Thursday, December 18, 2008

Constitutional Convention

This has been copied from a friend on another site. I think it's an important read so please read it and repostpass it on!


A Possible New Constitutional Convention NOT GOOD NEWS
Got this in an email today and I really don't like the sound of it. It is a bit unnerving to say the least. What the hell is happening in this country? I also wonder will there be states to reject anything that comes of this and declare their sovereignty. With Obama coming into power how far will this be pushed? If he gets his way I'd lay odds that there would be nothing on rights to keep and bear arms. Maybe this is the "CHANGE" he keeps talking about.

Act Now To Reject Con Con
By Chuck Baldwin
December 16, 2008

This column is archived at

My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center,
recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a
modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not
assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention
replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution.
Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of
freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence
and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to
liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of
politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the
power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States
of America, and that is no hyperbole.

The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states
have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact
the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of
this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the
effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the
election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been
emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is
currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.

States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina,
North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen
the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This
fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but
don't expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that
if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and
upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt,
state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings,
ready to act with "lightning speed" to seal the deal.

Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is
no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, "In truth no restrictive language from
any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional]
Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the
delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention
delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself."

DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could
declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely
rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice
Warren Burger once declared, "There is no effective way to limit or muzzle
the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its
own rules and set its own agenda."

Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government
liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders'
Constitution--which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that
protects individual liberty--would be replaced with some sort of "collective
rights" document protecting an ambiguous "common good." At that point, there
is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights
protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore,
the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our
nation's laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our
forebears would be gone forever.

Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!

In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can
RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is
currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we
know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let
their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of
Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a
Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us
who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to
contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue,
and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to
call for a Constitutional Convention.

For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go
to the American Policy Center web site at

In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What
will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our
U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new
constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which
states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will
they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this
Twenty-First Century New World Order--a New World Order that will doubtless
incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?

It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states
that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to
declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a
modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to
resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not
number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the
East Coast.

I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and
tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both
the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention
is called--and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten--are ready
and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the
call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?

We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time
for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be
upon us.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these
editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by
credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

(c) Chuck Baldwin

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 + Others are Not Reliable Sources of Information

Alrighty people, here I go again!
The topic for this post is:

Why and Various other sources are Unreliable

Why is it unreliable? Well because it is owned and funded by the Annenberg Foundation. It even says so on it's website banner. Why is the Annenberg Foundation bad? Well, because our soon-to-be President, Barack Obama, was a first chairman for the Annenberg Chicago Challenge, part of the Annenberg Foundation.

Now, that may indirectly connect him to But indirect or not, they have a motive to support and disapprove any bad stuff about Mr. soon-to-be President. is used by many people to prove information. Same as Wikipedia and Snopes. All of which I try very hard not to refer to as reliable sources of important information, because they are not real sources for information.

Wikipedia is a site run by mostly nerds. Most of their information is donated by anyone who can access the site. It's a free online encyclopedia with alot of information on it. And while it can be very useful, I would not always refer to it as the most correct source of information. I would use it to look for basic information about a certain person. But I wouldn't just go by what it has to say about whatever or whoever if I'm looking for a good solid information source. has no background that I can find. I spent almost the last hour looking for a background on them, and could not find anything about who founded it, who runs it, or when it really started. If one cannot find the background info on a source for information then why would one want to use it as an informative source? So does not pass my standards for reliable, unbias, true information on important issues.

I already listed why is unreliable, because they are indirectly involved with Obama. But I'll go into detail on it, just for all you liberals reading this. ^_~*wink*

Aside from their indirect connection with Obama, they also support him. They have supported him by "trying" to clear him of all accusations regarding his citizenship and his birth records. They did an investigation on his birth records and took pictures of his Certificate of Live Birth. Now, I have said this before but I'm going to say it again, because it doesn't seem to really stick. A Certificate of Live Birth is NOT, in any way, shape or form, a Birth Certificate. Anybody can get one. Only a U.S. BORN Citizen can obtain a real, legal, Birth Certificate.

A Certificate of Live Birth does NOT have alot of information on it. It does NOT have the signatures of both parents on it. And it is NOT a Birth Certificate. An immigrant that has obtained full citizenship can obtain a Certificate of Live Birth. They won't be able to obtain a U.S. issued Birth Certificate though.

Now, did an investigation on this whole conspiracy. They took photos of Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, and they got statements from the officials of Hawaii stating that they have his birth records. But, if they were seriously serious about proving that Obama is in fact an actual U.S. born citizen, then why not just get proof that his actual Birth Certificate is real? Instead of his Certificate of Live Birth. (which, btw, they were only able to obtain photos of a Certification of Live Birth. So it's not even a Certificate. It's just a document that says he was born)
If they wanted to disprove all the allegations against him, they should have obtained photos of his Birth Certificate, and demanded it be shown and not locked up. Having his Birth Certificate locked up raises suspicion and why. And that is what is biting him in the ass right now. Why is he hiding them? Because he is afraid of what we will find out. That is why.

Here is a video about Obama's Birth Certificate, and how it is a forgery.

He goes into detail on how the document is a forgery. But regardless if this is true or not, I really don't care. All I care about if his Birth Certificate. If Obama can obtain and supply his Certificate of Live Birth, he can obtain and supply his Birth Certificate to the American people. That is all this is about. Show it to us and we will drop this issue.

Doesn't mean we will recognize you as our next president, respect you as our next president, or support you as our next president. But we will recognize you as an actual U.S. born citizen, instead of a con artist that is lying to his country.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Movie Review -- Twilight

Another movie review! A week late, but here it is!
I'll try to keep it spoiler free and short.


