Thursday, January 29, 2009

Bitch 1 says..............

What has happened in the last two days stretches the imagination; Obama speaks to the Arab Street, speaking first on Arabiya before he even gives his first State of the Union address, to the leaders of which including al queda give him a thumbs up, saying "it's a step in the right direction." A step in which direction? In a year Iran will have the capacity, if not the finished product to build fourteen nuclear weapons and they have sworn to eliminate Israel form the planet. What does anyone think will happen when negotiation, when Obama's pandering to our enemies fails? And it will fail; the greater of Europe may kneel to their muslim oppressors but America will not, and we invented nuclear warfare. It was not lost upon us that for the first time in our history, a new president invoked an enemy with American blood on their hands. We will not mourn a few million deaths in Tehran. If one remembers Obama's campaign speeches regarding Iran he is not opposed to full confrontation, and maybe this is really what he wants. But then we know him to be a liar. Last Memorial Day he told the nation how proud he was that an "uncle" in the armed forces during WWII had marched into Auschwitz to liberate. His father was African and his mother was an only child, nevermind Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians. The "bailout." At least more conservatives had the intellectual decency to say "hey, this is NOT a good idea, let's think it over." Today the liberals embraced their savior and damned a nation to years of deficit spending on MORE GOVERNMENT. Only eleven dems in the house and senate had the balls to oppose it, all of the republicans opposing but the mob ruled. "Go along to get along," ask a surviving German of nazism and see what they think about the statement.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Obama Give His First Television Interview As President To The Muslim World

The Obama Presidency, World NewsPrintShareText SizeAAACAIRO, Egypt (Jan. 27) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, delivering a message to the Muslim world that "Americans are not your enemy."
The interview underscored Obama's commitment to repair relations with the Muslim world that have suffered under the previous administration.
President Barack Obama sat down with Al-Arabiya, an Arab TV network, for his first formal TV interview. In that interview, Obama said he wanted to have a better partnership between America and the Muslim world.

The president expressed an intention to engage the Middle East immediately and his new envoy to the region, former Sen. George J. Mitchell, was expected to arrived in Egypt on Tuesday for a visit that will also take him to Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy," Obama told the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based Al-Arabiya news channel.
Obama said the U.S. had made mistakes in the past but "that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that."
During his presidency, former President George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.
Obama called for a new partnership with the Muslim world "based on mutual respect and mutual interest." He talked about growing up in Indonesia, the Muslim world's most populous nation, and noted that he has Muslim relatives.
lets talk about who he gave his interview too Dubai-based Al-Arabiya new channel. Dubai is a tiny Arab state its spending billions to buy American business and stakes in major US. Corporations .In the last 2yrs Dubai has been investing in Nasdaq 20 % stake, damiler -Chrysler 2% ,New York landmarks and put 5 million into the MGM in Vegas. Th list goes on and on . Dubai, if your Jewish wont let you in their country if you even visited Israel and its on your passport they wont let you in Dubai also actively involved in the Arab boycott of Israel it bans all products made in Israel
Bill Clinton has made 1.2 million for several speeches that he's given in Dubai and the UAE.
More than half of the 9/11 hijackers traveled to the U.S. via Dubai.Even more damning the 9/11 commission report noted that 234,500 of the 300,000 wired to the hijackers and plot leads in America came via Dubia banks notably the Standard bank
in which the Dubai goverment owns a stake. The terroists airline tickets were bought with this money
Dubai has American lobbyist working for this country to promote it as a modern , sophisticated counrty .When they are anti-semetic , anti-women and anti-worker
Of course as of this morning our two big newpapers have nothing about Obama's interview online.

Monday, January 26, 2009

Chicago Corruption Like father Like Son

The Hired Truck Program was a scandal-plagued program in the city of Chicago that involved hiring private trucks to do city work. It was overhauled in 2004 (and phased out beginning in 2005) after an investigation by the Chicago Sun-Times revealed that some participating companies were being paid for doing little or no work, had mob connections or were tied to city employees. Truck owners also paid bribes in order to get into the program[1].

The Hired Truck Program officially came to an end Monday, September 18, 2006. At the end of the work day on Friday, September 15, 2006, the final eight Hired Trucks were laid off permanently.

Lets go back to an article I found from 1964 :
Almost every week details revealed of a new scandal. This week it is the story of how supervisors & other employees of the city departments make huge profits by renting fleets of trucks to the city. Some of the city payrollers direct their fleets in air conditioned Cadillacs others drive trucks in their private businesses while they should be doing work for which they are paid by the city.
The phony job titles, the fake overtime payments the prevaling wage racket and the contracts to political favorite.
How long are the taxpayers going to put up with this
Article 1961 : Daley defends his administration in the face of charges by a republican leader that it is a political machine which breeds corruption
They asked in 1964 how long are the taxpayers going to put up with it.
Fourty-Five years later things haven't changed!

