politicalpartypoop.com

The US state of New Jersey is to weigh apologizing for its role in the slave trade, under a bill to be considered by lawmakers Thursday, more than 200 years after the state abolished the practice.If approved, the bill would make New Jersey the fifth US state to issue such an apology but the first among the northern anti-slavery states that formed the Union side in the US civil war from 1861-1865.

The text of the bill “expresses New Jersey’s profound regret for its role in slavery and apologizes for wrongs inflicted by slavery and its after effects in the United States.”

The “slave states” of Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia apologized last year for their slave-trading past. Maryland, however, fought on the northern side in the war.

New Jersey became the last northern state to abolish slavery in 1804, but the gradual law meant that the practice was not completely eradicated there until 1846, while slavery was not officially abolished nationwide until 1865.

Former (Black) president Bill Clinton expressed his “regrets” over the US role in the slave trade and President George W. Bush described it as “one of the greatest crimes of history,” but there has never been an official US government apology.

I’m sorry but I can’t pass up a chance to post ridiculous nonsense like politicians and gubments issuing these jackass apologies for slavery.
I found this particular proposed apology from New Jersey particularly amusing.
One of the most crime ridden, drug infested ghetto cesspools of Negrodom areas in the country will take the time to apologize for slavery while operating one of the most corrupt state gubments in the country.
Clean the fucken streets, educate and find black folks jobs. I’m so sick of these bullshit pandering apologies. I’m sure some crazy old Negro activist is pushing this, only old tired former civil rights retreads find these asinine slavery apologies heart warming.
Our own idiot fuck Senator Sam Brownback promised such a resolution if he were president.
Yes liberal black folks like to be pandered too, throw dem a few bones and some figurative political table scraps and any liberal politician can guarantee winning some votes.
But I still say if you people want to send me a gubment check for my “non” participation in slavery, shit I’ll take it. The Negro part of my background will appreciate it.

Michelle has this update

The Times of London follows up:

A British teacher facing 40 lashes in Sudan over a school teddy bear named Muhammad will discover today whether she will be charged with blasphemy.Gillian Gibbons, 54, is being questioned for a second day by police in Khartoum on suspicion of insulting Islam’s prophet for allowing her seven-year-old pupils to give the toy the name of the prophet.

She was moved to a cell at the CID Criminal Police Exploration Bureau for further questioning. A file on the case will be sent to the department of public prosecutions and a judge should decide today whether she should be charged.

Robert Boulos, the director of Unity High School, the British school where Ms Gibbons worked, said that she was in “very high spirits and being treated well”.

Interrogated and jailed over a bunch of stuffed animals.

Where is Amnesty International?

If it isn’t cartoons or Western fast-food joints or Valentine’s day cards or beauty pageants or books or speeches or Playboy magazines or soccer balls that have the Religion of Perpetual Outrage up in arms, it’s something else. It’s always something. You can never assuage the unassuageable. You can never anticipate what pretext they’ll use next to claim “insult” and demand submission. Today, it’s teddy bears. Yes, teddy bears. The Times of London reports:

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.

Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at her lodgings at Khartoum’s Unity High School yesterday, accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.

Her colleagues said that they feared for her safety after reports that groups of young men had gathered outside the Khartoum police station where she was taken and were shouting death threats…

…Teachers at the school, in central Khartoum only a mile from the River Nile, said that Ms Gibbons had made an innocent mistake by letting her pupils choose their favourite name for the toy as part of a school project.

Read the rest of this crazy shit here

Found this on Newsbusters

Guess I won’t be calling Mika Brzezinski a “newsreader” again anytime soon. She went to Iowa over the weekend and scored an in-depth interview with Michelle Obama that included a highly-controversial suggestion from the candidate’s wife.

According to Mrs. Obama, her husband isn’t polling better among African-Americans because in the back of their minds, many blacks think “others” are better.

View video here.