Is an action-packed, modern-day love story between a teenage girl and a vampire. Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has always been a little bit different, never caring about fitting in with the trendy girls at her Phoenix high school. When her mother re-marries and sends Bella to live with her father in the rainy little town of Forks, Washington, she doesn't expect much of anything to change. Then she meets the mysterious and dazzlingly beautiful Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), a boy unlike any she's ever met. Edward is a vampire, but he doesn't have fangs and his family is unique in that they choose not to drink human blood. Intelligent and witty, Edward sees straight into Bella's soul. Soon, they are swept up in a passionate, thrilling and unorthodox romance. To Edward, Bella is what he has waited 90 years for - a soul mate. But the closer they get, the more Edward must struggle to resist the primal pull of her scent, which could send him into an uncontrollable frenzy. But what will Edward & Bella do when a clan of new vampires - James (Cam Gigandet), Laurent (Edi Gathegi) and Victoria (Rachelle Lefevre) - come to town and threaten to disrupt their way of life?

My thoughts on the movie:

It was great! I saw it with my boyfriend(maybe), and it was a great first date movie. Not too much action, but it had enough depth, romance, and drama that it kept both me and my date interested. I give it 5 stars! I would recommend it to anyone who is into vampire movies, and not the mainstream kind neither. It actually reminded me of Christine Feehand's novels, he dark series particularly..

I'm totally going to see it again before it comes out on DVD. ^.~

Friday, November 14, 2008

Recap - Our New President!

Okay I m back after a few weeks break from blogger. =)
I've actually joined an online community called SodaHead and I really like it alot! ^^! So many different people on there with sooo many different opinions and views on thing! I almost forgot I had this blog actually. haha

Anyway, here is my review on our new President, Barack Obama.

He's president now, woop-de-fucking- do. Now what can we look forward to? Well, alot actually! --If you're a far leftist that likes socialism and some communism mixed in there. ;D

Abortion Ban Lifts
Well, we all know that Obama is against bans on abortion. So we can all look forward to more abortions in the United States. That's right! All you pro-life people, Obama is saying Fuck You! If that baby ain't born yet you can have an abortion. So if you get pissed off at your husband, or find out he cheated on you during your pregnancy then you can have that abortion in the 9th month of your pregnancy. Isn't that great?! Of course it is! Because it's what Obama is for. RIGHT?!!

Civilian Slavery
A.K.A. Civilian force. If you don't know what it is, you abviously didn't take history in school because nearly every history class does a skit on Hitler. And as we all know, Hitler was into the whole young force of training civilians in military manners. If you still don't know what I'm talknig about I'll lable it in idiot terms. YOU WILL BE FORCED TO TAKE BOOT CAMP AND LEARN BASIC MILITARY PRACTICE SO YOU CAN SERVE OUR COUNTRY IF NEED BE. You will NOT be allowed to say no to it. You will NOT be allowed other options. You WILL be required to at least do 50 jumping jacks. I feel sorry for all you fat kids out there. LOL
(i.e. Say goodbye to the 1st amendment right)

Gun Control
Obama may not say it in so many words, but he is against guns. Even though his VP has a gun. That actually makes no sense. But his hands will stay clean. He'll just hire people to do the dirty work for him and have them put the ban on guns. He'll just have to sign the bill. Do a little research on the success of all gun control in other countries. I bet you won't find much good results come from that act. Crime rate actually increases when the general public is not able to defend itself. Don't believe me? You're an idiot. Get off my blog. ♥

Fairness Doctrine Reinstatement
Yup, that's right. Those who don't know what it is go look it up. Or refer to the above statement and get off my blog. ♥

Yes, Obama does not say he will support this doctrine. But seriously people, do you honestly think he'll go against his party, who so much want this doctrine back in power? I think not, and if you think so..well you know what I'm going to say. lol Having this back in power will restrain freedom of speech. No more conservative radio or tv. How's that for squashing the 1st amendment.

I probably could think of more things to thank Obama for, but I think I've had my fill for now.
Tune in next time! When I will share even MORE of my awesome opinions on everything under the sun. *bows*

Sunday, November 2, 2008

More on Obama's Birth Records

Watch this, it's something that I only found because of someone else told me about it.
There is an attorney filing a suit against Obama on the grounds that he is lying about his birth records. Here are all the videos, in order:

Why isn't this on the news?!! I have been following the news for the last few months and I haven't seen this at all. Not even Fox news has this, or is covering it. This is insane. If there was a petition to pospone the election then I would be one of the people to sign it. Obama needs to provide his Birth Certificate not a certificate of live birth, they are NOT the same.

Saturday, November 1, 2008

The News about Obama's Birth Records

Well, I was listening the radio the other day and I heard something disturbing on it. Obama might not even be a U.S. citizen. Now, before you all go crazy on me, let me finish(and read this before you get mad at me..).
I was a bit put back by this, I never even thought that he wouldn't be a citizen, I simply thought he was a sell out. XD haha

Okay, I'm sorry that was a bit rude.
Anyway. So I decided to look online and see if there was any news about the alleged birth certificate. Boy oh boy did I find a buttload of pictures of that certificate. I tell you what!
But I don't know, they didn't really look very convincing to me. Mostly because I have taken photocopies of legal documents before. I've scanned them in and made copies of all sorts of things. Because sometimes you need to take copies of these things, like marriage certificates, auto titles, ect.. Just for you' know, certain stuff.
And they usually leave some sort of watermark when you copy them. These pictures did not.

Free Image Hosting at

I can see something near the bottom of the image but I think that is just the date it was printed. Not sure though..Anyway, I also didn't like the fact that the letters and print look so..I dunno, perfect. When I requested my copy of birth from Califonia, where I was born, the letters were not perfect at all. They were actually a bit choppy. And even more-so, when you scan in a document into the computer to post it online or whatever, email, ect.. The letters rarely ever look this good. They should still have a bit of a choppy look to them. Especially if there is a background image behind the letters.

Here is an article from the Free Republic website about Obama's birth certificate: Was Obama's "Certificate of birth" Manufacured?

