Southern Discomfort

The Weekly Standard
Barack Obamas Lost Years
by Stanley Kurtz
08/11/2008

The senators tenure as a state legislator reveals him to be an Old-fashioned, BIG Government, Race-conscious liberal.

Here are some excerpts from the article. I have also provided the link to the ENTIRE detailed article - which is lengthy, but WELL WORTH THE READ FOR THOSE WHO want to learn more about this man, Barack Obama, his character and actions associated during his early political years.

EXCERPTS:

Barack Obamas neighborhood newspaper, the HYDE PARK HERALD, has a longstanding tradition of opening its pages to elected officials-from Chicago aldermen to state legislators to U.S. senators. OBAMA himself, as a state senator, WROTE MORE THAN 40 COLUMNS for the HERALD, under the title Springfield Report, between 1996 and 2004. Read in isolation, Obamas columns from the state capital tell us little. Placed in the context of political and policy battles then raging in Illinois, however, the young legislators dispatches powerfully ILLUMINATE HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS. Even more revealing are hundreds of articles chronicling Obamas early political and legislative activities in the pages not only of the HYDE PARK HERALD, but also of another South Side fixture, the CHICAGO DEFENDER.

Source article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=2

The Weekly Standard
Barack Obamas Lost Years
by Stanley Kurtz
08/11/2008

Part 1 of 5

The senators tenure as a state legislator reveals him to be an Old-fashioned, BIG Government, Race-conscious liberal. Any thougthts.

EXCERPTS:

Barack Obamas neighborhood newspaper, the HYDE PARK HERALD, has a longstanding tradition of opening its pages to elected officials-from Chicago aldermen to state legislators to U.S. senators. OBAMA himself, as a state senator, WROTE MORE THAN 40 COLUMNS for the HERALD, under the title Springfield Report, between 1996 and 2004. Read in isolation, Obamas columns from the state capital tell us little. Placed in the context of political and policy battles then raging in Illinois, however, the young legislators dispatches powerfully ILLUMINATE HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS. Even more revealing are hundreds of articles chronicling Obamas early political and legislative activities in the pages not only of the HYDE PARK HERALD, but also of another South Side fixture, the CHICAGO DEFENDER.

(Continued from my post above - Obamas Lost Years, the yrs. he does not talk about)

Part 2 of 5

OBAMAS STRONG LIBERALISM is nowhere more evident than on the subject of CRIME. Throughout his Illinois State Senate career, crime was a top Obama concern. Crime is also a key contact-point between Obama and his most celebrated radical associate, WILLIAM AYERS. Ayers REFUSES TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH OBAMA, while Obama has dismissed Ayers as JUST A GUY WHO LIVES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. Yet several Obama-Ayers connections are known: Obamas 1995 POLITICAL DEBUT at the home of Ayers and his wife (and fellow former terrorist) Bernardine Dohrn, Obamas joint service with Ayers ON THE BOARD OF THE WOODS FUND OF CHICAGO, a couple of appearances with Ayers on academic panels, and what the NEW YORK TIMES called Obamas RAVE REVIEW (not actually a full review, but a warm endorsement) of AYERS BOOK on juvenile justice, which Obama dubbed a searing and timely account in the Chicago Tribune.

For all the attention, the actual content of (Bill) AYERS 1997 BOOK, A Kind and Just Parent, as well as the POLITICAL CONTEXT OF OBAMAS INTEREST IN IT, have so far passed un-remarked. Obama supporters paint Ayers as having mellowed since his radical days, pointing to his wonkish interests. Yet Ayers RADICALISM PERVADES HIS BOOK on Chicagos juvenile court system. Founded in 1899 (long before juvenile murder rates shot off the charts), Chicagos juvenile court was the first in the world, intended to serve as A KIND AND JUST PARENT to offenders. Ayers title, he explained in the book, is meant to bristle with irony as a commentary on an American society out of control. Ayers expressed the same sentiment more bluntly in an interview published in the New York Times shortly after 9/11, when he not only dismissed the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place, but said the claim MAKES ME WANT TO
PUKE. A Kind and Just Parent is a thoughtful, well-informed, and beautifully written book, which provides revealing and sometimes disturbing glimpses of life at a Chicago juvenile detention facility. The book also virtually defines the phrases LIBERAL GUILT and SOFT ON CRIME. Ayers agonizes over a high school field trip years ago, on which he and other white students toured a juvenile court system largely populated by black boys. When recounting horrific crimes - and even his own mugging - Ayers focuses on the terrified insecurity of the perpetrators, rather than the harm they inflict. Testifying at the trial of a young felon he would been tutoring, Ayers calls him NERVOUS, a little shy, eager to please. The prosecutor responds: WOULD YOU CALL SHOOTING SOMEONE EIGHT TIMES AT CLOSE RANGE EAGER TO PLEASE?

