Monday, June 30, 2008

More On Gun Rights and the 2nd Amendment

You can either be a victim or remain vulnerable. (Actual 911 tape of a Colorado home invasion in progress).


You can be empowered

Anti-Gun advocates support the idea of remaining vulnerable and being a victim....with no legal right to defend yourself or the lives of loved ones in your own home.


Home Invasions On The Rise

From the NY Times

March 30, 2008
Cracking Down on Home Invasion

THE killings of three members of a Cheshire, Conn., family during a home invasion in July has spurred a flurry of legislative proposals in the region to crack down on a crime that officials say has become more prevalent in recent years.

Many law enforcement officials, be they from small towns like Cheshire or urban areas like Jersey City, say they need stiffer penalties to combat the brutal nature of residential break-ins.

“People who go into homes are no longer satisfied with taking stuff and moving on. There’s an element of violence now that’s disturbing,” said J. Darren Stewart, the police chief in Stonington, Conn., where an older couple were assaulted and robbed of $500 and some prayer cards in a home invasion last month. “People want to feel safe where they put their heads down at night and spend time with their families.”

While the F.B.I. does not report annual statistics on home invasions, its Uniform Crime Reports show that across the country, robberies in homes rose 29 percent between 2000 and 2004, 9.7 percent in 2005 and another 8 percent in 2006, the last year for which figures were available.

In the Cheshire case, after the beating of Dr. William Petit Jr., 50, and the killing of his wife, Jennifer Hawke-Petit, 48, and their daughters, Hayley, 17, and Michaela, 11, Connecticut lawmakers approved a bill that made home invasion a crime punishable by 10 to 25 years in prison and attached a minimum five-year sentence for nighttime burglaries. Governor M. Jodi Rell signed it into law in January.

The two men accused in the invasion are awaiting trial.

The killings also spurred Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol of Brooklyn to introduce a bill in New York’s current legislative session that would establish three degrees of felony home invasion. They would be punishable by up to 7, 15 and 25 years in prison, depending on the level of violence. The bill is pending.

And while New Jersey is not trying to establish a specific home invasion law, a bill before the State Senate would upgrade burglary to a second-degree offense for anyone entering a building “adapted for overnight accommodations,” regardless of whether someone was home. Those convicted of the crime would face a term of up to 10 years and have to serve 85 percent of it, the same as a burglar who assaults or threatens someone or is armed.

In addition, some members of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police have expressed interest in establishing a separate home invasion law, according to Roman Martyniuk, the organization’s spokesman.

In New York, Assemblyman Lentol, a former Kings County prosecutor, said home invasion “is a crime that really cries out for special attention.” He added: “The law would show the abhorrence we feel for this crime and how it should be handled. We also hope it acts as a deterrent.”

Connecticut’s law had been recommended by a task force on criminal justice reforms set up by Governor Rell after the Cheshire killings. “The tough new home invasion law is the centerpiece — the linchpin — of our criminal justice reform efforts,” Mrs. Rell said. “People have a right to feel safe in their homes — their sanctuaries — and this new law should give them the peace of mind that these crimes will not be tolerated in Connecticut.”

But while Connecticut lawmakers hailed the new law, some in law enforcement were taking a wait-and-see approach.

“It definitely is a step in the right direction, and like all new laws, it’s well intentioned,” said Lt. Jay Markella, the Cheshire Police Department’s spokesman. “But let’s see how the cases go through the court system and if the law is used or taken off the table during a plea bargain. You can create all the new laws you want, but if they are not applied properly there’s really no gain.”

Lieutenant Markella also said that if current burglary and assault laws were applied to their full extent, with maximum penalties and consecutive sentences, the new law would not be needed.

While she supported the home invasion law, State Representative Diana S. Urban of North Stonington, Conn., wants to track it to make sure it is working. Ms. Urban, who heads a legislative subcommittee that examines whether specific programs actually work and should be funded, said she was concerned that those convicted would be freed 10 years later with no rehabilitation. Those convicted of home invasion would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence.

“Do we then not expect them to do it again?” she said. “Let’s make sure this law makes people in the state of Connecticut safer.”

Earlier this month, the legislature’s Judiciary Committee killed a tougher three-strikes-and-you’re-out bill that would have allowed prosecutors to seek a mandatory minimum sentence of life without parole for someone convicted of three violent crimes. Relatives of the Petit family testified in favor of the bill, which was supported by the governor and other Republicans, who are in the minority in the legislature. But opponents said the bill would have little effect on sentencing.

Republicans vowed to continue pushing for a mandatory minimum sentencing bill for violent repeat offenders. The police said that while laws can punish criminals after they commit home invasion, people can take some simple steps to decrease the likelihood of becoming victims, including always locking their doors, windows and cars.

“We go to a lot of burglaries where there’s no sign of forced entry, and people tell us, ‘I don’t lock my doors,’ ”Lieutenant Markella said. He also said people needed to return to a time when they knew their neighbors and their habits and checked if they noticed something unusual.

Representative Urban said, “If anything positive can come out of these home invasions, it will be that communities begin to take care of each other like we used to.”

The police also suggested that residents install motion sensors that activate outside lights, have a safe place to hide with a phone and have a dog that barks. They urged people to call them if they saw something suspicious. “That’s what we’re here for,” Lieutenant Markella said.

He said he was not in favor of people having handguns for protection because if the weapons were properly secured in a safe, unloaded and locked, it would take too long to get them during a break-in. He also said a burglar could turn the gun on a victim.

While not everyone can afford a home alarm system, Police Chief Stewart, of Stonington, said a low-cost option would be to keep car keys next to the bed and press the car alarm button if someone broke in. Lieutenant Markella said neighbors might investigate or at least call the police because the alarm was bothering them.

“You can’t prevent anyone from ever gaining access to your home, but you can make it harder for them,” he said. “You have to keep yourself from being made a victim.”


One of my favorite bloggers, The Field Negro, is still talking loud and saying nothing (as James Brown would put it) on this issue.

Some of the main arguments of anti-gun advocates like the Field Negro and others are:

1. Legit, responsible gun ownership will lead to more innocent children harming themselves with guns.

2. Allowing law abiding citizens (those with no criminal past, who have guns properly registered, and use safety precautions, have obtained guns legally, have gone through safety training etc) to keep handguns in the home will lead to more crime.

3. They believe that law abiding, legit gun owners are responsible for the majority of the murders, carjackings, robberies and shooting assaults that are taking place in inner-cities like Philadelphia, D.C., Chicago, L.A., New Orleans, St. Louis, Detroit, etc.

4. Gun use is seldom successful in defending homes, homeowners and their families. But I am always hearing of cases of suspects being shot as they try to do home invasions/burglaries. I guess I am just imagining things.

5. And for Black anti-gun advocates, there is this myth that gun ownership (legit, legal and responsible ownership) is for Whites only.

6. They believe that gun bans will magically take guns out of the hands of criminals (who obtain their guns on the street).

Obviously this is all flawed logic on the part of the anti-gun crowd.... but these are some of their main arguments.

My response to the safety portion of their argument:

Most of the reports that I see of children getting guns and harming themselves tend to occur in homes of irresponsible gun owners who didn't have trigger locks.... and the guns tend to belong to criminals/felons who should not have had the gun in the first place...but they decided to keep it illegally. It's usually men who are on probation or who have priors...and they hide their guns in the homes/apartments of their girlfriends (where kids are present) police and probation authorities won't find them.

In other words... most of these incidents occur among the criminal element... that part of the population that we have been talking about who will have guns no matter what... a part of society who cannot be expected to be responsible with firearms and have no right to posses them.

We have had several of these
incidents occur in the St. Louis area over the past few years (kids getting hurt in the home). I can't recall any that took place in the homes of responsible, legit gun owners. All of the incidents involved felons in possession of a gun (against the law), houses that were involved in illegal activity...drug houses, meth labs, etc..., involve guns that are not registered or have been stolen or used in a previous crime, guns with serial numbers removed, or have involved other folks who should not have had weapons and who left them out in the open without the safety locks.
Very few of the incidents you describe actually take place in the homes of responsible gun owners.

The problem with the anti-gun crowd is that they are unable or unwilling to recognize the difference... they blend these two worlds together (legit responsible gun owners with the criminal element). It's an unfair and unworkable comparison. These are two completely different worlds.

