Barack Obama Embraces Black Liberation Theology

The Wall Street Journal

OPINION

Protect Our Kids from Preschool

By SHIKHA DALMIA and LISA SNELL

August 22, 2008

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list. Democratic governors across the country -- including in Illinois, Arizona, Massachusetts and Virginia -- have made a major push to fund universal preschool in their states.

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.

"Advocates and supporters of universal preschool often use existing research for purely political purposes," says James Heckman, a University of Chicago Noble laureate in economics whose work Mr. Obama and preschool activists routinely cite. "But the solid evidence for the effectiveness of early interventions is limited to those conducted on disadvantaged populations."

Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

Preschool activists at the Pew Charitable Trust and Pre-K Now -- two major organizations pushing universal preschool -- refuse to take this evidence seriously. The private preschool market, they insist, is just glorified day care. Not so with quality, government-funded preschools with credentialed teachers and standardized curriculum. But the results from Oklahoma and Georgia -- both of which implemented universal preschool a decade or more ago -- paint an equally dismal picture.

A 2006 analysis by Education Week found that Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia's universal preschool program has made virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores. And a study of Tennessee's preschool program released just this week by the nonpartisan Strategic Research Group found no statistical difference in the performance of preschool versus nonpreschool kids on any subject after the first grade.

What about Head Start, the 40-year-old, federal preschool program for low-income kids? Studies by the Department of Health and Human Services have repeatedly found that although Head Start kids post initial gains on IQ and other cognitive measures, in later years they become indistinguishable from non-Head Start kids.

Why don't preschool gains stick? Possibly because the K-12 system is too dysfunctional to maintain them. More likely, because early education in general is not so crucial to the long-term intellectual growth of children. Finland offers strong evidence for this view. Its kids consistently outperform their global peers in reading, math and science on international assessments even though they don't begin formal education until they are 7. Subsidized preschool is available for parents who opt for it, but only when their kids turn 6.

If anything, preschool may do lasting damage to many children. A 2005 analysis by researchers at Stanford University and the University of California, Berkeley, found that kindergartners with 15 or more hours of preschool every week were less motivated and more aggressive in class. Likewise, Canada's C.D. Howe Institute found a higher incidence of anxiety, hyperactivity and poor social skills among kids in Quebec after universal preschool.

The only preschool programs that seem to do more good than harm are very intense interventions targeted toward severely disadvantaged kids. A 1960s program in Ypsilanti, Mich., a 1970s program in Chapel Hill, N.C., and a 1980s program in Chicago, Ill., all report a net positive effect on adult crime, earnings, wealth and welfare dependence for participants. But the kids in the Michigan program had low IQs and all came from very poor families, often with parents who were drug addicts and neglectful.

Even so, the economic gains of these programs are grossly exaggerated. For instance, Prof. Heckman calculated that the Michigan program produced a 16-cent return on every dollar spent -- not even remotely close to the $10 return that Mr. Obama and his fellow advocates bandy about.

Our understanding of the effects of preschool is still very much in its infancy. But one inescapable conclusion from the existing research is that it is not for everyone.

Kids with loving and attentive parents -- the vast majority -- might well be better off spending more time at home than away in their formative years. The last thing that public policy should do is spend vast new sums of taxpayer dollars to incentivize a premature separation between toddlers and parents.

Yet that is precisely what Mr. Obama would do. His "Zero-to-Five" plan would increase federal outlays for early education by $10 billion -- about 50% of total government spending on preschool -- and hand block grants to states to implement universal preschool. This will make the government the dominant source of funding in the early education marketplace, vastly outpacing private spending.

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Ms. Dalmia is senior analyst and Ms. Snell is director of education policy at the Reason Foundation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The tenents of the United Nations, long sought by the Marxist humanists, will be pushed to the max with Obama as US President, who will, in true Marxist fashion, do anything to destroy the status quo of the United States of America. He'll do anything and everything to advance James H. Cone's black theology of liberation, which astoundingly recognizes only a Black God who advances the black man's fight for supremacy over all white people, a common radical Black Panther (Power to the [black] People) theme of the 60's.

In that regard, it is no different from Islam.

In truth Obama only truly became a man with a purpose when, upon hearing Cone's black liberation theology for the first time, he had an epiphany in Rev. Wright's Chicago church, and walked back to his car a changed man, a dangerous man intent on changing America into a place where the black man rules. Radical? Yes. Sound implausible? Yes. But that won't stop Obama. Whites become "useful tools" in his plan to "re-vitalize" America, ala James H. Cone and Rev Jeremiah Wright.

Remember this symbol?



I went to a rally last year in Manhatten (or was it two years ago), in front of the Plaza hotel, where the likes of Congressman Charles Rangel and other less luminary figures showed up. Various liberal crackpots were displaying all the venomous and time-weary symbols of Socialist - Workers Unite!- Propaganda. The rally was in honor of the New Black Panthers Party For Self Defense, led by Malik Zulu Shabazz.

Wait, here's the Honorable Rangel now. He seemed on that day to have mastered the neat trick of sleeping on his feet.



Everyone was waiting around for Comedian Al Sharpton, who apparently missed his bus, 'cause he was a no-show. Very boring protest or whatever it was. I went to get photos for the 910 Group Blog, but the party was a bust and I went home. Oh, well, since this blog is so long, and no one is going to get all the way through it anyway, here's a couple of more pics from the parade that day:








In Obama's "Yes We Can", one must understand that it is black people here in America that he addresses, when he talks about hope in America. Whites, child or otherwise, are the enemy in Obama's vision for America, and must be dealt with. So naturally, what he sees as a solution, is a black solution to a black problem. Whites may be useful tools, or "useful idiots" in many cases. But the enemy, nonetheless.

Realistically, blacks in America do have many problems, mostly caused by Leftists and the Civil Rights Movement, and the result is higher crime among blacks, higher unwed mothers and fatherless homes, greater drop-out rates among high schoolers, and most damaging - they live in a self-imposed Culture of Victimization. For a comprehensive evaluation of Obama's goals and aspirations for a black America at The Sentinal, read:

Barak Obama and the Audacity of Hope

Obama as a sitting President will use his Executive Office as a crow-bar of American diplomacy to dissolve our political sovereignty and meld our government's policies with the goals of the United Nations. Among the many goals of the UN, none is more insidious than the CRC, the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is Marxist in concept, requiring countries who ratify the CRC treaty to answer to a non-governmental organization (NGO), called the Committee on the Rights of the Child, a panel of so-called "experts" who monitor the implementation of the States Parties to the convention. See The Heritage Foundation's take on this UN treaty:

How U.N. Conventions On Women's and Children's Rights Undermine Family, Religion, and Sovereignty

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If the American people allow their children to be involuntarily placed in compulsory government pre-schools, it will be a cornerstone to achieving the foundation of a Totalitarian nation. Indoctrination of socialist values (multicultural, gender-neutral, sensitivity training, global identification trumps national sovereignty, etc) is the NEA's goal of all public school education in America today.

In a 1993 pamphlet to teachers, the NEA had this to say:

“Allegiance to a nation is the biggest stumbling block to the creation of international government. National boundaries and the concept of sovereignty must be abolished. The quickest way to do this is to condition the young to another and broader alliance. Opinion favorable to international government will be developed in the social studies curriculum in the public schools.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Illegals Go Home To Roost

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > U.S.

Fear Grips Immigrants After Largest Raid in U.S. History at Mississippi Plant

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Aug. 25 (AP): Members of the Homeland Security ICE team raid Howard Industries in Laurel, Miss. during a raid for undocumented [read: illegal immigrants] workers.


