politicalpartypoop.com

I cherry picked some items off of the Neal’s Nuze section on the Bortz site, always interesting, always something there to make you shake your head and say WTF!

Two-thirds of Americans agree with President Bush, don’t raise taxes to mend US infrastructure.  Maybe Dems will shut up.Abukar Arman, an open sympathizer of terrorists, has been kicked off of a Homeland Security panel.

So now that even high ranking Democrats are admitting our success in Iraq, what will happen when General Petraeus makes his report in September? 

AT&T censored anti-Bush lyrics during a live broadcast of a Pearl Jam concert.  AT&T says it was a mistake of the Webcast vendor.

If you are traveling to Saudi Arabia don’t let the government catch you with a Bible, crucifix and Stars of David.  Any religious items that are non-Islamic are prohibited.

Parents in Texas are suing the Governor and the government school district for mandating a moment of silence in their children’s elementary school. 

This article came to mind as I listened to the comments from the Kansas Governor and read the piece above.
This is of course an old article but every time there is a serious disaster I can’t help but to think of scheming liberal Democrats and how they put politics above human suffering.

Remember Obama’s 10,000 Kansas dead comments? Ya think that was just a slip of the tongue? Hardly.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker
Rick Moran is proprietor of the blog Right Wing Nuthouse For the left, the aftermath of Katrina has proven to be a godsend. In fact, I don’t think I’ve seen them this happy since Hugo Chavez hornswaggled Jimmy Carter into certifying his victory in a recall vote last year. There’s just something about communist thugs that brings a smile to the face of an American lefty and makes their hearts go pitter patter.

But even a victory by “The Laughing Goat” ( La Cabra que Ríe) couldn’t possibly gladden the hearts and warm the cockles of liberals like the prospect of celebrating…what? Well, there’s that drop in the President’s poll numbers. And then there’s…let’s see. Oh! Did I mention the drop in the President’s poll numbers?

Yes, these are heady days for our left wing friends. The fact that their celebrations are taking place as a direct result of the distress, suffering, anguish and death of (tens of thousands) of their fellow citizens seems to not be of much concern to our morally superior betters. In fact, it has emboldened them to advance every crack pot theory on race and class that has poisoned American politics for going on forty years. One could say the left is dancing on the graves of black people, celebrating the exploitation of a political opening brought about by the incompetence of relief efforts in the largely black neighborhoods of New Orleans except for one thing; most of those graves are empty at the moment because the future les habitants haven’t even been plucked from the floodwaters yet.

But why let a small detail like common decency spoil a good party? It’s Mardi Gras in September in the Big Easy and liberals are dancing the Cajun Reel with the thousands of grinning skeletons who very soon now will start filling up the temporary mortuaries set up to receive them. The fact that we will be denied the edifying spectactle of watching the gruesome task of retrieving these corpses has now led to charges of a “cover-up” – as if focusing a camera on the bloated, blackened remains of our fellow citizens should be made into some kind of reality TV show. Kind of a Survivor meets The Great Race high concept production. Why, the syndication possibilities are staggering.

(more…)

REPOST:  This is from a story I posted back in January 2006, that was originally in the Dallas Morning News.

More processing on the post I have below about Democrats and race and in light of my liberal friend Greg when he said “I don’t care that you are black.”

I also point to this piece in Newsbusters (ABC’s Sawyer to Obama: Is the U.S. ‘More Racist or More Sexist?’)

Sawyer: “There was an article in the Washington Post over the weekend, which raised a provocative question, which said that people say, 90 percent of Americans say that race does not matter when they go to the polls. However, a lot of pollsters think that not everybody is telling the truth. What do you think?”

How much better off are we on race issues?

In my opinion race issues in the country are still very screwed up.

The issues and the attitudes are just more camouflaged today.

If a white kid were to mention to me that he can’t be racist because he has a 50 Cent CD or a football jersey with some Negros name on back is dealing with a difference sense of reality.

The Article:

Popular television shows such as The Real World and Grey’s Anatomy show diverse casts mixing and mingling on-screen. Teens are exposed to the hottest R&B and hip-hop artists on VH1 and MTV. And in this Internet age, access to other cultures, trends and styles is only a few clicks away.

Pop culture serves up a “multiracial, multicultural nirvana,” says Charles Gallagher, a Georgia State sociology professor, contributing to an impression of the younger generation as the first “post-race” generation – one where race doesn’t matter.

“I don’t know very many people who flat out have a problem with other races,” says Andrew Moua, 17, a senior at Duncanville High School and a member of The Dallas Morning News Teen Advisory Board. “Everyone I know listens to some kind of hip-hop.”

Generation Y’s perception of diverse cultures and racial issues has been shaped by pop culture and mass media. But what they see on TV isn’t necessarily reality, and that disconnect can lead to everything from personal misunderstandings to cultural collisions in classrooms or dorms. This is particularly true of whites, whose opportunities to mix with other races are more limited than others.

The average white person lives in a community that is 83 percent white and only 7 percent black, according to a 2002 analysis of Census Bureau figures by the Lewis Mumford Center at the State University of New York at Albany.

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content

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

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

I posted this back in July. Now that the Democrats are in charge, you can strike teen pregnancy off the lists of concerns in America.
During the Democrats reign of supremacy and power, there will be NO teenage pregnancy, because those billions of dollars that the mean ole Republicans denied trouble teens will get spent. Now lots of pasty white liberals will get high paying jobs curing the dreaded teen sexual deviancy disease.

Sorry people I’m in one of my moods…..I need to check to see if I forgot to take my meds!  

I found the entry on Democrat Underground:  Republican Hypocrisy on Teen Pregnancy

The Republican-controlled, 109th Congress has invented new modes of hypocrisy on an almost weekly basis and the Senate yesterday sure kept that ball rolling.

By a vote of 65-34, Senate passed S. 403, a bill that made it a crime to go around parental-notification laws by transporting a pregnant minor across state lines for an abortion. Shortly before that, Senate Republicans mobilized to reject an amendment by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that would have funded programs to reduce the very teen pregnancies at issue in the bill that was passed.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may make grants to States, local educational agencies, State and local public health agencies, and nonprofit private entities for the purpose of carrying out programs of family life education, including education on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease, and education to support healthy adolescent development.”

Someone feel free to educate me on this issue.
I want to know just who believes that pumping federal dollars into shit like sex education or programs to supposedly reduce teen pregnancy work.
We are in a society where crazy motherfuckers still suck on cigarettes when we know for a fact they will kill you.
States spend millions on ad campaigns telling people to buckle up in their cars, when we KNOW it saves lives.
People spend billions of dollars on products to help reduce the effects of aging while conveniently ignoring the fact that tanning booths and extended exposure to the sun is the root cause.
We have to be told to not, drink and drive. We have to be told that unprotected sex can lead to sexually transmitted diseases.
We still have to tell idiots not to give private information to people via e-mail scams. People are fucken idiots, so I ask… Just who are you fucken people kidding?
There ain’t shit we can do about teen pregnancy, not a fucken thing. The only remedy is involvement of the dads in the life of these young girls. No amount of federal dollars will fix that, period!
Without strong involved dads, fuck it. The idiot gene will engage.    
Kids today are clearly not receiving a decent overall basic education, so why would pumping hundreds of million of dollars into sex education bullshit help.
Do you people actually think kids will listen?
You actually think that some dunderhead girl getting felt up by little Billy is paying attention in sex education class, get real.
When these freshman females here at the university strut their stuff in orientation and on the first few days of class here on campus they will be so decked out in their finest hoochie attire and why do you think they do that, to get attention from some idiot dude.
Not one fucken federal dime should go towards sex education bullshit. It’s pointless. This issue like most others for liberals, just throw money at it and hope some dead presidents stick.
The only reason why people push for this shit is they are a bunch of money grubbing fucks looking to line their pockets with federal grants and grab more job security in their cushy not-for-profit or “gubment” job.
Oh and don’t get me started on the transporting a minor without parental consent bullshit.
I always dumbfounded why liberals are so into this subverting parental authority crap in the name of politics. “we need to protect these kids and free them from their crazy conservative, Jesus freak parents.”