I personally found the article very assounding, to say the least. I was about to accept that this certificate was real until I took in my own personal experience with such documents, and after reading this article into context.

So in conclusion, Obama might not even be a U.S. citizen, this man should be made to produce his original certificate to the American public before the election.(like that'll happen but it would be nice)
There is also a rumor saying that the Gov. of Hawaii is hiding said document from the public. Whether this is true or not, I do not know. All I know is that this document that I am looknig at on my screen looks very fishy. And I don't like the idea of electing a person that is not a citizen of the U.S. into office.

P.S. In case you all get confused about what I mean when I say 'citizen'.
I mean, if he was not born in the U.S. then he is not a citizen to be elected to office. Same as Arnold, who is the gov. of Califonia. He is not allowed to run for President because he was not born here, even if he's a citizen now. Does not matter.

P.S.S. Here is a picture of an actual birth certificate from the year Obama should have been born. It looks nothing like the one he has produced. I want the actual hard copy birth record, before I can be convinced. If he has nothing to hide then it should be no problem to produce.
Free Image Hosting at

QuickPost Quickpost this image to Myspace, Digg, Facebook, and others!

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Complete List of Awesome Videos - Political

Here is a complete list of up-to-date videos by Zo, from YouTube.
I listed them in order that I like to watch them in, so please enjoy them ♥

The Vote Reaper

The Diddy Retort


I'm Voting for McCain/Palin

Election Hate

Random Rant

Another Rant

Friday, October 24, 2008

I'm Voting Democrat Because...I Have No Brain!

I forward I just recieved in my email:

"I'm voting Democrat because English has no place
being the official
language in America.

I'm voting Democrat because it's better to
turn corn into fuel than
it is to eat.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4
for a gallon of gas
than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America.

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government
will do a better
job of spending my money than I could.

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of
Afghanistan and
Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying
to kill us
because they'll think we're a good and decent

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who
can't tell us if
it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the
polar ice
caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start
riding a bicycle,
build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to
kill millions of babies
as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on
death row alive.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe businesses
in America should
not be allowed to make profi
ts. Businesses should just
break even
and give the rest to the government so politicians and
can redistribute the money the way they think is fair
and just.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe guns, and
not the people
misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings.

I'm voting Democrat because when someone with a
weapon threatens my
family or me, I know the government can respond faster
through a
call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.

I'm voting Democrat because oil companies' 5%
profit on a gallon of
gas is obscene, but government tax of 18% on the same
gallon of gas
is just fine.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe three or
four elitist
liberals in black robes should rewrite the
Constitution every few
months to suit some fringe element that could never
get their
agenda past voters.

I'm voting Democrat because illegal aliens are not
criminals, are
not sucking up resources through government aid,
hospital services,
education, or social services, but are just people
trying to make a
better life by coming to America illeg
ally. We
can't blame them for
that, can we?

I'm voting Democrat because now I can marry
whatever I want, so
I've decided to marry my horse."

Now, in case y'all can't tell, most of these are our dearly beloved, and so adoring Presidential canidate, Barack Obama. *cough**cough*

Yeah, anyway. This is a sarcastic post in case you can't tell. Why would ANYONE vote for a guy that wants what most of this email tells about. I'll explain it for the weak minded.

I'm voting Democrat because English has no place
the official
age in America."
Okay, this one actually peeves me off, because I was born and raised in America, NOT Mexico.
We shouldn't have both languages on employment applications, we aren't even supposed to HIRE illegals. And yes folks, if a person can't speak english then chances are they are an illegal. Wanna know why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RECIEVE THE PLEDGE TO BECOME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!

So in conclusion to this, english should be the ONLY offical language of America. Not spanish.
I have no problem with people speaking other languages, it's their right to do that of course. But they MUST be able to speak english as well. Because english should be the ONLY official language of America.
You should have to be able to speak it to get a job, a drivers license, and everything else. Wanna speak spanish at home? Fine. Work? Fine. School? Fine. But if you can't speak both then you really have no business being here, so get out.
Yeah that sounds harsh and mean, but y'know what? Fuck off. I'm sick and tired of having to deal with people who can't een fucking READ their own language. Even when we have it both languages it doesn't help. And this is AMERICA, english has and awlays should be the primary and only official language to speak and write.

I'm voting Democrat because I'd rather pay $4
for a gallo
n of gas
than allow
drilling for oil off the coasts of America."

Yeah...I don't know about the rest of you reading this, but this idea is just, oh I dunno, STUPID?!
Gas prices are finally going down(where I live at least), and they will continue to decrease if we drill within our territories, not in the middle east or elsewhere. That is just common sense.
Yeah, alternative fuel will be nicer for the enviroment, but y'know we aren't really killing anything except ourselves by using the fuel we se right now. Plants love carbon dyoxide. lol It's what we breath out and they breath out oxygen. Unless you didn't know that, then thank the public school system.

I'm not for paying $4 a gal for gas, are you?

I'm voting Democrat because I think the government
will do a better
job of spending my money than I could.

Now you all know this is crazy. Why would you work your butt off for your money then end up paying higher taxes just to let the government spend it on whatever for you. Or just giving it to them. Either/or.
I like spending my money on stupid shit I happen to enjoy, I worked for it, I'm gonna spend it. What say you?

I'm voting Democrat because when we pull out of
Afghanistan and
Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying
to kill us
because they'll think we're a good and decent

Now if you believe this, you need to be shot. Okay? Okay!
Because the terrorist already want to kill us, they attacked us for gods sake! You honestly think that pulling out wil make them happy and they won't chase us? Obama, you are an idiot if you believe that yourself AND expect any of the American citizens(with a brain) to believe that as well.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe people who
can't tell us if
it will rain in two or three days, can now tell us the
polar ice
caps will disappear in ten years if I don't start
riding a bicycle,
build a windmill or inflate my tires to proper levels."