Our President told the GOP to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh

Friday, January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

This is scary !!! And take a look at what else our new president said
"I won" he said "I will trump you on that " to an objection on a proposal.
We are in Big trouble and I would like to Thank all the liberal drones that voted for him. He had absolutely no experience the only thing he did was register 150,000 people to vote when he was a community organizer according to his own website. When he was in the senate in 2004 he voted "present " instead of making a decision when he wasnt promoting his books.
Why is he qualified to be our president ?
Don't any drones think it odd that the first thing our new presdient did was to close Gitmo? Is closing Gitmo more important than our economic issues?

Sunday, January 25, 2009


I watched Ann Coulter promote her new book "GUILTY" on the view . As one would expect when Ann Coulter brought up the issue about single mothers and the burden it takes on society the liberal hosts were not happy. The facts are that Ann Coulter couldn't be more right about this issue . This should be every Americans concern because we as taxpayers are burdened with taking care of these unwed mothers & their children. Why aren't these mothers held accountable for the choices they make. In Coulters book she writes " we reinforce the idea that single motherhood is just rotten luck " These women choose to have children out of wedlock its their choice and we are paying for it. Almost every woman I have come into contact with while working is a single mother and not just one child but multiple with different fathers. The best prediction of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single mother. We have to pay for that too with our tax dollars. In doing some research I found that 90% of welfare recipents are single mothers. In 2008study Of Illinois % of females head of households living in poverty 61.5% of the 1.3 million total households in poverty in Illinois. The cost for taxpayers in Illinois for single mothers is 2 BILLION annually . In a 2008 study by Georgia University they found that single mothers unwed or divorced cost us taxpayers 112 BILLION every year.
Liberals respond that its society fault for getting pregnant and we should have more instruction for birth control.Our teenagers are more informed about sex & birth control than ever before. Everyone of these guys you stop on the streets have condoms but dont use the damn things.
These single mothers blame the men for this problem but it takes to to tango and blame needs to be put on these single mothers. Ann Coulter said it best"that single mothers breed a huge underclass 1/2 of single mothers live below poverty and the underclass see themselves as the passive victims of circumstance with no control over their own lives."
Before I could see how so many women ended up pregnant because of a lack of information but now it taught in every school they can get free birthcontrol.
My solution : Stop having sex or if you do make sure you have birth control . Get and education , get married and make sure you can support the child before you have one
Quit relying on the goverment to give you money for a choice you made .

Friday, January 23, 2009

BIZZAROVICH Drinking the Kool-Aid again

BIZZAROVICH compares himself to a cowboy. How did he get elected

He has chosen not to mount any defense in the Senate impeachment trial that begins Monday and could remove him from office within days. He may ask the Illinois Supreme Court to block the trial, arguing its rules are hopelessly biased against him.
Blagojevich, a fan of Western movies, drew a long analogy Friday between his situation and that of a cowboy falsely accused of stealing a horse. His story ended with one cowboy suggesting the accused thief be hanged, with the other suggesting he first be tried, then hanged.
"Under these rules, I'm not even getting a fair trial; they're just hanging me. And when they hang me under these rules that prevent due process, they're hanging the 12 million people of Illinois who twice have elected a governor," he said.
The Democratic governor told The Associated Press on Thursday night that he's willing to sacrifice himself for principle by standing up to lawmakers he believes are violating the Illinois Constitution. "The fight will continue," he said