LAUREL, Miss. — A day after the largest single-workplace immigration raid in U.S. history, Elizabeth Alegria was too scared to send her son to school and worried about when she'd see her husband again.

Nearly 600 immigrants suspected of being in the country illegally were detained, creating panic among dozens of families in this small southern Mississippi town.

Alegria, 26, a Mexican immigrant, was working at the Howard Industries transformer plant Monday when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents stormed in. When they found out she has two sons, ages 4 and 9, she was fitted with a bracelet and told to appear in federal court next month. But her husband, Andres, wasn't so lucky.

"I'm very traumatized because I don't know if they are going to let my husband go and when I will see him," Alegria said through a translator Tuesday as she returned to the Howard Industries parking lot to retrieve her sport utility vehicle.

The superintendent of the county school district said about half of approximately 160 Hispanic students were absent Tuesday.

Roberto Velez, pastor at Iglesia Cristiana Peniel, where an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the 200 parishioners were caught up in the raid, said parents were afraid immigration officials would take them.

"They didn't send their kids to school today," he said. "How scared is that?"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why are our schools filled with illegal immigrant children in the first place? Ans: so their illegal parents can work illegally in the USofA. Incidentally, aiding and abetting the illegals is the one glaring fault with McCain's platform, though he is showing signs of a more "conservative" stance, whatever that means. I hope it means, should he become our next President, he will enforce the law. What a novel idea. I hope it occurs to Mr. McCain, too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One worker caught in Monday's sweep at the plant said fellow workers applauded as immigrants were taken into custody. Federal officials said a tip from a union member prompted them to start investigating several years ago.

Fabiola Pena, 21, cradled her 2-year-old daughter as she described a chaotic scene at the plant as the raid began, followed by clapping.

"I was crying the whole time. I didn't know what to do," Pena said. "We didn't know what was happening because everyone started running. Some people thought it was a bomb but then we figured out it was immigration."

About 100 of the 595 detained workers were released for humanitarian reasons, many of them mothers who were fitted with electronic monitoring bracelets and allowed to go home to their children, officials said.

About 475 other workers were transferred to an ICE facility in Jena, La. Nine who were under 18 were transferred to the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

John Foxworth, an attorney representing some of the immigrants, said eight appeared in federal court in Hattiesburg on Tuesday because they face criminal charges for allegedly using false Social Security and residency identification.

He said the raid was traumatic for families.

"There was no communication, an immediate loss of any kind of news and a lack of understanding of what's happening to their loved ones," he said. "A complete and utter feeling of helplessness."

Those detained were from Brazil, El Salvador, Germany, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and Peru, said Barbara Gonzalez, an ICE spokeswoman.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I guess this Howard Industries had a whole bunch of jobs that "Americans won't do", huh?

He said the raid was traumatic for families.

"There was no communication, an immediate loss of any kind of news and a lack of understanding of what's happening to their loved ones," he said. "A complete and utter feeling of helplessness."

Guess they had better get used to it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."

Howard Industries is in Mississippi's Pine Belt region, known for commercial timber growth and chicken processing plants. The tech company produces dozens of products ranging from electrical transformers to medical supplies, according to its Web site.

Gonzalez said agents had executed search warrants at both the plant and the company headquarters in nearby Ellisville. She said no company executives had been detained, but this was an "ongoing investigation and yesterday's action was just the first part."

A woman at the Ellisville headquarters told The Associated Press on Tuesday that no one was available to answer questions.

In a statement to the Laurel Leader-Call newspaper, Howard Industries said the company "runs every check allowed to ascertain the immigration status of all applicants for its jobs."

Gov. Haley Barbour recently signed a law requiring Mississippi employers to use a U.S. Homeland Security system to check new workers' immigration status.

The law took effect July 1 for businesses with state contracts and takes effect Jan. 1 for other businesses. Mississippi lawmakers once used laptops made by Howard Industries, but it's not clear whether the company has current state contracts.

Under the law, a company found guilty of employing illegal immigrants could lose public contracts for three years and the right to do business in Mississippi for a year.

The law also makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to accept a job in Mississippi. A message was left with the district attorney's office after hours seeking comment on whether he would use the law to bring state charges against Howard Industries or the workers.

The Mississippi raid is one of several nationwide in recent years.

On May 12, federal immigration officials swept into Agriprocessors, the nation's largest kosher meatpacking plant, in Iowa. Nearly 400 workers were detained and dozens of fraudulent permanent resident alien cards were seized from the plant's human resources department, according to court records. In December 2006, 1,297 were arrested at Swift meatpacking plants in Nebraska and five other states.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"We have kids without dads and pregnant mothers who got their husbands taken away," said Velez's son, Robert, youth pastor at the church. "It was like a horror story. They got handled like they were criminals."

They are criminals. That's why they're locked-up, stupid. I hope they arrest the owners and management of Howard Industries. They must be arrested and prosecuted. That's one of the biggest, if not the biggest deterrent to the illegals streaming over the border. And why did it take "several years to investigate" and take action against Howard Industries?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update On Harrold, Texas School - Teachers Armed and Ready

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > U.S.

Classes Start in Texas School District Where Teachers Can Carry Guns

Monday, August 25, 2008

HARROLD, Texas (AP) — Along with normal first-day jitters and excitement, students in this tiny district started school Monday wondering which teachers might be toting firearms.


"It was kind of awkward knowing that some teachers were carrying guns," said Adam Lira, 17, a senior. "I don't feel like they should be, 'cause we already have locked doors and cameras. But I didn't feel threatened by it."

Several parents said they had no idea that employees of the K-12 school were allowed to carry concealed guns on campus until recent publicity about the school board's policy, approved quietly last fall. They said they were upset that the rural community near the Oklahoma border had not been able to give input.

While some parents said they felt their children were safer, others opposed the plan, which appears to be the first of its kind nationwide.

"As far as I'm concerned, teachers were trained to educate my children — not carry a gun. Even police officers need years of training in hostage situations," said Traci McKay, whose three children are among the 110 students in the red-brick Harrold school. "I don't want my child looking over her shoulder wondering who's carrying a gun."

But Harrold Superintendent David Thweatt said the board approved the policy in an October open meeting that had been publicized. He said the decision was made after nearly two years of researching the best school security options at the school, which is just off a busy highway and 30 minutes away from the sheriff's office.

"When you outlaw guns in a certain area, the only people who follow that are law-abiding citizens, and everybody else ignores it," Thweatt said.

The superintendent said some of the school's 50 employees are carrying weapons, but he wouldn't say how many. When pressed further, he first said that revealing that number might jeopardize school security. He then added that he considered it to be personnel information and not a matter of public record.

Each employee who wants to carry a weapon first must be approved by the board based on his or her personality and reaction to a crisis, Thweatt said. In addition to training required for a state concealed weapons license, they also must be trained to handle crisis intervention and hostage situations.

State education officials said they did not know of any other Texas schools allowing teachers to carry guns. National security experts and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said they did not know of other U.S. schools with such a policy.

School districts in some states, including Florida and Arizona, have closed loopholes that allowed guns on K-12 campuses. Utah allows concealed weapons at public universities but not at primary or secondary schools.

Thweatt said the board took extra precautions, such as requiring employees to use bullets that will minimize the risk of ricochet, similar to those used by air marshals on planes.

"I can lead them from a fire, tornado and toxic spill; we have plans in place for that. I cannot lead them from an active shooter," Thweatt said. "There are people who are going to think this is extreme, but it's easy to defend."

Judy Priz, who has a third-grade daughter, said that "everyone I've talked to thinks it's great." She said she trusts the teachers with her child's life.

"Look how long it takes the police or anybody else to get here," she told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram for a story in its Monday online edition. "If someone wants to come here and harm someone, at least we would have sort of defense."