How many times have they said the world is going to end? And how long have they been saying that the polar ice caps are melting? They look pretty high to me. When they say something is going to happen for so long and it has yet to happen, something is wrong there. Even moreso if you blindly believe it.

I'm voting Democrat because it's alright to
kill millions of babies
as long as we keep violent, convicted murderers on
death row alive."

Now it starts getting good.
You all remember Obama's speech, and how he is for obortion. Every underage girl should have one, he was so appauled by Palin's daughter having a teenage pregnancy. And he doesn't care when you have it, so technically he is all for having it like a month prior to the birth. Isn't that considered murder?
17 year olds and even 16 year olds are old enough to make decisions and live with the mistakes. If they want an obortion then they can make that choice within the first trimester. If not, then they can put the baby up for adoption.
The criminals on death row should be put to death, they are just eating up our tax dollars anyway. And I don't believe murders, and rapist can be reformed. Sorry.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe businesses
in America should
not be allowed to make profi
ts. Businesses should just
break even
and give the rest to the government so politicians and
can redistribute the money the way they think is fair
and just."

This would be where Obama's "share the wealth" slogan comes in at.
All businesses should share their profits with everyone else, even if they don't even work for it, they should get a cut of your hard earned profit. Nothing wrong with that right? WRONG.
I don't own my own business, but my tax dollars go to fund welfare, same as everyone else who works and pays taxes. People on welfare that don't work and live off of the system are total scum. My parents are on welfare, yes, but they barely get enough of whatever the government wants to give them. I believe that it's because the illegals eat it up. But that's just my opinion.
Welfare and the system are nice, but only when you need it. You shouldn't be living off it. Get a fucking job.
We shouldn't be sharing the wealth because we, the members of the working force, worked hard for our cut, why should we have to or want to share it with others who probably didn't even work half has hard as us to make it. Fuck that Obama.

I'm voting Democrat because I believe guns, and
not the people
misusing them, are the cause of crimes and killings."

Yeah, this is just stupid. Any person with half a brain cell would know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'm so sure that a gun is gonna grow legs and start running around shooting people. Get real.
Gun control is stupid, it is our right to bear arms and that shouldn't be taken away by any political head or party. But that's what democrats are about. When you take the defense away from the people and make them rely on the police and the government to protect them, they usually end up dead. Have you ever had to call 911 before? It takes them about 15 minutes to get to your place. How long does it take to kill someone? Less then 30 seconds. Do the math.

I'm voting Democrat because illegal aliens are not
criminals, are
not sucking up resources through government aid,
hospital services,
education, or social services, but are just people
trying to make a
better life by coming to America illeg
ally. We
can't blame them for
that, can we?"

Okay, I'm gonna sound really racist here but I assure you I am far from being racist. Most of my friends are maxican, but they are american citizens. Not illegals. You can't be racist against illegals, that's just a stupid concept all together. lol

Now, if you live on the border, and have run into a hard time and have tried to get assistance from the system, you will know that you are usually denied. Because the illegals that come into our country with made up/stolen SS#'s know how to play the system and get the foodstamps, the WiC, and the cash assistance.

I work in a grocery store in Arizona. I see all types of people. And most of them are on welfare. And yes, most of them are mexican and don't speak english. That means they are illegal(refer above for my explaination on identifying an illegal). Wanna know roughly how much they get in foodstamps? Between $400 - $5000(yes I actually saw one for that much, and that was AFTER she paid for groceries)
My parents, who are white, get $220 a month, because they "make too much money". Apparently if you make over $500 a month in the state of Arizona you can't get foodstamps. might be able to pay rent for a 2 bedroom apartment with $500 a month.

I personally think that's fucked up. The system needs an overhaul, and fast!
The minimum you can make should be raised, because most people who get on foodstamps have no intention on working and/or are baby factories. Which they should be shot for being a failure. I hate women who only know how to spread their legs and reproduce. That's just sickening, we faught for equal rights so we could work, vote, and do something better than just spread our legs. You can even make money doing that, so get yourself fixed and become a whore if you like spreading them so much. Whore.

Anyway. I broke it down for you.
And we already know that Obama wants the people to trust the government and let them take care of the people. Strip them of their responsibilities and have the governmen handle everything. Do any of you reading this honestly want that? Do you want to be on the system and rely on the government for your food and shelter for your whole lives? Because people who live on welfare wouldn't be able to survive without it. So in turn the government controls them.

My parents don't even control me, do you think I want the government to do what my parents can't? I don't think so. And that is the reason for this blog. I'm sure that alot of you don't like the truth, but it's almost election day, and if Obama gets in office he will do all of this.

He will take away our gun rights.
He will most likely change the constitution to fit his needs(it can be done)
He will pull out of Iraq and Afganistan and we will be attacked again.
He will make it a law to ban all teenage pregnacy.
He will cut millitary spending, making our millitary weak.
He will raise the taxes, making us all pay higher prices for everything.

Is this what you want for America?
Because I sure as hell don't.

Monday, October 20, 2008

ACORN Voter Fraud = So Funny

I found the full version of the video I posted at the end of this post and added it, so be sure to watch it. ^^

Well folks, this is hillarious. Simply hillarious!
I just spent a good portion of my day reading about the whole voter fraud that has been found in 15 states so far. And guess what? I found ACORN mentioned in nearly every report that I read. It was even in my newspaper, the Arizona Republic. Simply awesome.

Here are a few links to the reports that I read:
On the Trail - Washington Post

CRL Testimony on ACORN's Voter Fraud - Market Watch

Vote-Fraud-Go-G0 - New York Post

Voter Fraud Watch - Fox News
(Yeah you all hate it, blah blah)

Funds Misappropriated at 2 Nonprofit Groups - New York Times

Those are just a few places I found the report on. There are many others, nearly every news station should be talking about it, but they might not because alot of them are for Obama and that would just be wrong to spread news or talk about something that makes Obama look bad. So horrible indeed!