Obama reverses Bush abortion-funds policy By MATTHEW LEE and LIZ SIDOTI, AP
posted: 12 MINUTES AGOcomments: 270PrintShareText SizeAAAWASHINGTON -President Barack Obama on Friday struck down the Bush administration's ban on giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide abortion information — an inflammatory policy that has bounced in and out of law for the past quarter-century.
Obama's move, the latest in an aggressive first week reversing contentious Bush policies, was warmly welcomed by liberal groups and denounced by abortion rights foes.
The ban has been a political football between Democratic and Republican administrations since GOP President Ronald Reagan first adopted it 1984. Democrat Bill Clinton ended the ban in 1993, but Republican George W. Bush re-instituted it in 2001 as one of his first acts in office.
"For too long, international family planning assistance has been used as a political wedge issue, the subject of a back and forth debate that has served only to divide us," Obama said in a statement released by the White House. "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate."
He said the ban was unnecessarily broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
"In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world," the president said.
Obama issued the presidential memorandum rescinding the Bush policy without coverage by the media, late Friday afternoon. The abortion measure is a highly emotional one for many people, and the quiet signing was in contrast to the televised coverage of Obama's announcement Wednesday on ethics rules and Thursday's signing of orders on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and banning torture in the questioning of terror suspects.
His action came one day after the 36th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.
The Bush policy had banned U.S. taxpayer money, usually in the form of Agency for International Development funds, from going to international family planning groups that either offer abortions or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion as a family planning method.
Critics have long held that the rule unfairly discriminates against the world's poor by denying U.S. aid to groups that may be involved in abortion but also work on other aspects of reproductive health care and HIV/AIDS, leading to the closure of free and low-cost rural clinics.
Supporters of the ban say that the United States still provides millions of dollars in family planning assistance around the world and that the rule prevents anti-abortion taxpayers from backing something they believe is morally wrong.
The ban has been known as the "Mexico City policy" for the city a U.S. delegation first announced it at a U.N. International Conference on Population.
Both Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will oversee foreign aid, had promised to do away with the rule during the presidential campaign.
Clinton said Friday evening that for seven years Bush's policy made it more difficult for women around the world to gain access to essential information and health care services. "Rather than limiting women's ability to receive reproductive health services, we should be supporting programs that help women and their partners make decisions to ensure their health and the health of their families," Clinton said.
In a related move, Obama also said he would restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA). Both he and Clinton had pledged to reverse a Bush administration determination that assistance to the organization violated U.S. law known as the Kemp-Kasten amendment.
Obama, in his statement, said he looked forward to working with Congress to fulfill that promise: "By resuming funding to UNFPA, the U.S. will be joining 180 other donor nations working collaboratively to reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance to women in 154 countries."
Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, executive director of the U.N. Population Fund, said: "The president's actions send a strong message about his leadership and his desire to support causes that will promote peace and dignity, equality for women and girls and economic development in the poorest regions of the world."
"We are confident that under the new president's direction, the U.S. will resume its leadership in promoting and protecting women's reproductive health and rights worldwide," Obaid said in a statement issued at U.N. headquarters in New York.
The Bush administration had barred U.S. money from the fund, contending that its work in China supported a Chinese family planning policy of coercive abortion and involuntary sterilization. UNFPA has vehemently denied that it does.
Congress had appropriated $40 million to the UNFPA in the past budget year, but the administration had withheld the money as it had done every year since 2002.
Organizations and lawmakers that had pressed Obama to rescind the Mexico City policy were jubilant.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the move "will help save lives and empower the poorest women and families to improve their quality of life and their future."
"Today's announcement is a very powerful signal to our neighbors around the world that the United States is once again back in the business of good public policy and ideology no longer blunts our ability to save lives around the globe," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Population Action International, an advocacy group, said that the policy had "severely impacted" women's health and that the step "will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Anti-abortion groups and lawmakers condemned Obama's decision.
"I have long supported the Mexico City Policy and believe this administration's decision to be counter to our nation's interests," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
"Coming just one day after the 36th anniversary of the tragic Roe v. Wade decision, this presidential directive forces taxpayers to subsidize abortions overseas — something no American should be required by government to do," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.
Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., called it "morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans to promote abortion around the world."
"President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
Bitch 2 says :Obama is spending our tax dollars to fund abortions in other countries, 40 million to be exact.

When I was younger I didnt believe abortion was wrong this has since changed and I hope I can change some of the minds of women who believe abortion is ok .
There is no reason for a women to have an abortion in the United States we have so many options for birth control on the market and the best of all is the invention of the birth control pill its 99% effective . I do understand that younger women don't have access to a dr who will prescribe the pill but there are other option that are as effect at Walgreens . Women I know that have had abortions sometimes use them as birth control 2 , 3 times dont you think you would have learned a lesson from the first abortion ? .When does human life start I believe it starts at the moment of conception that 3 week old fetus in my mothers womb was me at 19 weeks that was me at 32 weeks that was me . I know all these pro-choice people think that its their body and they can do what they want but who is protecting that baby who doesnt have a say .They didnt ask to be born that was your choice and now you aren't going to give them a choice to live like you have


Obama signs order to close Guantanamo in a year

– President Barack Obama signs a series of executive orders, including one closing of the prison at Guantanamo … WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama began overhauling U.S. treatment of terror suspects Thursday, signing orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, shut down secret overseas CIA prisons, review military war crimes trials and ban the harshest interrogation methods.

With his action, Obama started changing how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans — and overhauling America's image abroad, battered by accusations of the use of torture and the indefinite detention of suspects at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said.

The centerpiece order would close the much-maligned Guantanamo facility within a year, a complicated process with many unanswered questions that was nonetheless a key campaign promise of Obama's. The administration already has suspended trials for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals.

In the other actions, Obama:

_Created a task force to recommend policies on handling terror suspects who are detained in the future. Specifically, the group would look at where those detainees should be housed since Guantanamo is closing.

_Required all U.S. personnel to follow the U.S. Army Field Manual while interrogating detainees. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics. However, a Capitol Hill aide says that the administration also is planning a study of more aggressive interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual — which would create a significant loophole to Obama's action Thursday.

"We believe that the Army Field Manual reflects the best judgment of our military, that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need," Obama said. He said his action reflects an understanding that "we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

A task force will study whether other interrogation guidelines — beyond what's spelled out in the Army manual — are necessary for intelligence professionals in dealing with terror suspects.