“The Senate showed a frightening lack of compassion for American teens and a disturbing willingness to play politics with their health and safety today,” said Stephenie Foster of Planned Parenthood. “We all want our daughters to come to us, but what is most important is that they are safe. Parents need support to keep their kids healthy and safe — not laws that criminalize family members for helping teens get access to good medical care.” 

Classic.

 I was sent an e-mail and this post is a response. If there are any other liberals out there who are bold enough to try and sell me on why I should be more receptive to liberalism please feel free to comment.

Dear Mr. Snoop,

With all due respect, I am really wanting to discuss this, not simply throw stones and a bunch of propaganda at one another.

I welcome any discussion on these issues.   However, what I say about liberals is not propaganda.   I may not always be polite, and I have strong opinions to be sure, but I would challenge you to find any post on my site that provides incorrect facts. I do not portray liberals incorrectly - the facts speak for themselves if you can step back and look at them objectively.

I have a question. Please understand that I don ‘t associate my identity with my political beliefs (a mistake that I think you may have made, but I digress).

Whether you agree or not you are associated with your political beliefs.  People who deny that fact are simply not dealing with reality.    Saying you do not associate your identity with your political beliefs is like saying you do not associate your gender with who you are.   Your beliefs about something as fundamental as your position on politics speaks to what and who you are, and how well you can think.  These things are who you are. So like it or not,  part of your identity is indeed reflected by your political beliefs and ideas. 

I am concerned about growing racism in the United States with people like you which scares me because you seem informed and interested, whereas until recently I thought such feelings were only held by uneducated people.

I see a conservative contradiction for which no one has offered an explanation. Conservatives argue the following:

1) Affirmative action is detrimental to progress and a strong economy because it forces employers to hire people who may be less qualified, gives extra tuition to minorities, etc.

2) Immigration is bad because it takes jobs away from Americans who demand better working conditions and higher pay.

Well, one cannot hold both of these statements as true and not call one ’s self a racist.

Dude, I don’t know where you got your degree in Logic but you got cheated.  Your two points do NOT and I repeat NOT add up to your conclusion.  First you need to get out your dictionary and read up on what racism is and is not.

Racism is not having positions that end up hurting some  minorities in some way. Racism is thinking that your race (or any race) are better then other races.  

Most affirmative action and illegal immigration opponents are not basing their dislike of those policies on any conception of superiority.   They do not want to see minorities (blacks) prevented from getting  jobs or just illegal Mexicans kept out of this country.  They simply want everyone to play by the same rules. 

I am all too personally aware that racism is alive and well in this country.    And I am aware that some of the welfare and liberal policies that sought to undue past wrongs were motivated in part by some sense of guilt over society not being more fair to everyone. But in giving any minority a “go free card” when it comes to hiring or immigration is not doing them or anyone else a favor in the long run.  Just as we do not give driver’s licenses to people who cannot drive, neither should we give jobs or citizenship to people who are not able to do the minimum required to deserve such benefits of society. 

I am a black man, I don’t happen to agree with affirmative action.   I believe in VERY limited government.     I detest entitlement programs.

I think that illegal immigration WILL destroy this country. It will have a particular affect on the job prospects of blacks. Black unemployment for black men 18-35 is 25%-30%. The reason so many blacks are for affirmative action is because white people already have it;  it’s called “hire people who look like me. ” All things being equal a white person will always hire someone who looks like them. In truth, the same goes for most people. We tend to be more comfortable around someone who looks acts and thinks just like we do. It’s very understandable human behavior. 

However forcing businesses to hired unqualified dolts is not the answer. Any idiot white guy who won’t hire me because of my color, I figure that is his loss.   Because I am going to work even harder then a white guy, knowing that I represent not only myself and my family, but my entire race. It’s not fair, but it’s reality and every black person knows it is true. But if someone does not want to give me a chance, then I don’t want to work with him/her anyway. It’s hard enough to prove yourself to those who are willing to give you a chance.  People hired under affirmative action programs cannot ever be good enough to overcome the stigma of getting into their positions with that help.

Those who want or need special treatment are only playing into the victim mentality that is fostered by politicians and people who NEED someone to look down on …errr I mean help…with all the programs they fund and run.    There is a whole political system that would come to a screeching halt if we started holding people more accountable for their actions or if we stopped overlooking errors because we feel sorry for them because they’re a member of a minority race.  

Liberal’s use of and love for affirmative action is a band aid approach; it doesn’t fix what is at the heart of the problem.  Blacks simply do not have the power that whites do.   But making whites give up their power to a few chosen minority employees is not going to make them like us any more.   This and a lot of the liberal “let’s help those poor people” programs are  done purely out of white guilt.    They don’t fix racism. They perpetuate it.   I don’t want you hire me because you feel “sorry” for me. I want you to hire me because I’m the best qualified for the job.   

Now, the people who have jobs to pass out (i.e. white people)  can hire illegal Mexicans to work for less, further denying blacks from entry level opportunities.  So you tell me, how does illegal immigration help minorities do better in this country? It doesn’t!    There is an article I need to look up written by a black man who is unable to find work after 25 years in the construction trade. He lived in Los Angeles, he had to pack up his family and move to Atlanta, making far less. The other reason he could not find work, because he did not speak Spanish.    His story is very common.    If illegal immigration goes unchecked, the people who used to get the low paying jobs (i.e. black people)  are fucked.   Period.  White people like immigration, because they can get shit done cheap.  It a business choice. I have no problem with someone coming to America, following the correct path and obtaining citizenship and seeking the American dream.  But when a bunch of fence jumping people make their way here and I have to pay for their health care, welfare entitlements, increased crime I have an issue with that.

If one believes strongly in a free market (point 1), then one should understand that the employer has the freedom to choose who he feels is the most efficient worker, even if that means the employer will choose someone who will happily work for less pay.

On the other hand, if one thinks that Americans deserve better treatment and are entitled to jobs despite being less efficient and despite NOT being the best worker according to the employers ‘ discretion, then one cannot use point 1 to argue against affirmative action. After all, for every possible explanation to how lowering immigration would help the American job market for Americans and the benefits it would provide for society could also be used (and more effectively) to argue for Affirmative action.
 
My point? One who believes both (1) and (2) is basically saying, “I support rules that help white people.”

Dude I’m not white, in case you have not figured that out.  And again I say, with all due respect, your logic is flawed. 

I am against most forms of affirmative action and I do not want illegal immigrants to get anything but a bus pass back to where they came from.  These are not incompatible concepts or racist positions.   They are very compatible and have very little to do with race. 

