Friday, August 30, 2013

Anti Iraq War Speech delivered by Illinois State Senator Barack Obama

danaroc.com ^ | October 2, 2002 | Barack HUSSEIN 0bama

Good afternoon. Let begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don't oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don't oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administrations pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.
I don't oppose all wars.
And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.
What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perles and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Roves to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone thru the worst month since the Great Depression.
That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the middle east, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Queda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Queda, thru effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons in already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not we will not travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

BET YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE SOURCE OF THESE IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS

Early aircraft's throttles had a ball on the end of it, in order to go full throttle the pilot had to push the throttle all the way forward into the wall of the instrument panel. Hence "balls to the wall" for going very fast. And now you know, the rest of the story.
********************************* During WWII , U.S. airplanes were armed with belts of bullets which they would shoot during dogfights and on strafing runs. These belts were folded into the wing compartments that fed their machine guns. These belts measure 27 feet and contained hundreds of rounds of bullets. Often times, the pilots would return from their missions having expended all of their bullets on various targets. They would say, �I gave them the whole nine yards,� meaning they used up all of their ammunition.
********************************* Did you know the saying "God willing and the creek don't rise" was in reference to the Creek Indians and not a body of water? It was written by Benjamin Hawkins in the late 18th century. He was a politician and Indian diplomat. While in the south, Hawkins was requested by the President of the U.S. to return to Washington . In his response, he was said to write, "God willing and the Creek don't rise." Because he capitalized the word "Creek" it is deduced that he was referring to the Creek Indian tribe and not a body of water.
********************************* In George Washington's days, there were no cameras. One's image was either sculpted or painted. Some paintings of George Washington showed him standing behind a desk with one arm behind his back while others showed both legs and both arms. Prices charged by painters were not based on how many people were to be painted, but by how many limbs were to be painted. Arms and legs are 'limbs,' therefore painting them would cost the buyer more. Hence the expression, 'Okay, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg.' (Artists know hands and arms are more difficult to paint.)
****************************** As incredible as it sounds, men and women took baths only twice a year (May and October). Women kept their hair covered, while men shaved their heads (because of lice and bugs) and wore wigs. Wealthy men could afford good wigs made from wool. They couldn't wash the wigs, so to clean them they would carve out a loaf of bread, put the wig in the shell, and bake it for 30 minutes. The heat would make the wig big and fluffy, hence the term 'big wig'. Today we often use the term 'here comes the Big Wig' because someone appears to be or is powerful and wealthy.
********************************* In the late 1700's, many houses consisted of a large room with only one chair. Commonly, a long wide board folded down from the wall, and was used for dining. The 'head of the household' always sat in the chair while everyone else ate sitting on the floor. Occasionally a guest, who was usually a man, would be invited to sit in this chair during a meal. To sit in the chair meant you were important and in charge. They called the one sitting in the chair the 'chair man.' Today in business, we use the expression or title 'Chairman' or 'Chairman of the Board.'
********************************* Personal hygiene left much room for improvement. As a result, many women and men had developed acne scars by adulthood. The women would spread bee's wax over their facial skin to smooth out their complexions. When they were speaking to each other, if a woman began to stare at another woman's face she was told, 'mind your own bee's wax.' Should the woman smile, the wax would crack, hence the term 'crack a smile'. In addition, when they sat too close to the fire, the wax would melt. Therefore, the expression 'losing face.'
********************************* Ladies wore corsets, which would lace up in the front. A proper and dignified woman, as in 'straight laced' wore a tightly tied lace.
********************************* Common entertainment included playing cards. However, there was a tax levied when purchasing playing cards but only applicable to the 'Ace of Spades.' To avoid paying the tax, people would purchase 51 cards instead. Yet, since most games require 52 cards, these people were thought to be stupid or dumb because they weren't 'playing with a full deck.'
******************************** Early politicians required feedback from the public to determine what the people considered important. Since there were no telephones, TV's or radios, the politicians sent their assistants to local taverns, pubs, and bars. They were told to 'go sip some Ale and listen to people's conversations and political concerns. Many assistants were dispatched at different times. 'You go sip here' and 'You go sip there.' The two words 'go sip' were eventually combined when referring to the local opinion and, thus we have the term 'gossip.'
********************************** At local taverns, pubs, and bars, people drank from pint and quart-sized containers. A bar maid's job was to keep an eye on the customers and keep the drinks coming. She had to pay close attention and remember who was drinking in 'pints' and who was drinking in 'quarts,' hence the phrase 'minding your 'P's and Q's'.
********************************** One more: bet you didn't know this! In the heyday of sailing ships, all war ships and many freighters carried iron cannons. Those cannons fired round iron cannon balls. It was necessary to keep a good supply near the cannon. However, how to prevent them from rolling about the deck? The best storage method devised was a square-based pyramid with one ball on top, resting on four resting on nine, which rested on sixteen. Thus, a supply of 30 cannon balls could be stacked in a small area right next to the cannon. There was only one problem....how to prevent the bottom layer from sliding or rolling from under the others. The solution was a metal plate called a 'Monkey' with 16 round indentations. However, if this plate were made of iron, the iron balls would quickly rust to it. The solution to the rusting problem was to make 'Brass Monkeys.' Few landlubbers realize that brass contracts much more and much faster than iron when chilled.. Consequently, when the temperature dropped too far, the brass indentations would shrink so much that the iron cannonballs would come right off the monkey; Thus, it was quite literally, 'Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey.' (All this time, you thought that was an improper expression, didn't you.)
If you don't send this fabulous bit of historic knowledge to any and all your unsuspecting friends, your hard drive will kill your mouse.