Anyway, I lost my train of thought...Oh, got it back!
So Obama denies his involvement with ACORN, that doesn't make sense when there is evidence to say otherwise. Obama defended ACORN in court and he's given them money, quite a bit of it actually in the past.
And in turn ACORN supports Obama for predident 100%.
Obama has trained some of their employees. Obama's site denies that, ACORN's site denies that, and the Democratic party denies it also. But of course all three of them will deny it, THEY ARE THE ACCUSSED. lol Obama may not have worked for ACORN, but he sure as hell helped them out in other ways.

Here are a couple of videos from the news station CNN. I generally don't watch this station, but these clips caught my eyes and every liberal and democrat I talk to say that I really should stop quoting Fox, so here ya' go.

This video shows Obama at the end. This one is mostly about the voter registration fraud and how ACORN is behind it.

Though in my opinion, voter registration fraud and voter fraud are the SAME thing. There really isn't any real big difference. Because if you don't catch the registration fraud then it turns into actual voter fraud. And that is what this is really all about. If Obama wants to win this election then he should do so without the help of ACORN and it's phoney registered voters. Registering dead people, fictional people, and duplicates of already registered voters is a no-no.

And here is one last sign off video, because I loved it oh so much when I watched it while looking for those CNN videos. <3

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The Taxing Breakdown

Okay, here is how the taxing thing works. Because alot of people think Obama's taxing plan is actually going to work, when it's not. Not really anyway. unless you are a rather LARGE business and don't really care if you layoff a few people or raise your prices. Of course.

I like to look at it like a circle. You know, like the circle of life, there are the bigger animals that eat the smaller animals and the smaller animals eat plants and plants feed on the ground, where all animals go when they die their bones and flesh and waste go into the ground(eventually).
Taxes are kind of like this. I mean, you have the larger companies, who could pretty much squash the smaller ones, thus eating them. WalMart is a good example of this. They have put quite a few companies out of business because they have such cheap prices, and they are able to keep those low prices because they don't pay their employees much more than minimum wage.(unless you are in management) And I know this because my brother and fellow co-workers work there/have worked there. ;3

Now when you tax the larger companies they have to raise the prices on their items.
You might say "that's okay because I shop with the smaller bussinesses" Well, I'm pretty sure that smaller businesses buy their goods from larger businesses. If the prices of their goods go up, then chances are their prices are gonna go up too. It's just the way it works. And it's common sense to know this fact of life. The ones who disagree are Obama supporters because they don't want to think about that.

Obama says that he will give a tax credit to those who make 250k a year though. But I can't help but wonder why. Because he's going to raise their taxes anyway. Is he just going to give them the first year free or something? lol If he's giving them a tax credit, that is great. But giving a credit then raising their taxes is just like taking it right back. That really doesn't make sense to me, but whatever I guess.

Anyway, point is. Obama will tax the "rich" companies and indivisuals that make 250k a year. (btw, when small businesses file their taxes they file as indivisuals. in case you didn't know that)
Now, if I was making 250k a year I don't think I'd want to be taxed anymore than the rest of the U.S.
Joe said it best. "we all live here together, one person who worked harder for a better pay shouldn't have to be taxed more than the other guys. That's not right and it's not fair"
And he's absolutely right. It's not fair. I work hard for my money as well, and I don't want to be taxed more for more work I do. I'm already getting jipped on my pay as it is. They take more money out of your paycheck as it is when you work more hours. And now we might have to pay even higher taxes? That doesn't sound like something I nor most of the working class is going to like or want happen.

Afterall, he says he's only going to tax the rich. How long do you think that he'll be lowering the wage from 250k a year to something less? Obama makes a good speech, but he is simply an empty suit, telling the American people what they want to hear.

Thank you for reading, this has been another awesome opinion by moi.

Very strange

Well my poll just went from
McCain 4 Obama 3 to
McCain 4 Obama 43...

Wtf? xD
That doesn't seem very accurate since I really don't have that many readers. lol Someone spiked the ballot box I guess. lol haha Oh well, I'm not realy sure how it did that. I hardly think I got 40+ visitors here since I checked it last night. So a big FUCK YOU to whoever wasn't happy with my blog of opinions and told all their lil Obama Kool-Aid drinkers to come over and vote, just to piss me off.

Guess what, I'm not mad. It's quite funny, that you came to my blog and didn't like it sooo much that you had to tank my poll with inaccurate votings. Because unless by some miracle my blog became sooo well known out there in less than a day then these are not accurate readings.

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Spreading the Virus - How ACORN and its Dem Allies Built the Mortgage Disaster

Another article by Stanley Kurtz.
Taken from:

I read this the other day but I was in a rush, and have since been busy so I didn't post this one. But here it is, enjoy the read. It's about Obama's involvement with ACORN. He can deny it all he wants but the fact is that he DID fund them, and he knew very well what he was doing with them.

ACORN - Bad for Office.
Obama - Bad for Office.

TO discover the roots of to day's economic crisis, consider a tale from 1995.

That March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich was scheduled to address a meeting of county commissioners at the Washington Hilton. But, first, some 500 protesters from the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) poured into the ballroom from both the kitchen and the main entrance.

Hotel staffers who tried to block them were quickly overwhelmed by demonstrators chanting, "Nuke Newt!" and "We want Newt!" Jamming the aisles, carrying bullhorns and taunting the assembled county commissioners, demonstrators swiftly took over the head table and commandeered the microphone, sending two members of Congress scurrying.

The demonstrators' target, Gingrich, hadn't yet arrived - and his speech was cancelled. When the cancellation was announced, ACORN's foot soldiers cheered.

Editorial writers from Little Rock to Buffalo condemned ACORN's action as an affront to both civility and freedom of speech. Editorialists also pointed out that the "spending cuts" the protesters railed against were imaginary - Gingrich proposed merely to slow the growth in some welfare programs and turn control back to the states.