But an Obama administration official said that provision should not be considered a loophole that will allow controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" to be re-introduced. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to speak candidly about the administration's thinking.

The order also orders the CIA to close all its existing detention facilities abroad for terror suspects — and prohibits those prisons from being used in the future. The agency has used those secret "black site" prisons around the world to question terror suspects.

_Directed the Justice Department to review the case of Qatar native Ali al-Marri, who is the only enemy combatant currently being held on U.S. soil. The directive will ask the high court for a stay in al-Marri's appeals case while the review is ongoing. The government says al-Marri is an al-Qaida sleeper agent.

An estimated 245 men are being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, most of whom have been detained for years without being charged with a crime. Among the sticky issues the Obama administration has to resolve are where to put those detainees — whether back in their home countries or at other federal detention centers — and how to prosecute some of them for war crimes.

"We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms," Obama said as he signed three executive orders and a presidential directive.

The administration official said Obama's government will not transfer detainees to countries that will mistreat them, including their own home country.

In his first Oval Office signing ceremony, Obama was surrounded by retired senior military leaders. He described them as outstanding Americans who have defended the country — and its ideals
Bitch to says :
Where are we going to put these terrorists ? Maybe president Obama they can become part of your new civilian military force

Monday, January 19, 2009

Disgusting .......But true ......

This is a was in the comment section of SCC
Off topic, but we just wanted to take a moment to thank R A, for all her hard work. Over the last year we saw you put in 75 or 80 hardworking days here at A/4 Rh a. You may not have been appreciated in SOS or Narcotics, but we saw the depth of your dedication. You didn't think we forgot about the time you helped process that in-custody robbery offender, did you? We sometimes heard you comment how much you disliked Superintendent Weis. So we really admire your sense of duty going to work in the Office of the Superintendent. We know you don't want to be there, we know you don't want weekends off or the take home car, but you're making this sacrifice for the department and the Memorial Foundation. We all admire and respect that. In honor of your sacrifice, we'll gladly pick up your share of the handouts and other B.S. around here. We're only short about 20 detectives; what's another one? So good luck in Jody's office kid; you busted your ass here in the "D" for a whole year, showed us you are a top notch detective, and deserve good things. Best of luck organizing "the run" and all the other social events you'll be getting D2A pay to plan for the other folks with weekend day-off groups and take-home cars.

The only thing we ask is that when you get your next meritorious promotion please do not come back to the detective division. Do a few months in 018 or 001 and then head back to 35th Street. It's nothing personal, you've shown us you're a top shelf detective. We just need people to come to work more than three days a week and do some work when they're here.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prostitution is the act of performing sexual activity in exchange for money or goods

Sos given squad car didn't even have to show up @ Homan Sq called in hours
OCD detailed from there to the academy (while other po's doing buys risking their lives ) taking up a spot from someone who deserve's to be there

But what a nice resume without doing a lick of work

You might have Cline & Weis fooled but not everyone else you've worked with We know what your about .....

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Weis Quote from the Suntimes : From this day forward, people are going to have to perform

Crime up, arrests down
2008 STATISTICS | Violent incidents increased, but figures show cops couldn't keep up
January 17, 2009

Chicago homicides, shootings and other violent crime are up. Arrests, gun recoveries and other indicators of police activity are down.

On Friday, Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis officially closed the book on 2008, a year that one alderman said left little to celebrate.

» Click to enlarge image

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis closed the book on 2008 Friday, a year that saw homicides, shootings and other violent crime rise.
(Chris Sweda/Sun-Times)

"He's made mistakes. This is the residual effect of that. He's got good intentions. But it's hard to see anything positive about his reign," said Police Committee Chairman Isaac Carothers (29th).

"When you change all the commanders at once -- and don't give yourself a chance to learn from experienced people -- that gives a jolt to the system. Police officers have told me they don't feel the enthusiasm they once had. They're doing their jobs. But nothing beyond that. They don't have the confidence that he's supporting them."

Weis said Friday he believes he has a dedicated, hardworking force and that he has seen a shift recently.

Homicides are down 31 percent since Dec. 15. Shootings dropped slightly, and gun recoveries nudged up.

It's far from a trend, but Weis said it could be a sign that command changes he made last year put the right people in place.

"We know what to do, we know our domain, and we know our territory,'' Weis said. "2009 is going to be a year of results. This is a year I have to deliver. From this day forward, people are going to have to perform.''

Weis also pointed to a decline in excessive-force complaints and election night as successes. "We were on a worldwide stage that night, and it was an absolute, 100 percent success.''

As for Carothers' criticism about the staff changes, Weis said he promoted career officers capable of taking over their positions. He also noted a recent reorganization, the relaunching of specialized units and creation of a new gang unit as things that will have an impact this year.

Friday's statistics show homicides jumped 15 percent and shootings increased 17 percent in 2008. Shots-fired calls jumped 33 percent; gang disturbance calls went up 18 percent.

