosphere.
Hatred of Bush drives - or poisons - almost everything in liberal politics now. Chait himself wrote a bilious cover story for the New Republic in 2003 explaining why he hates everything, and I mean everything, about Bush. And just this week, Chait defended the proposition that Bush is a greater threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden because Bush has “wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country” and has “strained the fabric of American democracy.” And Chait is seen as a moderate by the Daily Kos crowd.
But hatred of Bush is just one side of the coin. The other is this bizarre, almost pathetic yearning for Democratic self-esteem. It was amazing how much of the rhetoric from the recent Daily Kos convention in Las Vegas was about standing up, fighting back and feeling proud to be Democrats.
This liberal-pride crowd likes “fighting Dems,” and open expression of Bush hatred is the litmus test for whether you’re a fighting Dem. You can be a moderate, like Virginia Senate hopeful Jim Webb or former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, or a flaming liberal, like Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, and that’s fine as long as you’ll stand up and fight and refuse to take this (expletive deleted) from that (expletive deleted) anymore. In fact, you can believe anything you want. You don’t actually have to have big ideas. The important part is that you care.

WATCH VIDEO HERE

CINDY EXPLAINS HER STRUGGLES….. BOO FUCKEN HOO…

Troops Home Fast, Day 6
Submitted by Cindy Sheehan on Sun, 07/09/2006 - 8:44am.
I find traveling out of the country very challenging
Come to being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it. Traveling for 22 hours is very taxing under normal circumstances–but then again, when have we had normal circumstances since the 2000 and 2004 successful coup attempts that have brought BushCo into power?
I traveled from Venice to the frontier of Italy to the province of Udine which is right at the foot of the pre-Alps. I am here for a huge youth festival which includes many elements of social justice and peace work. It is beautiful and the air feels different from other places that I have travelled. It is strangely soft and gentle as is the natural light. However, there is not a Jamba Juice on every corner, so blended juice drinks with protein powder are impossible to find. I have also received so many emails from worried, wonderful, and well-meaning friends and supporters in the US who are concerned about me and all of the others who are fasting. I don’t like being on this fast, trust me, but 3 Marines were killed in Iraq today—3 unsuspecting families are about to head into a tailspin of senseless grief and we won’t ever get an accurate count of the Iraqis who were killed today. It is going to be 112 degrees in Baghdad tomorrow. The occupiers and the occupied are suffering terribly. It is important to keep our focus on saving the people of Iraq and our soldiers. It is important to keep our focus on ending the war crime in Iraq. The Troops Home Fast is a moral response to an immoral act. We can, and must be, morally strong so we can feast on the day that the last troop is brought home from the war crime in Then our focus can change to holding BushCo responsible for the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace and focus on never allowing this to happen again.

This is one I missed Politik Ditto has the following entry

Can’t think of any other reason liberals would be fuming so much at a church’s replica of the Statue of Liberty with a cross in her hand, in of all places, the Bible Belt. Of course, for liberals ‘freedom of speech’ only applies if it matches their warped world view. Anything else is ‘hate speech.’ How convenient. No wonder they don’t occupy the White House, run Congress or run the Senate.”

Link to entry 

Check Out - MEMPHIS - On Independence Day, Lady Liberty was born again.

By Christopher Orlet - The American Spectator

Score another one for the bloggers. Not only did the pajama pundits blow the whistle on Dan Rather’s misrepresentation of the president’s Air National Guard record (Rathergate), and CNN correspondent Eason Jordan’s false accusations that U.S. servicemen intentionally targeted and killed journalists in Iraq (Easongate), but last week the blogs Protein Wisdom and Blackfive outed a potentially dangerous leftist university professor. The principals have rather tediously designated this scandal Ramseygate, as in JonBenet. You’ll see why.