COMPARING CROWDS: WHO DREW MORE PEOPLE TO THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, OBAMA OR BECK?

The Blaze ^ | Aug. 29, 2013 11:11am | Mike Opelka

Wednesday was a big day in Washington, D.C. Huge crowds swarmed the area beneath the Lincoln Memorial and along the Reflecting Pool as three American presidents — Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush could not attend due to health reasons) — a host of congressional representatives and dignitaries gathered to mark the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.
NBC News initially described the crowd in a rather nebulous manner, reporting that “throngs of people” were there. The post was amended to say “tens of thousands.”
The New York Times coverage only mentioned crowd size once, using the phrase “tens of thousands of Americans.”
ABC News’ Mike Levine quoted “unofficial” law enforcement estimates saying “over 20,000″ people were on the National Mall just after 2 p.m.
CBS News actually posted a photo from above the crowd, estimating “tens of thousands” of people.
Back in 2010 during “Restoring Honor,” AirPhotosLive provided CBS with the crowd estimate of 87,000.
Looking back to “Restoring Honor,” media accounts of the crowd size varied quite a bit. However, even the lowest estimate from CBS News appears to have dwarfed Wednesday’s event.
CBS News: 87,000 (plus or minus 9,000)
ABC News: 100,000
NBC News: Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch: Between 120,000 – 200,000
Washington Post: Between 80,000 – 200,000
Australia’s Daily Telegraph: 300,000
How many were on the National Mall on 8-28-2013 vs. 8-28-2010? The photos show a compelling argument that Beck’s rally was an easy winner in the total attendees category.

Plunge: MSNBC Ratings in Free Fall

Townhall.com ^ | August 29, 2013 | Guy Benson


Unabashed, sneering, surreal lefty propaganda isn't selling.  America's least-watched "major" cable "news" network has continued its ratings slide this summer, falling off a cliff within the key 25-54 demographic.  I put "news" in scare quotes because MSNBC is not a news outfit, by its own president's admission, and according to empirical independent studies.  The network's numbers are way down across the board and have sustained especially dramatic erosion during the key primetime hours:



MSNBC continued its rough 2013 in the ratings, continuing to lose significant audience from 2012. The problems were particularly prevalent in primetime, with some shows losing close to -50% of viewers....In primetime, “The Rachel Maddow Show” posted all-time low ratings in total and demo viewers, down -43% and -47%, respectively. “The Last Word” posted a low in total viewers, losing -40% of its total viewer audience and -42% of its demo audience. at 8 PM, “All in” was down -48% and -42% in total and demo viewers, respectively, placing behind CNN for the hour.


