Warner Todd Huston's blog

-By Warner Todd Huston

Welcome to glorious international court of global warming, court with most power in all the land. Global warming Czar welcomes you and says that you are not to worry about silly things like "sovereignty" and "democracy." Glorious leader has taken this burden from you for betterment of world. You act upset at having modern life taken from you, but be happy. Your sacrifice is for all. Hail all powerful court of global warming and thank supreme leader, Mary Christina Wood. Bow to her and thank her that world is safe. Don't look her in the eye, though. You are worm to her.

That about sums up a brand new theory of international law. It's called the "atmospheric trust doctrine" and it is a quaint idea that the "atmosphere" is "held in trust" by the government. That's right folks, government owns the air. Not just the space through which airplanes travel, the actual air itself. It makes one wonder how long will it be be after such an idiotic concept is cemented in law before we truly are taxed by the breath? After all, every single thing government claims it owns is regulated, taxed or assessed fees.

A penny per breath? A dollar? Let the global warming court decide.

Still, that aside, the concept that even the very air we breathe is owned by government is bad enough, but Mary Wood doesn't envision just individual government's owning the atmosphere above their various countries, but that an international tribunal will determine how that "air" will be governed. In other words, she sees no input in the governance of that "air" being the jurisdiction of the people who breathe it. No, this will be a law without borders, a law that has power over the entire Earth.

Like many who wish to oppress, this woman hides her rhetoric behind the concept of "patriotism." Only it is not any traditional patriotism as applied to a country or a people. It is a new concept in patriotism that does away with the nation state, democracy, and self rule all at the same time. It is being called “The Dawn of Planetary Patriotism," but it is nothing less than a global power grab that makes the United Nation's efforts look childish by comparison. If you are looking for a conspiracy of a one-world government, look no farther because this is as pure an example as you'll find.

It comes back to the "we are all just humans" nonsense that humanists always peddle. Of course, standing in front of a Chinese tank yelling "we are all just humans" will do just as much to stop that tank as will throwing a mustard seed at the lumbering behemoth... but I digress.

But who is our would be glorious leader scheming to usurp the rightful powers of the people? Who is this junior Stalin in the making? Who is the one who wants to be the global warming Czar of the world? Well, maybe Czarina is closer to it. Her name is Mary Wood and she sees herself as the savior of the planet.

Just what we need. Another self-professed savior “doing good” for us despite our wishes.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences."
---C.S. Lewis

Mary Wood is a University of Oregon law professor who has an extensive background in natural resources and property law. Her legal history seems to heavily favor the side of government acquiring land, eliminating private property rights, so that the all powerful, all-knowing, all caring government might be our loving, but stern, "trustee" over the land.

What is the old saying? The scariest words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Wood is peddling what some are calling a novel concept. In an interview with the Corvallis Gazette-Times, Wood displayed her misplaced compassion.

"The main problem with climate is that no government is taking responsibility for it and our government is sitting idle while this catastrophe is unfolding," Wood said.

"There's no other body of law that requires the government to act. But a trustee has to act to protect the body of the trust."

In another interview, Wood went further:

I characterize the atmosphere as an asset that the people own in common. The government is a trustee of that asset. This approach has a basis in our environmental law. You can even think of it as an attribute of sovereignty ... that is, the duty of government to protect our natural resources. The atmosphere is one of those natural resources. In fact, it's the most crucial resource in our trust, because it holds everything else together.

And the fearmonger begins to open her bag of tricks to scare the people into casting away the Constitution, turning away from sovereignty, giving up property rights, and forgetting about freedom because of the "dire emergency" we face. After all, regardless of her claims, these rights will have to be cast aside so that her laws and rules will have the power of coercion. There is no room for anything less than the total supplication to Mary Wood and her legal stranglehold lest her efforts lack the teeth to "work."

This harlot of the bar imagines the court to rule over all saying, "a judge can order an accounting against any level of government." It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, what the people vote on. The judges shall control it all. ALL power in the hands of an unelected elite, all guided by the Czarina of global warming herself.

As a warning I give you words often attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

That environmental pied piper, Mary Wood, is bound and determined to make us all undeserving of that liberty.