Yet ACORN had only just begun. Two days later, 50 to 100 of the same protesters hit their main target - a House Banking subcommittee considering changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, a law that allows groups like ACORN to force banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers.

The CRA's ostensible purpose is to prevent banks from discriminating against minorities. But Rep. Marge Roukema (R-NJ), who chaired the subcommittee, was worried that charges of discrimination had become an excuse for lowering credit standards. She warned that new, Democrat-proposed CRA regulations could amount to an illegal quota system.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown.

When the role of ACORN and congressional Democrats in the mortgage crisis is pointed out, Democrats reply that banks subject to the CRA represent only about a quarter of the loans that led to our current troubles. In fact, the problem goes way beyond the CRA.

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose.

IT struck as Roukema aired her concerns at that hearing. Pro testers, led by ACORN President Maud Hurd, stood up and began chanting, "CRA has got to stay!" and "Banks for greed, not for need!" The protesters then demanded the microphone.

With the hearing interrupted and the demonstrators refusing to leave, Roukema called the Capital Police, who arrested Hurd and four others for "disorderly conduct in a Capital building" - a charge carrying a penalty of a $500 fine, six months in prison or both. As the police arrived, two of the protesters menacingly approached Roukema's desk, still demanding the hearing microphone.

Requests to the Capital Police to release the activists from Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass,) failed. Then Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) showed up at the jail and refused to leave until the protesters were released; the Capital Police relented.

Meanwhile, instead of repudiating ACORN's intimidation tactics, Rep. Kennedy berated Roukema for arresting one of his constituents and accused the Republicans of preparing for "an all-out attack on CRA." He also promised to introduce legislation to expand the CRA's coverage to mortgage bankers and large credit unions.

THIS little slice of political life from 1995 had a variety of ripple effects. Above all, ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis.

ACORN had come to Congress not only to protect the CRA from GOP reforms but also to expand the reach of quota-based lending to Fannie, Freddie and beyond. By steamrolling the GOP that March, it had crushed the last potential barrier to "change."

Three months later, the Clinton administration announced a comprehensive strategy to push homeownership in America to new heights - regardless of the compromise in credit standards that the task would require. Fannie and Freddie were assigned massive subprime lending quotas, which would rise to about half of their total business by the end of the decade.

WHEN the ACORN-Democrat alliance finally succeeded in blocking Republicans from restoring fiscal sanity in 1995, the way was open to virtually unlimited lending quotas - and to a whole new way of thinking about credit standards.

Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system - far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA.

So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system.

Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of "fairness" - and the contagion spread.

And when financial institutions across the board saw that they could make money by trading what would once have been considered junk loans, the profit motive kicked in. But the bad seed that started it all was ACORN.

HOW does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

Later, as a young lawyer, he offered leadership training to the activists who were forcing Chicago banks into high-risk subprime loans. And when he made it on to the boards of Chicago's Woods Fund and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he channeled money ACORN's way.

Obama was perfectly aware of ACORN's intimidation tactics - indeed, he oversaw a Woods Fund report that boasted of managing to fund the radical group despite its shocking behavior.

And as a lawmaker, in Illinois and in Washington, he has continued to back ACORN's leglislative agenda.

ACORN's high-pressure tactics live on. And congressional Democrats are still covering for ACORN, funneling it money and doing its legislative bidding. ACORN also continues its shady ways, using a vast network of technically separate but in fact quite interconnected organizations to evade federal laws on the politicized use of government money.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, the Obama campaign appears to have little more regard for freedom of speech than Reps. Kennedy or Waters did when they backed up ACORN's thugs in 1995. The campaign actually practices ACORN-style tactics, sending out "action wires" that call on supporters to block Obama critics from radio appearances (a tactic once applied to me) and demanding legal actions against unfriendly political advertisers.

As a presidential candidate, Obama promises a massive national-service program closely allied with the nonprofit sector. He wants to remove "barriers for smaller nonprofits to participate in government programs."

In other words, he plans a massive effort to funnel America's youth into volunteer work alongside the likes of ACORN. So Obama's favorite community organizers may soon be training your child.

ACORN's alliance with the Democratic Party is at the root of the current financial meltdown. And Barack Obama has stayed true to ACORN's ways.

Pretty soon, the folks who poured into the Washington Hilton to shut down Speaker Gingrich in 1995 may no longer need to take over the microphone. They'll be in charge of it.

Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow with the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington.

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Write 101 - Obama's Connection to Jeremiah Wright

Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright's anti-Americanism
By Stanley Kurtz
Posted: Wednesday, October 15, 2008

National Review Online
Publication Date: October 14, 2008

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright's sermons, Obama gave legitimacy -- and a whole lot of money -- to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama's tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man's choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright's anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.

African Village
In the winter of 1996, the Coalition for Improved Education in [Chicago's] South Shore (CIESS) announced that it had received a $200,000 grant from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. That made CIESS an "external partner," i.e. a community organization linked to a network of schools within the Chicago public system. This network, named the "South Shore African Village Collaborative" was thoroughly "Afrocentric" in orientation. CIESS's job was to use a combination of teacher-training, curriculum advice, and community involvement to improve academic performance in the schools it worked with. CIESS would continue to receive large Annenberg grants throughout the 1990s.

The South Shore African Village Collaborative (SSAVC) was very much a part of the Afrocentric "rites of passage movement," a fringe education crusade of the 1990s. SSAVC schools featured "African-Centered" curricula built around "rites of passage" ceremonies inspired by the puberty rites found in many African societies. In and of themselves, these ceremonies were harmless. Yet the philosophy that accompanied them was not. On the contrary, it was a carbon-copy of Jeremiah Wright's worldview.

