From the Right

Observing my upside down America

Archive for the ‘Racism’ Category

Democrat Party racism legacy

with 7 comments

Certain liberals of late have worked hard to label Tom Tancredo as a racist. The boneless finger pointing comes as a result of recent comment which he made at a Sarah Palin gathering where he spoke to the audience. The liberals use his comments about the number of uneducated voters who cannot speak English as their evidence.

I do not support Tancredo, but I find it difficult to leap to the same conclusion. While the Dems cry long and hard, getting their panties in a wad and frothing at the mouth while casting this baseless accusation, they have no problems affiliating themselves with a political party whose legacy on racism is appalling.

If liberals actually believed in what they spew, they would distance themselves from it, but they won’t.

So, let’s look back at the Republican Party’s record.

Mississippi Senator Trent Lott recently stepped down from his post as Senate Majority Leader because of racially offensive comments which he made. He was persuaded to take this step by Republicans who believed that his comments were at odds with the principles of their party.

Being the hypocrites they are, Democrats used the Lott affair to paint Republicans as racists. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, who had first dismissed the idea that Sen. Lott was a racist, later claimed that his stepping down did not really address the Republican Party’s inherent racism. “Republicans have to prove, not only to us, of course, but to the American people that they are as sensitive to this question of racism, this question of civil rights, this question of equal opportunity, as they say they are,” Senator Daschle said. Among high-profile Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer offered similar comments.

Makes ya wanna puke, doesn’t it?

In both principle and practice, the Republican Party has a far better record than the Democrats on race. Even more importantly, historically and enduring even today, the Democratic position represents racism of the most offensive sort—a patronizing racism that denigrates Blacks every bit as badly as the old racism of Jim Crow and segregation.

The Republican Party was founded on the basis of principles invoked by Abraham Lincoln who often referred to the Declaration of Independence. It can be said the principles of the Republican Party are the principles of the nation. Those principles clearly state that people have rights and that the only role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens. They are the rights invoked by the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—not happiness, but the pursuit of happiness.

The Republican Party was created in response to a crisis arising from the fact that American public opinion on the issue of slavery had drifted away from the principles of the Founding. While the Founders had tolerated slavery out of necessity, many Americans, especially within the Democratic Party, had come to accept the idea that slavery was a “positive good.” While Thomas Jefferson, the founder of what evolved into the Democratic Party, had argued that slavery was bad not only for the slave but also for the slave owner, John C. Calhoun, had turned this principle on its head: slavery was good not only for the slave holder, but also for the slave.

In the 1920s, the Republican Party platform routinely called for anti-lynching legislation. The Democrats rejected such calls in their own platforms. When FDR forged the New Deal, he was able to pry Blacks away from their traditional attachment to the Party of Lincoln. But they remained in their dependent status, Democrats by virtue of political expediency, not principle.

When Strom Thurmond, the praise of whom landed Sen. Lott in hot water, ran a segregationist campaign in 1948, he ran as a Dixie-CRAT, not a Dixie-CAN. When he lost, he went back to being a Democrat. He only repudiated his segregationist views when he later became a Republican.

Even the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which supposedly established the Democrats’ bona fides on race, was passed in spite of the Democrats rather than because of them. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the bill through the Senate, despite the no-votes of 21 Democrats, including Gore Sr. and Robert Byrd, who remains a powerful force in the Senate today. In contrast, only four Republicans opposed the bill, mostly like Barry Goldwater on libertarian principles, not segregationist ones.

Indeed, the case of Sen. Byrd is instructive when it comes to the double standard applied to the two parties when it comes to race. Even those Democrats who have exploited the Lott affair acknowledge that he is no racist. Can the same be said about Sen. Byrd, who was a member of the KKK and who recently used the “n” word on national TV?

“Ah, but this is all in the past,” say the Democrats. “Now we push a pro-African-American agenda.” But the reality differs significantly from the claim.