Gov. Rick Perry has said he supports the policy because "there's a lot of incidents where that would have saved a number of lives."

The Brady Center has spoken out against the plan, saying it may not comply with Texas law, which bans firearms at schools unless carriers have given written permission. If the school board authorizes an employee to carry a gun, then that person must be a peace officer, according to the center.

"It's unfair of us to ask teachers to take on the additional job of being police officers," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign.

Cheryl Mehl, an attorney for the Harrold school district, said the statute the Brady Center cites applies only to security guards, not teachers and other employees. The district has no security guards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Of course Paul Helmke is, not to parse it too finely, full of shit. The Brady Center is one of those myriad organizations whose main function is to keep their salaries coming every month. For that they must generate as much fear of guns as they possibly can. Looks like though, with even Gov Perry on board with this Texas school board's decision to allow trained staff to carry concealed, the loathsome Helmke might be better off spreading his disinformation elsewhere. But these days the Brady Bunch is getting a little desperate, what with the SCOTUS (Heller) recent decision, and more and more Americans standing up for their right to defend themselves.

The Texas School Board's decision was a realistic one, made in unusual times, where loonies who are under no constraints whatsoever, abound in America - especially prone to pop up in declared "gun-free zones". It is my guess, and hope, that other school districts across America will follow this frank assessment of the dangers facing our school children today, and take steps to train and arm their own staffs.

Look at this way: the cars we drive are not the cars our fathers drove fifty years ago. And the school environments our children face today are not our father's schools, either. The more law-abiding citizens we have who are trained and armed, the less crime we will have throughout America, which is a much more dangerous place today, what with the break-down of families, the rampant drugs, the gangs, and the general lawlessness which it's citizens face every day. Let's get armed, America, and stop being victims. Criminals will always carry guns. DUH!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama warns stations not to air 'radical' ad

WND ELECTION 2008

Lawyer's letter, appeal to Justice evoke Kerry's attempt to quash Swift Boat vets

Posted: August 26, 2008
12:47 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

American Issues Project television ad

Sen. Barack Obama is warning TV stations and asking the Justice Department to intervene in an attempt to block the airing of an ad by a non-profit group that links him to an unrepentant domestic terrorist.


The spot by the American Issues Project questions Obama's ties to William Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization who boasted of a series of bomb attacks at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.



read the rest here

Quote of the Day

August 25, 2008

“I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic Party… I believe the real magic of Barack Obama was his ability to turn lifelong Democrats like us into McCain supporters overnight.”

McCain camp steps up efforts to win over Clinton supporters

Carly Fiorina held a press conference Monday.

DENVER, Colorado (CNN) – Just hours before Democrats are set to open their presidential nominating convention, John McCain’s campaign is stepping up its outreach efforts to disaffected Hillary Clinton backers who lost a hard-fought primary battle against Barack Obama.

“Despite all the talk that we hear from the Democratic Party here in Colorado about unity, the Democratic Party is, in fact, divided,” Carly Fiorina, co-chair of the Republican National Committee’s Victory 2008 campaign said at a news conference Monday. “They are not coalesced behind Barack Obama,” Fiorina added.

Fiorina was joined at the press conference by four former Clinton supporters who are now part of “Citizens for McCain.”

“I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Democratic Party,” said Cynthia Ruccia who spoke at the presser. “I believe the real magic of Barack Obama was his ability to turn lifelong Democrats like us into McCain supporters overnight.”

On the eve of the Democratic National Convention, the McCain campaign and the RNC have rolled out three ads aimed at winning Clinton supporters.

On Sunday, the McCain camp unveiled “Passed over,” an advertisement that highlighted Obama’s decision to pick Joe Biden instead of Clinton as his running mate. Today, the RNC started airing “Was she right?” an ad that featured Clinton’s many criticisms of Obama during the primaries. The McCain campaign also launched “Debra,” an ad that features Debra Bartoshevich, a former Clinton supporter from Wisconsin who was also present at Monday’s press conference.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows McCain and Obama tied with each garnering support from 47 percent of the public. The poll also showed that nearly a third of Clinton supporters now say they will back McCain.

They're Paying Attention Now

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

DECLARATIONS

By PEGGY NOONAN

They're Paying Attention Now

August 22, 2008

Why is it a real race now, with John McCain rising in the polls and Barack Obama falling? There are many answers, but here I think is an essential one: The American people have begun paying attention.

It's hard for our political class to remember that Mr. Obama has been famous in America only since the winter of '08. America met him barely six months ago! The political class first interviewed him, or read the interview, in 2003 or '04, when he was a rising star. They know him. Everyone else is still absorbing.

This is what they see:

An attractive, intelligent man, interesting, but—he's hard to categorize. Is he Gen. Obama? No, no military background. Brilliant Businessman Obama? No, he never worked in business. Famous Name Obama? No, it's a new name, an unusual one. Longtime Southern Governor Obama? No.

He's a community organizer (what's that?), then a lawyer (boo), then a state legislator (so what, so's my cousin), then U.S. senator (less than four years!).

There is no pre-existing category for him.

Add to that the wear and tear of Jeremiah Wright, secret Muslim rumors, media darling and, this week, abortion. It took a toll, which led to a readjustment. His uniqueness, once his great power, is now his great problem.

And over there is Mr. McCain, and—well, we know him. He's POW/senator/prickly, irritating John McCain.


The Rick Warren debate mattered. Why? It took place at exactly the moment America was starting to pay attention. This is what it looked like by the end of the night: Mr. McCain, normal. Mr. Obama, not normal. You've seen this discussed elsewhere. Mr. McCain was direct and clear, Mr. Obama both more careful and more scattered. But on abortion in particular, Mr. McCain seemed old-time conservative, which is something we all understand, whether we like such a stance or not, and Mr. Obama seemed either radical or dodgy. He is "in favor . . . of limits" on late-term abortions, though some would consider those limits "inadequate." (In the past week much legal parsing on emanations of penumbras as to the viability of Roe v. Wade followed.)

As I watched I thought: How about "Let the baby live"? Don't parse it. Just "Let the baby live."

As to the question when human life begins, the answer to which is above Mr. Obama's pay grade, oh, let's go on a little tear. You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever bought a pack of condoms knows when life begins.

To put it another way, with conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?

If you want to argue whether legal abortion is morally defensible, have at it and go to it, but Mr. Obama's answers here seemed to me strange and disturbing.

Mr. Obama's upcoming convention speech will be good. All Obama speeches are good. Not as interesting as he is—he is more compelling as a person than his words tend to be in text. But the speech will be good, and just in case it isn't good, people will still come away with an impression that it must have been, because the media is going to say it was, because they expect it to be, and what they expect is what most of them will see.

Will Mr. Obama dig deep as to meaning? As to political predicates? During the primary campaigns Republicans were always saying, "This is what I'll do." Mr. Obama has a greater tendency to say, "This is how we'll feel." Republicans talk to their base with, "If we pass this bill, which the Democrats irresponsibly oppose, we'll solve this problem." Democrats are more inclined toward, "If we bring a new attitude of hopefulness and respect for the world, we'll make the seas higher and the fish more numerous." Will Mr. Obama be, in terms of programs and plans, specific? And will his specifics be grounded in something that appears to amount to a political philosophy?

I suspect everyone has the convention speeches wrong. Everyone expects Mr. Obama to rouse, but the speech I'd watch is Mr. McCain's.

He's the one with the real opportunity, because no one expects anything. He's never been especially good at making speeches. (The number of men who've made it to the top of the GOP who don't particularly like making speeches, both Bushes and Mr. McCain, is astonishing, and at odds with the presumed requirements of the media age. The first Bush saw speeches as show biz, part of the weary requirement of leadership, and the second's approach reflects a sense that words, though interesting, were not his friend.)