Naturally, instead of being in the hands of either science or the hands of our duly, democratically elected representatives, power-mongers like Mary Wood would hand all powers to regulate our daily lives to lawyers. Remember, it's for our own good.

And the lawyers are lining up to fill their pockets with Mary Wood's gospel.

Greg Costello is one of the public interest attorneys evaluating Wood’s proposal as the basis for potential lawsuits. He thinks it could be a successful legal strategy because it’s grounded in a widely accepted principle of common law.

Yes, to hell with all that "of the people, by the people, and for the people" junk. Let us remove the power from the hands of the unenlightened rabble we call "the people." Give us a yoke on our necks placed there by lawyers. We cattle are not intelligent enough to live our lives without the strong, more sensible hand of Czarina Mary Wood guiding us.

Pity the poor "people" who are but sheep before the intellectual might of the few, the proud, the lawyers.

This is one of the most self-righteous, dangerous, power-mad, unAmerican cretins in the country today. Every American should be made aware of this threat to our way of life. She is far more dangerous than her mythical global warming could ever be for she is willing to destroy all we have, all we are, and all we could be to satisfy her hunger for control over our lives.

I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson, words he took from history and appeared in the last letter he is known to have written.

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind have not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately by the grace of God."

--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826

Let us not now turn to scientists and lawyers and hand them the whip and spurs as tools to ride us now. We have come too far to allow pretender messiahs to enslave us all.

-By Warner Todd Huston

What would you say about photos of naked children -- most of them girls as young as 13 -- holding each other or by themselves in pensive poses? Would you imagine it to be thoughtful art or would your first thought be that it seemed like uncomfortable porn? Would you think it just a beautiful expression of humanity, or would you get a vague feeling that someone is getting his jollies from these pictures and it might be the so-called artist. And would it seem like a celebration or exploitation of children?

This is the argument currently going on in Australia over an art gallery showing of the work of photographer Bill Henson. Henson's latest photo series shows several naked girls and boys, some prepubescent, in what some may consider alluring poses (though others might consider them merely thoughtful). The authorities were not amused by the exploitative photos and had them removed from the gallery. Even Australia's new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has had his say about this incident describing the photos as "revolting." He later added that he will not apologize for his comments.

Naturally, several in Australia's arts community raced to Henson's defense saying that it is an outrage to have had the gallery showing boxed by authorities. Even actress Cate Blanchett -- herself a mother of three -- has voiced support of the photographer.

The letter of support scolds all those who are offended by the photos.

The potential prosecution of one of our most respected artists . . . does untold damage to our culture reputation," the letter said.

"We suggest that the. . . criminalisation of laying charges against Mr Henson, his gallery and the parents of the young people depicted in his work would be far more traumatic for the young people concerned than anything Mr Henson has done."

I'd suggest that a society that exploits its children for sexual titillation deserves to have it's "culture" damaged.

But the question of the ultimate meaning and purpose of the photographs remains; is it porn or is it art?

I maintain that it is porn even if it is meant to be art because it is a sexualization of our children, especially our girls. Unfortunately, western society is devolving into anarchy where it concerns issues of morality. Our entertainment presents females sexualized at younger and younger ages all the time. Popular fashion has young girls dressing like hookers. Music shows them off like meat or treats them like second class citizens meant only for male satisfaction. Not only are younger and younger girls looked upon as sexual playthings, older women and motherhood is constantly devalued as uncool or something to be avoided.

This gallery showing, even if it isn't meant to, exposes these young girls to leering eyes. The poses reveal these girls in alluring positions giving them a feeling of lost innocence, a feeling that something dark lurks beneath the plaintive gazes. It also adds to the great exploitation of girls across the spectrum in western society.

We should be protecting our children, helping them grow and giving them the time to do so far from prying eyes and lecherous intent, not presenting them as objects of desire and titillation.

This artist claims he is celebrating the beauty of youth. But, the one thing that makes youth traditionally beautiful is that freshness and innocence inherent with it. Photos that literally lay bare our young girls shatters that innocence and makes of them objects of lust. This sullies and blackens the very beauty that the artist claims to be celebrating, making of it a cheap thrill instead of something worth protecting.