Take the issue of education. The single biggest obstacle to the achievement of true equality in the United States is not poverty, but education. If Democrats sincerely wished to help the minority children on whose behalf they claim to labor, they would embrace school choice to help such children escape the trap of sub-standard schools. But that would offend the teachers’ unions upon which the Democrats depend for financial and “in-kind” support. So as has often been the case with the group politics of the Democratic party, African-American interests are sacrificed to other groups who have more pull.

“Affirmative action” has become the touchstone of Democratic racial politics. Democrats portray anyone who opposes affirmative action as racist. But affirmative action, as currently practiced, is racist to the core. It is based on the assumption that African-Americans are incapable of competing with whites. It represents the kind of paternalistic racism that would have done honor to Calhoun. For the modern liberal Democratic racist as for the old-fashioned one, blacks are simply incapable of freedom. They will always need Ol’ Massa’s help. And woe be to any African-American who wanders off of the Democratic plantation. Ask Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, or Ward Connerly. Although they echo the call for a “color-blind society” that once characterized the vision of Martin Luther King Jr., they are pilloried as “Uncle Toms” of “Oreos” by such enforcers of the Democratic plantation system as Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

If we need the perfect symbol for the true character of the Democratic Party when it comes to race, we need look no farther than Rhode Island Congressman Patrick Kennedy. Rep. Kennedy portrays himself as a friend of African-Americans. But his touching solicitude for African-Americans as a group is gross hypocrisy. When inconvenienced by a real African-American woman trying to do her job, Rep. Kennedy shoved her out of his way, giving her arm a yank for good measure. In practice, the Democratic Party as a whole cares as much about real African-Americans as Rep. Kennedy does.

Advertisements

Free Speech vs Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

with 10 comments

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009

On October, 28, 2009, President Obama signed into law HR-1913 – Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.

The law is designed to help local law enforcement agencies who are operating with small budgets and resources by providing funding “or other assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of a violent crime, a hate crime, or a crime that constitutes a felony under state, local, or tribal law….at the request of a state, local, or tribal law enforcement agency, to provide technical, forensic and prosecutorial assistance” and limits “the amount of any grant to $100,000 for any single jurisdiction in any one-year period.”

The law focuses on the term “hate crime” and defines it as “a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person”.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion”, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech and infringing on the freedom of the press.

In the 20th century, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.

Conscious of this, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 provides “that any provision of this Act that is held to be unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining provisions of this Act.” (Section 7 of HR-1913) In addition, it declares “that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.” (Section 8 of HR-1913).

Officially Preferred Victims

Liberty University law professor Shawn Akers writes that if H.R. 1913, the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, becomes law, “local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving … preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of less valuable victims.” Membership in the “preferred” category is “based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct… and subjective gender self-identity.”

Following is Akers’s analysis of the federal “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913.

The “Hate Crimes” Bill

H.R. 1913, the “Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009”

I. Characteristics

    A. “This bill would create a federal offense imposing federal criminal penalties – potentially in addition to criminal penalties imposed under state law” – on any defendant who chooses his victim in whole or in part because of the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin” or “actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” “Violations would be punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment of up to 10 years, or imprisonment for life if the offense results in death or ‘includes kidnaping [sic] or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.’” See Legislation Detail: http://www.overcriminalized.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?id=441.
    B. The bill includes the terms “Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity” – ambiguous terms that the drafters of the bill have refused to define. It places those descriptions on par with race, color, religion and nationality.
    C. As a matter of mechanics, the bill provides financial grants to state and local entities, provides additional personnel for investigation and prosecution, creates new federal criminal offenses, and creates a new evidentiary rule (no evidence of speech or associations is admissible to prove motive of defendant unless the speech or association is “specifically related” to the “hate crime”).
    D. The bill is couched in terms of providing assistance to state local and Indian governments but it reserves the right to act if they fail to exercise their jurisdiction, or leave “demonstrably un-vindicated the federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence.”

II. Status

    A. The version of the bill titled HR 1913 RH passed out of Judiciary committee on a 15-12 vote. It appears that the only change from the prior version, HR 1913 IH, was the dropping of the original section 2 – the findings section which included exaggerated figures of so-called hate crimes and included the interstate commerce language.
    B. Rep. Steve King, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and others offered and argued persuasively for several amendments all of which were defeated. One that was particularly interesting was Steve King’s amendment to merely exclude pedophiles from the protected class based on “sexual orientation” – it was voted down 13-10.