MSNBC's flagship program, The Rachel Maddow Show has hemorrhaged nearly half of its viewers over the past year.  On average, the network attracted a measly 173,000 primetime viewers within 'the demo' this month.  Things have gotten bad enough that MSNBC executives have decided to restore Ed Schultz to weeknights at 5pm ET, supplanting the first run of Chris Matthews' Hardball.  Schultz -- afailed conservative radio host -- is the angriest, yelliest host in the network, and was banished to weekends this past spring.  Now he's back to save the day.  Ranting about how Republicans "want to see you dead!" is evidently more appealing to MSNBC's sophisticated audience than the musings of a more cerebral host like Chris Hayes, who replaced Schultz in the 8pm hour.  Not all the ratings data is bad for the network, however:


MSNBC was the only cable channel to see viewership growth last August, thanks in part to live coverage from the Olympics...It should also be noted that with the slow news month, the weekend crime programming like “Lockup” rated very well for MSNBC, helping to boost its primetime and total day averages.


Perfect.  MSNBC performs best with America's television audience writ large when it steps away from its normal political programming to air sports and documentaries about prison life.  I'll leave you with Big Ed returning with a bang:

Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners ‘Is the Right Thing to Do’

CNS News ^ | August 30, 2013 | Terence P. Jeffrey

(CNSNews.com) - The Chicago Public Schools this year are mandating that the district’s kindergarten classes include sex education, fulfilling a proposal President Barack Obama supported in 2003 when he served in the Illinois state senate and later defended when he ran for president in the 2008 election cycle.

At a Planned Parenthood convention at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Washington, D.C., on July 17, 2007, a teenage girl who said she worked as a sex-education “peer educator” in the D.C. public schools asked then-U.S. Sen. Obama what he would do to encourage the teaching of “medically accurate, age-appropriate, and responsible sex education.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...

Obama Better Have the Goods on Syria

New York Magazine ^ 

I’m predisposed to favor a punitive air strike against Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians. But there are some important questions being raised by skeptics of such a strike.
The primary question centers on the legality or moral legitimacy of attacking a country with whom we are not at war. The clearest justifications for military action don’t apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didn’t sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
I think the enforcement of such a norm is legitimate and would make Bashar al-Assad and other dictators hesitate before using such weapons in the future. But if you’re resting the morality of your attack on such a slender reed, you need very strong evidence that the regime you’re targeting actually used chemical weapons. And the administration’s case is starting to look shaky:
Multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture …
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture.
British intelligence asserts that it has “a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus.” That "limited" bit does not provide the level of certainty I was hoping to hear.
The weaker legal basis for a military strike requires a higher factual basis of proof. The Obama administration needs to nail down its case (which it is reportedly due to present publicly today), and if it can’t, it needs to back down.
Update: The UK Parliament has voted not to participate in any strike against Syria. Meanwhile, Obama is apparently ready to go it alone. This seems like a dangerous combination: If you're enforcing an international norm, you ought to have not only very solid evidence that it was broken but also at least some international support. Otherwise it is less an international norm than an American norm.
It's one thing if the case involves an imminent massacre, like in Libya. But the urgency of action, and potential benefits, are much lower in this case. I don't think we're in danger of being sucked into a war -- that's just people assuming the most recent historical experience will be repeated, the same mistake that always happens in foreign policy. But the case for action just keeps fraying around the edges at every point. At the very least, the burden of proof on Obama to produce unimpeachable evidence for Syrian guilt is extremely high.

How to find and buy firearms, ammunition and related items online

The Daily Caller ^ | August 30, 2013 | Jim Wingo

Are you having trouble finding firearms or magazines, but especially ammunition in stock and at reasonable prices?
I have had a number of people tell me they can’t find ammunition. Since early February, I have bought and sold many rounds of ammunition and a number of firearms, magazines and other accessories over the Internet. I’ve also sold literally thousands of rounds of the ammunition I found to friends and coworkers. I shared with them how I do it, and now I share here as well.
I have been so busy in my “day job”, that I had not noticed there was already a panic underway until the Gun Show the first weekend of December 2012. There I learned that the ammunition vendors sold out their entire stock of .223 and 5.56 mm ammunition within two hours.
Then on December 14 a psychotic boy murdered his own mother and 20 six and seven year old kids, and six adults with his mother’s AR-15 at Sandy Hook Elementary school. In the aftermath began a firestorm of debate over whether to expand national gun control laws. Subsequent fears of a new ban on AR and AK type weapons and high capacity magazines fueled an epic buying frenzy.
Now in late-August, the panic of 2013 has subsided, somewhat. Firearms and ammunition are appearing on store shelves again, but gunpowder and some calibers of ammunition continue to be difficult to find or non-existent.
Here’s how to find the ammunition that is available and how to buy through eBay style auction web sites like Gun Broker, Gun Auction and Guns America, and find deals through online commercial vendors using search sites like Slickguns, Gun-deals and Ammo Seek......
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

Who are the neo-con cowboys now?