I support applying the same rules to everyone equally.    The law needs to be color blind.  If you are qualified for the job, you should get it.  If you come into this country illegally, yiou should face the legal repercussions.   Affirmative action gives minorities “Special” status. Allowing illegal immigrants to get away with violating immigration laws give them “special” status.  Neither of these issues have much to do with anyone’s race. It has to do with fairness. 

It is not fair to expect a business owner or school to give precious resources and space to someone who can’t do the job all that well but happens to have been born a minority (or female).  It is not fair to require people to follow the rules in order to get into this country, unless they are resourceful and criminal enough to break the law(s) and sneak in.   

One of my main problems with liberals is that despite their belief that they are really great people who care about everyone, they are often the least likely to really know the people they want to help. They talk and plan and pass laws that try to help “those poor people” without really listening to anyone in that group other than charming reverends turned career politicians who got rich playing the victim card.   

With decades of civil rights laws behind us, why do you think that racism still exists and progress towards a united states has been so slow? Because once these ills are truly addressed and defeated, all those who make their money pimping out poverty will be out of jobs.

The leaders who make liberal “progressive” theories their battle cry truly do not want to see everyone get a chance or get along.   They just want everyone to think they are good people, as they chuckle all the way to the bank.   If they truly cared about “those poor people” they’d give up all their wealth and live like common folk!  They’d stop talking and start working. They’d listen instead of just talk about the same old (and tired) things.    

I don’t blame them for not doing that.  I wouldn’t.  If I had a golden goose, I’d not want it to stop laying those golden eggs!  

But I do blame them, and you, for thinking that all Black folks are too stupid or lazy to see through the facade of care that masks itself as pity. Pity and guilt are only signs of the superiority that liberals really feel towards anyone who doesn’t go along with their ideas and programs.   Now, THAT is racist.

REPORT: RUMSFELD TO RESIGN

This is just beyond stupid. Shrub could have fired his idiot ass before the elections and made a difference.
This is like running the mechanic to the engine room of the Titanic, fucken stupid as hell.

KNOWN KNOWNS.

The message is:
That there are known knowns,
there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns,
that is to say there are things that we now know, we don’t know,
but there are also unknown unknowns,
there are things we do not know, we don’t know,
and each year we discover a few more,
of those unknown unknowns.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

BOONDOCKS CLIP

DONALD RUMSFELD 

Recycled Post - November 2005

By Brandon Crocker

When Bill Clinton left office in January 2001, he was convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and active WMD research and production programs. George Tenet, the Clinton appointed head of the CIA, told George W. Bush prior to the war that the case that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was “a slam dunk.” Almost all of the Democratic members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, seeing much of the same intelligence reports given to the White House, and with direct access to the intelligence communities and raw intelligence data, agreed. The intelligence arms of most major foreign governments, including those that opposed the war, agreed. The UN concurred that Saddam had not accounted for stockpiles of WMD that were known to exist after the end of the first Gulf War. So, according to the U.S. Democratic leadership, there is only one logical conclusion that one can draw from the lack of WMD found in Iraq — George W. Bush lied us into the war.

This has been the mantra of leading Democrats since the Senate Minority Leader, Harry Reid, pulled his stunt to force the Senate into “closed session” as a “protest” over the supposed foot-dragging of Senate Republicans in the “Phase II” investigation looking into the matter. (”Phase I,” which looked into allegations that the administration pressured the U.S. intelligence community to “cook” the intelligence to support the war, concluded, without a single Democrat dissent, that no such pressure took place). And now, to complete the farce, Senator John Kerry, during a press conference on November 14, proclaimed “the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history.”

Senator Kerry, one might recall, built his political career on his status as a “war hero” in Vietnam, due to the fact that he amazingly, in four months time, was awarded three purple hearts (giving him a free ticket home), for wounds that, upon further scrutiny, appear, well, hyped. His most serious wound seems to have been unintentionally self-inflicted, and the first, of unknown origin, required treatment with a dab of Neosporin ointment. Upon returning home he made a name for himself by accusing U.S. soldiers of routinely committing atrocities, which he now admits he never actually saw, and which may not have been true. And then, of course, there is his famous story of his Christmas incursion into Cambodia, “seared” into his memory, strangely seared, since it, too, never happened. And during his presidential campaign he gave the distinct impression that he had met with “foreign leaders” who endorsed his candidacy, “negotiated treaties” while serving as a senator, and had been a much better college student than the idiot George W. Bush — all of which turned out to be untrue.

Senator Kerry is, in fact, the Great Deceiver. So it is fitting that he has now taken up the Democratic crusade against George W. Bush, accusing him of lying to the Senate and to the American people on the basis of, well, let’s be honest, next to no evidence, and in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

So far, the heart of the Democratic case seems to be one CIA document, declassified with great fanfare by Senator Carl Levin, which questions the credibility of one source regarding one issue (the training of al-Qaeda personnel in Iraq). But it is not clear that Bush was ever given this particular document, or that members of the Senate or House Intelligence Committees did not have access to it. What is clear, however, is that the CIA had other sources that corroborated the story, and CIA chief George Tenet felt that the overall evidence supported the story, regardless of the credibility issues of one source. It is certainly ironic that this cherry-picked document, in the Democrats’ eyes, qualifies as damning evidence that Bush “cherry picked” intelligence to “mislead” the country into war.

It is also fitting, and ironic, that the Democratic leadership, which has used language comparing the actions of U.S. military personnel with that of Nazis
(as in Senator Dick Durbin’s infamous speech on the floor of the Senate, broadcast throughout the Middle East via al-Jazeera)

THE QUOTE:”If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others - that had no concern for human beings.”

he eventually felt compelled to apologize, now seems so adept at employing the propaganda strategy described by Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels as “the Big Lie.” Unfortunately, this Big Lie has been working (with the “mainstream” news media reporting the Democrats’ daily accusations, with barely a mention of inconvenient facts to the contrary), and a majority of Americans now say that they believe that George W. Bush intentionally lied about Saddam’s WMD programs in order to push an “unnecessary war.” But as any watcher of public opinion polls knows, these sentiments can change.

Despite the often-repeated line in the media, that with no significant WMD finds in Iraq that “the primary rationale for the war” has been “discredited,” whether or not WMD are ever found in Iraq is, in fact, irrelevant to the legitimacy for this “rationale” for the war. The rationale was (among other things) that we had good reason to suspect that Saddam possessed WMD and/or had advanced and on-going programs for their creation. Saddam gave us no reason to doubt this, refusing to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors (in violation of the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War), and actually kicking them out of the country in 1998 (prompting Bill Clinton to send a few cruise missiles into suspected Iraqi WMD targets). So the rationale that it was likely that Saddam had WMD programs — which was the primary basis for Bill Clinton making “regime change” in Iraq official U.S. policy — was perfectly sound, and remains perfectly sound rationale for having gone to war. But none of this matters in the new Democratic political calculus, and the big question is, why not?

The reason that the Democratic leadership seems intent on aggressively pushing a transparently false charge against the President of the United States is that it sees political advantage in doing so. It is what the Michael Mooron base of the party desires, and with the American public showing weariness of the war and of hearing the casualty figures reported daily in the media, the time is ripe, they calculate, to hammer Bush on the war. The only problem is, much of the Democratic leadership supported going to war. That dilemma is solved, in their mind, by pushing the argument that they were “misled” by Bush into doing so. This may turn out to be a bit uncomfortable for the Democrats’ probable 2008 presidential candidate — Hilary Clinton — who is already on record as admitting that the intelligence used by the Bush administration was consistent with the intelligence assessments during the Bill Clinton presidency. But the Democrats will cross that bridge when they come to it. In the meantime, it is the Democratic priority to discredit the U.S. Commander in Chief, in time of war, simply because he’s a Republican.