The Australian authorities were right to box this pornography. Let us hope that they are strong enough as a society to put those responsible for the creation of this so-called art up on charges of child pornography.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Columnist Tom Eblen of the Lexington, Kentucky Herald-Leader has proven to the world that he doesn't know what a "right" is. He thinks it is something that you can "compromise" over. He thinks it is something that can be endlessly tinkered with. He seems not to realize that a "right" is something that is supposed to be insoluble, unchangeable, permanent. Worse, he has equated an American right to the horse raising industry as if the business decisions made by a handful of ranchers is somehow comparable to the observance and maintenance of our rights. Ridiculously he says that if we don't compromise this one right, our 2nd Amendment right, it will be taken away. And hypocritically, after using fear to urge us to compromise, he accuses those of us interested in safeguarding the 2nd Amendment of using "fear" tactics.

This latest op ed, "NRA's slippery slope full of holes," was the result of some flack he took for touting the existence of a small gun owner's organization that many NRA members claim is a front group for an anti-gun group. He wrote admiringly about this small group and was assailed by emails and messages informing him that he was giving support to a stealth gun grabbing group and, instead of checking out the group more thoroughly, these emails seemed to set Eblen off. Typical of a self-righteous denizen of the media, instead of finding out if the complaint letters were right and reassessing his original support, Eblen merely lashed out at 2nd Amendment supporters who alerted him to his mistake. (In fact, Eblen doesn't even bother to try to find out more about the small gun group he wrote about before merely blowing off his obligation to be informed about what he writes.)

So, off Eblen goes wagging his finger at 2nd Amendment supporters telling them that their "hard-line views" and their use of "fear" to sell gun rights is the wrong track to take. He particularly focuses on the fear aspect, claiming that this is an illegitimate way to advocate for our rights. But, even as he claims the NRA illegitimately uses "fear" he uses fear himself to claim that if we don't compromise our rights away we will lose all of them.

If Second Amendment absolutists keep standing up and daring others to pry their guns from their "cold, dead fingers," eventually somebody's going to do it.

If that isn't using fear to sell his own point, what is?

Eblen tells us that we just have to understand, guns are dangerous, so we must "compromise."

But gun violence and crime are serious problems. The no-compromise crowd has kept law enforcement agencies from having some tools they need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people. And that has led to some over-reaching, such as when police in New Orleans illegally seized hundreds of guns after Hurricane Katrina.

Without some intelligent compromises, each new tragedy, like the Virginia Tech or Columbine massacres, will prompt more emotional calls for banning guns. All guns. There are zealots on both sides.

And he has found the perfect example, he thinks, to show us the way: the "horse industry."

The NRA and other gun groups could learn something from the horse industry.

High-profile deaths of horses in Thoroughbred racing and eventing have created some public backlash against those sports. Rather than stonewall, though, horse industry leaders are aggressively working to make their sports safer. They love horses, sure, but they also realize that their sports could live or die with public opinion.

Have you ever heard anything so ignorant as this? Imagine, to compare the maintenance of a Constitutional right to raising horses? Would Eblen think that comparing abortion to gardening would be an apt comparison? How about if we compare a discussion of the death penalty to punishment for small time retail theft? Would these have any sensible relation one to the other? I'll answer for you, Mr. Eblen... NO is your answer.

The discussion of our Constitutional rights is in such a different class of import that comparing the "horse industry" to the policies concerning the 2nd Amendment is as absurd, simple-minded, and just off track as can be imagined.

So, to wrap up his bad analysis and his casual treatment of our rights, Eblen assures us that all will be well if only we just forget about all this standing up for our principles business.

As society becomes more diverse, we must regain the lost art of compromise. Otherwise, we'll never be able to deal with complex problems in ways that protect everyone's rights. Polarization may be good for special-interest groups and political parties, but it's bad for America.

But there is a great flaw in Eblen's little argument, here. You see, the 2nd Amendment isn't just a law that we can change at will, compromise over repeatedly, and do away with if it is inconvenient.

You see, the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right, not just an average, everyday law.

Let me put it this way: should we compromise on who should be allowed to vote? How about property rights, should we easily give away our rights to be secure in our property? Maybe the right to a speedy trial isn't so important? How about all that "pursuit of happiness" stuff? Is that all fluff and nonsense, too, Mr. Eblen? What other rights do you think we should so easily disregard as insoluble? What other rights do you think aren't important enough to maintain as unbreakable?