Source article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=2

(Continued from my post above - Obamas Lost Years, the yrs. he does not talk about)

ESSENTIALLY ABOLISHED.

Part 3 of 5

Unsatisfied with mere reform, Ayers wants to address the deeper structural problems of the system. Drawing explicitly on Michel Foucault, a French philosopher beloved of RADICAL academics, Ayers argues that prisons artificially impose obedience and conformity on society, thereby creating a questionable distinction between the NORMAL and the DEVIANT. The unfortunate result, says Ayers, is to leave the bulk of us feeling smugly superior to societys prisoners. Home detention, Ayers believes, might someday be able to replace the prison. Ayers also makes a point of comparing Americas prison system to the mass-detention of a generation of young blacks under South African Apartheid. Ayers tone may be different, but the ECHOES OF JEREMIAH WRIGHTs anti-prison rants are plain.

Actually, Ayers effectively does do this, opening his book with the claim that a young murderer had slavishly followed the orders of his gang leader, rather than acting of his own free will. Ayers opposes trying even the most vicious juvenile murderers as adults. Beyond that, he WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PRISON SYSTEM ITSELF

Given HIS DECISION to recommend Ayers book in the Tribune, it is FAIR TO SAY that Obama is at least BROADLY SYMPATHETIC to this perspective. When Obama offers examples of ill-conceived legislation, he often points to building prisons: Instead of building another prison, why not expand health care entitlements? Biographer David Mendell cites OBAMAS IRRITATION with fellow LEGISLATORS who grandstand by PASSING TOUGH-ON-CRIME LEGISLATION, while letting bills designed to bring structural change languish. Debating Bobby Rush in 2000, OBAMA BRAGGED that he had CONSISTENTLY FOUGHT AGAINST THE INDUSTRIAL PRISON COMPLEX. Obamas Hyde Park Herald column echoes these points.

The most INTRIGUING THREAD LINKING OBAMA, AYERS, AND CRIME, however, runs through Ayers wife, Bernardine Dohrn. Dohrn founded the Children and Family Justice Center at Northwestern University, and along with her associates there, she regularly and energetically opposes GET TOUGH crime laws. Ayers draws on his wifes

Source article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=2

(Continued in my post below - Obamas Lost Years, the yrs. he does not talk about)

(Continued from my post above - Oamas Lost Years, the yrs. he does not talk about).

Part 4 of 5

wisdom in his book A Kind and Just Parent; and Dohrn, like her husband, publicly presents her work on juvenile justice not as a repudiation of her youthful radicalism, but a continuation of it. The AYERS - DOHRN - OBAMA nexus was jolted INTO ACTION in late 1997 and early 1998, when a major JUVENILE JUSTICE REFORM BILL was introduced in the Illinois General Assembly.

Written by prosecutors and sponsored by a Republican ex-prosecutor, the bill was neither simplistic nor partisan. Well aware of evidence that sending juveniles to adult prisons can backfire and actually raise recidivism rates, sponsors met rehabilitation-minded critics halfway. The proposed bill was an early example of BLENDED SENTENCING, in which juveniles who have committed serious crimes are GIVEN BOTH A JUVENILE ntence, the adult punishment kicks in. That gives young offenders a powerful incentive to do right, and puts toughness at the service of offering kids a second chance.

Blended sentencing is generally viewed as an INNOVATIVE COMPROMISE. To those on the FAR LEFT, however, blended sentencing is just another mean-spirited get tough crime measure in disguise. That is why, when the Illinois blended sentencing bill was introduced in 1997, both OBAMA AND BERNARDINE DOHRN were cited by the Chicago Sun-Times as key local critics of the bill. Steven A. Drizin, an associate of Dohrns center (who is thanked in Ayers book) was a member of the study commission that helped produce the bill, yet remained an energetic critic, not only of blended sentencing, but of nearly every other prosecutor-favored provision in the bill.

Meanwhile, Obama WORKED CLOSELY with the Illinois Black Legislative Caucus to SLOW THE BILLs PROGRESS, expressing skepticism about the blended sentencing provisions. While one report speaks of Obama negotiating with Cook County states attorney Richard Devine for a compromise, there is good reason to believe that Obamas

Source article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=2

(Continued in my post below - Obamas Lost Years, the yrs. he does not talk about it)

(Continued from my post above - Obamas Lost Years, the yrs. He does not talk about it).