But Mr. McCain provided, in 2004, one of the most exciting and certainly the most charged moment of the Republican Convention, when he looked up at Michael Moore in the press stands and said, "Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war, it was between war and a greater threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. . . . And certainly not a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace." It blew the roof off. And the smile he gave Mr. Moore was one of pure, delighted malice. When Mr. McCain comes to play, he comes to play.

Look for a certain populist stance. He signaled it this week in Politico. He called lobbyists "birds of prey" in pursuit of "their share of the spoils." Great stuff. (Boy, will he have trouble staffing his White House.)

I still think a one-term pledge could win it for him, because it would allow America to punt. It would make the 2008 choice seem less fateful. People don't mind the chance to defer a choice when they're not at all sure about the product. It would give bitter Democrats a chance to regroup, and it would give those who like Obama but consider him a little half-baked to vote against him guiltlessly while he becomes fully baked.

(Imagine the Q&A when Sen. Obama announces his second presidential run in 2011: "Well, Brian, I think, looking back, there is something to be said for the idea that I will be a better president now than frankly I would have been four years ago. Experience, if you allow it, is still the best of all teachers.") More, it would allow Mr. McCain to say he means to face the tough problems ahead with a uniquely bipartisan attitude and without having to care a fig for re-election. That itself would give him a new power, one that would make up for the lost juice of lame duckdom. It would also serve to separate him from the hyperpolitical operating styles of the Clinton-Bush years, from the constant campaign.

And Mr. McCain would still have what he always wanted, the presidency, perhaps a serious and respectable one that accrued special respect because it involved some sacrifice on his part.

A move that would help him win doubtful voters, win disaffected Democrats, allow some Republicans to not have to get drunk to vote for him, and that could possibly yield real results for his country. This seems to me such a potentially electrifying idea that he'd likely walk out of his convention as the future president.

Mr. McCain told Politico on Wednesday that he's not considering a one-term pledge.

Why would he not? Such modesty of intent is at odds with the political personality. The thing that makes them want to rule America is the thing that stops them from thinking of prudent limits. This mindset crosses all political categories.

Islam Is No Religion of Peace

It is often said that Islam is a religion of peace. George W. Bush, all cozy with the Saudis anyway, repeats this shocking lie every chance he gets, and the State Department, the Justice Department (read FBI) is chock-a-block with revisionist pukes who are paving the way to get Shari'a law established in some small quarter of America, possibly in some Somali enclave in Minnesota, anywhere they can get the government to go along with, you know, "settling disputes" the Islamic way. Shari'a law hasn't happened yet, at least not on a visible level, though it certainly happens on a regular basis. A Muslim father murders his daughter for "family honor", daughters are married off to unknown suitors from a Muslim country, an occasional slave turns up in some Muslim family in Phoenix. That sort of thing. The Wahhabi radicals, backed by the Saudis, take over mosques in New Jersey, and poison the minds of Muslim children. These events happen on a daily basis. Our government is apparently afraid, certainly unwilling, to go after CAIR, who presents the “softer side” of Islam. Dhimmitude awaits those who fall for this crap.

I've done my own research into the Islamist's goal of establishing a world-wide Caliphate. It is discouraging to watch from a distance as the European countries' governments embrace Eurabia. Sweden, England, Finland are drowning in Muslim swill, with no hope in sight. Lacking a revolution, dhimmitude is a foregone conclusion in Western Europe, soon to require a cartographic change to read, Eurabia.

Which brings up this point, which is that multiculturalism is at the root of our inability to stave off, not just a creeping Islamism, but the hordes of illegal immigrants as well. In the case of the illegal immigrants, all our government would have to do is ENFORCE THE LAW, something which no one in government has the desire or will to do. Just follow the money.

As for the Muslims, they have apologists not only in our government, but among our best Islamic scholars as well. Daniel Pipes, Dinesh D'Souza, even Robert Spencer are futally trying to pave the way for a "moderate Islam" to establish itself in America. There is only one problem: THERE IS NO MODERATE ISLAM.

h/t to The Tundra Tabloids for this exclusive post at Atlas Shrugged:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE: FJORDMAN on "moderate Islam"

Fjordman August 21, 2008

I do not believe that there is such a thing as a moderate Islam, and have been quite clear about that since I started writing. I disagree with observers such as Dr. Daniel Pipes on this particular point. I'd like to say to Pipes that I enjoy much of his work. I have linked to it a number of times before and intend to do so in the future as well. However, I get increasingly disturbed by how many people keep repeating the mantra of reaching out to "moderate Islam" when I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that a moderate Islam actually exists.

- read the rest at Atlas Shrugged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who Is Allah?

Finally, today - my favorite video on the question of dhimmitude... This is probably too radical for some. If you are one who is easily offended by an in-your-face black man who is proud to be an American, I suggest you go listen to Rush Limbaugh, or Hannity & Colmes.

Open Season - by Stuck Mojo



And while I'm at it, here's Stuck Mojo's "I'm American"...



Cross-Posted at Center for Vigilant Freedom/910 Blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama Not Ready For The Presidency - Says Joe Biden

Let's listen to Joe Biden's recent opinion about Barack Obama's qualifications to lead our country, and watch Obama's reaction...

h/t Hot Air's Ed Morrissey



Let's face it: John McCain will not make a great president. But he's just an ornery enough bastard to maybe salvage some degree of integrity, some vestige of American sovereignty.

Barack Obama will create devastating loss of liberty, freedom and sovereignty - not to mention appointing another generation of Leftist federal judges.

More and more, Obama talks like a man with a paper asshole. Flip-flopping at every stage of the game, even he knows this is true. In true Marxist fashion, his misguided attempts to further tear down and re-make America along socialist lines will wreak havoc upon all Americans. He, and his "university socialist wife", will unleash the forces of darkness upon America.


I will vote for McCain, not because he is the best of men, but because he is at least a man.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alan Keyes on the Sanctity of Life

Dr. Keyes reminds us of our relationship to God, and to one another. Listen carefully, then take another look at what Planned Parenthood is actually doing to the family concept, how it affects a woman's relationship to God, and what acceptance of an idea like "pro-choice" is doing to America, which was founded on the basis of the nuclear family.

If there was ever a need for Americans to examine the insidious nature of the beliefs being advanced by the radical Left, it is now. And if you discover that you have been holding onto a false premise, a false notion, don't be afraid to change your mind - to literally change your mind.

Read the transcript of this presentation.

Alan Keyes Bio on Renew America.

Archives of streaming video

Archives of MP3 audio

Well, I can't get this video to load, so if you can't get it to load from my site, watch this speech here.

Hmm....I can't get the MP3 (streaming) to play by embedding the code here, nor on the archival website, either. Download, using RealPlayer or WinPlayer, etc. - then play the MP3 file.

I think my ISP was having problems. Mostly these links are working.

Does Evil Exist?

And if it does exist, what do we do about it? Here are two answers - one by Obama, one by McCain

Obama's answer is calm, measured and - equivocating. One the one hand, this, on the other hand, that.

McCain said simply, "Defeat it."

The leader of the free world (yeah, Euro-pansies, you heard me) cannot afford to equivocate. Islam is evil, and must be defeated. Who do you think is the better man for the job?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And since this is Sunday, here's a trailer of "An American Carol"


h't to Angel @ Woman Honor Thyself

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some Of The Teachers May Have Guns

This shouldn't be big news, but it is.

It shouldn't be a big thing at all, except for the fact that most schools everywhere are completely vulnerable "Gun-Free Zones", often with tragic results.