As the late Rod Serling might have said, meet Deb Frisch, a psychologist and adjunct professor at the University of Arizona. Prof. Frisch is a longtime supporter of leftist causes and Blame America Firsters. Not long ago she wrote an unintentionally hilarious defense of Prof. Ward Churchill — popularizer of the phrase “little Eichmanns” — for the far left webzine Counterpunch, from which I quote: “there is nothing absurd or outrageous about using the term ‘Eichmann’ to refer to the stockbrokers who died that day [i.e. on 9/11].” But we are most likely to find the professor’s tirades in the comments sections of various conservative blogs, quite often attacking Christianity, as in this joyous Christmas post in which she ranks Christianity the worst of all religions:
[I]t is time for the scientifically literate left to stop pretending that Christianity is a harmless cultural institution. The Christian theory of god and creation is at the bottom of the heap of plausibility — under Judaism, for sure (same kooky god — but no kooky son) and maybe Islam, I don’t know. It is WAY below buddhism and pantheism. The scientifically literate left needs to grow a spine and stop coddling Christians in the name of tolerance. Merry ephing Christmas.

Or, as in this recent post from her blog, where she advocates that liberals behave like “whackjobs”:

I agree that the right suffers from its share of whackjobs — I disagree that liberals should refrain from acting like them. I’m just as into kumbaya, om, peace, be the change you want to see as the next leftie but I think you need to speak the truth about how nutty the rabid right is and how conservative “mainstream media” is.

Trite, silly stuff. But last week Prof. Frisch went too far. Over the edge, you might say. Apparently Frisch has been trolling Jeff Goldstein’s conservative Protein Wisdom blog for some time, but last week something set her off. (What exactly is unclear. Prof. Frisch did not respond to my email.) Suddenly Goldstein begins receiving — from Frisch — thinly disguised death threats against his two-year-old son. It isn’t just the tone and vocabulary Frisch uses throughout her rant that is so scary, it is more the creepy imagery, like dialogue out of a slasher movie. I am not a psychologist like Prof. Frisch, but I think I recognize paranoid schizophrenia when I see it:

I’d like to hear more about your “tyke” by the way. Girl? Boy? Toddler? Teen? Are you still married to the woman you ephed to give birth to the tyke?…

[…] as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t “human” to me….

Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby. …

I reiterate: If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn. …

Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind! …

I am SHAKING, I tell you, SHAKING!!! in my boots at the prospect at an FBI and/or state police trooper tromping down my driveway to see if I was a threat to the progeny of the pissant name of Jeff “pissant” Goldstein of the pathetic, neutered, sissified, state of Colorado….

Wanna escalate this game. Fine wit me…

Like a serial killer who scrawls “stop me before I kill again” on the walls of the murder scene, Prof. Frisch didn’t even trying to conceal her remarks. She posted them on Goldstein’s blog for all to see, along with her signature. She now claims “I made a joke on a blog about the death of a nasty rightwing blogger’s toddler.” Call me crazy, but I don’t think that’s anybody’s idea of humor.

It is worrisome to think that this “academic” is influencing the way young people think. Equally troubling is the fact that Frisch is a psychologist and former director of the Decision, Risk and Management Sciences Program at the National Science Foundation. (Physician, heal thyself!) Worse is the thought that there are hundreds of Frisch’s out there on American campuses, most not so careless.

Frisch’s remarks were copied by readers and emailed by the hundreds to Al Kaszniak, the psychology department chair at the University of Arizona. Lacking tenure, Frisch did the only thing left to do — last week she resigned and offered Goldstein a goofy apology. Now she is pouting, writing that she feels physically threatened by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy. The FBI is on alert. As one blogger put it, Frisch is now headed down the familiar liberal path to victim status.

As David Horowitz documents in his new book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, these kinds of loonies have been ruining America’s universities and American education for four decades. In the past it took an enterprising student with a hidden tape recorder to record evidence of left wing professor’s lunacy. Now the Web is giving “educators” a more convenient way to shoot themselves in the foot. Thank God for the Web.

FROM MONSTER ROB: “I have a beef with conservatives who feel that the only way to make a point is to stigmatize the left. Rather than defend some principle of conservatism, or advocate for some policy initiative, people like Sniffer would rather make gross mischaracterizations of what amounts to 99% of the left side of the aisle. Rather than take into consideration some of the legitimate arguments made by critics, Sniffer would rather run images showing Dean as a Nazi, or photoshop an image of Hillary to make her look like the devil, and so on. It’s juvenile. I don’t see how it changes one person’s view of things, because it’s just one guy ranting, often with very little factual back-up.”