One does not negotiate away one's rights, Mr. Eblen. Rights are given to us by our creator and the 2nd Amendment is just as much a right as any. You need, Mr. Eblen, to learn what the right to self protection means before you so casually cast it aside to achieve that supposed safety you desire. When Ben Franklin was heard to tell his fellow Americans that we had a republic if we could keep it, he was talking to you, Mr. Eblen. He was telling you not to throw away your rights to achieve just a little safety.

In fact, Ben Franklin also addressed the "safety" question.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You are obviously not listening, Mr. Eblen. Let us hope no one is listening to you, as well.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Showing once again that the kids don't matter a hill of beans to union members, a "sickout" was staged in one of Denver, Colorado's schools forcing school administrators to scramble to fill 16 classes where teachers suddenly called in sick, refusing to go to work.

Strikes that interrupt the student's education are bad enough, but at least strikes are known, planned, and announced events that gives everyone time to face the issue. This, on the other hand, was not planned ahead of time.

All 16 classroom teachers plus the music teacher and a librarian called in sick, forcing Debra Lucero Kraft, principal of Academia Ana Marie Sandoval, to scramble to cover classes at the bilingual Montessori elementary school.

"I didn't have any warning," Kraft said. "I don't know what the goal is, so I can't really speak to whether or not that accomplished their goal. . . . (But) I'm not sure if leaving your students without a teacher is a way to address contract negotiations."

Instead of having the respect for their purpose (it's supposed to be teaching, by the way) and the respect for their students, these union thugs merely stopped going to work without warning. These guerilla styled tactics where unannounced "sickouts" are secretly planned to strike at random schools is despicable.

Every teacher that involves themselves in this sort of thuggish behavior should be fired immediately. But, thuggish behavior is what one ends up with when one allows unions to take over, sadly.

But, heck, who cares if these kid's schooling is destroyed by the games unions play? The union sure as heck doesn't.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Only in the west can one see a school that hosts a day when school children are encouraged to dress like, act like, and "learn about" those trying to kill them and all in a day that the country is in the midst of war. And only in the west would the media help celebrate such an outrageous example of support for what, in truth, are our enemies.

On May 9, the kids of the Amherst Middle School in Amherst, New Hampshire, were forced to parade about their school dressed as "Saudi Arabians" so that they could "learn from people around the world" in a happy day of multiculturalism. But, what they ended up being taught was the wholly sanitized version of how wonderful Saudi society is instead of the truth.

Sadly, the Milford (NH) Cabinet, a small newspaper group in the Granite State, is full of uncritical praise and wonder at the multicultural extravaganza forced upon these children unawares. Worse, they didn't do any reporting on how this day of appeasement came to be held.

For one night, on May 9, the quaint colonial town of Amherst, New Hampshire, was transformed into a Saudi Arabian Bedouin tent community, with the help of 80 seventh-graders at the Amherst Middle School. The weather cooperated, providing 85 degree temperatures to give an authentic Saudi feel to the evening.

And what was this exercise in sympathy for our enemies supposed to do for the community?

The “open tent” was created to encourage participants to reach out and learn from people around the world, and to promote curiosity and cultural understanding.

One wonders if Amherst Middle School dressed up their kids like Imperial Japanese soldiers and had them learn about Shintoism during WWII? Somehow, I'd bet not.

So, what did everyone learn? They learned that being a Saudi was fun and that it is cool to act like one. But, they didn't really learn much of any use and they certainly didn't learn anything in context.

Still, even what they did learn is disturbing. Here are a few of the things the paper outlined.

• During the check-in, guests selected a traditional Arabic name for their name badge and completed an actual Saudi customs form, which warned in bold letters “Death for Drug Trafficking ” at the top.
• ...as the traditions of Saudi Arabia at this time prevent women from participating in these public roles.
• Seventh-grade girls hosted the hijab and veil stations, where other female guests learned how to wear the required head covering and veils. An antique trunk full of black abayas worn by women, and white thobes worn by the men, were available for guests to try on.
• An Islamic religion station included a Muslim prayer rug with a compass imbedded in it to locate Mecca, readings on the Islamic faith, call to prayer items and prayer beads.

So, this school taught these children to be accepting and tolerant of excluding women, forcing them to hide behind a veil, and were told that the Muslim religion was something they should try on for fun?