That a small school district in a small town in Texas made this decision to protect their students is, well, common sense - but not the kind of "common sense" that the gun grabbers usually refer to, when they argue for sensible "gun free zones".

Small Texas school district lets teachers, staff pack pistols

Star-Telegram.com

By MARK AGEE
Posted on Fri, Aug. 15, 2008

When classes start Aug. 25 in the tiny Harrold school district, there will be one distinct difference from years prior: Some of the teachers may have guns.

To deter and protect against school shootings, trustees have altered district policy to allow employees to carry concealed weapons if they have a state permit and permission from the administration. The 110-student district lies 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

More than a dozen state legislatures have considered making it legal to carry guns on college campuses, but experts and officials contacted by the Star-Telegram say the move is unheard of in elementary or secondary schools.

Superintendent David Thweatt said a main concern was that the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff’s office, leaving students and teachers without protection.

'To be prepared’

The district’s lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target, Thweatt said.

Other security measures are in place, including one-way access to enter the school, state-of-the-art surveillance cameras and electric locks on doors. But after the Virginia Tech massacre and the Amish school shooting in Pennsylvania, Thweatt felt he had to take further action, he said.

"When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that’s when all of these shootings started," Thweatt said. "Why would you put it out there that a group of people can’t defend themselves? That’s like saying 'sic ’em’ to a dog."

Texas law outlaws firearms on school campuses "unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution."

Thweatt did not say how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members will be armed this fall because he doesn’t want students or potential attackers to know. Wilbarger County Sheriff Larry Lee was out of the office Thursday and did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said her organization is not aware of another district doing something similar. Ken Trump, a Cleveland-based school security expert who advises districts nationwide, including in Texas, said Harrold is the first district he knows of to take such a step.

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime


Trump said he would have advised against allowing teachers to arm themselves, if only because of liability concerns. In the long run, it could have been cheaper and safer to hire security or off-duty police, he said. Texas school districts also have the option of forming their own police force, he noted.

"What are the rules for use of force?" Trump said. "Or how about weapons-retention training? Because they could go in to break up a fight in the cafeteria and lose their gun."

[The War on Guns has taken the time to research the background of the so-called "security expert ", Ken Trump]

Thweatt said the district did not rush into the decision. Officials researched the policy and weighed other options for about a year before trustees voted on the policy in October.

"The naysayers think [a shooting] won’t happen here," he said. "If something were to happen here, I’d much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them."
___________________________________________________

The gun policy Teachers and staffers in the Harrold school district can carry firearms beginning this fall if they:

-Have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun.
-Are authorized to carry by the district.
-Receive training in crisis management and hostile situations.
-Use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Source: Harrold school district
____________________________________________________

Our own government has put our backs up against the wall. Let's make our schools "safe zones" for our children, by allowing their caretakers to carry concealed guns. Yes, of course provide them with the necessary training to be able to handle themselves in a potentially dangerous, and devastating situation.

When I took the home defense course pursuant to getting my CCW, my instructor made the point that you must be able to point a gun (and shoot) at someone, with the intention of stopping them. That requires a high degree of mental control, as well as physical control of the gun. Given the opportunity and training, there are many caregivers in our schools who will rise to that level of responsibility. Our schools and campuses will be a lot safer for it. And our children have better odds of coming home at the end of the day.

Even the children agree.

The well-intentioned anti-gunners, who care nothing for our children will continue in their own mission to put guns out of reach of trained, responsible citizens, teachers and parents. Almost a cliché by now, keep this phrase in mind when you find yourself about to make an important decision regarding gun control:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The City of Chicago Meets The 14th Amendment

The Rx for Washington DC's and Chicago's stubborn refusal to abide by SCOTUS's recent Heller vs DC decision? The 2nd Amendment PLUS the 14th Amendment. Stirred, not shaken.

Arming America

The Second Amendment now applies in the nation's capital. What about the states?

Damon W. Root | June 27, 2008

For the past 32 years, law-abiding residents of Washington, D.C. have been at the mercy of one of America's most unforgiving gun control laws: a total ban on the possession of handguns in the home, as well as strict trigger lock and disassembly requirements for rifles and shotguns. Taken together, these restrictions have left Washingtonians unable to mount any sort of meaningful defense of themselves, their families, and their homes from armed intruders.

But things changed on Thursday. In a landmark 5-4 decision in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that D.C.'s gun ban was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment since it deprived individuals of their right "to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense." In a forceful, tightly argued opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia declared that the amendment protects an essential individual right, one that is "unconnected with service in a militia."

One major thing the decision didn't do, however, was directly address a crucial question going forward: whether the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is applicable against the states as well as the federal government (which administers Washington, D.C.). Under what's known as the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court has gradually ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies many of the protections contained in the Bill of Rights against infringement by state and local governments. The Second Amendment, however, has been glaringly absent from this process. Did Heller change that, too?

Technically no. But since the Court wasn't asked to settle that matter, the fact that it didn't do so is no cause for alarm. In fact, the decision offers cause for some real hope. Justice Scalia's extensive reliance on historical sources and scholarship sends a very promising signal to those who'd like to see the Second Amendment enforced against the states. If history matters, and Heller certainly says that it does, then strong evidence for incorporation is likely to carry real weight in future litigation.

So let's consider the origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states in part, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." As legal historian Michael Kent Curtis makes clear in his definitive book, No State Shall Abridge: The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, the radical Republicans who drafted and then spearheaded the 1868 ratification of the amendment clearly intended and understood it to apply the entire Bill of Rights to the states.

In short, these legislators, most of whom had been active in the anti-slavery and abolitionist movements, wanted to secure the life, liberty, and property of the recently freed slaves and their white allies in the former Confederate states. This quite obviously and quite necessarily included the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of self-defense. Ohio Rep. John Bingham, for instance, the author of the Fourteenth Amendment's crucial first section, which was quoted above, declared that "the privileges and immunities" it refers to "are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution." Similarly, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who presented the amendment to the Senate, described its object as "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees," including "the right to keep and to bear arms." For a state or federal judge following the methodology laid out in Heller, such information could prove very persuasive.

In modern-day Chicago, meanwhile, gun rights activists have already seized the initiative. Within hours of Heller's announcement, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the city's draconian handgun ban, a law that has deprived Chicagoans of the right to self-defense for the past quarter of a century. Benna Solomon, deputy corporation council for the city, responded by telling the Chicago Tribune that "the 2nd Amendment does not apply to state and local government," adding: "We are prepared to aggressively litigate this issue and defend this ordinance."

Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued Heller before the Court, and who is now representing the plaintiffs in the Chicago case, is more than ready. As he told reason this week, "The next step is obviously 14th Amendment incorporation. I'm looking forward to leading that fight."

Damon W. Root is an associate editor of reason.

Phyllis Schlafly on The Law of The Sea Treaty (LOST)

This took place a couple of years ago, not sure when exactly, but we need to remember that these so-called international treaties are exactly the way the socialists want to negate our American sovereignty. Bush is pushing for LOST, but so far, the full Senate has not ratified it. This is America: "we don't need no stinkin' treaty"...