History will, most probably, correct the current misperceptions regarding Bush “lying us into war.” And, most probably, history will eventually render an unflattering judgment on the Democratic leadership’s current behavior. But that will be small comfort if the Democrats manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq. Fortunately, Bush seems to have awoken to the fact that he can’t continue simply to shrug off Democratic attacks and will, with the Republicans in Congress, aggressively respond to the Democrats’ smear campaign.

 The California Democrat claims to be a staunch union supporter, and along with her husband has received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union.
Unions are, in her words, “fighting for America’s working families” and battling “the union-busting, family-hurting” Bush administration. But Schweizer has uncovered that the $25 million Northern California vineyard the Pelosis own is a non-union shop! 

But Pelosi’s hypocrisy doesn’t stop there.

The congresswoman is the top recipient among members of Congress in campaign contributions from labor unions, and has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union than any other member of Congress in the last several election cycles.
But in addition to the wine business, the Pelosis own a large stake in the exclusive Auberge du Soleil hotel in Rutherford, Calif.
The hotel has more than 250 employees, but once again, it is strictly a non-union shop.

The Pelosis are also partners in a restaurant chain called Piatti, which has 900 employees.

But a union card is not required to work there bussing tables, washing dishes, serving guests or preparing food.

“As with Auberge du Soleil, at Piatti the Pelosis’ commitment to organized labor ends at the front door.” Pelosi has also demonstrated hypocrisy on the environment.

“With us,” she proclaims, “the environment is not an issue – it’s an ethic. It’s a value.”

One of her largest investments is a private partnership called Lions Gate Limited, which operates the CordeValle Golf Club and Resort in San Martin, Calif.
To get a permit to build the facility, the partners promised to build a “public course” providing considerable access to non-members, and to abide by several environmental requirements to ensure that there would be minimal ecological damage.
But after the facility opened, the county’s Planning Commission found that the golf course was in fact private – and the club had “ignored” many of its permit requirements concerning the environment.
What’s more, the course was causing a drawdown in the freshwater aquifer, which could have serious implications for wildlife in the area. So much for worrying about the environment.

 It’s a beautiful day and I don’t feel like posting much.
But in light of jackass John Kerry and the liberal media, other political pundits and liberal bloggers trying to character assassinate our military and this country; I wanted to recycle this post of Lt. Col White.
I think those of you who are proud of our military and of this country if you have not seen this or have not watched it in awhile it is a good kick in the pants and is a great reminder of what is at stake on Tuesday.
Liberals are going to try and fuck up this country especially if they succeed on Tuesday.
Those of us on the right need to remain strong and vigilant. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 WATCH VIDEO

Also Here’s the link to the Infantry Center where you can watch the original video

BlackFive has the text.

A sample from Wizbang, I loved this part, had to give an amen after hearing.

“DON’T LET THE PESSIMISTIC TELEVISION TALKING HEADS, HIGH BROWED NEWSPAPER WRITERS, HOLLYWOOD IDIOTS, OR ANY OTHER FACTION OF THE “BLAME AMERICA FIRST” CROWD GET YOU DOWN! …. I’M SPEAKING OF THE “LATTE BISCOTTI CROWD”. THEY ARE SIMPLE BACKGROUND CHATTER MEN….AND WILL ALWAYS EXISTS ON THE PERIPHERY OF ANY ENDEAVOR THAT REQUIRES SELFLESS SERVICE OR LOYALTY. THEY ARE NOT WORTHY OF YOUR CONCERN AND TRUTH BE TOLD – IN THE PIT OF THEIR COWARDLY HEARTS – THEY WISH THEY COULD BE LIKE YOU.”  

I posted this on my old blog prior to the elections in 04. This is why all of the happy, happy joy, joy, republicans are on the run poll bullshit I keep hearing is just that. The media always does this crap.
Tis why I remain optimistic.

From Liberal Blogs:

[A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released this week found that 47% of Americans now feel that the country would be better off if Democrats were in control, compared to only 36% who favored Republicans.]

IN FUCKEN CONTROL, C O N T R O L! ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?

[Finally, in one bit of presumably good news for a party that is looking for it, Americans now have a better opinion of the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party: 54 percent said they had a favorable view of Democrats, compared with 39 percent with an unfavorable view. By contrast, 49 percent have a favorable view of Republicans, compared with 46 percent holding an unfavorable one.]

NOTE TO YOU DEMOCRATS REMEMBER THE FOLLOWING OTHER BULLSHIT POLLS!!

Kerry Beats Bush 57% to 26% in Mobile Phone User Poll!
01-Nov-04
Polls

Yahoo: “Mobile phone text users, responding to a poll from Upoc Networks, and representing 98% of the nation’s wireless carriers, gave Senator John Kerry a 31% lead over President George Bush for Tuesday’s General Election. Of more than a quarter million mobile text users contacted (258,046), 16,623 users responded, representing a response factor of 6.44%. The national response average for random polls is typically between 2-3%Final results showed: Kerry with 57%, Bush with 26%, 14% not voting and 3% ‘other.’ ” Thousands of these mobile phone users have gone uncounted in mainstream media polls - but they will make themselves heard loud and clear at the polls!

Kerry Sprints Ahead of Bush in Pennsylvania, 50% to 47%
29-Oct-04
Polls
Kerry now leads Bush in PA 50% to 47%. However, this lead is probably MUCH larger because the weighting is based on voter turnout in past elections. However, all evidence points to a VERY different turnout out this time. There are more young voters/first time voters than for any other past four elections. And, as an estimated 60% of these new voters are predicted to vote Kerry, we predict that the vote in PA will probably be closer to 54% Kerry, 46% Bush - if not wider.

Latest Poll in Miami-Dade County Shows Kerry Ahead by Whopping 56% to 43%
28-Oct-04
Polls
Miami Herald: “If the latest Miami Herald poll is correct, the road to the White House no longer runs exclusively through Little Havana, it now winds its way through the streets of Wynwood and Allapattah and Homestead. And if that’s true, President Bush is in trouble.The Herald poll shows Sen. John Kerry winning Miami-Dade County with 54.3 percent of the vote to 41.5 for Bush. Four percent are undecided. Splitting those undecided voters down the middle, Kerry goes to 56 percent, Bush to 43 and Ralph Nader will end up with less than 1%.” However, Daily Kos recently observed that in every presidential race in which incumbents have a sub-50% approval rating, undecideds have ultimately broken for the challenger. This means that it is very likely the final split may be closer to 60-40!

I COULD GO ON, BUT WHY? DEMOCRATS CAN NOT WIN ELECTION BECAUSE THEY ARE WACKED.
I love how they have to give each other pep talks citing polls that do not amount to SHIT!
I do not remember a poll asking what ole Snoop thinks. What is up wit dat!?

Kerry Said Iraq’s WMDs May Be Given Or Sold To Terrorist Groups. “I would disagree with John McCain that it’s the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it’s what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that - that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat.” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 9/15/02)

JOHN KERRY ON THREAT OF SADDAM: “It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. … He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. … We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future.”

Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was “Right Decision.” KERRY: “George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Kerry Said “It Would Be Irresponsible” To Suggest President Misled On WMD. ABC’S GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: “I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?” SEN. JOHN KERRY: “George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table.” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/15/03)

By Nick Allen - Link

(Bloomberg) — St. Louis, where the hometown Cardinals won the baseball World Series last week, was named the most dangerous city in the U.S. in a study based on FBI figures.

The Missouri city topped a list of 371 metropolitan areas in an assessment of 2005 FBI statistics for murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft. Researchers at Morgan Quitno Press in Lawrence, Kansas, compiled the results in its 13th annual list of the most dangerous and safest cities in the U.S.

“There is some good news,” Morgan Quitno President Scott Morgan said in an e-mailed statement today. “St. Louis’s property crime rate has fallen 14 percent since 2001.”

St. Louis, which has a population of 350,000, was the third- most dangerous city in last year’s rankings and replaced Camden, New Jersey, at the top this time. Detroit was judged the second- most dangerous city and Flint, Michigan, was third. Washington was 19th, Los Angeles was 122nd and New York was 227th.

The safest city in the U.S. was Brick, New Jersey, followed by Amherst, New York, and Mission Viejo, California. Brick has ranked as one of the top five safest U.S. cities in each of the past six years.

Several cities were not included in the list because of incomplete crime information. Chicago and other Illinois cities were missing because of a discrepancy between the way they track rape figures and the FBI’s reporting guidelines. A separate calculation without the rape category showed Chicago as the 52nd most dangerous city in the U.S., Morgan Quitno Press said.

The Midwest experienced the steepest increase in violent crime, 5.7 percent, in the U.S. in 2005, according to FBI figures released in June. The murder rate in St. Louis jumped 16 percent compared to 4.8 percent nationally.

Strange day in the news.
I’m reading my usual blogs and news sites and nothing grabs me.
The liberal blogs are posting the same old shit, more discussion on Michael J. Fox and his exaggeration ads, Pelosi, did Billiary have a facelift, Bush is evil yada, yada, yada.
Nothing really grabbed my attention so far.
So I decided to look for some posts to recycle and I found one of the funniest examples of Democrat lunacy, my 200,000,000 post at Rep. Major Owens in New York. I added some stuff too.
As the Democrats get excited at the possibility of taking over things in Washington this is a good reminder of just how dangerous the lunatics on the Democratic side can be.
If people like Major Owens is who you want leading the country, feel free to vote DEMOCRAT in November.
——————
While driving home the other afternoon, I laughed so hard I almost got into a wreck. I literally had to pull my car over.
Rush repeated (my first time hearing) a clip from Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) that he first aired in 1996. He currently has an article on his website (for subscribers) but hell Snoop has the gist.
Anybody who is a long time listener to the Rush Limbaugh show or listened to the show back in the Clinton era may remember this information about Rep. Owens.
Rush highlighted in his show an ABC World News Tonight report in June of 1996, by Carole “Jennings” Simpson reported that 100 million slaves were thrown overboard during the slave trade.
This is what Rep. Major Owens (D-NY) claimed in a speech a year earlier on the house floor, in an except he said

200 million slaves were thrown overboard and that this genocide changed the ecology of the ocean so much that the sharks still swim the slave routes!

I thought OH MY GOD! You know I hear and read a whole lot of stupid shit but to hear it come out of an elected officials mouth and the dumbass said it on the house floor was nothing less than stunning.

This idea was first expressed by Owens during Special Orders a year earlier 1995.
So dude had been processing this info for quite some time.
Owens insisted that 200 million slaves on their way to America had been thrown overboard during the slave trade and that this had changed the ecology of the ocean to the point that sharks still swam the old trade routes in the hope of finding more bodies to feed upon.

You do the math, if the slave trade ran from 1550 to 1850. That’s 300 years. Multiplying 300 x 365 gives us 109,500. Dividing that into 200,000,000 gives us 1826.484. That means that over 1800 dead blacks would be thrown overboard every day! 

Rush’s staff ran the numbers and found that to be have 100 million drowned slaves, the slave traders would have had to put out nine ships a day with 152 slaves in each ship. This would have had to continue every day for 200 years, which works out to 1,370 slaves a day and 499,977 slaves per year thrown overboard, not counting leap years.
No matter how the numbers are worked, this figure of 100 million drowned slaves would still be impossible, especially since some of these slaves had to reach the New World alive. And Owens originally claimed that the number of drowned slaves was 200 million, which means all of these numbers would have had to have been doubled.

Evidently someone told Congressman Owens that his numbers were a little high so he went to the House floor the next day and changed the number to 20,000,000. That’s a little better because then it’s only 182 blacks thrown overboard every day for 300 years. 
Rush of course found this claim of 200 million a bit absurd. The population of North America at the time was far less than 100 million, and it is hard to imagine that 200 million slaves could have been transported across the Atlantic over 200 years.
Owens reworked the figures down to 100 million, claiming he had gotten some “bad data.” (no he pulled it out of his ass) However, even 100 million drowned slaves is hard to imagine, but ABC reported this as fact.
Yes ABC was as stupid as Owens was. Where the hell was Peter Jennings then!?
The population of the world at this time, though, was only 400 million, which means that the slave trade would have killed nearly a quarter of the world’s population over these 200 years.
This simply is not possible, so Rush has to wonder if he could check these numbers so easily, why couldn’t ABC?

My point to all of this is people process information all the time and come up with all kinds of bullshit to make their position more sound. Few of us actually process and challenge what we read and what we hear.
This is why we are a country of tired bullshit cliches. Major Owens trying to prove a point to forward his agenda on the supposed behalf of his constituents ended up tarnishing his reputation and permanently making him into a laughing stock.
But what is worse is that this crazy bastard is still in office!

I looked long and hard for credible information on just how many slaves were lost. After exhaustive Google University Research I determined that……..we have no fucken idea. And what the hell difference does it make today.
Regardless of where you fall on the political spectrum, whatever information you process be sure to study BOTH sides of an argument.
I state over and over that the reason why I STUDY liberals, not only what they say but how they say it is what consistently drives me to the conclusion that liberalism is not only wacked but sociologically corrosive. To make their points liberals will do what Major Owens did and do it with a straight face hoping nobody is paying attention.
Can you begin to comprehend how either out of touch or flat ignorant the constituents in the 11th congressional district of New York must be to have kept this idiot in office for so many years?

Here is another example of liberal excess:
Jesse Jackson had been running his mouth about how 1,000,000 blacks were kept from voting in the 2000 election. Needless to say, the media, who many people swear are not biased, did not check this number. Where did it come from?  He probably got this number from the same place that Major Owens got his 200,000,000. He made it up because it sounded good. But go over to the Census Bureau and run some numbers.

In the year 2000 there were about 35.7 million blacks. The overall population breaks out like this: Age 18-24 39.9%. Age 45-64 22%. Age 65 and over 12%. So if we use these numbers the overall voting age population is 73.9%. 73.9% of 35.7 million comes out to 26.3 million. When you consider that half the population doesn’t even bother to vote in the first place and I’m sure that apathy exists among blacks, but let’s just say the apathy only affects 25%, that gives us 19.7 million blacks who want to vote. Jesse is stating that 1 out of every 20 black people in this country were DENIED the right to vote.