I support gun control that would keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Although the bad guys will still find a way to get their guns (via the street)


To understand the perspective of The Field Negro a little better, please refer to a November 2007 commentary from his blog, regarding a violent home invasion in California, where a man's family was brutalized by three thugs. During the incident, the home owner was able to shoot two of the suspects. Now most people would support the home owner for defending his family. But not The Field Negro... The Field Negro sympathized with the surviving thug and condemned the home owner...who more than likely saved the life of his son. So this is what we are dealing with in this 2nd Amendment debate... extreme far left liberals, like The Field Negro, who tend to be soft on crime and criminals. He, and others, have a reputation for coming down on the side of thugs, rather than innocent citizens who have a right to live in peace and security within their own homes.... the Constitution protects that right too.

Video & slideshow of Gun Owners (legal ones). They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and backgrounds.


Behind the Scenes Video for the Book "Armed America".


Home Invasion Twarted in Chicago

Woman robbed in Sacramento

Armed Portraits of Americans and their Guns.

Black Man With A Gun

Saturday, June 28, 2008

Why Americans Need The Right To Bear Arms

Gun Ban Supporters: Eve Carson Should Not Have Had The Right To Defend Herself Against Home Invading Thugs.

Here's another example of why Americans should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes....

The star student from UNC, Eve Carson, was not carjacked as originally reported.

Gun ban supporters like D.C. Mayor Fenty, Chicago Mayor Daley, and L.A. Police Chief Bratton, don't believe that Eve Carson should have been allowed to defend herself in her own home.

Extreme Left Liberal Blogger The Field Negro, another gun ban supporter, also doesn't believe that Eve Carson should have even had the right to defend herself. In fact, The Field Negro tends to be an advocate for criminal thugs. He is a strong believer in going light on the kind of thugs who killed Eve Carson. And he lives in one of the most crime ridden cities in the Country, Killadelphia Pennsylvania. I will never understand why people like the Field Negro are so pro-criminal/pro-thug.

Here is a recent post from the Field Negro about the recent Supreme Court ruling on the D.C. Gun ban:

So now it's official, here in A-merry-ca we have a right to bear arms. Johnny get your gun, you never know when our government might turn against us, or god forbid, we might get outnumbered by those brown people.

In another close decision (5-4) the supremes basically told cities like D.C. and Philadelphia to get over their high murder rates and get their citizens in check. Guns don't kill people, people do. Yeah, but don't they need something to kill each other with? Sorry, I didn't exactly see where it said in the Second Amendment that we have a right to posses a firearm. I thought the Second Amendment was a limitation on the Federal government. Why not give states and local governments the right to regulate the possession of firearms in a way that they think is best for their communities? Hey I am with Justice Stevens on this one: "the supremes have basically enshrined the common law right of self defense", which is kind of scary.

Here in A-mery-ca we love our Second Amendment don't we? God apple pies and guns, that's the A-merry-can way. So what if every now and then one of us goes on a fucking rampage and decides to take out a bunch of our fellow citizens. Hey, we just have to do a better job at punishing these people, and making sure that they realize that if they use a fire arm to commit a despicable act, they are going to be punished. Oh, but wait, the latest crack pot, like so many before him, shot himself. Oh well, I guess he took care of that little punishment problem for us.
I keep hoping A-merry-cans will wake up, but sadly, I know we won't. I mean if someone can execute a schoolhouse full of little Amish children and it doesn't get a rise out of the sick fucks at the NRA, I don't know what will. I mean a bunch of niggers killing each other in the inner cities is fine. We all know those Negroes don't have anything better to do than take drugs and kill each other. But what about those good citizens [*wink wink*] in places like Kentucky and Virginia? Do they deserve to die? I don't know, call me crazy, but I bet if there were less guns there would be less killings.

Here in Killadelphia we are used to it. We have plenty guns on the streets . Our bangers and straw buyers love the NRA and their policies. Mo money mo money mo money. So a few hundred people die every year, what's a little murder among friends?

So congrats to you folks over at the NRA, I am sure you are feeling good about this latest victory. Let's just hope that if god forbid, one of you ever find yourselves staring down the barrel of a 380 in a shaking crack addict's hand, you will have a fast draw and good aim.

You will need both, or you will end up like the thousands of victims that you have forgotten.

And my response:


You neo-liberals are driving me crazy with this stuff. Some of the most violent cities in the Country have gun bans, or severe restrictions on them. The bans have done nothing to stop the carnage...because...guess what... the criminals don't give a damn what kind of ban you put in place. They don't typically buy their guns through legitimate means... they aren't walking into Joe Blows gun shop, showing ID, and filling out paperwork, lol. They are getting their weapons on the streets. So who is most impacted by these restrictive gun laws? Law abiding citizens by in large.

These silly laws leave innocent law abiding citizens even more vulnerable to your thug buddies.

Another thing... you wrote this post in a racial if there are no Black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Liberals, Independents, moderates, people of various religions & backgrounds who are pro gun. White folks aren't the only ones who enjoy their Constitutional Rights.

I wish your friends Mayor Fenty, Mayor Daley, and Chief Bratton would shut it up.

The Mayor of Philly could announce a ban tomorrow on all guns within the city limits...and your thug buddies would continue their reign of terror and carnage. The only difference would be that the law abiding citizens would be left more vulnerable....they wouldn't even be safe in their own homes.

Every man/woman has the right to protect themselves and their families within their own homes. Every man/woman/child has a right to feel safe in their own home.

Now on the flip side... I do support gun control... I believe in thorough background checks (including mental health), waiting periods, limits on quantity of guns & ammo, magazine limitations, bans on fully automatic rifles, limits on CCW, requirements for locking guns away in homes with children, requirements for safety training, etc. But the government should not tell a law abiding citizen who has been background checked and has gone through safety training that they can't have a gun. Meanwhile, the criminals are running wild.

How would you react if a couple of your thug friends from the streets of Philly decided to invade your home because they saw Mrs. Field one day and followed her to find her address so that they could come back later. They decide to get armed one evening and break in to do her harm... or to rob your house. How would you deal with that? Would you sit around quietly to observe all this or would you want to do something? Based on this idea of vulnerability, which you advocate, I am left believing that you would be o.k. with allowing it to happen.

Maybe you are one of those who thinks Philly's Finest will save you.

Good luck with that.


As you can see, the logic of the handgun ban advocates just doesn't make sense and doesn't jive with reality. They are under the false impression that making legal guns available to law abiding citizens will somehow increase crime. That is completely illogical on its face. The law abiding citizens are not the ones who are committing dozens of murders in cities like Philly, D.C., L.A., Chicago and others. The criminals are committing the vast majority of murders.

In cities/Counties where gun ownership is legal but regulated for law abiding citizens, there is no rash of murders committed by legitimate gun owners. Even in States that allow law abiding citizens to CCW...the sky didn't fall after this right was granted. These gun ban advocates cannot provide any data showing that law abiding citizens who legally own guns, are terrorizing American cities with crime sprees. These people are never able to provide such data, because data showing this does not exist, and they know it. Their aim is to scare people into supporting their position by perpetuating misinformation...and myths.

They are also under the impression that making guns available to law abiding citizens equals some sort of gun free-for-all, with no regulation whatsoever... this is another lie that they seem to want to perpetuate. Most Americans favor some sort of reasonable gun control like the restrictions mentioned above.

John McWhorter Actually Has a Point

Hear John McWhorter on NPR, discussing the book All About the Beat: Why Hip-Hop Can't Save Black America.

I typically don't agree with John McWhorter, but on the issue of Hip Hop, I tend to agree with his position more than I disagree. 15-20 years ago, I would have probably been more resistant to his position. I once saw Hip Hop as something that had a lot of potential to be a vehicle for social change. That's not the case anymore. That fire fizzled out a long time ago. It has been replaced by something completely different.... something much more destructive than constructive.

I have become a little more Conservative as I have gotten older, and I can't stand anything about Rap music or Rap culture, particularly as it is packaged today. The problem for folks like John McWhorter, Bill Cosby, and Juan Williams is that Black folks are not very open to their message...often because of the messenger. Part of the reason has to do with the fact that a large number of Black folks are so brainwashed and indoctrinated into the Hip Hop lifestyle, and brainwashed by the Black establishment (Civil Rights Inc.) that they will never be open to the ideas of McWhorter or Cosby/Puissant. And so the message fades with the messenger.

This will ultimately be to the detriment of Black people, IMO.

America - I Understand That You Love Your Animals, But...