Wonderful.

I can't help wondering if these middle school kids learned of the honor killings and the female genital mutilation called "female circumcision" that women are forced to go through in Saudi Arabia? Were these innocent American kids told that the Saudis have thuggish, pseudo "police" that roam the streets that beat people up who seem to be breaking their strict religious dress codes that religious zealots in government force upon the people? Did they learn of the oppressive laws that prevent people of other religious faiths from practicing their religions? Also, did they learn that the Saudis export bin Ladden's style of terror all across the world? Did they learn that most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis?

I wonder, did these impressionable American kids lean any of these facts? Not according to the Milford Cabinet they didn't.

I also wonder where the idea for this obscene multicultural event came from? Were any local Muslim groups responsible for this? Why didn't the paper do any reporting on that? If it was just a wayward teacher's idea, why didn't the paper report that? Why are we left in the dark about who is responsible for this outrageous event? Of course, we do know why. It's because the paper thought the event was a great idea and didn't want to report any info that might cause someone to be exposed to public questioning.

Like I said, only in the weak willed west can we mollycoddle an enemy directly engaged in killing Americans, only in the west can we encourage "understanding" of a people out to see us harmed. Only in the west can we see oppressive cultural ideas that are antithetical to freedom and liberty promulgated as a fun thing for our children to learn about. Only in the west can we sit back and allow our schools and media abuse our children like this. Only in the west can we think nothing of undermining our own basic principles of freedom, equality, and liberty for all and supplant that with the ideas of one of the most oppressive regimes of the world.

So, thanks for helping destroy our culture and country and thanks for helping Americans lower their guard goes out to Amherst Middle School and the Milford Cabinet newspaper. It's so wonderful to "understand" and celebrate people who want us dead.

-By Warner Todd Huston

The horrible accident that befell Kaitlyn Lasitter, well it rips your heart out. A bubbly, well-liked Kentucky teen girl just at the beginning her life suffers a grievous, life-changing injury in an accident at an amusement park, Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom. In January of 2008, some cables fell loose from the Superman Tower of Power ride and this malfunction ended up costing the girl both her feet when they were severed as the ride continued despite the girl's screams of horror.

It is a sad story and Kaitlyn certainly deserves to have her day in court to force the amusement park to explain itself to all involved. If the park violated safety rules, then the park should pay. But, whatever the legal ramifications, the story just makes you cry out at the injustice of this fate.

Yes, it's a sad, sad story. But heartrending stories do not call for Federal government intervention no matter how outrageous or gut wrenching they are.

Sadly, regardless of the proper role of the Federal government, we have here yet another grandstanding Congressman trying to feed off this poor girl's horror so that he can get his name in the paper and garner some undeserved attention for "doing something" for this victim of circumstance. Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) has chased this ambulance from Massachusetts all the way to Kentucky and back again to Washington D.C. to propose unnecessary legislation to "fix" something that isn't broken -- at least as far as the Federal government is concerned. Naturally, Last month he introduced more unnecessary legislation.

Congressman Edward J. Markey (D-MA) will call attention to a loophole in the law that prohibits federal safety oversight of rides that are permanently located at amusement parks. On Wed., May 14th at 11 a.m., Rep. Markey will hold a press conference to urge passage of his legislation to close this loophole, H.R. 2320, the National Amusement Park Ride Safety Act, and highlight the safety risks for consumers under current law.

Yes, it is an absolute horror that this young girl is living with now and for the rest of her life. But the accident or malfeasance that led to her mutilation has nothing whatever to do with the Federal government. The Federal government does not and should not have a role to address this situation. This is the State of Kentucky's problem, not Washington's.

And the media is making matters worse by reporting this saying that this perceived lack of Federal legislation is a "loophole" that needs closing. In truth there is no hole because there should be no jurisdiction.

Certainly no one wants unsafe park rides. But the Federal government has no role to assure the safety of amusement parks and should have no such role. It is the various states' duty to assure the safety of their own citizenry.

There was once a time when presidents and Congressmen realized that the Federal government was limited by the Constitution to certain prescribed areas. Unfortunately, today we have one Congressman after another, one Senator, one Supreme Court, one president after the next that seemingly has no knowledge of the Constitution, nor any interest in learning about it.