We are about to go into another election where I continue to read about Democrats claiming that blacks are being DENIED the right to vote when the bullshit from 2000 was never proven.

I bet you did not know that the Civil Rights Commission that was set up in Florida specifically to find examples of blacks being prevented from voting could not find one case where this actually happened? But the truth doesn’t matter to liberals. Angering the base by making things up and Jesse is good at making things up.
You don’t think that’s going to happen come next election.
If the Democrats don’t at least take the house, there will be lawsuits galore.
The Democrats will not accept defeat, Jessie will add that blacks folks were thrown into the Atlantic by Republicans to help Owens make the old case for 200,000,000. 

The potential to be enslaved and to make our tentative way to freedom is perennially within us. It’s not simply that each generation is commanded to feel as if it was personally brought forth from Egypt, but that at every moment we are presented with the opportunity to liberate ourselves

Roberta Israeloff

By Tanya L. Green

“…I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing’
therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.”
–Deuteronomy 30:19 (NKJV

On the crisp, sunny, fall Columbus Day in 1999, organizers of the “Say So” march approached the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. The marchers, who were predominantly black pastors and lay persons, concluded their three-day protest at the site of two monumental cases: the school desegregation Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the pro-abortion Roe v. Wade “rights” in t he latter–converged in the declaration of Rev. Johnny M. Hunter, the march’s sponsor and national director of Life, Education and Resource Network (LEARN), the largest black pro-life organization.

‘”Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!” declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of “better health” and “family planning,” Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: “We have become victims of genocide by our own hands,” cried Hunter at the “Say So” march.

Malthusian Eugenics

Margaret Sanger aligned herself with the eugenicists whose ideology prevailed in the early 20th century. Eugenicists strongly espoused racial supremacy and “purtiy”,” particularly of the “Aryan” race. Eugenicists hoped to purify the bloodlines and improve the race by encouraging the “fit” to reproduce and the “unfit” to restrict their reproduction. They sought to contain the “inferior” races through segregation, sterilization, birth control and abortion.

Sanger embraced Malthusian eugenics. Thomas Robert Malthus, a 19th century cleric and professor of political economy, believed a population time bomb threatened the existence of the human race. He viewed social problems such as poverty, deprivation and hunger as evidence of this “population crisis.” According to writer George Grant, Malthus condemned charities and other forms of benevolence, because he believed they only exacerbated the problems. His answer was to restrict population growth of certain groups of people. His theories of population growth and economic stability became the basis for national and international social policy. Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826:

All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.
Malthus disciples believed if Western civilization were to survive, the physically unfit, the materially poor, the spiritually diseased, the racially inferior, and the mentally incompetent had to be suppressed and isolated–or even, perhaps, eliminated. His disciples felt the subtler and more “scientific” approaches of education, contraception, sterilization and abortion were more “practical and acceptable ways” to ease the pressures of the alleged overpopulation.

Critics of Malthusianism said the group “produced a new vocabulary of mumbo-jumbo. It was all hard-headed, scientific and relentless.” Further, historical facts have proved the Malthusian mathematical scheme regarding overpopulation to be inaccurate, though many still believe them.

Despite the falsehoods of Malthus’ overpopulation claims, Sanger nonetheless immersed herself in Malthusian eugenics. Grant wrote she argued for birth control using the “scientifically verified” threat of poverty, sickness, racial tension and overpopulation as its background. Sanger’s publication, The Birth Control Review (founded in 1917) regularly published pro-eugenic articles from eugenicists, such as Ernst Ruin. Although Sanger ceased editing The Birth Control Review in 1929, the ABCL continued to use it as a platform for eugenic ideas.

Sanger built the work of the ABCL, and, ultimately, Planned Parenthood, on the ideas and resources of the eugenics movement. Grant reported that “virtually all of the organization’s board members were eugenicists.” Eugenicists financed the early projects, from the opening of birth control clinics to the publishing of “revolutionary” literature. Eugenicists comprised the speakers at conferences, authors of literature and the providers of services “almost without the exception.” And Planned Parenthood’s international work was originally housed in the offices of the Eugenics Society. The two organizations were intertwined for years.

The ABCL became a legal entity on April 22, 1922, in New York. Before that, Sanger illegally operated a birth control clinic in October 1916, in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, which eventually closed. The clinic serviced the poor immigrants who heavily populated the area–those deemed “unfit” to reproduce.

Sanger’s early writings clearly reflected Malthus’ influence. She writes:

Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

THE REST OF THE STORY

THE NICE VERSION FROM PLANNED PARENTHOOD

I love posting stuff about Liberals and Democrats because they are my favorite peeps!!

1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand

2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented changes in the earth’s climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV’s.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach
4th-graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion Of The Christ for financial gain only.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Edison & A.G. Bell.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and beastiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal..

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.

21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy

I repost because some of you people need to be reminded of these liberals and who they really are if the elections goes the way of the Democrat liberals. 

 by Thomas Sowell - Nov 14, 2002

Now that Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is becoming the Democrats’ House minority leader, she is being celebrated as the first woman to hold such a high post. But she is also being described as a “San Francisco liberal” — which she definitely is. What do San Francisco liberals do? They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so just look at the picture on page 58 of the October 28 issue of Fortune magazine. It shows a small, nondescript wooden house, wedged in between two other houses on a street in San Francisco. The caption reads: “Is this house worth $1.2 million?” San Francisco liberals, like liberals across the country, spend a lot of time talking and wringing their hands about the need for “affordable housing.” Yet, wherever liberals have been politically dominant housing prices are most unaffordable. Liberals proclaim their concern and compassion for minorities and people with low incomes. Yet these are precisely the people who are being forced out of places like San Francisco, which has the highest rents of any city in the country. The black population of San Francisco went down 15 percent between the 1990 census and the 2000 census. The number of children in San Francisco has also gone down, since people young enough to have children can seldom afford San Francisco housing. Despite liberals’ professed concern for the poor, San Francisco is increasingly dominated by the affluent. It has the highest average income of any city in the country. That is not necessarily because San Francisco employers are more generous. People who work in San Francisco, but are not paid high salaries, are likely to be living outside the city — sometimes far outside — and commuting to work.

All these things might be considered to be just unfortunate coincidences, if the same patterns did not appear time and time again, in other places where liberals have ruled the roost for years on end, whether in San Francisco or elsewhere. You can see the same thing in elite college towns like Cambridge, Massachusetts, as well as in Berkeley across the bay from San Francisco or in Palo Alto, adjacent to Stanford University. How do liberals manage to leave so much economic and social havoc in their wake, all the while feeling good about themselves and proclaiming their compassion for the poor, minorities, children and others? Economic illiteracy helps, but liberals are also tied in with environmental zealots who promote sweeping bans on the building of housing, using lovely phrases like “open space” and “protecting the environment.” Since housing is subject to supply and demand, like everything else, stifling the supply is enough to cause home prices and apartment rents to shoot up out of sight. History shows clearly that it was not demand which caused the explosive increase in California housing prices that began in the 1970s. During the decade of the 1970s, when home prices quadrupled in Palo Alto, for example, the population of that city actually declined slightly. The number of children declined so much that several schools in Palo Alto had to be closed. It wasn’t demand that drove the prices up because the average increase in income in California was less than in the rest of the country during the decade when the state pulled way ahead of the rest of the country in the prices of its homes and apartments. Why did housing prices go up then? Because this was the decade when severe land use restrictions spread through those places in California where liberals were politically dominant. Only in the remaining parts of California could you still find the “affordable housing” that liberals talked so much about. In recent years, the closing down of military bases has left great expanses of prime land, with magnificent views, available in and around San Francisco. If all this land could be auctioned off on the open market for the building of housing, it could enrich the city, wipe out the housing shortage and bring down rents and home prices. But congressional liberals and San Francisco liberals have made that impossible. So long as Nancy Pelosi remains in the congressional minority, the rest of the country may escape the effects of San Francisco liberalism. But if such people are ever in the majority, look out! 