Americans love their animals so much that they have dedicated an entire network to them, largely focused on the welfare of their favorite Pets. An entire network, where Americans get to show their undying love and affection for Animals. Yet, there is an active genocide taking place, and it barely gets a few seconds of coverage in an entire week. Something is wrong here.

Can we get a Darfur channel? "All Darfur, All The Time" would be a good slogan. Since Americans want to ignore the genocide in Africa, perhaps we could bring the genocide into the homes of Americans. Maybe then Americans would care as much about humans as they do about animals. Just maybe. I don't put a lot of stock in that, because I don't have much faith in Americans. But it just might work.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Obama Vice-Presidential Watch, Mirror On America Style

I read enough of these on other blogs, and I know that we've had a previous post, but now that we've had time to enter into the General Election campaign cycle, it's time once again to look at the possible Obama Veep-Stakes.

So, let's look at some candidates.

John Edwards - Four years later. It's not that he would even bring North Carolina, but in all the polls where they actually test out VP choices, he always, in the swing states, helps Obama by four or five points. If he maintains with the voice he found this time around, he would be an effective attacker against the GOP.

Ed Rendell - Pennsylvania. He proved that a Democrat could win. He's Jewish. On a personal front, I'm not down with anyone who ACTIVELY RACEBAITED with Hillary to be even considered.

Evan Bayh - My problems with him are the same as Rendell. While he didn't racebait, he was trying to cash in during ' Bittergate', accusing Obama of being elitist. I just thought the patent absurdity of Evan Bayh, who got NOTHING in his life without being helped by being Birch Bayh's Boy. He's been riding his Daddy's coattails every chance he got, and had the NERVE to accuse Obama of being an elitist. Plus, the latest polls from Indiana have Obama well within the margin of error, so why would he need Bayh. If Obama wants boring and safe, then Bayh is his guy.

Joe Biden -The way that Biden's been speaking up, he's been interviewing by being a good pitbull. He definitely shores up the foreign policy experience 'gap'. On the downside, Biden's been there in the Senate for 'forever', and while that might not be ' change', it would mean ' stability' and 'reassurance'.

Tim Kaine - Governor. Popular. Obama contemporary. Would mean a true generational shift. Roman Catholic and Pro-life (THIS could be the sticking point, i.e. judges), married to an equally accomplished woman. Kaine's endorsement was among the first from a state-wide elected officials outside of Illinois to endorse Obama for the Democratic Nomination.

Claire McCaskill - Good Obama surrogate. White female. Only gotten stronger in her attacks on Obama's behalf. From a swing state - Missouri. Also Roman Catholic.

Kathleen Sebelius- Governor. Has Ohio ties. Supporter of Obama early. Roman Catholic.

Jim Webb - So many plusses. Former Republican. Former Military Man. Had son in Iraq. Worked in the Department of Defense. Has totally a ' Don't #($* with me' attitude. Author of the new GI Bill. Sounds good on populist issues. Downside is that he would have to ' explain' past statements about women. He's a writer, and his books would be fairgame by the GOP. He so is his own man, and will not be controlled. But, a better attack dog could not be found. Plus, when I think of Webb, I think of the family picture, on the lawn of the Obama's Home in Hyde Park, and Webb will be the only White face in the crowd. Dunno if America's willing to take that.

Bill Richardson - have had Electoral College fantasies about an Obama/Richardson ticket from the moment Obama announced. On paper, Richardson was THE candidate. But, alas, I don't believe this country is ready for a Black and Brown ticket.

Brian Schweitzer - Governor of Montana. From a plains state. A Democrat in MONTANA. He has a 70% approval rating. He's a Roman Catholic. He also speaks fluent Arabic. He's always brought up on 'Progressive' blogs, so on the list he goes.

Janet Napolitano- Arizona would be in play, and force McCain to play defense in his own backyard. A woman candidate who won by huge margins in a state like Arizona means she knows how to run.

Chuck Hagel - would turn things on its ear. But, the only reason for this would be because of his stance on the war. I just have a hard time believing that Democrats would be ok with a Republican, and a pretty solid one at that, as the VP Nominee.

Supreme Court Loves the 2nd amendment

I find it interesting that the Supreme Court has given a big thumbs up to the 2nd amendment and a thumbs down to the 4th.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Today the Supreme Court trashed a 32 year old DC law which banned handguns. The NYT described the law this way - Not only did the 1976 law make it practically impossible for an individual to legally possess a handgun in the district, but it also spelled out rules for the storage of rifles and shotguns. But the court did not articulate a specific standard of review for what might be a reasonable restraint on the right to possess a firearm.

I can and will go through this decision. But, it seems to me that we need to make the 2nd amendment clear. We need to amend it. As a matter of fact, walking through East St. Louis today is very different than back in 1789. This amendment needs to reflect today's reality. You should be able to own a gun if you aren't a felon or mentality disturbed.

As a trauma surgeon, I see almost everything bad that can happen with a gun. I've seen accidental shootings which is left 10 year old boys paralyzed. I've seen the anguish of the parents as they are wondering how the kids got into the guns. Unfortunately, by the time I see them, the anguish and the sorrow simply don't matter. The bottom line, we need to be more responsible with our firearms but, since we aren't, we must have the ability to make laws that keep us safe.

Therefore, Constitutional Amendments are needed. We must be able to ban assault weapons. We need to be able to ban fully automatic weapons (machine guns). We need to be able to control handguns. Safety locks are not unreasonable. Frequent gun registration is not an unnecessary burden. We should be able to ban armor piercing bullets.

I have no desire to ban all weapons. I have no desire to ban all handguns. Please don't e-mail me with statistics. The statistics have been massaged by both sides so much that you can prove almost anything if you look at the right statistic. I'm sure there are some advocates for guns who can show me a statistic in which having a gun makes you smarter, more attractive and more successful in life. I'm sure someone on the other side of the argument can show me statistics that banning weapons allows you to own two hybrids and increases the whale population.

Reasonable people should be able to sit down and come up with reasonable laws. Keep the zealots from both sides in the closet.

The Supreme Court Upholds the Second Amendment

From The

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
Published: June 26, 2008
Filed at 10:16 a.m. ET

Court Weighs Right to Guns, and Its Limits
(March 19) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.

The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.

I agree with this decision. I am a firm supporter of the Second Amendment. I have long believed that Gun Control Laws, as written, only protect the criminals, and leave us law-abiding citizens up a creek. I have never owned a gun. It is a personal choice for me, but since I'm a law-abiding citizen, if I woke up one day and decided I DID want to own one, I don't believe I should be restricted by government. I am fully willing to go through any registration process that is set out, and see no problem with background checks and waiting periods.

UPDATE: Before you think that I'm a non-thinking NRA Member, I part company with the NRA, and quite frankly, get angry with them for not going for the middle. I don't believe that a lot of people who oppose guns want to literally take them from gun owners. I believe that a lot of them would just love to sit in a room with the gun owners from the rural and plains states and just ask them:

Why do you let the punks pimp you the way that they do?

I, for instance, don't believe it's a hardship to limit gun ownership to one gun a month. No sane person needs more than one a month. You a collector? You get to collect 12 a year.

I also believe gun shows should be very regulated. I believe it SHOULD be easy to trace a gun from the moment it rolls off the assembly line. And, if you're a law-abiding citizen, you should want that too.

Why let those who are shady pimp off of you by yelling 'Gun Rights'. It's not right. The decent gun owner needs to stand up to the sleaze. They need to detach themselves from the sleaze, understanding that compromise doesn't mean you'll be turning in your guns.

The Obamas Are NOT Elite - And, That Is Fine With Me

Hat tip: What Tami Said

This is a post written by Professor Tracey over at Aunt Jemima's Revenge.

I like it when folks talk about the nuances of the Black community. No, we all don't look alike. We all don't think alike. And, there is a history in our community too. I appreciated this post because it goes into more depth than anything the MSM could come up with about Black folk. THEY THINK they know ' Uppity' Negroes. We all know, they don't have a clue.

Monday, June 23, 2008
The Obamas Are Not Elite....And That Is Fine With Me

Every time I hear mainstream media journalists and right wing pundits call Barack and Michelle Obama elitist, I become absolutely more convinced than ever that white America has absolutely no clue about the lives of black people, other than what they see on television or the movies or what other people tell them.