Part 5 of 5

actual AIM was to SCUTTLE THE ENTIRE BILL. We have this on the authority of someone who may very well be Michelle Obama herself. Michelle Obama organized a University of Chicago panel about Bill Ayers crime book in November 1997, just as the battle over the juvenile justice bill was heating up. That PANEL featured appearances by some of the key figures discussed in Ayers book, along with OBAMA HIMSELF, who was identified in the press release as working to block proposed legislation that would throw more juvenile offenders into the adult system. In effect, then, this public event was A JOINT OBAMA-AYERS EFFORT TO SINK THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BILL -Obamas decision to PLUG AYERS BOOK in the Chicago Tribune the following month was part of the same political effort.

In January 1998, a front-page headline in the Defender touted Obamas claim that the juvenile justice bill might be on the verge of failure. Obama hoped that black caucus opposition to the sentencing provisions might be matched by concerns among some Republicans that the bill could force expensive jail construction (based on the prospect
that the deterrent effect of blended sentencing might fail, thereby forcing more juveniles into adult prisons). OBAMAS HOPES WERE WILDLY OFF-BASE. IN THE END, the juvenile justice bill passed overwhelmingly. GIVEN HIS AMBITIONS for HIGHER OFFICE, Obama was no doubt reluctant to vote against the final bill. A last-minute, minor and uncontroversial ADJUSTMENT TO THE BLENDED-SENTENCING PROVISIONS by the governor appears to have provided enough political cover for the bills sharpest critics, including Obama to come around and support it.

Source article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/386abhgm.asp?pg=2

I DID NOT LIKE THIS STORY AT ALL

Feel free to pass the links I provided below onto other bloggers, etc., because that is the only way people are going to get the information out about Obama past history when he continually blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act while he served as state senator. Once he left office, sure enough the bill passed. Obama has been stating that the state bill did not adequately protect Roe v. Wade (his reason why he did not vote for the state bill), when in fact it has been proven that both the State bill and the Federal bill are worded EXACTLY the same (physical proof counters his claim). He is being caught in a lie, and the MainStreamMedia is doing everything they can to keep this information suppressed from public consumption. PLEASE, folks, read these articles and pass them onto others. Thanks. ; - D


Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act
4-2-2008
by Jill Stanek

PART I

On JAN. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the STATE BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. OBAMA SPOKE AGAINST the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and SINGLE-HANDEDLY DEFEATED IT in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obamas path and said, Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year. Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, I think you will, adding, I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois HAD IT BEEN WORDED the SAME as the Federal bill. I think that is the position the Democrats should take(, he said).

THERE IS JUST ONE THING HE FORGOT TO MENTION: Obama had STOPPED his committee from adding the Federal wording. With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

First Encounter

An Illinois lawmaker offered the FIRST DRAFT of the states BORN ALIVE INFANT PROTECTION ACT in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion - viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived - in a utility room to die.

The bill, sponsored by (Illinois) state Sen. Patrick O???Malley of Oak Lawn defined BORN ALIVE using LANGUAGE IDENTICAL TO that of FEDERAL LEGISLATION introduced in 2000 by Rep. Charles Canady, R-Fla., who in turn drafted wording

Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

(Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

(Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

PART II

developed by the World Health Organization in 1950 and adopted by the United Nations in 1955:

DEFINING BORN ALIVE:

The term BORN ALIVE, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the COMPLETE EXPULSION or EXTRACTION from its mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion. I first encountered Barack Obama on March 27, 2001, when I testified before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, of which he was a member. My testimony included my description of holding a premature aborted baby until he died:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an ABORTED DOWNS SYNDROME BABY who was BORN ALIVE TO OUR SOILED UTILITY ROOM because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end, he was so quiet that I could not tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Obama questioned whether the BORN ALIVE legislation would impede the right to abort and doctor/patient decision-making. He and an American Civil Liberties Union attorney speculated BORN ALIVE would force doctors to resuscitate nonviable aborted babies.

Obama OPPOSED BORN ALIVE in committee, BUT voted PRESENT - neither yes nor no, but merely present - on the Illinois state Senate floor, one of MANY PRESENT VOTES that Hillary Clinton has cited as evidence that Obama lacks leadership skills. Clinton voted for the federal Born Alive bill, putting her on record as more pro-life than Obama.

Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

(Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

(Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

PART III

Constitutional Blindness

A graduate of Harvard Law School, Obama TAUGHT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW at the University of Chicago for 10 years. Both schools are listed in the top 10 law schools in the country. BUT Obama revealed his CONSTITUTIONAL BLIND SPOT in his (own) book The Audacity of Hope:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created [emphasis added] equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among those are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.???

OBAMA: (T)he essential idea behind the Declaration ??? that we are BORN [emphasis added] into this world free, all of us; that each of us arrives with a bundle of rights that cannot be taken away by any person or any state without just cause; that through our own agency we can, and must, make of our lives what we will, is one that every American understands.