I remember an episode of Sanford and Son as a little kid, where Fred had to go to the doctor, or dentist I think and he “insisted” that his doc be not only white, but a Jew. Yes that is a fictional show but I’m telling y’all this is very real in the black community. Amongst our own folks anything black is typically inferior.

Quickly my own personal take, for several years prior to moving I had a black doctor and dentist. I had a great relationship with them and they were decent dudes in all but it wasn’t until I moved and found a really good young, white female doctor that I discovered I has some serious health issues that somehow were missed by my brotha docs.
Long story short, the “discovery” of my diabetes, and high blood pressure, more detailed analysis of some of my chronic back pains, more detailed discovery and analysis of my diet and need for exercise.
More detailed test on my eyes and minor skin problems, what I’m getting at folks is why did my new community and hence my new docs do FAR more detailed scrutiny that my much older experienced black docs, who should have been more versed in these ailments typically found in black males?

Let me tell you, I had the same “black is inferior” complex, but I went to many of the black health care professionals mostly out of let’s just say “community pressure” and at the time political expediency. I worked in the black community on a number of issues and I was a visible presence particularly working on community health issues, and I wanted to show support for black health care professionals.

Again what does this have to do with black supporting Obama? Well I guarantee you much of what Mrs. Obama discusses in this interview is part of why dude is not getting near as much political support from blacks as maybe he should.

NOW having said that, as dude says at the end of the video clip “blacks are under no obligation to support him, based solely on his race.” That would just be stupid. Also Hillary was married to “the first black president,” and black folks are very loyal, LOL!

Again, what I have said in another post today and have been saying all along, a black man has ZERO chance of being president. And make no mistake I’m not the only black dude who would say this. I’m just up front about it, whereas most black people would keep this to themselves or would only say this only in the company of other black people.

Michelle Obama is going to get some big time grief for spilling black folks business into the streets. But this black inferiority complex shit is “fo real!” Obama is just another casualty of this ongoing psychological struggle in the minds of way too many black folks.

A great deal of blacks, typically the “less educated” will hitch to that Hillary train no matter what.
They know that train will take them much further in their minds. Black folks you see are “limited” in how far they can go.

Found on the blog Flopping Aces,  amazing!

I read this piece and I had to doublecheck to see if it didn’t come from The Onion.  I find it hard to believe that this can be happening in the United States.  What will come next?  Hauling students off to the gulag who refuse to be “re-educated?”

The University of Delaware subjects students in its residence halls to a shocking program of ideological reeducation that is referred to in the university’s own materials as a “treatment” for students’ incorrect attitudes and beliefs.

 The Orwellian program requires the approximately 7,000 students in Delaware’s residence halls to adopt highly specific university-approved views on issues ranging from politics to race, sexuality, sociology, moral philosophy, and environmentalism. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is calling for the total dismantling of the program, which is a flagrant violation of students’ rights to freedom of conscience and freedom from compelled speech…The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations.

Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

Read the rest

Lot’s of blogging on this:
Hot Air: FIRE: U of Delaware student indoctrination teaches that all white people are racist

Sister Toldjah: Taking indoctrination to a whole new level

Right Voices: “You have the right to free speech as long as the liberals approve of the message. You can have free thought, just as long as you think what the liberals want you to think.”

Mac’s Mind: “Nevertheless, it’s not so amazing that this type of thought policing happens at our colleges, but it is amazing that the dumbasses at this school are blatant about it.”

I’m not gonna dwell on this too much because most of you could care less, but when people tell me that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans I cringe because anybody who tells me that simply is not paying attention.

Yes I understand the illusions put forth by certain individuals from each party confuse the masses and sometimes blurs that line between the two parties. Like a liberal putting a moderate face on an issue to appease his or her constituents or a camouflaged “conservative” who is really a closet gay liberal *coughCraigcough* because he comes from redneck land and they don’t take too kindly to “dem homo sexual types.”

But this is the kind of things that matter to me, dangerous people like Rep. Henry Waxman. Ignore this kind of lunacy at your own peril.
Say you don’t give a fuck because there are more important things, but to say that this behavior is ok or acceptable then this country is more fucked up than I thought.

from Rush

Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine.’