Let's make this clear - Barack and Michelle Obama are not elitist, they are not members of the black elite, period, end of discussion. If the requirement for being elite like the Obamas is having an Ivy League degree, really good jobs with decent salaries, and a nice house, then a whole lot of black people are elite. And we all know that's far from the truth.

The Obamas are not rich nor wealthy by any elite standard, in fact until Barack Obama started writing best-selling books that earned him significant financial gains, Michelle Obama was the family breadwinner, earning more than double Barack's salary. Truth be told, Barack and Michelle Obama are barely one generation removed from poverty. Far from elite indeed.

Unless the Obamas are leaving this information out of their personal biographies, the Obamas are not members of The Links, Jack and Jill of America, or The Divine Nine. The Obamas don't have a summer home on Martha's Vineyard....(Valerie Jarrett does) or Sag Harbor, where many of the real black elite are currently sipping mint juleps right now. I also don't believe that either Obama had a cotillion that "introduced" them to society.

Even black billionaires like Oprah Winfrey and Bob Johnson cannot be considered elite. They like the Obamas are one generation away from poverty. And Jay-Z and his new wife Beyonce, are certainly in the billionaire range when financially standing together, but no one is going to call them elitists anytime soon, no matter how many Gucci bags or Bentley's they buy. No black actor or athlete either. Director Spike Lee and his wife Tonya can be considered more of the black elite than the Obamas. Lee's money may be new, but his wife's social pedigree makes the difference.

Lawrence Otis Graham who wrote, Member of the Club and Our Kind of People, can tell you who and what makes one a member of the black elite. These are black folks that even the average black person maybe unaware of and most certainly the average white person is clueless about. Black generations of wealth, power, and prosperity, like the Kennedys, the Bushes, and the Vanderbilts. (You don't actually believe that CNN's Anderson Cooper has to work, with his mama being Gloria Vanderbilt?) The Johnsons of The Johnson Company and Ebony magazine are part of the Black Elite, three generations removed from their founding grandfather's humble beginnings.

With that said, it's not a criticism to say the Obamas are not elite, it's more of a correction. A correction that is important. The Obamas are like a lot of everyday successful people, black or white. They came from humble beginnings and overcame all the obstacles to become successful. If they desire a larger slice of the American dream, more money, more power, more advantages for their children, that does not make they elitists, it makes them ambitious, hardworking, and driven.

Successful people are successful because they have dreams and goals, they don't stop once they have achieved their dreams and goals, they make new ones, like running for president of the United States. That's not elitist, that's the American dream.

Posted by Professor Tracey at 12:10 AM


My own addendum to this. One of my guilty pleasures is the blog The Black Socialite. Searching through its archives, I discovered that no post had ever been done on Michelle Obama. I thought it was quite odd, considering that she could possibly become The First Lady. So, I emailed the site owner. In a very polite email, she informed me that hers was a blog about people who had been involved in Society, and Michelle Obama didn't qualify. There is, though, a nice little sidebar, congratulating Senator Obama on being the Presumptive Nominee.

I had to chuckle. I could have been snarky and reminded her that I had just seen a post on Dark Sith marrying Snowflake, but the possible Black First Lady didn't rate a post. But, snark is so 'impolite'...LOL. And, if there's anything to be said about ' Our Kind of People', they are mannerly and polite. I understood where she was coming, come on, Senator Obama. The only way Michelle's gonna rate a mention is if she ACTUALLY becomes First Lady. THEN, she will not be ignored...LOL

Wednesday, June 25, 2008

Barack Obama On Cover of Rolling Stone

Barack Obama is on the Cover of Rolling Stone

Here's a Link to the Cover Story.

Here's another Link to a Music Story about Obama.

Ben Smith of writes the following blurb about this:

Reading excerpts from the interview with Obama in Rolling Stone, it occurs to me that Jann Wenner, who runs the magazine and conducted the interview, and supports Obama, is conducting quite a campaign on the candidate's behalf: He' s also the publisher of Us Weekly.

Next up: The cover of Wenner-owned Men's Journal.

I like this cover better than his previous Rolling Stone cover. It's the smile.

Barack & Michelle Obama - AA Run Amok and Ingrate?

Found this one from Michelle Obama Watch:


Obama: Guilty By Association
By Burt Prelutsky
Monday, June 23, 2008

I mean, it’s always nice to be reminded that America is the place where anyone is free to achieve his dreams, although perhaps not quite yet her dreams. But when it comes to being president of the United States, the commander-in-chief of the best and the most powerful nation on earth, I don’t think we should be getting quite this excited. To me, Barack Obama seems like nothing more than the end result of affirmative action run amok. ...............................................

Ok.....a man who was President of the Harvard Law Review...Graduated Magna Cum Laude...


Uh huh.

Has any other Harvard Law Review President been labeled ' Affirmative Action Run Amok'?

Has any other United States Senator been labeled ' Affirmative Action Run Amok'?

Has any other Presidential Nominee been labeled 'Affirmative Action Run Amok'?

But, the BLACK MAN...

With TWO Ivy League Degrees...

Who began from NOTHING and won his Senate seat in a crowded field....

Then began from NOTHING, and built a political machine that toppled THE Democratic Party Dynasty of the past 20 years.....



Oh, but it gets better:

........The first screwball we found out about was Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the gutter mouth whose swinish sermons Obama lapped up for a thousand Sundays. Then there was Bill Ayers, the mad bomber who should have wound up sharing a cell with Ted Kaczynski, but instead was apparently offered the option of becoming a professor. And let us not forget Tony Rezko, who was recently found guilty by a Chicago jury of just about everything except kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. It’s still up in the air whether he’ll be offered the same deal as Bill Ayers, but there’s no getting around the fact that “Professor Rezko” has a nice ring to it.

It probably isn’t cricket to include Michelle Obama in this dirty laundry list of Barack’s associates, and yet it’s hard to simply overlook the fact that he chose to marry this nasty, bitter, openly racist ingrate..................

Let's dispense with some facts.
Jeremiah Wright is Jeremiah Wright. IF he had been preaching ' God Damn America' all the time, there would have been more of it on Youtube. That these clowns are still playing the same ones, over and over proves that he didn't. And, even if he had said it every Sunday that Obama was there, he had the right to do it as a preacher, and nothing he said was factually wrong.

Ayers. Ayers is a respected member of the Chicago community. He knows everyone, including DA MAYOR, who stuck up for him. We all know that if his name was LeRoy and had done what Ayers did, he'd STILL be in jail, but it's not, and he's not, and he was allowed to ' rehabilitate' himself. Obama was in grammar school when Ayers committed his crimes, and if the rest of the muckety muck of Chicago are willing to appoint him to Boards, then who cares?

Rezko..Rezko..Rezko...the Right keeps on dreaming. They had the trial. There is NO smoking gun between Rezko and Obama. WHY? Because Obama wasn't important enough in Illinois Politics for Rezko to become deeply involved with him. Our current Governor? Yes. Rezko's sending him to jail. People in the House and Senate LEADERSHIP - in BOTH parties? Yes...they shouldn't be sleeping well at night. Obama was down on the totem pole, and the Right is blowing smoke up their asses dreaming that Rezko holds some smoking gun for them. Not happening people.

Barack Obama might not be the Magic Negro, but he's a Smart Negro. Smart enough to know what he had to do in order to get this far. Got hints for you on the Right: read David Brooks and Andrew Sullivan from last week. I don't agree with everything they said about Obama, but they're smart enough to respect his skills.

And, let me just tell you this bluntly:

For a BLACK MAN to have gotten THIS far in the process, IN AMERICA?


He's smarter than YOU. Everyone you know. And your Mama.

But then, I think you know that. And, it pisses you off.

So, now, we get to Michelle.

Well, they finally came out and said it.


Well, good.

They finally said it.

They’ve been beating around the bush with it for awhile now.

They’re mad because she isn’t a ‘GRATEFUL DARKIE’.

Come on, now.

You know that’s what they call her. That's what they all 'Us'.

You know ' Us'.

Us 'Uppity' ones.

They don’t understand.

After all, she was GIVEN her education.

She was GIVEN her career.

She couldn’t POSSIBLY have EARNED it.

And, after all White folks have done for her - giving her the chance to get into hock up to her eyeballs to go to at least ONE hostile educational institution…


How DARE she actually think for herself.

HOW dare she not buckdance for them like their own little ‘ Grateful Darkies’ like Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas.