III. Major Concerns

While the bill’s supporters have very effectively framed the bill as one that will protect victims from criminal acts, the bill actually has very little to do with protection. Indeed, if the bill’s drafters and supporters are to be believed, the bill only becomes relevant after a criminal has committed an already illegal act. On closer analysis, the bill does not merely provide stiffer penalties for certain crimes but, rather, represents a substantive and fundamental shift away from the American ideas of free speech and God given immutable equality and toward the European ideas of state approved speech, state endorsed morality, state-given egality. The particular concerns with the bill are numerous, but a few of the most troublesome are listed below.

A. Unequal Protection of Laws Under 14th Amendment

    1. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires that all citizens be extended equal protection under the law. HR 1913 in effect creates two classes of victims, i.e. those who are a member of the preferred and protected class created by the bill and those who are not. Inclusion in the preferred class is to a great extent based not on immutable characteristics but on the class member’s choice of sexual conduct, subjective gender, and subjective gender self-identity.

    2. The practical effect of the carrot and the stick of federal funds, federal promotion and federal oversight is the promotion of the preferred class and the neglect of non-class members. Specifically, local and state law enforcement would have the incentive of federal funds to prosecute cases involving these preferred victims to the exclusion and neglect of “less valuable” victims. Additionally, with federal funds available when the requisite “hate” connection can be alleged, the bill creates a powerful incentive to force cases into the “hate crimes” mold. This heavily incentivized increase in reported “hate crimes” would artificially inflate the number and apparent prevalence of so called “hate crimes.” The natural and very political result of such a perceived increase in “hate crimes” would undoubtedly be an increase in the political influence of the preferred class, and as night follows day, a corresponding increase and expansion of even more intrusive “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation to address the perceived crisis.

B. Punishes Thought (Potentially Religious or Political thought) rather than Mere Intent To Commit a Crime.

    1. Ironically hate is not even an element of a “hate crime” in the bill. Rather, the definition of a “hate crime” is borrowed from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 – requiring only that the defendant selects a victim because of the membership or perceived membership in one of these proposed protected classes. Proponents of the bill argue that the criminal is being punished for his or her intent to terrorize an entire class of people (i.e. all homosexuals) but no such intent to terrorize is actually required. Indeed, despite the framing of the term “hate crime” the bill does not even require a showing of animus toward the victim or the preferred class. Under existing law, the criminal would be punished if he or she possessed the requisite intent to commit the act. The additional criminal fines and prison sentences that would be created by HR 1913 are based not on whether the defendant intended to commit the act but on whether the defendant considered the victim’s membership in the preferred class in choosing the victim. In other words, because penalties already exist for those who commit criminal acts, HR 1913 serves only to punish individuals for the beliefs, opinions, or convictions held at the time an act is committed. As such, HR 1913 does not punish criminal intent, but criminalizes thought.

C. Wider Immediate Application than Claimed.

This bill will certainly be construed in light of existing federal law including specifically United States Code Title 18, Section 2, that says that : “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.”. This is the feared immediate nexus between the speech of a pastor or radio commentator and the actions of a deranged parishioner or listener. Proponents of the bill argue that it clearly, under its own language, applies only to acts of violence. This argument is misleading and naïve in that it implies that criminal liability would be available only for the person physically committing the violent act, while ignoring completely the likelihood that courts, especially ideologically driven, activist courts, will impose criminal liability on those deemed complicit in the violent act whether or not they physically contributed to the act.

D. Federal Power Grab

The bill, if passed into law, would as a practical matter federalize virtually every sexual crime in the United States. This federalization would occur even in the absence of any evidence of failure by states and municipalities to prosecute. Under the bill, membership in one of the preferred classes does not have to be the impetus for the criminal act but merely a factor in the defendant’s selection of his victim. This is almost always the case. Muggers invariably choose little old ladies as victims precisely because they are little old ladies and unlikely to be able to fend them off. Under the bill, consideration of the gender of the victim effectively creates the potential for federal jurisdiction. Considering both the extreme breadth of the bill and the built-in incentives to bring crimes under the bill, the likely result is the practical federalization of large swaths of state and local criminal law.