At the same time, police made 12 percent fewer overall arrests and 15 fewer felony arrests. Police responses were down 21 percent for gang loitering and 38 percent for gang narcotics loitering. Cops recovered 4 percent fewer guns.

Weis said the increase in the calls for service show the community is placing more trust in the police. As for the drop in arrests, Weis said his first priority is getting crime numbers down. "I'd trade no crime for 10,000 arrests.''

Carothers first raised questions on crime statistics last summer when he put the $310,000-a-year police superintendent on the City Council hot seat to explain a surge in violent crime that boiled over at Taste of Chicago when four people were shot.

He asked Weis about what he called "de-policing," a condition that exists when officers "stop doing their jobs" because they're afraid nobody has their back.

Weis acknowledged that police officers were being less aggressive as violent crime rises for fear of piling up citizen complaints.

In fact, on Friday, Weis reported a 13 percent drop in excessive force complaints. Search warrant complaints also are down.

Weis attributed that to training and education from the new Bureau of Professional Standards -- not to less-aggressive officers.
Related Blog Posts Why You Don't Want To Room With Charlie Weis


Bitch 2 says :
Jody don't you get it we are done. Boy's and Girl's just answer your calls , lock people up only when you have too and maybe write a parker a day. I dont know about you but Im not making Weis look good. What does Jody mean that "people are going to have to perform " is he now threating us !!!!!
Im so sick of this city

Friday, January 16, 2009

Chicago Crime Every Block

Nice tool to check out whats going on in your neighborhood

Thursday, January 15, 2009


White firefighters' race case headed to U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that could strike down laws that give special protections to minorities in the workplace. The case, Ricci vs. Destefano, is an appeal brought by a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn. Here’s the background: The white firefighters had earned the best scores on a civil service test, but didn’t get the promotions they believed they deserved. New Haven later threw out the civil service test and promoted three African Americans to supervisory jobs in the city’s fire department.
The white firefighters sued and a federal judge and the U.S. appeals court ruled for the city, saying federal civil rights law prohibits the use of tests that have a “disproportionate racial impact” on minorities.
But the firefighters took their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing the city of playing “race politics.” The firefighters want the high court to rule that the city must follow an equal treatment standard, without regard to race in testing or promotion policies.
This week, the Bush Administration's Department of Justice announced a lawsuit against the city of Gary, Indiana, alleging that several black emergency medical technicians were hired on the basis of race alone in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- which was passed to combat discrimination against African Americans.
The suit alleges that the city told applicants that they would be offered a job based on the order they were ranked. But city officials seem to have ignored their own ordering and hired six African American applicants who placed lower than the white applicants.
Back to New Haven. There is no question that the white firefighters were discriminated against. They had the higher scores but were not placed in the supervisory roles.
The intent of the New Haven test was not to discriminate against the black firefighters but that was the outcome. Should the outcome matter? That is, should the racial makeup of a fire department reflect the residents it serves and protects?
Is there an argument to be made about the benefits of having a diverse fire department? One could argue that it's important to have a racially diverse police department because residents may be more forthcoming with information to solve a crime if they're talking to officers who look like them. Is there a similar argument to be made of a city's fire department?
One last thing, the Obama administration can intervene in this case. What should it do? The case is expected to go before the Supreme Court in April.
I’d like to hear from you.


History will show that George W Bush was right
The American lady who called to see if I would appear on her radio programme was specific. "We're setting up a debate," she said sweetly, "and we want to know from your perspective as a historian whether George W Bush was the worst president of the 20th century, or might he be the worst president in American history?"

By Andrew Roberts Last Updated: 4:51PM GMT 15 Jan 2009
Comments 456 Comment on this article