——————————-

Ah this is why I like to use Rob as my main example of sanctimonious liberalism.
And as a reward I am more than willing to take his comments and proudly display them prominently at the top of my blog.
See, Rob unlike most liberals and most of the ridiculous left leaning blogs, I have no problem highlighting your comments because more than anything else I am grounded in my political beliefs and positions.
I believe that liberals should be heard, their views exposed.
I have attempted to comment on countless liberals blogs and they all end up coming up with the same tedious and tired rhetoric that Rob blathered on about OR THEY ROUTINELY DELETE MY COMMENTS. Why is that?

You see Rob I can’t post in the liberal blog world. But no problem, I’m not a hater.
I understand it. It’s safe for you and your other angry liberal friends to peacefully congregate in your favorite blog worlds and commensurate on the atrocities of the Bush administration and evil conservatism and how it is destroying America.
Better yet regurgitate on JABBS endless and tedious analysis of supposed conservative spin and the latest Limbaugh misquote.
Rob is not even smart enough I guess to understand that watchdog groups have been hanging on every single word uttered by Limbaugh for the last 18 plus years.
And Rob I’ll let you in on a secret. When Rush makes a statement like “Carters’ second term”, does it not occur to you that he is well aware that those on the left will pick up on that statement and if there is significant outcry it give him a pretty good barometer of just how many people are listening to a particular monologue? 
It’s the oldest radio trick in the book.
Bottom line if EVERYTHING that come out of Rush’s mouth was bullshit how in the hell could he be on the air for 18 years!
But more than that the very thing Rob accuses me of JABBS and every other liberal blog does day in and day out as if to be the self appointed watchdog for the idiot masses.
We need the tough smart analysis of every syllable uttered by the contemptible right wing noise machine.
Coulter, Hannity and Rush has brainwashed half the country into processing lies perpetrated by the mass vast right wing conspiracy, how very tired.
        
Rob, dude you can’t get off the pictures. My use of pictures and my constant mischaracterizations of liberals is way off base and unfair I guess, but it’s perfectly ok for liberal sites to call Bush a Nazi and bash Republicans.
I know you say otherwise, but like I pointed out, I am somehow suppose to be the more prudent blogger, play fair and not take the anti-American statements of Cindy Sheehan seriously. Not to take the idiot rhetoric of Barbara Streisand seriously. Not to take the flip flops of John Kerry seriously, not to take when Howard Dean makes racist comments seriously or when he says “I hate the right and everything they stand for” oh lets ignore that. 
I’m one guy, with one opinion, no financial backing, no staff, a little time, no researchers, I’m not paid.
Rob continues to conveniently ignore the fact that all of the money that is tied to liberal bloggers and organizations to discredit and malign the right are doing so to counter all of the evil right wing spin and demonizing the left.
All paid for and financed by a billionaire to influence the media and culture.
Nobody is fucken paying me one damm dime. 

I’m so tired of the sanctimonious liberals like Rob imposing their values on me. Is this a free country, or isn’t it?
I can’t be judgmental about the crimes, sins, anti-American rhetoric, ridiculous statements exhibited by the leaders of the Democratic Party. Do I not have every right to be judgmental, and the liberals like Rob have their nerve trying to dictate a “Thou shalt not be judgmental” commandment.
Do we have political freedom in America or don’t we?
Rob suggests that I need to use my site to “defend some principle of conservatism.”
I don’t need to fucken defend it. I am 100% resolute in my politics and political ideology.
You represent the party who lost the past two presidential elections because the Democratic Party could not even come up with one decent serious candidate.
The Democratic Party STILL is not on the same page as far as party philosophy and its objectives. YOU are the ones who are trying to repackage yourselves as “progressives.”
Trying to shake the liberal tag and you have the audacity to come to my blog and say I need to defend conservative principals? How stupid is that.
Your side has people like George Lakoff trying to study “the language” of the right so your side can effectively counter the evil spin on the right.   