Rites of Passage
To learn what the rites of passage movement was all about, we can turn to a sympathetic 1992 study published in the Journal of Negro Education by Nsenga Warfield-Coppock. In that article, Warfield-Coppock bemoans the fact that public education in the United States is shaped by "capitalism, competitiveness, racism, sexism and oppression." According to Warfield-Coppock, these American values "have confused African American people and oriented them toward American definitions of achievement and success and away from traditional African values." American socialization has "proven to be dysfuntional and genocidal to the African American community," Warfield-Coppock tells us. The answer is the adolescent rites of passage movement, designed "to provide African American youth with the cultural information and values they would need to counter the potentially detrimental effects of a Eurocentrically oriented society."

The adolescent rites of passage movement that flowered in the 1990s grew out of the "cultural nationalist" or "Pan-African" thinking popular in radical black circles of the 1960s and 1970s. The attempt to create a virtually separate and intensely anti-American black social world began to take hold in the mid-1980s in small private schools, which carefully guarded the contents of their controversial curricula. Gradually, through external partners like CIESS, the movement spread to a few public schools. Supporters view these programs as "a social and cultural ‘inoculation' process that facilitates healthy, African-centered development among African American youth and protects them against the ravages of a racist, sexist, capitalist, and oppressive society."

We know that SSAVC was part of this movement, not only because their Annenberg proposals were filled with Afrocentric themes and references to "rites of passage," but also because SSAVC's faculty set up its African-centered curriculum in consultation with some of the most prominent leaders of the "rites of passage movement." For example, a CIESS teacher conference sponsored a presentation on African-centered curricula by Jacob Carruthers, a particularly controversial Afrocentrist.

Jacob Carruthers
Like other leaders of the rites of passage movement, Carruthers teaches that the true birthplace of world civilization was ancient "Kemet" (Egypt), from which Kemetic philosophy supposedly spread to Africa as a whole. Carruthers and his colleagues believe that the values of Kemetic civilization are far superior to the isolating and oppressive, ancient Greek-based values of European and American civilization. Although academic Egyptologists and anthropologists strongly reject these historical claims, Carruthers dismisses critics as part of a white supremacist conspiracy to hide the truth of African superiority.

Carruthers's key writings are collected in his book, Intellectual Warfare. Reading it is a wild, anti-American ride. In his book, we learn that Carruthers and his like-minded colleagues have formed an organization called the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations (ASCAC), which takes as its mission the need to "dismantle the European intellectual campaign to commit historicide against African peoples." Carruthers includes "African-Americans" within a group he would define as simply "African." When forced to describe a black person as "American," Carruthers uses quotation marks, thus indicating that no black person can be American in any authentic sense. According to Carruthers, "The submission to Western civilization and its most outstanding offspring, American civilization, is, in reality, surrender to white supremacy."

Carruthers's goal is to use African-centered education to recreate a separatist universe within America, a kind of state-within-a-state. The rites of passage movement is central to the plan. Carruthers sees enemies on every part of the political spectrum, from conservatives, to liberals, to academic leftists, all of whom reject advocates of Kemetic civilization, like himself, as dangerous and academically irresponsible extremists. Carruthers sees all these groups as deluded captives of white supremacist Eurocentric culture. Therefore the only safe place for Africans living in the United States (i.e. American blacks) is outside the mental boundaries of our ineradicably racist Eurocentric civilization. As Carruthers puts it: "...some of us have chosen to reject the culture of our oppressors and recover our disrupted ancestral culture." The rites of passage movement is a way to teach young Africans in the United States how to reject America and recover their authentic African heritage.

America as Rape
Carruthers admits that Africans living in America have already been shaped by Western culture, yet compares this Americanization process to rape: "We may not be able to get our virginity back after the rape, but we do not have to marry the rapist...." In other words, American blacks (i.e. Africans) may have been forcibly exposed to American culture, but that doesn't mean they need to accept it. The better option, says Carruthers, is to separate out and relearn the wisdom of Africa's original Kemetic culture, embodied in the teachings of the ancient wise man, Ptahhotep (an historical figure traditionally identified as the author of a Fifth Dynasty wisdom book). Anything less than re-Africanization threatens the mental, and even physical, genocide of Africans living in an ineradicably white supremacist United States.

Carruthers is a defender of Leonard Jeffries, professor in the department of black studies at City College in Harlem, infamous for his black supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Jeffries sees whites as oppressive and violent "ice people," in contrast to peaceful and mutually supportive black "sun people." The divergence says Jeffries, is attributable to differing levels of melanin in the skin. Jeffries also blames Jews for financing the slave trade. Carruthers defends Jeffries and excoriates the prestigious black academics Carruthers views as traitorous for denouncing their African brother, Jeffries. Carruthers's vision of the superior and peaceful Kemetic philosophy of Ptahhotep triumphing over Greco-Euro-American-white culture obviously parallels Jeffries' opposition between ice people and sun people.

More of Carruthers's education philosophy can be found in his newsletter, The Kemetic Voice. In 1997, for example, at the same time Carruthers was advising SSAVC on how to set up an African-centered curriculum, he praised the decision of New Orleans' School Board to remove the name of George Washington from an elementary school. Apparently, some officials in New Orleans had decided that nobody who held slaves should have a school named after him. Carruthers touted the name-change as proof that his African-centered perspective was finally having an effect on public policy. At the demise of George Washington School, Carruthers crowed: "These events remind us of how vast the gulf is that separates the Defenders of Western Civilization from the Champions of African Civilization."

According to Chicago Annenberg Challenge records, Carruthers's training session on African-centered curricula for SSAVC teachers was a huge hit: "As a consciousness raising session, it received rave reviews, and has prepared the way for the curriculum readiness survey...." These teacher-training workshops were directly funded by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Another sure sign of the ideological cast of SSAVC's curriculum can be found in Annenberg documents noting that SSAVC students are taught the wisdom of Ptahhotep. Carruthers's concerns about "menticide" and "genocide" at the hand of America's white supremacist system seem to be echoed in an SSAVC document that says: "Our children need to understand the historical context of our struggles for liberation from those forces that seek to destroy us."