George W Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth Photo: AP
"I think he's a good president," I told her, which seemed to dumbfound her, and wreck my chances of appearing on her show.
In the avalanche of abuse and ridicule that we are witnessing in the media assessments of President Bush's legacy, there are factors that need to be borne in mind if we are to come to a judgment that is not warped by the kind of partisan hysteria that has characterised this issue on both sides of the Atlantic.
The first is that history, by looking at the key facts rather than being distracted by the loud ambient noise of the 24-hour news cycle, will probably hand down a far more positive judgment on Mr Bush's presidency than the immediate, knee-jerk loathing of the American and European elites.
At the time of 9/11, which will forever rightly be regarded as the defining moment of the presidency, history will look in vain for anyone predicting that the Americans murdered that day would be the very last ones to die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the US from that day to this.
The decisions taken by Mr Bush in the immediate aftermath of that ghastly moment will be pored over by historians for the rest of our lifetimes. One thing they will doubtless conclude is that the measures he took to lock down America's borders, scrutinise travellers to and from the United States, eavesdrop upon terrorist suspects, work closely with international intelligence agencies and take the war to the enemy has foiled dozens, perhaps scores of would-be murderous attacks on America. There are Americans alive today who would not be if it had not been for the passing of the Patriot Act. There are 3,000 people who would have died in the August 2005 airline conspiracy if it had not been for the superb inter-agency co-operation demanded by Bush after 9/11.
The next factor that will be seen in its proper historical context in years to come will be the true reasons for invading Afghanistan in October 2001 and Iraq in April 2003. The conspiracy theories believed by many (generally, but not always) stupid people – that it was "all about oil", or the securing of contracts for the US-based Halliburton corporation, etc – will slip into the obscurity from which they should never have emerged had it not been for comedian-filmmakers such as Michael Moore.
Instead, the obvious fact that there was a good case for invading Iraq based on 14 spurned UN resolutions, massive human rights abuses and unfinished business following the interrupted invasion of 1991 will be recalled.
Similarly, the cold light of history will absolve Bush of the worst conspiracy-theory accusation: that he knew there were no WMDs in Iraq. History will show that, in common with the rest of his administration, the British Government, Saddam's own generals, the French, Chinese, Israeli and Russian intelligence agencies, and of course SIS and the CIA, everyone assumed that a murderous dictator does not voluntarily destroy the WMD arsenal he has used against his own people. And if he does, he does not then expel the UN weapons inspectorate looking for proof of it, as he did in 1998 and again in 2001.
Mr Bush assumed that the Coalition forces would find mass graves, torture chambers, evidence for the gross abuse of the UN's food-for-oil programme, but also WMDs. He was right about each but the last, and history will place him in the mainstream of Western, Eastern and Arab thinking on the matter.
History will probably, assuming it is researched and written objectively, congratulate Mr Bush on the fact that whereas in 2000 Libya was an active and vicious member of what he was accurately to describe as an "axis of evil" of rogue states willing to employ terrorism to gain its ends, four years later Colonel Gaddafi's WMD programme was sitting behind glass in a museum in Oakridge, Tennessee.
With his characteristic openness and at times almost self-defeating honesty, Mr Bush has been the first to acknowledge his mistakes – for example, tardiness over Hurricane Katrina – but there are some he made not because he was a ranting Right-winger, but because he was too keen to win bipartisan support. The invasion of Iraq should probably have taken place months earlier, but was held up by the attempt to find support from UN security council members, such as Jacques Chirac's France, that had ties to Iraq and hostility towards the Anglo-Americans.
History will also take Mr Bush's verbal fumbling into account, reminding us that Ronald Reagan also mis-spoke regularly, but was still a fine president. The first MBA president, who had a higher grade-point average at Yale than John Kerry, Mr Bush's supposed lack of intellect will be seen to be a myth once the papers in his Presidential Library in the Southern Methodist University in Dallas are available.
Films such as Oliver Stone's W, which portray him as a spitting, oafish frat boy who eats with his mouth open and is rude to servants, will be revealed by the diaries and correspondence of those around him to be absurd travesties, of this charming, interesting, beautifully mannered history buff who, were he not the most powerful man in the world, would be a fine person to have as a pal.
Instead of Al Franken, history will listen to Bob Geldof praising Mr Bush's efforts over Aids and malaria in Africa; or to Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India, who told him last week: "The people of India deeply love you." And certainly to the women of Afghanistan thanking him for saving them from Taliban abuse, degradation and tyranny.
When Abu Ghraib is mentioned, history will remind us that it was the Bush Administration that imprisoned those responsible for the horrors. When water-boarding is brought up, we will see that it was only used on three suspects, one of whom was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, al-Qaeda's chief of operational planning, who divulged vast amounts of information that saved hundreds of innocent lives. When extraordinary renditions are queried, historians will ask how else the world's most dangerous terrorists should have been transported. On scheduled flights?
The credit crunch, brought on by the Democrats in Congress insisting upon home ownership for credit-unworthy people, will initially be blamed on Bush, but the perspective of time will show that the problems at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac started with the deregulation of the Clinton era. Instead Bush's very un-ideological but vast rescue package of $700 billion (£480 billion) might well be seen as lessening the impact of the squeeze, and putting America in position to be the first country out of recession, helped along by his huge tax-cut packages since 2000.
Sneered at for being "simplistic" in his reaction to 9/11, Bush's visceral responses to the attacks of a fascistic, totalitarian death cult will be seen as having been substantially the right ones.
Mistakes are made in every war, but when virtually the entire military, diplomatic and political establishment in the West opposed it, Bush insisted on the surge in Iraq that has been seen to have brought the war around, and set Iraq on the right path. Today its GDP is 30 per cent higher than under Saddam, and it is free of a brutal dictator and his rapist sons.
The number of American troops killed during the eight years of the War against Terror has been fewer than those slain capturing two islands in the Second World War, and in Britain we have lost fewer soldiers than on a normal weekend on the Western Front. As for civilians, there have been fewer Iraqis killed since the invasion than in 20 conflicts since the Second World War.
Iraq has been a victory for the US-led coalition, a fact that the Bush-haters will have to deal with when perspective finally – perhaps years from now – lends objectivity to this fine man's record.
Andrew Roberts's 'Masters and Commanders: How Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshall and Alanbrooke Won the War in the West' is published by Penguin
Bitch 2 says:
This article is from the U.K ,of course our media never liked Bush and never supported him. The liberals blame Bush for everything including the ecomony which the downfall started with the Clinton administration. Google the "Community Reinvestment Act "
It seems to me that liberlas are brain dead and live in fantasy worlds . If you do some investigating you will see why our economy is in the shape its in and it's not because of president Bush .