Don't Forget the NAU/ SPP Conspiracy

Just so we don't let the current government-wide NAU conspiracy slip into oblivion through complacency, here is the CNN's Lou Dodd Feb, 2007 interview with Accuracy in Media (AIM) editor, Cliff Kincaid:



For more background information on the push for globalization and the elitist's Trilateral Commision, founded by David Rockerfeller, go to:
__________________________________________________

The August Review

How to understand Globalization:

1. Follow the money, follow the power
2. Discern illusion from reality, especially with media outlets
3. Listen to experts who offer a meaningful critique
4. Study & verify sources and footnotes
5. Apply liberal doses of common sense

__________________________________________________

Once an understanding is gained of how the power brokers work by advancing the WTO and the "Free Trade Agreements", NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnerships through NGO affiliations, their goals of "unifying North America" become evident. Then the phenomenon of the relaxed border security with Mexico, and the government's acceptance of the horde of illegal aliens (Mexicans) begins to make sense. (see rule 1. Follow the money) The end-run around Congress is being achieved by "trade agreements" and otherwise sneeky (and cheeky) agreements through the Executive Branch of our government.

When researching the SPP's last year, this is what I found.

In essence, this is a vast left-wing and right-wing conspiracy, with the strings being pulled by the elitists with money and power to exert influence wherever and whenever they choose. The Robber Barrons of the 20th Century have become the driving force to control the world today; by amassing unprecedented money and power, there is literally nowhere in the world they don't exert enormous pressure to adopt their ideas and agendas. Too much money in the wrong hands. Too much money in anybody's hands! It is high time the Leftist philanthropies gave up this insane push for a Utopian world.

The Wall Street Journal offers a ray of hope in the way the liberal left philanthropies are beginning to operate. According to James Piereson, they are beginning to operate as conservative philanthropies. Go figure. Instead of throwing indecent gobs of dollars at hopeless feel-good initiatives, they are beginning to contribute money with an emphasis on "real-world outcomes". Let's pray that their pattern of funding endowments continues alongside the conservative philanthropies, that entropy finally brings the Carnegies and the Rockerfellers to their senses, and that they truly become a force for social good.

The time of influence of the old hippy academics, for whom it was always just a game anyway, is waning. If the Soros-type money that was keeping them fat all along dries up in the next couple of decades, maybe all that cultural humanist drivel will simply dry up with them. One can always hope.

Robert O. Bothwell provides an overview of the role of philanthropy organizations: What Has Philanthropy Done To Counter The Decline Of Progressive Policy?

When the founding fathers established our Constitution, the power to govern was hierarchical in nature, even though we in school were taught that the "Balance of Powers" would be sufficient to establish order and fairness in government. It hasn't turned out that way at all. In fact, the Legislative Branch was supposed to be the ruling power, the Executive Branch was to have much-diminished powers, and the Judicial Branch very little power. But it devolved into a much different arrangement in the latter half of the 20th Century. Indeed, everything is out of sync, out of reach of the consent of the governed. It's no secret that the two political parties the American people rely on are, operationally, barely distinguishable. Or that the federal judiciary, once a very minor player, is a major force for cultural change for Leftist ideology, arrogantly legislating from the bench.

Whether there will be a return to Reason in the first half of the 21st Century, or a continuance toward a Totalitarian Democracy, a Cultural Marxism, in which the individual sovereign citizen is stripped of his dignity and strength, in favor of a Socialist hegemony, depends in large measure upon each of our 50 states' desire and will to remain autonomous and independent, and also whether or not the federal judiciary plays an honest role in interpreting our Constitution. Congress has the power, if not the will, to reassume it's right and proper role in American government.

WILL THE REAL OBAMA.... SIT YO' ASS DOWN

________________________________________________

OBAMAOBAMAOBAMAOBAMAobamaobamaobamazzzzzzzzzz.............

______________________________________________________________________________



Just havin' a little fun. It's 107 degrees Fahrenheit out here on the high plains, so I'm staying inside, bored and decided to have a look at what the good folks in the Demokratik pahrty were sayin' about Ole BHO. Hmmm, not looking too good for Barry today.

-with thanks to Sultan Knish

This is a letter posted on No Quarter

Major DNC Donor to Party Treasurer: Obama is a Bad Investment

By NancyA

July 29, 2008

From IOwnMyVote.com newsletter comes a verrrrry interesting letter from a long-time DNC donor who has become dissatisfied with this cycle’s candidate.

The following is a letter sent to Democratic National Committee Treasurer Andy Tobias telling him why, from a rational investor’s point of view, Obama has not earned the author’s vote. The letter was sent by one of the DNC’s biggest donors, a donor who has historically maxed out to the DNC and who was a maxed out donor in both the Kerry and Clinton campaigns, in response to comments by Tobias that she could not see the forest through the trees.

You decide.


Dear Andy,

So you want to know what is taking me so long to “get on board”? Let me try to answer with some discussion of what my 25 years on Wall Street and the Hedge Fund community have taught me, and what insights I can share in order to explain my stance.

As you know, anyone in our profession meets with countless management teams on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. The “plots” change from time to time and the cast of characters play musical chairs. After awhile, they become all too familiar. You have seen the movie before. When you spot the corrupt CFO enter the scene, it immediately casts a doubt on the rest of the management team. One or two conclusions can be drawn - either they are inept or they wanted a dishonest player. Neither answer provides any comfort, but always insight. I have been lied to by the best of them over the decades; I am sure you have had similar experiences.

After years of stepping in land mines, I learned to read people and situations. I had no choice - my listening skills were honed, my gut fine-tuned. I picked up on what was and was not said, and I always paid close attention to the cast of characters. The actions of a management team always told me more than anything they ever said. If they were bailing out, so was I. If the head of sales left unexpectedly, alarm bells went off.

In the thirteen years that I have had audited results, I lost money in only one year, and then only in single digits. I am proud that I was able repay my investors’ faith and confidence in me by compounding their funds assets, net of fees, at 18% over those 13 years. I took my responsibilities seriously and when I knew I could not give it 110% of my energies, I turned it over to someone who would. My investors deserved someone who would work tirelessly on their behalf, looking under every rock in support of their interests.

The fact that I became successful is not what made me proud. It was how I did it. My soul is intact. It was the self-imposed rules and standards that I adhered to. I believed in a win, win, and still do. My investors always came first. I never screwed anyone over. I made plenty of mistakes, but I always owned them, never blaming others. I treated everyone fairly and with respect, believing everyone has something to offer. I always tried to do the right thing.

So what does this have to do with me not falling in line and supporting Obama? Well everything as you can see.

Andy, if I worked and served the people in the 13th District in Chicago, I would have known all of the players. And to win that district, would I have gamed the system to run unopposed? Tony Rezko would not have had a seat at my table. Either Obama is a fool and is blind to what should have been obvious, or someone like Tony is fine by Obama’s standards. The guy is a dirtball. And a dirtball would not be part of my circle, certainly not my inner circle. I would rather not be elected than associate with someone like Rezko.

I would not choose Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, or Father Plager as my spiritual mentors, not for political reasons or any other reason. Again, he is either blind or an opportunist. Would I be hanging out with Mr. Ayers? Would you? Would you refuse to be photographed with Gavin Newsom? There is a pattern with this guy - he manipulates; and for him the ends justify the means. He lacks character.



Getting not one bill passed in the first 6 years of his career in not inspiring. Having Emil Jones hand him the ball 26 times on the one-yard line in order to make Obama a United States Senator does not cut it either. What deals he made, he did to benefit no one but himself. He never worked long enough in either Senate to help the people who elected him. Andy, I could never imagine you taking credit for legislation someone else slaved over. Starting in his community organizing days he claimed sole responsibility for other people’s accomplishments all for the purpose to boosting his career.

In terms of the campaign itself, I had the opportunity to witness his methods up close. During the primaries I was in 6 states, 2 of which had caucuses; it was not clean. El Paso was a joke with the Obama campaign stealing the caucus packets, locking supporters out - Intimidation 101, 102 and 103. Fair elections do not seem to be a priority in my birth state. No other machine exists from the days of Boss Tweed, but Chicago’s. How many elected officials are in jail?They are the joke of the nation. It is called the Chicago machine for good reason.