JABBS has NEVER offered a single post promoting Democratic Party ideals and vision. JABBS only purpose if to nitpick and editorialize what is seen and heard on news programs and other websites. But Rob loves to defend it like it was his personal blog baby.
JABBS has NEVER posted one post focusing on issues important to minorities. But then why should they. Just like any other liberal blog they don’t giver a fuck about issues that concern minorities and particular blacks until it time for those niggas to vote. Yes post one bullshit entry on how Bush neglected the people of NOLA ignoring all that surrounded that issue.
Rob is typical of most liberals dictating their new moral imperative that we must “move on” and “become moderate,” or else they will label us “extremist.” Who gave liberals like Rob the right to enforce a new law of moderation and extremism and to brand people with their judgments?
It’s impossible for me to mischaracterize liberals. Liberal bloggers far outweigh conservative bloggers so all I have to do is walk through the liberal garden of Eden/blogs and focus on what THEY SAY, NOT WHAT I “THINK”   
I don’t care how many times Rob want to say that my examples are a small example of liberal left lunacy, it’s the extremist is who is guiding the Democratic Party.
If you would stop being so fucken intellectually lazy and read and study other blogs than just JABBS you would see that for yourself.

You an individual supposedly clamoring for a debate you avoid all of the other relevant posts I have on liberals as if I pulled them out of thin air. Lets not address those issues. Let’s focus on Sniff and his photoshop pictures. Plez 
  
This blog is my personal playground I blog because I enjoy it, and I enjoy going after liberals.
I have a long and deep resentment of liberals. I am more than willing to hear a coherent argument promoting specific ideals of liberal Democrats that would be a benefit to America. But liberals like Rob can’t come up with one.

In either blog I have had not one liberal has had the guts to explain to me the virtues of liberalism or tell me where I’m off base.
White liberals specifically have never been able to look a black man like me in the eye and explain the positive virtues of liberalism and why I am wrong about them.
Want a debate Rob? Liberals have never been able to explain why blacks suffer more because of the political spin by Democrats. Political spin makes Democrats the best friends of blacks, the party of civil rights laws, the party of affirmative action and the party of social programs to help the poor in general and blacks in particular. But spin and facts are very different things.
Democrats can claim credit for all the government social programs that have played such a role in the disintegration of families. When these programs have done little to reduce poverty.
When it comes to education how the Democrats and Republicans compare when it comes to the education of black youngsters? Democrats are too completely dependent on the teachers’ unions to be able to break the public school monopoly or to get rid of incompetent teachers or even to insist on the teaching of the basics, instead of the dumbed down education and amateur social engineering that the education establishment likes. This is not political spin or my opinion this is a fact. Want to debate that?
It is Democrats who are opposed to parents having the right choose where their own children go to school.
It is Democrats who are totally opposed and have to be, if they want to continue getting the millions of dollars contributed by the teachers’ unions. Another factor in the decline of American education in general and education in low-income minority communities in particular, is the difficulty of either punishing or expelling disruptive and violent students who destroy the education of the other students. Liberal judges have made it literally a federal case when schools crack down on disruptive and violent students. Who appoints liberal judges? Duh! Explain that.
Explain the idiot judge in Oakland that granted diplomas to a bunch of illiterate bastards because he wanted them to experience the joy of graduation, never mind he rendered California high school diplomas worthless. Let debate that! Or at least can you explain that.  
Which party panders to this victimhood vision? Which party cuddles up with race hustlers like Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson who promote this paranoid tribalism? Democrats Rob hello. Idiots like Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Howard Dean are your role models and heroes. These are the facts and you have the nerve to say I mischaracterize liberals, that is funny.

On June 28th’s Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann set a new standard for spin that would even make the famous Black Knight character from Monty Python’s Holy Grail blush. Reacting to the MRC’s recently released study documenting Olbermann’s overwhelming 8 to 1 bias toward attacking many conservatives but very few liberals during his show’s regular “Worst Person in the World” segment, Olbermann tagged the Media Research Center as a “rabid right-wing spin group,” as he mocked the study and concluded that since most of his targets were not political, “I’d like to thank the MRC for confirming my point that the segment is apolitical.” Olbermann’s slam came in his regular “Top Three Newsmakers” segment, during which the screen displayed an image of the MRC’s logo with the words “Media Research Center: Inventing Liberal Bias Since 1987″ on screen. Minutes later, Olbermann brazenly chose conservatives, including MRC President Brent Bozell, as all three of his “Worst Person” nominees.

CHECK OUT AUDIO & VIDEO