Patrick Henry once said that, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." And this is the sort of unnecessary legislation that he warned us about. In this case, those advocating for this so-called "loop hole" to be closed are merely attempting to take away one more areas of state power and to "restrain the people."

This is a state issue. Period.

This ambulance-chasing Congressman from Massachusetts should be ashamed of himself for using this poor girl's cruel fate so that he can get his pandering mug in the news, too. If he doesn't know better that this is no situation that warrants the involvement of the Federal government, than he is a stupid man who should be eliminated from Congress. If he does know better, he is a demagogue and a creep. Either way, he comes out as a lowly creature.

We all wish for Kaitlyn to heal as best as she can and to find a way to cope with her injuries. But, Kaitlyn, please do not force ever more government down our throats. We can't blame you for being infuriated at your fate. But it has nothing to do with Washington D.C. Petition the capitol at Frankfort, Kentucky if you will, but leave D.C. out of it.

-By Warner Todd Huston

I know some conservative Republicans who almost wouldn't mind if Barack Obama does win the White House in November. Their theory is that once we as a nation elect a black man to the White House, that election will forever eliminate the claim that Americans are racist because we won't elect a black man to that office. On its face, it seems a logical theory. In practice, however, it will not work. Not with this black man, not with Barack Obama. If Obama becomes president of the United States, his disastrous time in office will set race relations back 50 years.

First of all -- and there is just no other way to way this -- the man is a liar. He claims to want to solve our partisan strife, doesn't he? He claims he wants to work with Congress instead of against the other party. He is supposedly the man of "change" and "hope." If you do a web search for "Obama reach across the aisle" you'll get thousands upon thousands of hits. The general perception that Obama has succeeded in fostering is that he does, indeed, want to "reach across the aisle."

Unfortunately for all of us, it is all a giant lie.

As a legislator, Barack Obama has absolutely no history of working with anyone "across the aisle." There are instances when he has occasionally made statements that have seemed to auger support for an idea that is supported by the Republicans, but when ever it has come down to actual votes, his is always a straight up, far left, liberal vote. He has never worked with anyone on the other side of the aisle on anything. And there is no reason to suspect he'll suddenly start such a practice upon stepping into the White House, either.

Worse, we have seen the sort of people he's surrounded himself with and none of them are folks on the other side of the aisle. He is close friends with racists (Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan), he has the support of aging hippies who were domestic terrorists in their youth (William Ayres, Bernadine Dohrn), he has even invited a young fellow who was mentioned as a communist while at Harvard to be his official campaign blogger (Sam Graham-Felsen). Then we get to his wife who is famous for having said that she was never "proud of America" until her hubby ran for president. She has also said things to disparage capitalism and called the country "mean." But does Obama have any close associates and supporters who are Republicans, even moderate ones? No. Not a single one. And further more, he never has.

Then we add this little fact: Obama has rarely stood up to be counted on much of anything in his whole political career. He has never been a major activist for any cause. He has never led a movement or pushed an organized, identifiable agenda. He has no past of true leadership. His past is almost a blank slate.

So, what sort of president will he make? And why do I say he will set race relations back 50 years?

A Barack Obama presidency will be one filled with one extreme left idea after another. He will strengthen our enemies, most likely try to gut our military, undermine the economy, raise taxes, and inflate government spending on pointless give-aways and welfare programs. He will find mounting resistance from Republicans and moderates because of it. He will repeatedly stumble with foreign policy making himself look the fool. God help us if a terror attack happens during his presidency, because his response will be a fiasco.

And what will be the result? The right will eviscerate him. And his response will be to continue the whining that he has done thus far in the campaign. He will moan that he is being "attacked" and will lament that everyone is so mean to him. With that, his supporters will point fingers at everyone else and claim racism with every attack on their demi-god, Barack.

We already have a parallel by which to gauge what will happen in this country should Barack Obama get elected: O.J. Simpson. The so-called trial of the century is a perfect template by which to measure what will happen between black and white in this country after Obama takes the White House.