NY Post ^ | August 30, 2013 | BENNY AVNI

The secretary of state boiled with moral indignation, American pride and war bluster. The defense secretary huffed that America has “moved assets in place” and is “ready” to punish the strongman. And though the president says he has yet to decide whether to attack, leaked details of the coming military action were all over the newspapers: Within “days,” US Navy ships will launch a barrage of Tomahawks at selected targets.
Have George W. Bush and his band of cowboy neo-cons retaken the White House?
If only. This time the secretary of state is John Kerry, who launched a political career opposing the Vietnam War. The defense secretary? Chuck Hagel, who revived his career by quitting his party after the Iraq war.

They’re part of a team that includes Vice President Joe Biden, who once vowed to impeach any president that goes to war without congressional approval. And, of course, President Obama, who became president in large part because, as a junior senator, he voted against the Iraq war. And who has been insisting that the “tide of war is receding.”

What’s up with all that?
… So: Based on Israeli intelligence, America plans to hit a Mideast Baathist regime over weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the UN —and even Congress. Have we missed any of the clichés that were (unfairly) thrown at Bush and the neo-cons before and after the Iraq war?
(Excerpt) Read more at m.nypost.com ...

Obama Admin. to Reap the 'Harvests' of Lost Credibility ; Bengazi, Fast & Furious, NATO

Aug 30 2013 | Lee Martell

The British may be starting to awaken to what sort of administration they are dealing with in the United States under this President. England stunned many, delighted others when they collectively refused to give Prime Minister David Cameron the go ahead to team with America for an aerial attack on Syria. Go look at Drudge today and see the open letter to President Obama daring him, double daring him to attack Syria as he has repeatedly threatened. The propaganda article is supposedly written by Hafez Assad, President Assads'11 year old boy. Of course this was not written by a child, but the point is Syria and everybody else could see Obama does not wish to fight back in a strong and clear manner. President Obama is well known for chosing to "lead from behind'.
One of many reasons England is not down for the struggle with us for this as now presented is because this White House is notorious for it's lying, it's parsing of the truth, it's legalese , its' self serving and elliptical way of reasoning. Very few countries trust the U.S. to back it's words with actions over the long term, regardless of what is promised today.
Does the Obama Administration really think we Tea Party people are the only ones who have been appalled and disgusted by their immoral, unethical behavior in so many recent instances? It boggles the mind, what has been allowed to continue; Fast and Furious type weaponry loosely distributed in Mexico, never mind the innocent citizens who continue being mowed down by drug cartels freshly armed with these unmarked guns from America.
Do they think no one was bothered by Susan Rice, she of the poker faced liars' club. Susan Rice who blamed an amateur film producer. This producer is or was a political prisoner serving jail time for Hillary's convinence. There are simply too many instances of less than honorable behavior from this administration to take the gamble, if based on what is now told to us.
The instances that highlight the unclear loyalty of this administration continue to this day. On March 13 2013, Hagel announced that The Pentagon cancelled the planned 4th stage of an anti-missile system that had been scheduled for Poland in 2022.

PETA: Eating Chicken Wings During Pregnancy Could Affect Baby’s Penis Size

CBS Philadelphia ^ | August 30, 2013

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) – Eating chicken parts – or, more specifically, chicken wings – could shrink your baby’s man parts.

At least, that’s what PETA is alleging in advance of the National Buffalo Wing Festival.
According to a letter from PETA to Drew Cerza, the founder of the festival, “The latest scientific evidence shows that the sons of pregnant women who consume chicken are more likely to have smaller penises because of a chemical found in the birds’ flesh.”


(Excerpt) Read more at philadelphia.cbslocal.com ...

Obama Doesn't Address What Blacks Lack Most: Jobs!