REPOST: Good thing we can go back and read some of this stuff…
Now liberals pay attention, I’m reposting this for you because I have been reading some of your blog posts and you people simply are not dealing with reality.

Posted: January 15, 2003
2003 WorldNetDaily.com

On Jan. 13, 2003, former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright blasted President Bush’s handling of North Korea in an interview with The Times of London. She told the paper that “her Republican successors had squandered their inheritance from the Clinton administration and unwisely depicted North Korea as a member of the ‘axis of evil’ with Iran and Iraq.”

A day earlier, former Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger had also blasted the blunt talk from Bush. “This kind of rhetoric just plays into the paranoia of North Korea,” Berger asserted on CNN’s “Late Edition.” Berger also rejected criticism of the Clinton administration’s handling of North Korea: “For some people in this administration, I’m beginning to think that blaming Clinton is a substitute for thinking.”

Thus continues the all-out effort to redeem the 1994 Framework Agreement. Democratic strategists and Clinton apologists understand the stakes. Having been repudiated at the polls in November, Democrats understand that national security issues are likely to dominate the politics of the country for at least a decade, and the Clinton record is the record that all Democrats, but especially Hillary, will have to defend. The trouble is, it cannot be defended. The Clinton administration did almost nothing to contain the menace of al-Qaida, allowed itself and the U.N. to be expelled from Iraq, and oversaw the depletion of the nation’s military readiness. One of the very few “achievements” of the eight years of Clinton “statesmanship” was the North Korean deal. If it turns out to have been a fool’s play, it is going to be very hard to craft the exhibits for the foreign-policy wing of the Clinton Library.

So the defenders of the Clintons have strung together a series of arguments and tactics designed to divert attention from the central question: Had the United States known the North Koreans would embark on the uranium-enrichment program shortly after signing the 1994 deal, would Clinton have signed it? The answer is clearly no, and thus the Clinton administration is revealed to have been trusting of a Stalinist thug who has starved 2 million of his people to death.

Though the Clinton machine was terrible at foreign policy, it was and remains very good at domestic politics, so a close examination of the Clinton crowd’s various arguments is in order.

First, the biggest lie is that the ‘94 deal prevented the production of at least a score of plutonium weapons that would otherwise certainly have been made. This argument requires the reader to forget the various Clinton statements about the possible military options on the table in 1994. Evidently those options didn’t really exist. It was either pay and pay and pay, or watch the bomb assembly line gear up.

A corollary to this argument is that the secret uranium-enrichment program has not produced any weapons and can’t produce any weapons for at least another three years. Of course, this cannot be proved, and even participants in the negotiations leading up to the 1994 deal refuse to rule out that uranium-based weapons have been acquired. So, too, did State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who, on Oct. 17, 2002, was asked if the attempt to enrich the uranium had succeeded. Boucher responded that “It is our assessment that they had a program to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, and that is as far as I can go onto the details.”

Three different sites are believed to be involved in the uranium-enrichment program, and the Washington Times has reported that one CIA estimate puts production capacity as occurring “as soon as mid-decade.” “North Korea already has several nuclear weapons, we believe,” a senior U.S. military official in Seoul told the Los Angeles Times recently. “There is a concern that if they get more, they will sell them to anyone.” Most of the Clinton apologists will admit that North Korea has at least two plutonium weapons, but none will talk much about the secret uranium program and a “worst case” scenario. To do so is to give up any hope of defending the 1994 deal.

We cannot know what has been going on in the remote bunkers and underground labs of the Hermit Kingdom, and the insistence that no real harm has occurred as a result of the secret programs is to again believe the very best scenario out there. Recall that CIA estimates on the Iraqi nuclear program were revealed as far off when the Gulf War ended. That’s the problem with brutal dictatorships – we underestimate their capacity time and time again.

Some of the more brazen partisans have also taken to arguing a variation on the “Bush Knew” attacks of early last year in reference to 9-11. Joshua Micah Marshall at TalkingPoints Memo.com cited the Nelson Report for the assertion that “the Clinton administration first found out about the illicit program in 1999, though at the time the much more pressing issue was North Korea’s ballistic-missile program. Nelson’s reporting makes clear, however, that whatever plan or agreement the previous administration did or didn’t have in the works, they fully briefed the Bush administration on North Korea’s uranium-enrichment program in January 2001.”

If this is true, it destroys the last ounce of credibility of the Clinton team. Recall that Secretary Albright clinked glasses with Kim Jong Il in October 2000 – not the preferred way to discourage dictators from breaking treaties. And if Clinton knew about the cheating, how can anyone defend Clinton’s almost desperate attempt to visit North Korea in the last weeks of his administration? When Clinton finally gave up the idea of a legacy-building state visit, on Dec. 28, 2000, the Washington Post reported that he had concluded that “negotiations on the details of a missile accord had not progressed sufficiently to reward Pyongyang with a visit.”

Clinton issued a statement that said, in part: “Let me emphasize that I believe this process of engagement with North Korea, in coordination with South Korea and Japan, holds great promise and that the United States should continue to build on the progress we have made.”

Only Clinton-haters of the first order could attribute to him, Albright and Berger knowledge of the uranium gambit in light of such statements and actions. He and his team got played for fools and did enormous damage to American security interests, but I cannot believe he would have tried so hard to get to North Korea had he known that he had been duped by his new friends.

Of course, Marshall and Nelson might believe that the Clinton administration was so badly run that the intelligence never made it to Clinton and his secretary of state, but to argue that it did get to Bush but not Clinton is a remarkable leap of logic.

So why would anyone float such a scenario? Again, it is all about diverting attention from the essential naivete of Democrats dealing with dictators.

————————-

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 12:56 p.m. EDT
Albright Blames Iraq War for N.K. Nukes

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Tuesday that President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq encouraged North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il to produce nuclear weapons.

“If I were Kim Jong Il, I would read the message of the invasion of Iraq,” Albright told Fox News Channel’s “Hannity & Colmes.”

That message, she said, was: ”’If I don’t have nuclear weapons, I get invaded. And if I do, I don’t get invaded’ – because we didn’t invade the Soviet Union or China.”

Albright said White House chief of staff Andrew Card was wrong when he claimed on Sunday that Pyongyang had acquired nuclear weapons during the Clinton administration.

“What we did during our watch was to freeze the nuclear program,” she told Alan Colmes. “And I think intelligence un-skewed has shown that it is in the last three years that this nuclear capability of North Korea has emerged.”

Last September, however, Albright admitted that North Korea had duped the Clinton administration, and that Kim Jong Il began to acquire nuclear weapons on her watch.