E. Trend of Nationalization of State and Local Law and the Internationalization of Federal Law; And a Corresponding rise in Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian activity.

    1. The recent report by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) widely increased the number of people who may be classified as terrorists and who almost by definition would be members of hate groups. Under the HR 1913, the speech of a criminal defendant and the mere membership of the defendant in a given group may be used as evidence of his or her biased motive so long as a prosecutor can show that the speech or association was “specifically related” to the criminal act.
    2. Substance and methods similar to that offered in the DHS report have recently been echoed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That group provides influential lists of alleged hate groups relied upon by state and federal law enforcement. The reports have begun to blend among its lengthy list of true hate-based groups such as neo-Nazi groups and the Ku Klux Klan, other organizations based on little more than their opposition to homosexuality. The effect of listing a pro-family organization along side several neo-Nazi groups is to create guilt by the artificial manufactured appearance of association.
    3. Additionally the appointment of Harold Koh as legal advisor to the State Department and the rise of acceptability of his stance that international laws should be used to interpret American laws, even among such figures as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, creates the danger and likelihood that judicial activism would further increase the power, reach, and tyrannical effect of HR 1913 by bringing its application in line with its counterparts in Canada, the Netherlands, etc.
    4. Proponents of HR 1913 argue or imply that the law would provide greater protection for members of all faiths, presumably including Judaism and Christianity. The application of hate crimes laws in the countries they are most prevalent (and the countries to which Harold Koh would likely look for interpretive guidance), produce exactly the opposite result. The application of hate crimes laws in countries like the Netherlands experiencing the increased influence of Shariah – stringent Islamic religious law — is patently and consistently anti-Semitic. The most concrete example of this is the stark contrast in the application of the hate crimes laws in the Netherlands between those who criticize Shariah and those who call for violence against Israel and the Jewish people. For instance, Geert Wilders, who produced a 17-minute film critical of Shariah, is being vigorously prosecuted under the Netherlands’ hate crimes laws — while the blatant and violent anti-Semitism of others such as Dutch MP Harry van Bommel, who called for intifada against Israel earlier this year, and Doekle Terpstra, who sponsored an “Olive Tree Campaign” rally in Amsterdam where the participants chanted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas!” are apparently immune from hate crimes prosecution.
    5. The same is likely true of the UN Anti-Blasphemy measures which realistically can be seen only to forbid criticism of Shariah while allowing wholesale anti-Semitism.
    6. Christians who vocally oppose homosexuality and the state endorsement of homosexuality in Holland, Canada, and Brazil routinely receive similar treatment, finding themselves on the prosecuted and persecuted end of hate crimes legislation while the anti-Christian actions of other groups are ignored.
    7. Historically an increase in Shariah influence and/or a rise in economic problems have consistently shown a corresponding rise in anti-Semitism. The growing national and international acceptance and preferential treatment of the pro-homosexual movement has likewise shown a similar increase in anti-Christian activity (such as the threats of violence against Proposition 8 supporters in California and the recent attack launched by homosexual activist Perez Hilton against a contestant in the Miss USA competition). Were the United States under the leadership of Harold Koh, Janet Napolitano, etc., to follow the hate crimes trends and precedents established in the international community, the actual application of HR 1913 and its certain coming hate crimes and hate speech progeny, would likely undermine the rights of Christian and Jewish citizens.

F. Incremental Move Toward Making Speech a Federal Crime.

    1. All of the above can reasonably be expected to lead to a quickly spawned progeny of hate crime legislation demanding greater and greater control of thought, expression and association. This is the pattern in the international community. HR 1913 would firmly brand one’s thoughts on the issues of human sexuality as potentially criminal activity. The logical next step is to recognize the “harmful impact of hateful speech” on preferred classes and to begin outlawing speech that would communicate what members of preferred classes find offensive. Proponents of HR 1913 have argued that this is preposterous but tellingly, in the April 23, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearings on HR 1913, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) said unequivocally that “We need to protect victims against hateful words, hateful acts and even violent acts.”