Monday, January 12, 2009

Lets talk about sexual harrassment................. We all know it happens. We all know it is real. We all know it is part of the "job" everyday. There are good hardworking policewomen out there, that go out and do the job just as good if not better then the men, but they never get the promotion on merit because it is true merit............ It doesnt happen because they don't get on their knee's or dont spread their legs. There are plenty of women on this job that play the political game. They find who is important and connected and go for the goal. We all know that men think with their cocks. And when any form of pussy crosses their desk they will take it. It just depends how good you are with this and how good you are with giving a blow job, and the wife doesnt find out. There are also men that are single and of rank, that will take advantage of women, and promise them all kinds of promotions as long as you go out with them. If you dont come through with putting up, you are dumped to midnights in a slow district. That is the game here folks. That is what it is all about. Is it fair to us hardworking female coppers that do it for hte love of the job???? Hell fucking no. But it happens everyday, in every unit across not only the Chicago Police Department, but across all law enforcement agencies. Frankly we are tired of it, and we want our day in the sun. We want to be recognized for our TALENT AS GOOD HARDWORKING COPPERS. Not fucking whores to service men. We are sick of the stereotype. We are sick of the females that perpetuate this stereotype by getting on their knee's at every turn, be it at their own homes, at their MARRIED lovers home or at police week in DC.................. STOP it for the sake of those of us that do the job because we love it and are honored to serve and protect. How many female desk sgt's, Lt's and Capt's do you know of that got their because they can suck a banana through a straw??? Plenty......... It is pretty sickening. And frankly we are sick of it....... Do the fucking job. Go out there and just do it damnit............ NOT DO THEM. Do what you are paid to do. That is the most important thing. The love of this job, the commraderie it brings, and the lives you save IS the most important. Getting ahead or "A HEAD" is not the name of the game. WE all talk and know who you are. Don't think we don't because we do. Get a life and get the real meaning of this job. Get off your knees and do the job the way it is suppose to be, as a female cop, who does the same job as a man.

Bitch 2 say's

We are sick of these bosses who think because they have white shirts can talk to us anyway they want , and use their positions to get sexual favors . I had a boss who wouldn't help me out because I wouldn't sleep with him but he helped the 2 women that would in our unit .