“What they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating,” she told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

By Perry L. Glanzer - The American Spectator 

Imagine the local librarian telling your teenager, “If you and your friends reserve a room and use our Internet connection to view pornography, the library will not interfere. Please remember, however, that you cannot hold a religious worship service in the room.” Problematic? The Contra Costa Library Commission does not seem to think so.

The Contra Costa Library Commission supports the efforts of the American Library Association to resist any government efforts to filter or monitor its Internet systems. In 2003, it even passed a resolution proclaiming that it “opposes the use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information.”

Of course, at the time it already had no problem using government power to suppress religious worship on its premises. It maintained a policy that library rooms “should not be used for religious services.” While the East Contra Costa Democratic Club, the Sierra Club, or Narcotics Anonymous could meet without fear of viewpoint discrimination, religious worshippers could not.

Thus, one year later when the Faith Center Church Evangelistic Ministries held a “Women of Excellence” conference which included a praise and worship service, the library staff told them to cease and desist. It also canceled their future meeting scheduled in the library. The library could put up with people talking about saving the environment or the nation but it could not stomach allowing anyone to preach about saving souls. Apparently that is taking tolerance and religious liberty too far.

The local county attorney defended the library by claiming, “Had we said Christians can use this but Jews can’t, that would be discrimination,” but “religious worship services is a category of speech that we are allowed to exclude.” This sounds like someone from a country club saying, “We do not discriminate against African-Americans, Latinos or women, we just do not allow them to talk about certain subjects here.”

At first, a district court ruled the prohibition an obvious case of religious discrimination, but last month two Ninth Circuit judges overruled the District Court. There is nothing wrong with prohibiting religious worship in a limited public forum, they argued, as long as the rule is consistently enforced. Plus, they maintained that a library is meant for “the acquisition of knowledge through reading, writing and quiet contemplation,” and it should not be allowed to be “transformed into an occasional house of worship.”

So if a group of Catholic monks asked for a room for quiet contemplation and reading of the Bible, would that be worship? Of course, this is really the heart of the matter. Does the government now get to define and regulate religious worship? Would a devout Muslim hoping to reserve a room for prayer also be prohibited from using the room? When would a talk by a local pastor become a worship service? If there is anything the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was meant to forbid is the government defining what religious worship is and is not.

What the library should regulate, of course, is what librarians have always regulated — the volume of a meeting. In fact, it appears that this was the real problem in this case. The worship was loud. Unfortunately, instead of giving a usual library “shhh!” Contra Costa requested and will now continue to ask religious believers, “Please take your worship outside where it belongs.” If I ever get caught holding a prayer meeting with some friends in Contra County Library, however, I may be tempted to respond, “Oh, we’re just discussing the porn we’re viewing through your internet connection.” Unfortunately, the Contra County Commission will likely say, “Whew, for a moment I thought you were holding a religious service!”

ht: Right Wing News 

Fred Phelps and the rest of his God Hates F*gs lunatics have cancelled their plans to protest at the funeral of those Amish children killed by a deranged gunman:

 

“A Kansas church group that planned to demonstrate at the funerals of five Amish girls killed in an attack on their one-room schoolhouse has dropped the picket plans, a reversal that came hours after Pennsylvania’s governor offered the Amish police protection. 

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church issued a statement today saying a representative will appear on a nationally syndicated radio talk show hosted by Mike Gallagher instead of picketing the funerals.

Gallagher’s website indicated the group was offered an hour of airtime tomorrow in exchange for dropping the planned demonstration.

…In a statement on its website, the church blamed Rendell for the deaths of the Amish children because of comments he made about the Westboro group on national television several months ago.

“They’re insane,” Rendell responded when asked about the group’s statement.”

 

Mike Gallagher is a real hero here for keeping these monsters from ruining the funerals of those little girls. On the other hand, he has to have these pieces of human garbage on his show for an entire hour. Yeesh, poor guy…

ARTICLE LINK

LEXAPRO SITE 

According to a Dallas police report obtained by News 8, Dallas Cowboys star receiver Terrell Owens attempted suicide Tuesday night.

The report says Owens, 32, was depressed and reportedly took prescription pain pills. Owens broke his right hand in a Sept. 17 game against the Washington Redskins.

A woman told police she observed Owens putting two pills in his mouth.

According to the police narrative, the woman said the prescription of 40 pills was filled on September 18 and—until Tuesday—Owens had taken only five pills.

The police report said Owens was asked if he had taken the rest of the prescription; Owens said, “Yes.”

According to the report, police also asked if he was trying to harm himself. Owens answered, “Yes.”

Owens was treated at Baylor University Medical Center.

“This is stunning news; obviously and incredibly surprising that a man in this position would reach this level of depression,” said WFAA-TV sports director Dale Hansen. “There’s something terribly wrong here, and hopefully we’ll find out as the day goes on.”

Hansen said a source at the Cowboys’ Valley Ranch headquarters told him that doors to all offices were closed.

A Dallas Cowboys spokesman told News 8 the team has no comment on the police report, nor is any news conference scheduled.

The player’s publicist didn’t immediately return calls for comment.

Owens, one of the league’s top receivers during his 11-year NFL career, is best known for wild stunts on the field and other publicity-seeking antics off it.

When the Cowboys signed him to a $25 million, three-year deal in March, they said their background checks indicated no red flags. In fact, team consultant Calvin Hill—who mostly deals with troubled players—said during training camp that his department was not involved with Owens because he didn’t have a history of those kinds of problems.

Dallas police officials said they were planning a news conference later Monday, but did not immediately release a time. A hospital spokeswoman said early Wednesday there was no patient registered as Terrell Owens, although federal privacy laws allow people to block their name from being released.

 I’m sorry I found the article amusing, plus it gave me an excuse to post a pic of Elin.
So golfers tend to marry blonde bimbo types, so does many other athletes, oh hell so does every other rich dude with enough zeros in his bank account. 

Tiger Woods has reacted with fury after a Dublin magazine printed topless photos of a woman which it wrongly claimed it was the superstar golfer’s wife.

Woods and the United States team are said to be “appalled” by the article in the latest issue of the Dubliner, which portrays the players’ wives and girlfriends as cheap on the eve of the Ryder Cup.

The photograph purporting to be of Woods’s wife Elin Nordegren appears in the September issue of the listings magazine. Under the headline “Ryder Cup filth for Ireland” is a picture of a topless woman.

The article continues: “Most American golfers are married to women who cannot keep their clothes on in public. Is it too much to ask that they leave them at home for the Ryder Cup?

“Consider the evidence - Tiger Woods’s wife Elin Nordegren - pictured left - can be found in a variety of sweaty poses on porn sites across the web…”

But the photo is not of the 26-year-old Swedish model. Sources close to the American team said Woods was dismayed at the publication and other members of the US side were very unhappy.

It goes on to claim that Chad Campbell’s wife Amy is a ” largechested singer” and suggests that Jim Furyk’s wife Tabitha ” married geeky Jim as his winnings hit £10 million”. The piece also says Sonya Toms, wife of David, finds it “liberating” to wear her bikini around the house.

The magazine has been banned from the team’s hotel.

Both sets of wives were today scheduled to attend a lunch in their honour during a Ryder Cup Race Day at the Curragh course.

The controversy comes as the WABs (Wives and Birdies) have pledged to maintain a low profile.

THE WOMEN OF DUBLIN? NO WONDER THEY IS PLAYA HATIN’