I was asked elsewhere WHY I didn't give the author the benefit of the doubt, as to the interpretation of the remarks. You know, MAYBE, if I hadn’t of read too many stories like this about Michelle Obama, he’d get the benefit of the doubt. But, it’s always there - that subtext…

Who do these ungrateful Negroes think they are?

I know it, because I’ve lived it.

AS IF because of my education and other opportunities that I’ve had in life (due to the parents who took hell and SACRIFICED ), I’m supposed to be a ‘ Grateful Darkie’.

I mean, you live where you do, you went to school where you did, ‘ what could you possibly be ANGRY about rikyrah?’

Um, maybe because I can read above an 8th grade level and understand the White Supremacist Underpinnings of this country. And how my ancestors literally BUILT America with FREE LABOR, and not only is it not acknowledged, but lied about.

Maybe it’s THAT.

Maybe it's because I had the opportunities that I've had and know others, who, if only THEY HAD THE CHANCE, would have done as well as me.

Been there, done that.......... heard it most of my life.

So, for all of us ' Ungrateful Darkies' out here...

Go crawl back under your racist, bottomfeeding rock.

Bill Clinton's ' Miffed' At Obama

Found this at Marc Ambinder:

Why Bill Clinton's Miffed At Obama
24 Jun 2008 03:53 pm

In politics, Hillary Clinton speaks for the Clinton family now, and aside from her campaign debt, she has no real difficulty supporting Barack Obama privately and publicly.

But Bill Clinton has a beef. A Democrat who has spoken directly to Clinton about his feelings said that the former president remains “miffed” for two reasons. One is that he feels that Obama’s candidacy was essentially an anti-Clinton candidacy; that Obama ran against Clinton’s presidential record at times, implying that it was timeworn, divisive, and damaging to the party while adopting policy positions that seemed to flow directly from the Clinton oeuvre. Why should Clinton embrace a guy who spent the past twelve months bashing him and his accomplishments?

Two: Clinton is convinced that the Obama campaign went out of its way to portray the former president as a racist. Clinton wants a private meeting with Obama to sort these things out; he has reconciled himself to the reality of Obama’s nomination and does not want to sit on the sidelines.

Well, ain't that a bitch.

Obama's campaign went OUT OF ITS WAY, did it?

Note to Bill Clinton - NO, HE DIDN'T.

No, he didn't call Hillary's campaign on 20% of the racial Dogwhistles pointed his way.

It's ridiculous.

I get it.

Black folk were just too dumb to pick up on all the Dogwhistles. If Obama and Company hadn't of pointed them out, then we would have just gone on clueless.

Uh huh.

So, I guess the ClintonAttacksObama Wiki was just a figment of our imagination.

Uh huh.

Nice try, Bill.

Just not buying it.

You're mad because you got caught. You're mad because this Uppity Negro beat you.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Vote for Mirror On America!

Mirror On America has been nominated for Best Overall Political Blog as a Shining Star Finalist, sponsored by

Click here to vote for Mirror on America.

***One ballot per person
***Voting will close at 11:59 p.m. on July 5

Monday, June 23, 2008

When It Comes To Michelle Obama, Where Are The Feminists?

So asks a good op-ed by Mary C. Curtis in the Washington Post.

In her piece called ' The Loud Silence of Feminists', Curtis opens with:

Michelle Obama has become an issue in the presidential campaign even though she isn't running for anything. An educated, successful lawyer, devoted wife and caring mother has been labeled "angry" and unpatriotic and snidely referred to as Barack Obama's "baby mama."

Democrats, Republicans, independents, everyone should be offended.

And this black woman is wondering: Where are Obama's feminist defenders?

She's not the only Black woman asking this.

I'd like to know too...


where is you at? (Mama, forgive me)

One has to wonder, as Michelle Obama is being labeled unpatriotic, bitter, mean, angry. Where are those feminists who saw sexism lurking around every corner with Hillary Clinton?


Ok, so they don't defend Michelle Obama, but can't they at least come up and point out the hypocrisy of the attacks on Michelle Obama as compared to the Pill Poppin' Piece-On-The-Side? Is it too much for them to bring THAT up?

Why is an accomplished professional, Double Ivy-League graduate, loving wife and devoted mother NOT WORTHY OF DEFENSE BY THE FEMINIST ESTALBLISHMENT?

A new blog that has become part of my daily routine is Michelle Obama Watch, a sort of Media Matters for Michelle Obama. If you have the time, take a look at the blog. The stuff being thrown out there with regards to Michelle Obama is enough to make the blood pressure rise. But, I want to thank Gina M for doing this. For cataloguing all things Michelle Obama so that there is a one stop shop, so everyone who 'poo-poos' those of us who defend Michelle Obama as being ' sensitive'-WE can see the cumulative effect of those attacks. Seeing them gathered in one place adds to the strength of those of us who DO defend Michelle Obama.

To be fair, I have seen defense of Michelle Obama somewhat in the Feminist Blogosphere, so I give credit where it's due. But, the SILENCE of all those that were yapping their flaps for Hillary just can't go unnoticed.

Curtis wrote:

The campaign against Michelle Obama -- who went on "The View" this week to prove her everywoman bona fides -- has not caused a rift between black and white women so much as it has exposed it.

I've long been frustrated, as a black woman and a feminist, with our national conversation. I didn't hear the cause speaking up for women of color or for women who have always worked in blue-collar or service jobs. Choice was not their issue.

The woman who employed my educated mother to clean her house never quite saw her as a sister in the struggle for equality.

Well, it's no secret that I'm not a fan of feminism. I don't believe that it had anything to do with Black women's lives. I believe we already had our own brand of feminism, because Black women have always worked. Our ancestors - mothers, aunts, grandmothers, elders in the church- have been balancing work, relationships and marriage, well, since forever. We failed to uphold the lessons that they tried to teach us, throwing it away for something that NEVER had our families in mind. I can't be a Black feminist if I'm being separate from the Black men in my life. Just doesn't work for me. That's part of the reason why there was no real 'conflict' for me when it came to Obama vs. Clinton. Am I Black or Woman? I'm both, but I've been in this country long enough to know:
1. Being Black is the true designation of my life
2. Being separated from the men in the community has not done us any good
3. 'Sisterhood' is a one way street; I'm a ' Sister', when Mainstream Feminism wants something from me. When they're done, then I'm kicked to the curb. I understood long ago that Miss Anne wasn't studdin' about my Black behind, and I don't think I'm alone in that realization.

I said before that I wasn't going to hold my breath waiting for Mainstream Feminists to defend Michelle Obama. This was a job that those of us who cared would have to take on our shoulders.

Their silence has been quite instructive....don't you think?

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Secret Video Shows Chauncey Bailey Conspirators Discussing Details of Killing

A Newly emerged video shows conspirators in the Chauncey Bailey Murder discussing details about the killing (and laughing). But none of these suspects have been charged in the case, nor are they under investigation or receiving any new scrutiny. Another suspect (not on the tape) claimed responsibility, saying that he acted alone. But the video clearly indicates a larger conspiracy. An Oakland Police Detective may have also been implicated in the video.

Why are these urban terrorists still walking the streets of Oakland?

(Video will occasionally fail to load from Youtube. If you get a "Video no longer available" message, reload page & try again, or watch video from the Center For Investigative Reporting. Link is below).

On August 2, 2007, journalist Chauncey Bailey was gunned down in Oakland, California. Bailey was investigating Your Black Muslim Bakery, a once prominent Oakland African-American organization. The next day, Bakery leader Yusuf Bey IV was arrested during a raid for a separate kidnapping case. Police placed Bey and two associates involved in the case, his brother Joshua Bey and Tamon Halfin, in a San Leandro police department room, where they were secretly videotaped.

Bey IV has repeatedly told police he knew nothing about Bailey's death. But, on the tape, Bey IV says he hid the gun used in the attack, and brags of playing “hella dumb” when investigators asked him about the killing.

(originally reported by The Center For Investigative Reporting).... Continue Reading Here. Be sure to listen to the audio from the Chauncey Bailey Project.

Also posted at Truthdig

Congress Will Soon Pass An Iran War Resolution

You may have heard about the massive Isreali wargames conducted earlier this month that were aimed at Iran. But you may not be aware of the Iran War Resolution that is close to a vote in Congress. The Resolution (#362) will ask President Bush to impose a full Naval Blockade on Iran, including the blocking of gasoline imports. Now imagine if a Country decided that it would block imports of gasoline into the U.S.