Townhall.com ^ | August 30, 2013 | Donald Lambro


WASHINGTON -- The solitary sign in the middle of the throngs who gathered at the Lincoln Memorial on Wednesday raised the salient issue that went largely unmentioned by the speakers at the podium: jobs.
In a photograph that ran across the front page of The Washington Post Thursday morning, a black woman held up a large placard that said "We Still Have a Dream: Jobs, Peace, Freedom."
That sign spoke volumes about that one issue that still plagues the African-American community, whose jobless rates are off the charts. It's especially heart-wrenching that jobs came first on the list, above peace and freedom.
That was the unspoken and unfulfilled agenda at the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington where the Rev. Martin Luther King delivered his moving clarion call for racial justice.
The long line of Democrats, including President Obama, refused to acknowledge their party's biggest failure and its most embarrassing, self-inflicted wound -- the refusal to enact pro-growth, pro-job policies to open new economic opportunities for everyone.
Obama's address dealt for the most part with our country's remaining racial issues, but gave little or no serious attention to the weak economy that has hurt black people more than any other group.
Several days before the 50th anniversary observance, the Pew Research Center put out an economic report card on black advancement that said the black unemployment rate remains as bad as ever.
"Much has changed for African-Americans since the 1963 March on Washington" -- which, it will be recalled, was a march for "Jobs and Freedom" -- "but one thing hasn't: The unemployment rate among blacks is about double that among whites." If anything, it's gotten worse.
A recent report from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute says that in 1963 the unemployment rate for whites was 5 percent and 10.9 percent for blacks. Now it is nearly 13 percent for all blacks nationally, and 41.6 percent for young blacks 17 and older.
The poverty rate among blacks remains high and is falling much more slowly than it did in the 1960s. It declined from 55.1 percent to 32.2 percent between 1959 and 1969, but in more recent years has stalled or, in many areas, grown worse. Nearly 30 percent of black households are now below the poverty income line -- three times the rate for whites.
In his address on Wednesday, Obama wasn't willing to face the grim reality that his 1930s-style economic policies were hurting his own people.
Instead, as he has before, he portrayed the economic circumstances facing blacks as one of fairness, insinuating that maybe there was some discrimination in there, too. It isn't his policies that are wrong but "our economic system" that is to blame for the lack of jobs, he suggested.
"The test was not and never has been whether the doors of opportunity are cracked a bit wider for a few," he said. "It was whether our economic system provides a fair shot for the many -- for the black custodian and the white steelworker, the immigrant dishwasher and the Native American veteran. To win that battle, to answer that call, this remains our great unfinished business."
There's nothing wrong with an economic system that is open to everyone with ambition and dreams and God-given abilities. But Obama came into office believing he would end the recession and drive down unemployment by spending trillions of tax dollars on roads, bridges and other infrastructure, and more government programs.
Clearly, with the national unemployment rate still skirting 8 percent, and with 17 states posting unemployment rates between 7.6 percent and 9.5 percent, his ideas have not worked.
President Reagan took a different approach. He believed our economic system was not to blame for the recession he inherited; it was the government's policies that needed changing. As did President Kennedy in the 1960s, he cut income taxes across the board, including the maximum tax rate on job creators.
In a recent Washington Times op-ed column, free market economist Richard Rahn, who was chief economist at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at the time, relates what happened:
"Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent. Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama."
What Obama is selling in his speeches to voters, as he was on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial this week, is the politics of victimization. The answer to the jobs crisis isn't about giving the economy new tax incentives to invest and expand business and start new enterprises, he says. Rather, the answer is government and more of it.
Immediately after being sworn into office, Reagan flatly declared that "government is the problem" and that freeing private enterprise from suffocating taxation and regulation were the answers.
To those who said his tax cuts would help only the rich, Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats," and Reagan believed that, too. A sign of the times during the 1980s was the emergence of an inspiring magazine called Black Enterprise that heralded the success of countless black entrepreneurs.
Obama's focus on the Mall wasn't on how to stimulate new business startups and job creation. It was on what he said was King's unfulfilled dream, "challenging those who erect new barriers to the vote, or ensuring the scales of justice work equally for all, and the criminal justice system is not simply a pipeline from underfunded schools to overcrowded jails."
But that did not address the most deeply held concerns of another young black woman out in the crowd who, the Post reported, held a homemade sign that read, "The Dream Without Work Is Dead."
"Reagan thought like an entrepreneur, and thus intuitively understood that economic growth creates opportunities for everyone," Rahn says.
What a shame that Obama didn't speak to the dreams of those on the Mall who held their "jobs" signs up, hoping for a chance to climb the economic ladder of opportunity.
What a tragedy that his policies will produce only more economic stagnation, long-term unemployment and lives of quiet desperation.