‘Limbaugh isn’t the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio,’ says a House leadership source. ‘We don’t have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this [is] all political, and we’ll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail.’”

So what does this mean? It means that Henry Waxman, who runs the government oversight committee, has officially, or is going to, begin investigations of me and Hannity and Levin.He is going to have his staff, paid for with your tax dollars, listen to these programs and review transcripts and report back to him. For what? Irregularities that they might hear on this program? What do we have here, folks? Henry Waxman believes that Congress, and his committee in particular, has, as its jurisdiction, the control of content of the airwaves in this country? He wants to use his position — he wants to use the Democrat Party and the power of government — to control speech content. Now, we’ve had people throwing the word “patriotism” around here. Forget the word “patriotism.”

 Have you ever heard of anything as un-American as this? These are the same people who are trying to destroy Bush’s spy program to catch terrorists in the act before they commit the act, as “spying on innocent Americans.” It’s unfair; it’s violating civil rights. They want all these ex-White House officials to come up and talk about this. Yet the very same people, Waxman and his bunch, have instructed the “investigators on his staff” to monitor this program. The Constitution prohibits this. It specifically prohibits this. You know, I honestly believe Henry Waxman would be just as comfortable as a hack member of the Venezuelan parliament working side by side with Hugo Chavez. It’s a puppet operation down there, the parliament is.

More here: Dem Thuggery Directed Toward Talk Radio

This is political hardball being played at the street level. The Democrat controlled Congress is putting conservative talk radio hosts on notice that unless they mute their criticism, they may very well find themselves out of a job sometime soon.

Ok, I’m scanning through various sites and I find this article by the BBC entitled: Che: The icon and the ad.

Here is the first portion of the article:

Che Guevara, his eyes framed by heavy brows, a single-starred beret pulled over his unruly hair, stares out of the shot with glowering intensity.It’s now 40 years since the Argentine-born rebel was shot dead, so any young radicals who cheered on his revolutionary struggles in Cuba and Bolivia are well into middle age.

But the image has been infinitely repeated - emblazoned on T-shirts and sprayed on to walls, transformed into pop art and used to wrap ice-creams and sell cigarettes - and its appeal has not faded.

“There is no other image like it. What other image has been sustained in this way?” asks Trisha Ziff, the curator of a touring exhibition on the iconography of Che.

“Che Guevara has become a brand. And the brand’s logo is the image, which represents change. It has becomes the icon of the outside thinker, at whatever level - whether it is anti-war, pro-green or anti-globalisation,” she says.

Read the rest of the article here if you wish.

Now after I finished laughing at another example of liberals never ending search for symbolic images to inspire themselves and to present a “cool” image to others, I could not help but to be inspired by the gospel according to Chris, now I’m not picking on him, but frankly his words inspire me. I wish I had more participants on this site that would be more participatory and express more heart felt opinions. As Mrs. Snoop can attest nothing motivates me more that to be challenged on my principles.

What few people know outside those who frequent this blog is my views on the world have changed very little since I was very young. I got to my way of thinking by observing and paying attention to the world around me, by being a realist about how to interpret what I see, what people say, how they say it, what I read and WHY was it written.

Ah I miss the days on Lawrence.com and the heated political and societal exchanges that took place for a time.
More constant rants were followed up by my dear daughter-in-law suggesting that I start my own blog and more than two years later here I am ranting, news aggregating but most of all learning.

Back to Mr. Che; the link to the Che article was accompanied by a picture of Jay-Z on stage performing proudly wearing “Che fashion” designs. Frankly any black person wearing Che garb is exceedingly clueless, but who am I to judge.

I am reminded back in the day when clueless black folks would wear Malcolm X fashions, t-shirts, necklaces, ball caps, ect and when I first noticed the trend I use to think to myself are some of these fools wearing this stuff particularly when it was highly unlikely that many of the people wearing the garb even know who the hell Malcolm X was or what he stood for.
Black folks also were fond of African fashions as well, the fact that Africa comprises 46 countries is of course irrelevant, not to mention that most black “Africans” have little respect and show contempt for black folks here in America.
Yes I know, “Snoop we is just connecting with our homeland!”