You'll recall that guilt and innocence closely followed the racial divide between black and white while the O.J. trial was on going. Blacks by and large assumed he was innocent of the charges of murder. Oh, they didn't necessarily know what the evidence against him was, nor did they care. The assumptions of innocence that many blacks evinced for O.J. was built on their feelings that whites are racists and that, therefore, O.J. must be being railroaded by the white establishment. Worse, there were many blacks that didn't even care if O.J. was guilty. they wanted him free just to get even with the white justice system that they so despised. By and large, blacks in America gave O.J. a pass and his case was used as a way to attack the legal system quite regardless of the merits and evidence of the case.

Many whites, on the other hand, felt he was guilty based on the evidence they heard. There was little if any bias against O.J.'s race mentioned among whites. In fact, few people even thought of O.J. as a typical black man at all. He'd been around so long that he was thought of as just O.J. not as "that black guy O.J." But, every white person who said O.J. was guilty was deemed a racist in the view of the nation's black population.

You'll find that this will happen with Barack Obama. Every time he makes a fool of himself in front of a foreign leader, whites will be called racists for pointing it out. Every time his wife is heard to confirm how much she hates this country, it will be the fault of whites for asking her why she is so filled with hate. With every legislative failure and internal scandal, whites will be attacked as being mean to Barack.

It will get very tiresome. It will get so tiresome that whites who would never have a racist thought in their minds will begin to have unkind thoughts of Barack's racemongering supporters. And this will be reflected upon every black person in the country. Blacks will have their hate-whitey feelings further entrenched (just as they did during the O.J. trial) and whites will find frustration with the foolish, blind support of a president that is obviously a failure. And for those who truly are racists, the debacle of an Obama presidency will give them the excuse to say that they have proof that blacks are not up to the pressures of being president.

After the last days of a Barack Obama presidency, we will see race relations taking a giant step backward. So, I say to my Republican readers who think that an Obama presidency might be helpful for race relations in America; it isn't going to happen. Sadly, just the opposite will occur.

A President Barack Obama will nearly ruin race relations in America.

We're only just scratching the surface of Obama's Chicago connections. People will be shocked to hear the things you need to do to run for office in a big city. -Patrick

Here is some interesting as well as character confirming info about one of Barack Obama's former runs for office. Apparently, Obama actively sought and received the stamp of approval of a Marxist third party that operated briefly in Chicago between 1992 and 1998. The group was called the "New Party" and was started in 1992 by Daniel Cantor (a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign) and Joel Rogers (a sociology and law professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison).

Read on.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Puerto Rico's teachers union seems to have been aced out of their position as the union organizing the teachers of that Island nation by a hostile takeover. It seems that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) cozied up to the embattled Puerto Rican Governor and was able to convince him to simply hand over all the teachers on the Island to the SEIU -- quite regardless of the fact that they already belonged to the existing teachers union, the Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico (FMPR).

This reminds me of 1920's Chicago as various Mob bosses battled for control of the Windy City. Seriously, who isn't shocked by the fact that one union (the SEIU) can just roll in the back door of government and steal the members of another union (the FMPR) by arm-twisting a pliant politician? The only thing we lack here is the tommy guns in the streets!

For their part the FMPR is trying to fight this hostile take over of their union by organizing a coalition to oppose this presumptuous attack by the SEIU on their position as the union of Puerto Rico's teachers.

The FMPR has been trying to work out a new contract for three years with the government of Puerto Rico and it appears that the government is using the SEIU to break the FMPR. And, here we have the SEIU stepping in to assist the government to break the union.

According to the New York Daily News, the Governor told Rivera (Dennis Rivera of the SEIU) that the teachers' union is "yours to take." Previously El Diaro-La Prensa reported that Rivera had discussed the teachers union with Acevedo in addition to possible SEIU monetary support for the Governor, who has recently been indicted on corruption charges.

The Puerto Rican government declared the teachers' strike illegal, based on the vote alone -- the actual strike was not called until late February 2008 -- and moved to decertify FMPR. Almost simultaneously, SEIU announced that the Island's union of school principals and supervisors was affiliating with SEIU -- and would attempt to take over the teachers' union.

This shows the rather unethical lengths that the SEIU will go to gather power unto itself. The SEIU is willing to trample on fellow unionists, make sweetheart deals with governments in closed door, back rooms, and steal members from other unions.

With this hostile take over of the Pureto Rican teachers union, it seems as if Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, has seen "The Untouchables" far too many times.