It was clear that what I saw and experienced was not a fluke or isolated incidents, but coordinated, deliberate and arrogant. I got to see him and his organization for who he is and what it is - not inspiring, to say the least. Not something I would have, in business, endorsed in any way. In fact, I would most likely have reported them to the appropriate regulators.

Andy, I have consistently found you to be a compassionate person, but more importantly you have always put your money where your mouth is. Does it not bother you that a guy like Obama can serve a poor district and give away a paltry $1000 to charity? He only stepped up his giving when he decided to run for President and he knew his charitable giving would be made public. How could anyone see that much misery and not try to personally do something about it?

Please, show me something this guy ever did that was not done in a calculated fashion to create and advance his own personal narrative? Something selfless, perhaps, just because it was the right thing to do.

Every person I have talked to who worked at the Law Review at Harvard with him, or in the latter part of his career, said the same thing: he was arrogant and self-centered. One person laughed, saying Obama wanted to be King of the World, that he was always running for something, never staying in one place long enough to amass accomplishments or be held accountable.

Do you not you find it troublesome that he has hundreds of paid bloggers, posting vicious attacks not only about the Clintons but her supporters as well? The whole purpose was to cast him as the second coming, while trashing her and quashing other points of view.

At first I thought is was just some hyped up kids, and then a pattern emerged. He paid others to do his dirty work. The most egregious sexist cracks were rampant, both on the Internet and the MSM. Yet, what did Howard and Obama say? Nothing. Obama promoted it, paid his bloggers to write it. Never once did he try to stop it. Howard, after the damage was done finally commented on it, but barely. Wink,wink.

Andy, I heard remarks that still make my jaw drop.

You know I consider myself a centrist. The right wing of the Republican Party scares me, but so does the left. Ideologues of either side should not have control simultaneously of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of the government. Absolute power corrupts, be it on the left or the right. Ha, but you will say…. the courts. If you have the legislative branch, all will be fine. McCain voted Ginsberg in, he is not a stupid man and certainly not an Ideologue, and he took heat in the primaries for refusing to have a litmus test for judges. And need I remind you that Obama thought Roberts was an acceptable appointment until some more experienced hands in the Senate told him that would not do?

Painting him as Bush 3 is a little annoying, and what’s up with the MoveOn Baby Alex commercial? Give credit where credit is due. McCain went against his own party twice on immigration reform, on ethanol subsidies, and campaign finance reform. He started talking about Global warming 8 years ago. I don’t agree with McCain on a number of topics, but I do believe he has principals and a backbone. He is not willing to just say anything to get elected.

I can’t say the same for Obama who is turning out to be more like Bush than McCain; Obama is at least as arrogant as W, just more polished. Are you not ashamed, in these past weeks, of his reckless abandon of any pretense to a moral center on issues such as FISA, separation of church and state, gun control? And what he did to one of my heroes, Wes Clark? Insulting my intelligence and my standards will not win me over.

But, in this conversation, you will say, McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. No, he said that as in Japan, or Korea, we could have a presence. We have been in both of those countries for 60 years and not leaving any time soon, and the world is safer for it.

Next will be, McCain is not knowledgeable about the economy. While with Carly Fiorina, who I remember from her Lucent days, at a town meeting he turned the microphone over to Carly when asked about the mortgage mess, painting her as the expert. Wow - he gave a woman a compliment, praising her knowledge, referring to her as the expert. How often have you praised Charles, or me, and everyone for that matter? Why? Because you are gracious and you know it reflects well on you.

All this might not bother me so much if the stakes where not so high, but they are. I am an issues person, not a cult of personality devotee. Substance matters. Barack is a politician, an inexperienced one at that, pretending he is different. I just see him as arrogant and power hungry. Our country deserves better, someone I would be proud to do business with.

Andy, my country comes first, not the Democrat party. Having said that, I believe that the Democratic Party has just kicked away the best candidate and our best chance to redeem our country, Hillary Clinton, a proven centrist. Given his resume, or should I say the lack of one, he is either ineffective or hiding something, neither answer gives me the warm fuzzies. If she is chosen in Denver, you can count on my full and enthusiastic support. Until then,

I own my vote.

Gun Bans & Genocide - The Disarming Facts

Written two years ago, this article by Dave Kopel outlines in chilling detail the set-up and fall of an indigenous African people, mainly Christians and Animists, but also Africans who are also Muslim. This genocide in the Sudan has been ongoing since 1989, when Bashir seized control, and in full view of the world.


Second Amendment Project
America's 1st Freedom, August 2006

Gun Bans & Genocide
The Disarming Facts

by Dave Kopel

The international gun prohibition lobbies and their United Nations allies insist that there is no personal right of self-defense—that people should be forced to rely exclusively on the government protection. The prohibitionists also insist that there is no human right for people to possess the means of self-defense, such as firearms. But what are people supposed to do when the government itself starts killing people? The genocide in Darfur, Sudan, is the direct result of the types of gun laws which the United Nations is trying to impose all over the world. Millions of people have already died because of such laws, and millions more will die unless the U.N. is stopped.

Like Iran today and Afghanistan under the Taliban, Sudan is ruled by a totalitarian, Islamist Arab government. The current regime took power in a military coup in 1989, and immediately began imposing Islamic law throughout the country, and perpetrating genocide. The genocide targets have varied: people in the central highlands were the first victim. Then the black Africans of south Sudan, who are mainly Christians or Animists. The most recent genocide victims are the people of Darfur, a Texas-sized region in western Sudan.

The Darfuris are Muslims, but like the majority of Sudan’s population, they are black Africans, in contrast to the Arabs who control the government.

The foundation of Sudan’s genocide is, as with almost every other genocide in world history, the disarmament of the victims. In Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to the national gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations.

When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15 rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan's firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.

The practical application of the gun laws is different. If you are someone the government wants to slaughter—such as all the black Africans of southern and western Sudan, regardless of their religion—then you are absolutely forbidden to possess a firearm. A U.S. Department of State document notes: “After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons.”

On the other hand, if you’re an Arab who wants to kill blacks, then Sudan’s gun control laws became awfully loose. In Darfur, there has been a long rivalry between camel-riding Arab nomads and black African pastoralists. The Arabs consider the blacks to be racially inferior, and fit only for slavery. In Darfur Rising, the International Crisis Group explains: “Beginning in the mid-1980s, successive governments in Khartoum inflamed matters by supporting and arming the Arab tribes, in part to prevent the southern rebels from gaining a foothold in the region….Arabs formed militias, burned African villages, and killed thousands. Africans in turn formed self-defense groups, members of which eventually became the first Darfur insurgents to appear in 2003.”

The report states that what provoked the black African to rise up against the Khartoum tyranny was “the government's failure to enforce the terms of a tribal peace agreement requiring nomads of Arab background to pay blood money for killing dozens of Zaghawas [one of the African tribes in Darfur], including prominent tribal chiefs.”

Likewise, Peter Verney, of the London-based Sudan Update, writes that the government armed the Arabs “while removing the weapons of the farmers, the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.” He points out that the disarmament of the Africans has been enforced ruthlessly: “Since 2001, Darfur has been governed under central government decree, with special courts to try people suspected of illegal possession or smuggling of weapons…The security forces have misused these powers for arbitrary and indefinite detention.”

While the blacks are forbidden to possess arms, the Arabs are given arms by the government--five or six guns per person according to Amnesty International. The Arabs are then formed into terrorist gangs known as Janjaweed (literally, “evil men on horseback” or “devil on a horse”).