Sure, Iran has plenty of oil, but it actually imports much of its gasoline, because the country does not refine enough oil for its own domestic fuel needs. Such a blockade would not be backed by the UN Security Council and would be an act of war. It would practically destroy the Iranian economy, and impact its Trade with other Countries. This (by design) would force the Iranian military to take action in response- exactly what the U.S. wants.

This idiotic legislation is being pushed by AIPAC, Israels most powerful lobbying group. This is probably the most powerful lobbying group in Washington. The Bill is supported by both the House and Senate, and appears to be bi-partisan. Barack Obama was quick to throw in his support. He jumped on the bandwagon long ago, promising AIPAC that he would put the interests of Israel over the interests of the United States. This is one of the main problems with the Democratic Party - it's foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel. The Democrats are essentially as hawkish as the Republicans. Foreign policy is one of the areas where Democrats and Republicans read from the same script. This is why I often refer to members of Congress as the "Republicrats". It is also one of the main reasons why I cannot fully endorse a candidate like Barack Obama. I can never fully embrace him as a real change candidate- NEVER. The way that he so eagerly co-signs with the imperialist pro-war U.S. policies of the past puts his change platform in doubt. On one hand he criticizes Bush for warmongering, then he reveals that he pretty much believes in the same kind of "Truman Doctrine" imperialism that has shaped U.S. Foreign policy for the past 50+ years; the same imperialism that drives the Bush Administration.

A few weeks ago I wrote about how ridiculous an attack on Iran would be. If the U.S. and Israel wanted to strengthen the Iranian government, they would launch an attack. An attack would be a gift to the Iranian regime. And such an attack would not even destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities. So instead of solving a problem, the U.S. and Israel will only make matters far worse.

The U.S. and Israel are moving in the same familiar pattern here as they did leading up to the invasion of Iraq. They are both listening to Iranian exile groups who have a political agenda, just like they did before the Iraq disaster. The Iraqi exile groups turned out to be frauds, who admitted that they provided false information about Iraq's non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. But here we are yet again.

An attack on Iran would be a disaster, and would accomplish nothing. Even the IAEA Chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, stated that an attack would be a disaster for the region and would threaten World Peace and would impede his work. An attack on Iran could easily drag other nations into a much wider confrontation. Russia, for example, has invested quite a lot in Iran over the past few years, and has not only built one nuclear facility, but is in the process of building more. The two Countries also have several other military and business Trade links.

The U.S. wants the World to believe that Iran is doing something that is against international law with its nuclear research. That is a lie! The NPT agreement allows for peaceful civilian use of nuclear technology. That includes research of various kinds. What is tricky is that some of the activities have both civilian or military applications. Not even the IAEA is close to saying that Iran is making a nuclear bomb. And even if they were, that would not be illegal, although it would violate their previous NPT agreement. The NPT, however, is a voluntary agreement, not a compulsory agreement. There is no UN mandate that says anything about a country being attacked if they violate NPT or CTBT agreements. When the NPT was created, there were specific provisions included that allowed signatory States the right to the peaceful use of nuclear technology. The real issue behind this nonsensical game that the U.S. is playing is the fact that Iran is a Muslim State and it does not want it to even have the technology or the ability to possibly make a bomb. Iran doesn't have to be close to actually making a nuclear weapon in order to be targeted. It is being targeted simply for doing research and for developing its own nuclear technology, peaceful or not (all legal under international law).

I am now more convinced than ever that the U.S. (or through its proxy & 51st State Israel) is headed for a military confrontation with Iran - an event that could lead to regional war. While I don't think anything will take place in the immediate future (within the next few weeks or months), everything is pointing towards a military conflict in the longterm. The constant hawkish tone of Barack Obama gives me the feeling that he will be a lapdog for AIPAC and will allow Israel to make his foreign policy decisions, even if those decisions are not in my best interests as an American. If Bush doesn't launch this idiotic war, the next President likely will, no matter who wins in November. The major candidates are like two apples from the same poisonous tree, both heavily influenced by the Israel lobby.

You think gas prices are high right now? Wait until the war with Iran begins. You will be looking at gas prices of $6.00 - $7.00 per gallon or more. And that's not the only thing that you will need to worry about.

Congress Passes New FISA Bill, Weakens 4th Amendment

New Law Does Not Restore the Original 1978 FISA Principles

The Congress has handed the White House sweeping new powers in the new FISA Bill. Proponents of the Bill claim that it is a victory because the legislation prevents the White House from engaging in warrantless spying, by placing wiretapping activities back under the jurisdication and oversight of FISA courts. However, that is not actually what the Bill has done. The new law is actually a re-write of the original 1978 FISA law, which gave clear oversight to FISA Courts. The original law was much more stringent in terms of probable cause requirements, and had more provisions for protecting the rights of Americans. Under the original law, surveillance requests were reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

The new re-written FISA law does not require any detailed Court oversight. It would not prevent the White House from engaging in warrentless wiretapping in the future.

In a strange twist, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, sparred with Pelosi over the extraordinary powers the Democrats’ bill grants to the White House, saying the legislation does not appear to prevent the White House from initiating surveillance without a court order.

“This proposal dodges" that, Specter said

This is at least the third time that the Democrats have caved on a major piece of legislation related to the fundamental rights of Americans. They are referring to their caving as a "compromise". But the only thing that they have compromised is the 4th Amendment of the Constitution. We may as well throw that amendment out of the window. Why not shred the entire Bill of Rights too? It has been decades since the Federal government has really honored the Constitution anyway.

From the Moderate Voice:

This is the same doublespeak we got from Nancy Pelosi. This — “Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people.” — is technically true, but only because the bill changed FISA to give the president the powers he wants, minus the accountability he does not want. In other words, the House has enshrined the president’s entire illegal warrantless surveillance program in law, called it “FISA,” and now has the chutzpah to claim that the bill “restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance.”

Ironically, a Federal appeals Court ruled last week that employers could not spy on the e-mails and text messages of employees. Either we have two separate Constitutions, or the Congress is hoodwinking the American public once again.

I'm not soft on Terrorism. I believe that Intelligence agencies need provisions that will allow them to do their work. However, I believe such provisions should be reasonable. The 1978 FISA law was created as a tool for gathering intelligence. Yes, the original law was outdated and didn't allow enough flexibility. Fair enough. But it could have been adjusted to provide Law Enforcement and Intelligence agencies with the flexibility that they need. There was no real need to go outside of the law. What the new law has done is that it has legalized much of the illegal activity that the Bush administration engaged in with its warrantless wiretapping. The retroactive immunity is also a problem, however, the Telecom companies were often in an impossible position. The FBI's use of "National Security Letters" prevented the phone companies and e-mail providers from protesting or even discussing the surveillance requests with third parties.

Once again, there does not seem to be a balance of power in Washington. The White House still gets a rubber stamp from Congress.

See how members of Congress voted on this legislation.

John McCain Attempting To Fool Americans On His Oil Policy

Keith Olbermann shines light on McCain's conflicting interests and connections to the Oil Industry.

Why are your gas prices so high?

Obama's First National Ad

Obama's First National Ad for the General Election. He is clearly aiming for a broader appeal with this ad, which is a good thing. He must recast himself as someone who the American public can be comfortable with. Becauase the National media has clearly tried (and continues to try) to damage his image as a viable candidate. The problem is, he should have tried this approach much sooner.

All in all, it's a good ad.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Obama Opts Out of Public Financing System


The Obama campaign has 1.7 million donors. That IS Public Financing.

If you want to see the Video at his website, CLICK HERE

WHY did he opt out?

Because he has a serious advantage here. Because, for the first time in recent history, The Democrats have a serious money advantage.

While Obama has done his part to get most of the 527's to stand down, Senator Straight Talk is there saying that he can't control everything that The RNC does, let alone the GOP 527's.

Now, opting out of the Public Financing System,which means that Obama will be able to raise as much money as his donors will supply...

COUPLED with his devotion to putting into full throttle- The 50 State Strategy, which includes that voter registration drive in ALL 50 STATES...

means that Obama is playing serious offense.

He WILL force the GOP to defend places that they'd never thought they'd have to and spend money that they simply don't have. It's 'in-your-face' politics, and GOOD - the Democrats need to be playing that FINALLY.