IV. Action Steps
Since the bill was signed into law by President Obama coupled with the fact that Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh was confirmed 06/25/2009 as the State Department’s legal advisor in a roll-call vote, 62-35, the relevant items below have been struck.

    1. Encourage constituents to participate in immediate, continued, and persistent contact with both personal senators and congressmen and those of other districts and states (Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121; or 202-224-3121; http://www.congress.org).
    2. Support, promote and demand a filibuster if the measure reaches the floor of the Senate.
    3. Record and hold to account every member of Congress supporting the bill in the coming elections.
    4. Actively oppose the confirmation of Harold Koh.
    5. Vigorously hold Janet Napolitano responsible for the libelous report issued by the DHS.

Source:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1913&tab=summary

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show

Written by Ben

October 29, 2009 at 10:25 am

Counter-Hmm

leave a comment »

Rather than post a comment to “Hmm” I decided instead to post a counter response here which is based upon the following quote from the National Review

The price of defending our nation cannot be spending years — at a cost of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars — in a vain attempt to give people who despise us a way of life they don’t want.

Aside from implying there is a limit to defending the United States, the above analysis of the war in Iraq reflects a myopic viewpoint which focuses on a red herring. Furthermore, it serves to demonstrate an inability to fathom the broader issues in the region and dismisses the strategic importance of installing an island of democracy after the removal of an oppressive and ruthless dictator.

The democracy now sits surrounded by Iran’s Islamic theocracy, Syria’s military controlled government where its people must elect the leader of the Baath Party with a constitution which requires the president to be a Muslim and Saudi Arabia’s and Kuwait’s monarchy. Representing a departure from the norm, in the north is Turkey with its presidential-parliamentary democracy.

It should be clear most are governments representing extreme positions on the political spectrum. A little democracy would serve to moderate this extremism in a region that has been influenced by Islam for centuries.

Islam is fomenting an intolerable and dangerous form of extremism of its own. While Iraq’s new democratic form of government may be a lightning rod for terrorism it also reveals the dangers we are facing.

Regardless of its current success, Iraq’s struggle is far from over. If it’s government fails, falling to the Islamic fascists, it should serve as a wake-up call for the rest of the sleeping Americans including those at National Review.

Written by Ben

September 9, 2009 at 9:18 am

Why Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor should not be appointed

with 2 comments

It’s simple; Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a racist. There is no room in the Supreme Court for judges who base decisions and issue judgment based upon skin color.

Period.

Written by Ben

July 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Posted in Politics, Racism

Racism heading for the Supreme Court?

leave a comment »

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 reversal of a decision endorsed by a three-judge appellate panel that included Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor must remind all of us that racism can influence the judgment of our judges when they harbor racist tendencies of their own.

When is it ever correct to promote based upon skin color and a lower qualification assessment?

The answer should be self evident and without exceptions. To do otherwise is racism. Nothing more.

All of us should distance ourselves from this form of “equality” where excellence is pushed to the margins and replaced by a racially inspired system based upon quotas.

Affirmative action is no good for anyone.

Written by Ben

July 3, 2009 at 10:39 am

Posted in Politics, Racism

Why America should not vote for Barack Obama

leave a comment »

He’s a racist.

He portrays himself as a mainstream American which he is not.

To the Trinity Church of Christ in Chicago Illinois and to Reverend Wright in particular I have this to say.

From where I sit, I don’t hear a positive message about Jesus teaching about love and forgiveness. Instead, I hear messages wrapped around the central theme of white Europeans and Romans oppressing and killing a black Jesus. The parable here is obvious.

Your own bigotry blinds you to how your messages are coming across to the rest of America. In a country where over the last 50 years we have been trying to remove bigotry from our very own culture, message like those coming from this church and from Reverend Wright in particular only serve to perpetuate what we are trying to destroy. If anyone should, it should be the leadership within the black community who should be setting the standards and in the process raising the bar.