When Jeremiah Wright turned toward African-centered thinking in the late 1980s and early 1990s (the period when, attracted by Wright's African themes, Barack Obama first became a church member), many prominent thinkers from Carruthers's Association for the Study of Classical African Civilizations were invited to speak at Trinity United Church of Christ, Carruthers himself included. We hear echoes of Carruthers's work in Wright's distinction between "right brained" Africans and "left brained" Europeans, in Wright's fears of U.S. government-sponsored genocide against American blacks, and in Wright's embittered attacks on America's indelibly white-supremacist history. In Wright's Trumpet Newsmagazine, as in Carruthers's own writings, blacks are often referred to as "Africans living in the diaspora" rather than as Americans.

Asa Hilliard
Chicago Annenberg Challenge records also indicate that SSAVC educators invited Asa Hilliard, a pioneer of African-centered curricula and a close colleague of Carruthers, to offer a keynote address at yet another Annenberg-funded teacher training session. Hilliard's ties to Wright run still deeper than Carruthers's. A close Wright mentor and friend, Hilliard died in 2007 while on a trip to Kemet (Egypt) with Wright and members of Wright's congregation. Hillard was scheduled to deliver several lectures to the congregants, and to speak at a meeting of the Association for the Study of Classical African Civilization, which he co-founded with Carruthers and other "African-centered" scholars. On that last trip, Hilliard accepted an appointment to the board of Wright's new elementary school, Kwame Nkrumah Academy. Speaking of the need for such a school, Wright had earlier said, "We need to educate our children to the reality of white supremacy." (For more on Wright's Afrocentric school, see "Jeremiah Wright's ‘Trumpet.'")

Wright delivered the eulogy at Hilliard's memorial service, with prominent members of ASCAC in the audience. To commemorate Hilliard, a special, two-cover double issue of Wright's Trumpet Newsmagazine was published, with a picture of Hilliard on one side, and a picture of Louis Farrakhan on the other (in celebration of a 2007 award Farrakhan received from Wright). In short, the ties between Wright and Hilliard could hardly have been closer. Clearly, then, Wright's own educational philosophy was mirrored at the Annenberg-funded SSAVC, which sought out Hilliard's and Carruthers's counsel to construct its curriculum.

Perhaps inadvertently, Wright's eulogy for Hilliard actually established the fringe nature of his favorite African-centered scholars. In his tribute, Wright stressed how intensely "white Egyptologists recoiled at the very notion of everything Asa taught." As Wright himself made plain, it seems virtually impossible to find respectable scholars of any political stripe who approve of the extremist anti-American version of Afrocentrism promoted by Hilliard and Carruthers.

Ayers's Pals
An important exception to the rule is Bill Ayers himself, who not only worked with Obama to fund groups like this at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, but who is still "palling around" with the same folks. Discretely waiting until after the election, Bill Ayers and his wife, and fellow former terrorist, Bernardine Dohrn plan to release a book in 2009 entitled Race Course Against White Supremacy. The book will be published by Third World Press, a press set up by Carruthers and other members of the ASCAC. Representatives of that press were prominently present for Wright's eulogy at Asa Hilliard's memorial service. Less than a decade ago, therefore, when it came to education issues, Barack Obama, Bill Ayers, and Jeremiah Wright were pretty much on the same page.

Obama's Knowledge

Given the precedent of his earlier responses on Ayers and Wright, Obama might be inclined to deny personal knowledge of the educational philosophy he was so generously funding. Such a denial would not be convincing. For one thing, we have evidence that in 1995, the same year Obama assumed control of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he publicly rejected "the unrealistic politics of integrationist assimilation," a stance that clearly resonates with both Wright and Carruthers. (See "No Liberation.")

And as noted, Wright had invited Carruthers, Hilliard, and like-minded thinkers to address his Trinity congregants. Wright likes to tick off his connections to these prominent Afrocentrists in sermons, and Obama would surely have heard of them. Reading over SSAVC's Annenberg proposals, Obama could hardly be ignorant of what they were about. And if by some chance Obama overlooked Hilliard's or Carruthers's names, SSAVC's proposals are filled with references to "rites of passage" and "Ptahhotep," dead giveaways for the anti-American and separatist ideological concoction favored by SSAVC.

We know that Obama did read the proposals. Annenberg documents show him commenting on proposal quality. And especially after 1995, when concerns over self-dealing and conflicts of interest forced the Ayers-headed "Collaborative" to distance itself from monetary issues, all funding decisions fell to Obama and the board. Significantly, there was dissent within the board. One business leader and experienced grant-smith characterized the quality of most Annenberg proposals as "awful." (See "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: The First Three Years," p. 19.) Yet Obama and his very small and divided board kept the money flowing to ideologically extremist groups like the South Shore African Village Collaborative, instead of organizations focused on traditional educational achievement.

As if the content of SSAVC documents wasn't warning enough, their proposals consistently misspelled "rites of passage" as "rights of passage," hardly an encouraging sign from a group meant to improve children's reading skills. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge's own evaluators acknowledged that Annenberg-aided schools showed no improvement in achievement scores. Evaluators attributed that failure, in part, to the fact that many of Annenberg's "external partners" had little educational expertise. A group that puts its efforts into Kwanzaa celebrations and half-baked history certainly fits that bill, and goes a long way toward explaining how Ayers and Obama managed to waste upwards of $150 million without improving student achievement.

However he may seek to deny it, all evidence points to the fact that, from his position as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama knowingly and persistently funded an educational project that shared the extremist and anti-American philosophy of Jeremiah Wright. The Wright affair was no fluke. It's time for McCain to say so.

-- Stanley Kurtz is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.