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

The Status of the Electoral Map, June 2008


Obama's Takes Expected Lead
by: Chris Bowers
Wed Jun 18, 2008 at 16:56

Over the past week, a series of state polls with extremely positive results for Barack Obama have been released. If these polls are accurate, then Obama has taken large leads in New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, a decent lead in Florida, and even a narrow lead in Virginia. Given earlier polls that showed Missouri to be a dead heat, this all seems to good to be true. After all, I am a Democrat, and so a lead like this makes me feel as though I am about to wake up in bed next to Susanne Pleshette.

Actually, however, this state polling projection is precisely where current national polling would project it to be.'s national polling projection, which corrects for "house effects" from different pollsters and takes all polling firms into account rather than just those with the most recently released polls, currently shows Obama ahead by 5.6%. A 5.6% Obama lead would be a swing of 8.1% from 2004, when Kerry lost the national popular vote by 2.5% (actually 2.46%, but rounding is necessary in this case). If there was an 8.1% swing in every single state from 2004, we would end up with the following electoral college map:

Obama 336, McCain 189, Too close to call 13

With the exception of Nevada, this is precisely what current state polling projects. The two closest states in the above map would be Virginia (within 0.2%) and Missouri (within (0.9%). Remarkably, all polling conducted since Obama clinched the nomination actually shows Virginia and Missouri to be the two closest states in the nation, and all other states, except Nevada, falling into their above projected categories.

So, the state polls released over the last two weeks, which fladem today called "the best day of State Polling a Democrat has had since 1996," are not too good to be true. It is, instead, exactly where one would expect Obama's lead to be given current national polling and 2004 results. Even though Nevada might be out of whack, the above map really is where the election currently stands. We may be Democrats, but at least for now we can rest assured that we are winning.

Don't count on this being a story in the MSM. Ever. But, that's what blogs are for; to spread the word. This should be encouragement; keep on pushing forward.Don't let up or rest on the laurels.


Obama Expresses 'Deep Disappointment' in McCain's Silence on Wife Attacks

Hat tip:

From CBN's David Brody:

The Brody File
David Brody
CBN News Senior National Correspondent

EXCLUSIVE: Obama Expresses 'Deep Disappointment' in McCain's Silence on Wife Attacks
June 17, 2008

In a one-on-one interview with The Brody File, Barack Obama says he is deeply disappointed that John McCain has not spoken out against the attacks leveled against his wife.

Michelle Obama has come under criticism from some conservatives because of comments that they say suggest she's unpatriotic, not proud to be an American and outside the mainstream.

Obama vigorously defends his wife.

I spoke to Obama in Taylor, Mich. Tuesday afternoon. Read the transcription of his answer below or click play to hear his answer.

"This is unfortunately become a habit in our politics where anything's fair game, and we just make things up about people. If you think about Michelle, I mean here's somebody who's done everything right. She grew up in modest means. She grew up in a nuclear family. Her parents looked after her. She went to college on a scholarship. She's worked hard for everything that she has.

She is the best mother I know. She has made repeated sacrifices on behalf of her family and has said that her children and her husband are her number one priority.

So the fact that people have tried to make her a target, based essentially on a couple of comments in which she was critical of what's happening to our American dream and the enormous difficulties that people are experiencing -- the difficulties that she hears directly as she is traveling across the country, I think is really distressing. And you know I've said publicly before, and I'll say it again - I think families are off limits. I would never consider making Cindy McCain a campaign issue, and if I saw people doing that - I would speak out against it. And the fact that I haven't seen that from John McCain I think is a deep disappointment."

If you'd like to read the rest of the article and see the video clip of the Obama interview, click on the link above.

I'm glad he's calling out Senator Straight Talk. AFTER ALL, if folks WANTED TO, they could have a field day with his Pill Poppin' Piece-On-The-Side.

d asked me when I was going to stop calling her that; so, before anyone says anything in the comments, don't. When they begin to treat Michelle Obama with respect, THAT is when I'll retire that nickname, and not a moment before.

Because NOBODY will ever be able to convince me, that if the life situations were reversed?????


We'd be seeing an endless loop of the story of the 'Poor, First Mrs. Obama'.
We'd have interview upon interview with people involved with the charity from which Mrs. Obama stole.
We'd have commentator upon commentator talking about 'what kind of person worth $100 million (let's be real...Michelle would only have to be worth $1 million) would STEAL from a charity?'
And, then, they'd bring on doctor after doctor, talking about, ' Well, you know, we don't know how the pressures of a campaign might send her back to drug addiction'. - All in theory, of course...their 'respected' medical opinions.

" No, Rikyrah, if the situations were reversed, we'd see the same treatment of Michelle that we see of the Pill Poppin' Piece-On-The-Side. "

Uh uh. Hell no.

UPDATE: Look what I found at Michelle Obama Watch:

Cindy McCain Still Stuck on Michelle’s Patriotism
Posted by AJ of OverAnalyzeIt.

Cindy McCain is scheduled to be on Good Morning America tomorrow morning and she’s still pushing the “Michelle is unpatriotic” meme as she talks about Michelle’s misquoted “proud” comment. I think she might want to reconsider her position on throwing stones……..

From ABC News Blogs

ABC News’ Ed O’Keefe Reports: Laura Bush may be ready to give Michelle Obama the benefit of the doubt when it comes to her patriotism but Cindy McCain may not.

“I don’t know why she said what she said,” Mrs. McCain explains in an interview with ABC News’ Kate Snow airing on “Good Morning America” Thursday. “Everyone has their own experience. I don’t know why she said what she said, all I know is that I have always been proud of my country.”

Ok, well now, I'm too thru, and even though I'm going to stick with Pill Poppin' Piece-On-The-Side, I'm just gonna come out and say what came instantly into my mind, the first time she oh-no-snidely derided Michelle Obama on this:

" The Nerve of that Thievin' Junkie HO."

Battle of the Spouses: Latest Poll Results

Hat tip:


Battle of the Spouses: A Bit Better for Obama
Early Edge is Michelle Obama's, But Plenty of Room to Move for Cindy McCain
June 18, 2008

In the battle of the spouses the early edge is Michelle Obama's, in favorable views and intensity of sentiment alike. But there are sharp differences among groups, and plenty of room to move for the less well-known Cindy McCain.

Forty-eight percent of Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll see Obama favorably, vs. 39 percent for McCain, a 9-point Obama advantage. Slightly more, though, also view Obama unfavorably – 29 percent vs. McCain's 25 percent.

Substantially more, 36 percent, haven't yet formed an opinion of McCain, vs. 23 percent in Obama's case. For both, those are sizable numbers who've yet to make a judgment.

The popularity of presidential candidates' spouses does not drive vote preferences. But in contests where every advantage can count, spouses do play a very public role. Cindy McCain is highlighting her support for children's charities with a visit to Vietnam this week, while Michelle Obama hosts the ABC program "The View" on Wednesday.

DIFFS – There are big differences among groups in views of the two women, mainly driven by political partisanship. Obama's favorable score is 14 points higher among women than McCain's, 54 percent vs. 40 percent; as in many of Obama's other best groups, the chief reason is simply because women are more apt to be Democrats.

An even more striking gap may cut to Obama's independent persona; among the two in 10 Americans who call themselves feminists (men and women alike), 60 percent view her favorably. That drops to 45 percent among non-feminists – who are twice as apt as feminists to see her unfavorably.

Obama's ratings peak at 84 percent favorable among African-Americans, 66 percent among liberals and Democrats alike and 61 percent among young adults, age 18-29. Not surprisingly, those are among her husband's core groups; indeed it's his support that seems largely to drive views of his wife. Among people who prefer Barack Obama for president vs. John McCain, 73 percent like Obama's wife, too.

Rest of Article at link above.

Barack and Michelle Obama on cover of US Magazine

The Obamas on the Upcoming Issue of US Weekly

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Donna Edwards - The Newest Member of the CBC

From The Baltimore

Donna Edwards to fill 4th District seat
Democrat is state's first black woman to be elected to Congress
By Brent Jones Sun reporter
10:50 PM EDT, June 17, 2008

Donna Edwards became the state's first black woman to be elected to Congress after easily defeating Republican Peter James Tuesday night in a special election for the vacant 4th District seat.

With 74 percent of the precincts reporting by 10 p.m., Edwards had captured 79 percent of the vote.

Edwards, an activist and lawyer, will serve out the remainder of former Rep. Albert R. Wynn's term. Wynn, who lost to Edwards in the February primary, left office May 31 to join a powerful lobbying group, leading to Tuesday night's election. She will serve the rest of the year.