In both south Sudan (Christian and Animist Africans) and western Sudan (that is, Darfur, inhabited by Muslim Africans) there were armed rebels groups. That these resistance groups had been able to acquire weapons illegally was a great affront to the United Nations and the gun prohibition lobbies, who denounce any form of gun possession by “non-state actors.” A “non-state actor” is any person or group whose arms possession is not approved by the government; examples include the Sudanese who were fighting the genocidal dictatorship in their country, the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, and the American revolutionaries.

The Sudanese resistance movements, although able to acquire some arms for their own operations, did not have the resources to protect the many isolated villages in the vast nation.

So with the black villagers disarmed—thanks to Sudan’s strict gun laws—and the Arab gangs well-armed (thanks to the government), the stage was set for genocide. Typically, the mounted Arab gangs would attack a village on the ground, while the Sudanese military provided air support and bombed the village.

In the south Sudan, the genocide program killed 2.2. million victims, and drove 4.5 million from their homes. Victims who were not killed were often sold into slavery. Rape was extensively used as an instrument of state terror.

Darfur was the next target

There, the Janjaweed have caused the deaths of up to 400,000 black Sudanese, have raped many thousands, and have forced over two million black Sudanese into refugee camps. After a village has been softened up by bombardment from the Sudan Air Force, the Janjaweed enter and pillage, killing and raping in order to displace the population and steal the land.

In the December 2004 issue of Commentary magazine, Roger Sandall writes that the Janjaweed attackers “unmistakably hurl racial abuse at their victims, alleging in particular that Africans are born to be slaves: ‘Slaves, run! Leave the country. You don’t belong; why are you not leaving this area for Arab cattle to graze?’”

Notably, the majority of villages bombed were villages where there were no armed rebels. Thus, the destruction of the villages should be seen not as an overzealous form of counter-insurgency warfare, but rather as a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire society. The ethnic cleansing of Darfur has been so thorough that, literally, there are no villages left to burn.

The victim villagers are generally unarmed. Amnesty International reported the testimony of a villager who complained: “none of us had arms and we were not able to resist the attack.” One under-armed villager lamented: “I tried to take my spear to protect my family, but they threatened me with a gun, so I stopped. The six Arabs then raped my daughter in front of me, my wife and my other children.”

In cases when the villagers were able to resist, the cost to the marauders rose: Human Rights Watch reported that “some of Kudun’s residents mobilized to protect themselves, and fifteen of the attackers were reportedly killed.”

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review asked a U.S. State Department official why there were no reports of the Darfur victims fighting back. “Some do defend themselves,” he explained. But he added that the perpetrators have helicopters and automatic rifles, whereas the victims have only machetes.

Darfur is one of those places where the government has implemented Rebecca Peters principle that crime victims should not use arms to protect themselves. The Sudan Organisation Against Torture (a human rights group based in London) reported on March 20 about an incident which took place on March 7:

Two men “in military uniform attacked four girls from Seraif IDP [refugee] camp, Hay AlGeer, West Nyala, Southern Darfur. The girls were attacked whilst collecting firewood outside the camp at 11:30. During the attack, one of the men assaulted one of the girls and attempted to rape her. The armed man touched the girl’s breasts and attempted to forcefully remove her underwear. When she resisted, the man began to beat her. In defence she grabbed a knife that she had been using to cut the firewood and stabbed the attacker in the stomach.”

“Following the stabbing, the girls managed to escape and returned to Seraif camp where they reported the incident to police officers inside the camp. The police refused to file the case.”

One of the rapists died from a knife wound. “Following the news of the death, the officers immediately arrested the four girls inside the camp on suspicion of murder.” They face execution by hanging. The girls are: Amouna Mohamed Ahmed (age 17), Fayza Ismail Abaker (16), Houda Ismail Abdel Rahman (17), and Zahra Adam Abdella (17).

Under intense pressure from President Bush, the Khartoum government signed a cease-fire treaty for south Sudan in late 2004. The government has promised that in 2010, the south Sudanese will be able to vote on a referendum for independence. In May 2006, the Khartoum government and the Darfur rebels signed a treaty,

But it would be foolish to invest too much hope in the Khartoum government living up to its treaty obligations. In 2003, Sudan ratified the international Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide—and went right on committing genocide in Darfur.

The United Nations has done nothing meaningful to stop the genocide in Sudan. An African Union “peacekeeping” force was dispatched, but that small and low-quality force was only assigned to protecting international aid workers at refugee camps. The AU is not supposed to protect the actual victims.

One reason for U.N. inaction is the Chinese, Russians, and French—each of whom have Security Council veto power—are apparently determined to protect their own lucrative commercial and oil development relations with Sudan’s tyrants.

Because the international community has utterly failed to protect the Darfuris, they have every moral right to protect themselves. In an article in the Notre Dame Law Review, Paul Gallant, Joanne Eisen, and I argue that the Genocide Convention gives the Darfuris a formal legal right to arms.

(The article is available on my website, www.davekopel.org, and contains citations for most of the facts in this First Freedom article.)

A teenage girl with a gun might not be the ideal soldier. But she is certainly not the ideal rape victim. It is not particularly difficult to learn how to use a firearm to shoot a would-be rapist from a distance of fifteen or twenty-five feet away. Would every one of the Janjaweed Arab bullies who enjoy raping African girls be brave enough to dare trying to rape a girl who was carrying a rifle or a handgun?

The United Nations, however, is hard at work to make sure that genocide victims in Sudan, and anywhere else in Africa, will not be able to resist. Sudan is covered by a U.N.-backed treaty called the “The Nairobi Protocol for the Prevention, Control and Reduction of Small Arms and Light Weapons in the Great Lakes Region and the Horn of Africa.” The protocol was signed on in 2004, by representatives of Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Sudan, Uganda, and Tanzania.

The requires universal gun registration, complete prohibition of all civilian-owned semi-automatic rifles, “heavy minimum sentences for...the carrying of unlicensed small arms,” as well as programs to encourage citizens to surrender their guns, widespread searches for firearms, educational programs to discourage gun ownership, and other polices to disarm the public.

The U.N. is, successfully pushing for gun control in East African nations with current genocides: Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ethiopia. Several others, such as Rwanda and Uganda, have recent histories of genocide against disarmed victims. Quite plainly, the U.N. believes that resisting an actual genocide in progress is not a sufficient reason for someone to want to own a gun.

A similar disarmament project is being pushed by the United Nations in the South African Development Community.

A set of mandatory anti-gun laws mostly similar to East Africa’s Nairobi Protocol is also being pushed in southern Africa, for the nations in the

Southern African Development Community (SADC). Two of the SADC nations—Zimbabwe and Congo—are the sites current genocides.

Even more extreme U.N. gun prohibitions are being imposed in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Among the ECOWAS states where the U.N. has successfully pushed victim disarmament are the Ivory Coast (Côte d’Ivoire) and Guinea. According to Genocide Watch, Ivory Coast has entered the final pre-genocide phase of “preparation.”

In Guinea, the National Alliance for Democracy and Development warns that, "There is a looming Rwanda-type genocide..."

The gun prohibition lobbies have so thoroughly penetrated the United Nations that, at the U.N. anti-gun conference which begins on June 26, gun prohibition lobby staff which actually be serving as delegates from various governments.

The prohibition lobbies and their U.N. allies will tell you that people never need guns for protection—not for protection from rapists, and not for protection from genocidaires. Governments and the United Nations will protect everyone. The tragedy of disarmed victims in the Sudan, and all over Africa, shows the deadly falseness of the prohibitionist promise. For decades, millions of Africans have been slaughtered by genocidal tyrants while the rest of the world stood idle. Now, the United Nations has become objectively complicit in genocide, by trying to ensure that never again will anyone targeted for genocide be able to use a firearm to save herself or her family.