Black Leadership and Racial Murder

American Thinker ^ | August 30, 2013 | J.R. Dunn

The recent explosion of black-on-white vicious and hateful killings -- the murder of thirteen-month-old Antonio Santiago, the shooting of nurse David Santucci in Memphis, the murder of Australian student Chris Lane, the beating death of elderly veteran Delbert Belton -- have served to put an end to one of the great myths of the civil rights movement: that black leadership would lead the country out of racism into an epoch of national reconciliation.
One of the assumptions behind the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s was that black participants (not to overlook their white supporters) had a moral claim infinitely superior to that of their opponents. There is certainly a large measure of truth to this. There's no meaningful measure of comparison between Ralph Bunche, James Meredith, Ralph Abernathy, or Martin Luther King and the Bilbos, Faubuses, and Wallaces who comprised the defenders of segregation.
(As for those who want to criticize Rev. King for his numerous affairs -- that is a private matter with no connection the subject at issue. Alpha males often misbehave in that fashion -- it's part of the package, an aspect of the human condition. Douglas MacArthur had a 17-year-old Filipina mistress before he settled down. If you can square that circle, then you can dismiss Dr. King.)
The high moral authority of its leadership characterized the entire movement. King's adaptation of a Gandhian nonviolence strategy within a "turn the other cheek" Christian framework was a key element in elevating the effort. The refusal of marchers and demonstrators to strike back elicited admiration even from those skeptical of their aims. Of the numerous killings that occurred during the civil rights era, not a single one can be ascribed to an active supporter, despite immense provocations from segregationists.
But even as the movement reached...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Chicago sex-ed will begin in kindergarten, promote gay lifestyle!

Biz Pac Review ^ | 08/30/2013 | Joe Saunders

Sex education – including same sex relationships – is on the curriculum for Chicago public school students this year, and a leading Illinois conservative group thinks it’s only the beginning of practice that could become a new national norm.
And even though it’s radically different from the current sex ed programs, that begin in fifth or sixth grades, it’s a norm President Obama has backed since his days in the Illinois legislature.
kindergartenclassAccording to CNS News, the new Chicago curriculum has been booted around in Springfield since at least 2003, when Obama was a state senator working with Planned Parenthood to push a sex education bill that not only pushed moved instruction from sixth-grade to kindergarten, it removed any mention of traditional marriage from the curriculum.
The bill didn’t pass until Obama left the legislature, though, for bigger things – like getting a brief Democrat supermajority in Congress to impose a takeover of the American health-care system. (If they can do that with the health system, you think they won’t try it with sex ed?)
The new sex ed policy was adopted by the Chicago Board of Education in February to begin this school year.
In a spring interview with the John Birch Society’s New American magazine, Illinois Family Institute cultural analylist Laurie Higgins said the curriculum is aimed at advancing acceptance of gay households.
“Comprehensive sex-ed dogmatists believe it’s appropriate for kindergartners to learn about families that are headed by homosexuals, whereas many parents believe that no child in early elementary school should hear anything about homosexuality,” Higgins said. “What’s worse, comprehensive sex ed proponents will present these disordered family structures positively.”
Higgins said the Chicago schools curriculum is part a National Sexuality Education Standards curriculum liberals are pushing around the country, developed by groups including the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, the abortion giant Planned Parenthood, and the National Education Association.
Supporters, like Stephanie Whyte, chief health officer of Chicago Public Schools, say the curriculum is just a way of exposing children to different family structures. “Whether that means there’s two moms at home, everyone’s home life is different, and we introduce the fact that we all have a diverse background,” Whyte said.
Higgins doesn’t think that’s a decision for parents — not a public school system — to make.
“It is not the obligation of public schools to teach about every sexuality-related phenomenon that exists,” Higgins told the New American. “And it is neither the obligation nor the right of public schools to affirm phenomena, like homosexual relationships, that many believe are immoral.”