"It really didn't hit us about the element of history, but what it says is that we're ready for change and for people who represent all of us," said Edwards, 49.

"The fault lines we draw among races, counties, really don't matter," she said.

It is a victory political observers say will give the Prince George's County Democrat a jump on other incoming legislators if she beats James again in the general election in November.

Edwards, running a populist, anti-war campaign that has drawn support from national liberal groups, will be the prohibitive favorite in a district in which Democrats outnumber Republicans 5-1.

"I never want to take any election for granted," Edwards said. "I'll continue to be out meeting and speaking with people in the 4th District. We're going to do what it takes to win."

Rest of article at link.

Ms. Edwards is a Conscious Progressive, and should be light years better for that district than Al Wynn.

Michelle Obama to Co-Host 'The View'

Michelle Obama will co-host ' The View', Wednesday, June 18th. Just a FYI for those who are interested.

SWOT For Barack Obama

I couldn't help myself.

Below is a SWOT picture for Team Obama. (1) (2)


1. Running on a message of "change" & exemplifies that change.

2. Charismatic

3. Sharp/Intelligent

4. Approached Run for Presidency w/ a 50 State strategy.

5. Brought thousands of new voters into the political process.

6. Appeals to young voters.

7. Appeals to Independents and disenchanted Moderates.

8. Strong support from Black voters.

9. Effective organizing/mobilization from the grass roots level on up.

10. Supporters are motivated.

11. Money/Fundraising

12. Message resonating w/ White Americans in the West and parts of the Midwest who are college educated & who earn more than $50,000 per year.

13. Has a more populist message in a time of war and during a period of economic hardship for many Americans.

14. Team Obama has advantage when it comes to utilizing and exploiting technology (Internet, etc). McCain's older demographic is not as computer savvy. This slows/limits fundraising efforts for McCain.

15. More human resources. Has more young volunteers who can fan out all over the Country for voter registration, education, and mobilization.

16. His family. The images of family, particularly his wife and school aged daughters is an image that resonates because so many Americans can relate to the Obama's current situation regarding raising kids. The Obama family looks like so many other American families. So when Obama talks about issues related to supporting children, supporting education, healthcare, fixing No Child Left Behind, etc, he is accepted as more authentic and more up to date on the problems. Obama is seen by many as someone who can empathize with Americans on these sorts of issues...and that empathy can prove to be reciprocal, as voters may be willing to cut Obama slack on other issues. Conversely, it makes McCain look more out of touch before he even opens his mouth about any of these social/economic problems. Obama's daughters are a secret weapon, as they may affect voters unconsciously.


1. Seen by some as lacking experience.

2. Trouble garnering support from working class white voters in certain parts of the Country, especially Post- Rev. Wright.

3. Affiliation w/ Traditional Black Church in Chicago - T.U.C.C. - and its connection w/ traditional Black elite leadership.

4. Not a well known character to many Americans.

5. Name could be hard for some to accept in a xenophobic nation which is often resistant to change.

6. Race, Race, Race, Race, and Race.

7. No military background.

8. Iraq- Obama may have to adjust his position to match the situation on the ground in Iraq. He has promised something that he likely will not be able to deliver- a quick pullout of U.S. troops. A quick pullout is not feasible and was never really a viable option. It is even less of an option as the overall situation in Iraq has improved. The reason why it was used as a political issue is because it sounded good to voters. Obama could have done himself a favor by leveling with voters earlier on. Now he has dug himself a hole.

It is physically & politically impossible to conduct a quick pullout from Iraq. Top military advisors would likely be against any such move. The sooner Obama modifies his position on this issue, the better. He has to move to a more comprehensive 3-5 year plan to slowly drawdown U.S. troops, while aggressively building up the Iraqi military. The Bush administration has made a strategic decision not to make any real effort to build up the Iraqi armed forces. The Iraqi's are in need of Tanks, Trucks, Armoured Personnel Carriers, Artillery, Planes, Helicopters, ships and boats...items that the Bush Administration has been reluctant to provide. The Iraqi's will never be truly self sufficient until they obtain the equipment they need. Notice how this issue has been missing from corporate news reports? It has never been part of the public discussion. But this is one of the main obstacles to a self sufficient Iraq. Until the Iraqi's get the tools they need to "stand up", they will always be dependent on the U.S. And this decision by the Bush Administration to keep the Iraqi's dependent on U.S. help had a clear provide the U.S. with a reason and with leverage to negotiate a long term presence in the Country.

So on day one, Obama will have to figure out how to solve the problem of Iraq's self sufficiency. Once the U.S. is able to reduce the bulk of its troop presence, Obama should push for some sort of United Nations stabilization force of 40,000 or so that would remain in the Country for a little while longer. The U.S. could contribute 10,000-20,000 troops to such a force (with many standing by in Kuwait), while the remainder could be provided by other Countries around the world and throughout the region. The main purpose of the troops would be to protect the Iraqi government, protect natural resources, train Iraqi forces, backup Iraqi forces, monitor borders, conduct anti-terror activities, and act as a rapid reaction force.

Bringing 120,000 U.S. troops home over a period of 3-5 years is a much more realistic goal and it is likely to be the scenario that is actually played out anyway. If Obama conducts a quick pullout and Iraq collapses, he will be blamed for the disaster- not Bush (I know... sick isn't it? But it's a fact).

9. Party & progressives as a whole lack a strong media infrastructure. Cable TV news & AM radio continue to be dominated by Republican/Conservative talking points. No matter how good the progressive message is, it often does not have a chance to resonate because it is typically heard through a Conservative filter. By the time Americans hear the message it has been distorted by the Conservative media gatekeepers. No matter how much money Obama spends, it will be very hard for him to get his message to voters on his own terms.

10. Staff not aggressive enough in terms of handling attacks/controversies. It often takes the Obama camp too long to respond.

11. Not doing enough to reach out to rural America and to understand/talk about rural issues. Iowa showed that he is capable of reaching this demographic. He must now attempt to apply his Iowa work to a General Election.


1. Has a chance to change political map.

2. Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Colorado, Virginia, N. Dakota & more could go his way in November.

3. For the first time in U.S. history, a significant number of White voters will be open to the message of a General Election candidate who happens to be Black.

4. Has opportunity to introduce himself or re-introduce himself to Millions of Americans who may not have followed the election season closely up until now.

5. Opportunity to gain ground with Hispanics.

6. Opportunity to be more proactive & take the fight to John McCain.

7. Opportunity to highlight problems w/ faltering economy as it happens, and as Americans can see it right in front of them. It's an issue that is very real to most voters...they can "feel" it.

8. Opportunity to exploit McCain's weaknesses.

9. Pre-empt Republicans/Conservatives & their attempts to use fear mongering and racism.

10. Pre-empt Republicans/Conservatives on National Security, perhaps by choosing a strong running mate early with a long National Security/Military resume.

11. Has opportunity to keep focus on the economy, which could make matters much easier for him in the long run (avoiding more contentious & controversial issues that could benefit McCain).


1. The National News Media.

2. Rev. Wright Controversy/Lingering Damage. It's an issue that will surface again.

3. Racism/Bigotry.

4. American Xenophobia.

5. The Bradley Effect.

6. Threats to Personal Safety.

7. American Resistance to Change, and the reluctance to go with the less familiar.

8. Long Primary Fight or the damage thereof.

9. Conservative Talk Radio

10. Continued Democratic Party Infighting.

11. Tony Rezko Story and the media's constant coverage.

12. Anti-Obama websites and Smear Campaigns.

13. Republican/Radical Conservative (phony) 501(3)(c), and 527 groups (such as The Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth" who destroyed John Kerry in 2004). These groups will be able to run any kind of ugly, racist, bigoted ads or smear campaigns that they want, with no regulation from Top Republicans. In reality, these groups are well connected with the Republican/Conservative political power structure. They represent the foot soldiers of the Republican political and media machines (behind closed doors). But having these Republican foot soldiers run their operations via 501(3)(c) or 527 groups allows the "official" Republican leadership and Republican Candidates across the Country to claim they were not aware of anything, they didn't know anything about a particular ad, they didn't sign off or approve anything, and they are as shocked and disgusted as anyone else....after an offensive ad, smear campaign, etc. :) It's all about plausible deniability. In reality, these ad/smear efforts are well coordinated through the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, the Republican National Committee's Strategy office, and the Republican Candidates strategy team, among other groups.