The fact that it took Barack Obama a little over 20 years to denounce the words of Reverend Wright is telling. It should not take 20 years to decide if you should associate with leadership spewing racist vomit. I suppose in this case it’s like they say: “Birds of a feather …”.

Racism is not limited to just the white population and the black community is not immune. The “teachings” of Reverend Wright shows that a segment of the black population can also be guilty of racism. The hypocrisy is self evident.

Simply put, Reverend Wright and Mr. Obama are racists. The failure of Obama to distance himself from the Reverend and this church says it all. Veiled racist and in-your-face anti-American rants by leaders who falsely preach hope and opportunity are not what this country needs.

I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites. – Barack Obama

I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race. – Barack Obama

He views America as so flawed that he wants to change it

My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join me as we try to change it. – Barack Obama

He is a Globalist

People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time. – Barack Obama

He is a Socialist with leanings toward Maxrism
Obama’s pledge to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, while raising taxes on the tiny fraction who earn more than $250,000 is known as “redistribution of wealth” and is understood by most thinking Americans as “stealing from the rich and giving to the poor”. Revealing a socialist mentality, Obama says it’s simply being “neighborly”.

If I am sitting pretty and you’ve got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can’t, what’s the big deal for me to say, I’m going to pay a little bit more? That’s neighborliness. – Barack Obama, Sept. 8, Fox News interview with Bill O’Reilly

Reaching into your own pocket and pulling out a large tip for that waitress is neighborly. There is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to make you pay the waitress a large tip. Redistribution of wealth in pursuit of social fairness is not neighborly or generosity. It is tantamount to theft at gunpoint.

Why would anyone seek to align themselves with racists, anti-Americans and Marxists unless they considered themselves to be a sympathizer of their beliefs, motivations and ideals?

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. – Barack Obama

The American Democratic Party has presented their presidential candidate who launched his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist, a self-described communist. We have a presidential candidate who actually makes it a personal policy to associate with individuals like Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright.

To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists. – Barack Obama

He is ignorant about the United States
It is no less fair to point this out than it is to rail against a vice president for misspelling potato or to label a president as a moron simply because of a demonstrated lack of oratory skills.

Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. – Barack Obama

He has a history of questionable friends and associates demonstrating bad judgement

William Ayers was clearly more than someone Obama just ran into in the neighborhood on occasion. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate, Ayers had Obama to his home to introduce him to others.

Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at. — William Ayers

Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon. — William Ayers

I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough. — William Ayers, September 11, 2008

Does anyone else see the symbolism of launching a political career from the home of a radical American – a domestic terrorist – an anti American – a self described communist? Is this not important and worthy of overlooking? William Ayers bombed the United States capitol building for Christ’s sake!!!

I’ll put it another way… What conclusion would you draw if I associate myself with the Grand Dragon of the KKK and had launched my successful bid for the local chief of police from his living room? How would that be viewed by the local black Americans?

He is an enemy of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Q: You said recently, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.” But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.

His continued association with radical organizations such as Acorn
On behalf of Acorn, in 1995 Obama worked with a group of Chicago attorneys and won a suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. To be clear Obama worked as a lawyer for Acorn which actively engages in strong-arm and in-your-face tactics to oppose welfare reform laws. Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions to give massive donations to Acorn which are then used to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives. This flies in the face of current activities of Acorn’s where today Acorn is being investigated for driving people registered only moments before to places of early voting and telling them to vote for Obama. Today Acorn is being investigated in Ohio for voter registration fraud where in some cases it is clear a voter registration form was submitted more that a dozen times for the same person which showed handwriting suggestive of a 12-year old.

This is an orchestrated effort by the left-wing socialist minded and by extension the Democratic Party to undermine the political process to help usher in a socialist regime.

Change for the sake of change
This country deserves better for President of the United States than the likes of Mr. Obama and his ilk.

But I fear that liberals driven by their emotions and not their intellect will vote him into office – all for the illusion that change is always for the better.