Funny thing tho, you rarely saw folks sporting Martin Luther King merchandise, but he was a peaceful soul, refused to blame whitey, saw a future where we will be judge not by the color of our skin but the content of our character.

However according to Chris; “anyone who denies their own ethnic identity is denying themselves.”
Not to go into why I found that line of thinking irrelevant years ago, but way too many of us need some sort of symbolism to define ourselves. Whether it’s our particular faith, our political leanings or something as superficial as what sports team we cheer for or what body part we need to tattoo or pierce. Others use the flag (U.S.) , or a flag (confederate) other use their ethnicity.
The problem with black folks is we deny the other parts of who we are and ONLY promote the pigment portion of who we are.

Never mind that, again, back to Che; I find is an exceedingly ridiculous symbol, nevertheless his image is prominently displayed at virtually every liberal protest or anti-American rally.
As I am hammering this post out I’m thinking do the people who wear the Che icon even know who the fuck he was?
Now I know the people who can tolerate my grammatically flawed rants here are exceedingly educated, however in case someone read this who is not familiar with our friend Che…

“Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!”
“Hatred as an element of struggle; unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine. This is what our soldiers must become … “Che Guevara

I find it fascinating that liberals believe that “Man” is innately good. The good just has to be encouraged by unrestrained personal license and therapy. So, evils like (Che),  crime and terrorism cannot be simply condemned as evil. Liberals have to look for a “politically-correct” root cause for wrongdoing.

Popular scapegoats for Liberals are: “Poverty” (even when that poverty is the fruit of a dysfunctional society unwilling to adapt to new realities), “Racism”(which might limit one’s opportunities but doesn’t lead directly to criminal behavior), “Zionism” (the Jews always make a convenient scapegoat), “Colonialism” (even though most of the colonial empires educated their subjects and built enough infrastructure for said former subjects to make a better go at modern statehood than they otherwise could have), or “Alienation” ( a convenient dodge for those who lack ambition, a work ethic, or any sense of personal responsibility).

Therefore, the United States, being relatively rich, powerful, and the world’s policeman must be the cause of all the world’s ills. The solution is to hand our American sovereignty and military over to the Che’s of the world.

Supporting Che was just about making a statement - of sticking it to companies, America and the West.
Making Che Guevara into someone worthy of admiration is the most successful thing the ‘Left’ has managed to do in the past fifty years. Forget the fact that this is the man, who had no shame in murdering innocent civilians, was a major human rights violator, and put gays (who were ‘deviants’), religious minorities and other undesirables into concentration camps.
I can hear some of you ranting “Oh but Snoop you clearly don’t understand”; ok I’m trying to write this piece with a straight face.

How can Liberals make such a morally ignorant symbol? It’s really quite simple. First off, to a liberal, history is mutable. History to be valid has to be reinterpreted by each generation and by each “oppressed minority”. You end up with no history at all, unless it is in the Orwellian sense of constant reinvention to suit the causes of the immediate present.

Facts don’t matter much either. Facts are hard and cold, results don’t matter, only intentions. How else can a bloody-handed murderer like Che Guevara still remain a cool lefty icon? So what if Castro runs real gulags and Guevara was his hangman? Castro brought free health care and education to Cuba.

It’s all about emotions. Liberals have to be constantly outraged,  they feel the need to express their outrage by outraging others. Why else would a picture of a crucifix and a beaker of piss be considered great art and a murderous human being is considered a fashion statement.

However I am scolded once again because I foolishly believe that my political ideals and values are manufactured and I engage in “conservative negro hysterics.” I just don’t have a suitable symbol for my hysterics.

Well then I guess I need a “symbol” that I can wear to proudly show the world my conservative Negro hysterics, maybe a Booker T. Washington t-shirt!