The above pictures depicts what he looked like .....NO THANKS

History of Police Women in the United States

The first police matrons appeared in the nineteenth century and, in 1905, the first documented appointment of a woman with police powers took place (Peyser 1985). Shortly thereafter in 1910 the first woman with full police power was hired by the Los Angeles Police Department (Melchionne 1976).
The early history of women police consisted largely of social service in which women had to meet higher standards for police employment, but received lower wages, were restricted to a special unit or bureau, and were assigned primarily to clerical, juvenile, guard duty and vice work (Schulz 1989). Women police were not permitted to be promoted except within their own special women's unit nor were they permitted to take the same promotion test as men. Finally, and most damaging for opportunities to demonstrate their general value to the organization, they were not permitted to perform basic patrol duties (Price and Gavin 1982, Peyser 1985). Women could only be promoted within their own bureaus because, they were told by their police superiors, they had not had the full "police experience" of being on general street patrol. It was, of course, the same male police administration that had refused over the years to assign women to general patrol and thus had blocked police women=s access to the required experience (Price and Gavin 1982). When women finally were given the opportunity, as a result of Federal law mandating equal opportunity regardless of gender or race, to perform general police work and serve on patrol, they demonstrated their fitness for police work. Or did they?
Almost all of the past research on women police has focused on the capabilities of women to perform police work; virtually all conclude that women, indeed, do have such ability. This capacity includes physical as well as mental and emotional fitness. Studies demonstrating women's capabilities have covered the areas of patrol work (Bloch and Anderson 1974, Sherman 1975, Townsey 1982) citizen satisfaction (Sherman 1975), police chief evaluations (Seligson 1985), response to hazardous situations (Elias 1984), academy academic performance (Elias 1984), physical capability (Townsey 1982), physical training receptivity (Moldon 1985), and the handling of violent confrontations (Moldon 1985, Grennan 1987).
The research literature also reveals that in entering police work women have encountered enormous difficulties, primarily as a result of the negative attitudes of the men. Male officers anticipate women failing (Brookshire 1980); they doubt women can equal men in most job skills (Bloch and Anderson 1974); they do not see women officers as doing "real" police work (Melchionne 1976); and they perpetuate myths about women's lack of emotional fitness (Bell 1982). Race, age and education seem to influence attitudes toward women: black officers were found to be somewhat more favorable toward women than white officers (Bell 1982, Bloch and Anderson 1974); and in St. Louis younger, better educated officers exhibited less negativism (Sherman 1975). In contrast, a study in Atlanta concluded flatly that male officers did not accept women as police officers (Remmington 1981). Horne (1980) has pointed out that the biggest challenge facing women officers is the resistance displayed by male officers in their attitudes toward women in policing. Hunt (1990) concluded that women police were harassed and resisted by the male officers because they feared that women would violate departmental (actually, their own) secrets about police corruption and violence. Thus, fear of exposure by women officers was cited by Hunt as the underlying cause of the significant resistance to women.
It is important to point out that the situation found in the U.S. and reported in the literature is similar to that found in European, Eastern European, Asian and Latin American countries. At an international conference on women and policing held in Amsterdam and sponsored by the European Network of Policewomen a workshop was convened on the role of femininity on police work. Women police from over twenty countries around the world shared information on the discriminatory treatment that they suffered at the hands of their male colleagues. A recent article on Polish women police notes that "Sometimes it happens that they (women police) are scarcely tolerated" (Trzcinska 1996).
In addition to police men's negative attitudes, women face a number of other major socially structured problems that are inherent in the larger society and are played out as well in policing. These include family responsibilities (Brookshire 1980, Martin 1980), role strain and role conflict (Martin 1980, Jacobs 1983) doubts about competence and self-worth (Glaser and Saxe 1982) sexual harassment (Wong 1984) and a concomitant fear of complaining about abuse (The Council of the City of New York, Committee on Women 1986) and, lastly, equipment and facilities inadequacies--including material conditions of such items as locker rooms (Horne 1980, Washington 1974), uniforms (Brookshire 1980), and patrol car seats (Horne 1980). Black women face additional obstacles, such as conflicts engendered by being both a black woman and a police officer, a type of stress which is currently unstudied. Thus there are many hurdles--both organizational and role-related--confronting women who choose police work as their career.

??? To Police Women

The Chicago Police Department only has 21% listed as females. MOST of us are proud to serve with dignity............ We are not talking about serving a blowjob, a handjob, sex, a drink at a bar or whatever....... With some of you female coppers, why do you disgrace us with the above sentence to get a spot and a job when you are nothing but a common alley whore? I would like to know why you became a CPD officer ?

I know a police woman who's resume looks great . Prior to coming on to CPD she was a bartender at a CPD hangout . She looses a lot of weight and works in a dist. goes to two different units and is detailed to the academy whiles she is in a unit that alot of people want to get into.

So she has taken up spots the 'working" police should have and deserve . Taking spots because she is being dishonorable not only to herself as a woman, but to other hard working cops, male or female that deserve or earned that spot.

Anyone who has been on this job long enough knows why she is taken care of, she is no better than a prositute exchanging sex for spots & promotions. Im sorry We have more respect for a street hooker than her . Another female bragged about Fucking & Sucking herself to the top, she retired as a captain. We guess sex does pay. And trust me folks folks, we are not ugly, out of shape coppers. But we won't sell ourselves for a spot or a promotion. It is disgusting. If we stay as blue shirts then so be it. We know we have always been legit.

There are so many horror stories about so many woman on this job it is sickening . This job hasn't changed since woman came on and do you know why???? It is because of the women mentioned above and the other 90% just like them . Don't they know that all these guys talk shit about them,????? Ladies, get real, do you think you are respected because of your merit or because you give great head? We all hear the whispers no matter how hard you try to not hear them. And lets not forget the Sgt who pole dances and hangs out with gang bangers . She sure is a great role model, for Hustler maybe!!!

You whores on this job have done a disservice to every woman on this job because you have set a lowbrow example, and men think that every woman is like you and we are not. Have some respect for yourself and try some old fashioned police work. Stop making us working female coppers look like trash. It is hard enough going out being a female in a male's job, nevermind the added extra trash you whore's bring to the table.

Monday, January 5, 2009

Where You Naughty Or Nice This Christmas?

Well any of you that know us, you know we are both naughty and nice. We had way to much fun then two female copper's should have. We love our families, our friends, our police family and each other (we mean that dearly NOT queerly). Trust us folks we are 100% All American Boy Loving Girls.
We shared our Christmas with friends and family and totally enjoyed our time with them. Small children, laughing with family members and waiting for Pantie Claus, OOOPPSSS We mean Santa Claus coming down the chimney is always a special treat.
We have been quiet of late, due to our schedules and life. BUT we promise this coming year we will be posting more both Naughty and Nice for our fans and followers.
From our house to your's we wish you ALL a very Happy New Year. Filled with much love, peace and joy.
Peace out,
Bitches In Blue