Note Obamas choice of the word BORN over the word CREATED. Perhaps that helps explain his (Obamas) support for UNRESTRICTED ABORTION. Also note that our BUNDLE OF RIGHTS can be TAKEN AWAY with JUST CAUSE.

Obama clearly considers abortion a JUST CAUSE. Here is how he argued against Born Alive during Illinois Senate debate in 2001:

OBAMA: I just want to suggest . . . that this (legislation) is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we are really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - child, a 9-month-old - child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it, it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

The legislation passed the Senate, but (it) did not survive in the House. When Rep. O'Malley reintroduced Born Alive and its companion bills in 2002, they headed again to the same committee, where Obama rewrote history:

Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

(Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

(Continued from above - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

PART IV

OBAMA: Ms. Stanek, your initial testimony last year showed your DISMAY AT THE LACK OF REGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE. I agreed with you last year, and WE SUGGESTED that there be a Comfort Room or something of that nature be done. The hospital acknowledged that and changes were made and you are still unimpressed. It sounds to me like you are really not interested in how these fetuses are treated, but rather not providing absolutely any medical care or life to them.

Of course, Obama HAD NOT AGREED with me the year before, and I WAS THE ONE who had TOLD HIM ABOUT THE COMFORT ROOM, which the hospital created in response to MY testimony: We now have this prettily wallpapered room. There is even a NICE WOODEN ROCKER in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.

The hospital made live birth abortions LOOK NICER, but the end result was still DEAD BABIES.

OBAMA SAID: What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can not support that, and he voted NO in committee again.

The bill went again to the Senate floor, where Obama was the SOLE SPEAKER AGAINST IT, claiming that it would impose a BURDEN on PHYSICIANS:

OBAMA: [T]his [legislation] puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they are performing this procedure, that in fact, this is a nonviable fetus.

Troubled Conscience?

Democrats won control of the Illinois state Senate in November 2002, and when Born Alive was REINTRODUCED FOR THE THIRD TIME in 2003, it was directed to the Obama-chaired, infamously LIBERAL Health and Human Services Committee, where HE simply REFUSED TO CALL IT FOR A VOTE.

By this time Obama was running for U.S. Senate. He won his primary in March 2004, and Republicans recruited former U.N. Ambassador Alan Keyes, who lived in Maryland, to oppose him. It was Obamas position against Born Alive that persuaded Keyes to run, as he stated in his announcement speech:

Source: http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000007034.cfm

(Continued below - Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act )

I am bothered, in the first place, by the promises being made by both men. I am bewildered that both men are making legislative promises.

???When I am president,??? each man says, ???I will ...??? Now correct me if I am wrong, that I might have missed something while I was busy getting old, but when I studied government in school, I think I remember that there were three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial. For the purpose of this essay only, the judicial branch of government will be overlooked.

In an over-simplification of job descriptions, the president and cabinet are the executive part of the branch trio. The president should keep himself busy conferring with the cabinet and agencies, being commander in chief, setting policy, giving state dinners, making nice with other countries, declaring states of emergency, signing or vetoing legislation, etc. The legislative part of the trio (the representatives and senators) has as its job initiating legislation as needed for the good of the country and their constituents, serving on investigative committees, etc.

Now we get to my contention. Both Senator McCain and Senator Obama are expounding on what they will do as president while continuing to speak like legislators. What they are promising to do in the future as the executive is what they should be proposing now in their current positions as legislators.

Come on now, fellas, if you believe so strongly in what changes need to be made for the good of the country???s problems with the economy, the oil crisis, education and health care, why have you not been back in Washington rallying support in the Senate and writing bills which would begin the miraculous cures now that you are promising for the future? Both you senators remind me of poker players with your cards clutched to your chests. Both of you are bluffing that you have a straight flush, ace high, while holding nothing more than a pair of jacks.
Unfortunately, the other people sitting at the table are about to be taken. Their names are Americans and Voters. Come on now, fellas, if you plan to play this game, show us your cards. Lay them on the table. Show us how you plan to win the game. Show us a workable plan for the cures you are promising. If these plans are so good, why haven???t you been busy in the Senate doing what you are paid to do for the country? Why are you holding back? Is it all a bluff?

Up to this point in the election process, the only thing that has been shown to the voters is age and charisma, experience and inexperience, war hero and academic scholar, pedigree and boot strap climber. Show us some substance. As the commander in chief, how, I repeat, how will you act as leader to make your promises reality? I need to know before I vote; otherwise I will continue to be bothered and bewildered, but certainly not bewitched.