Tuesday, July 7, 2009

One year ago this month...something called "predictive value" - Jamie, what say you now?

Source: Boston Globe

Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy
The candidate endorsed subsidies for private entrepreneurs to build low-income units. But, while he garnered support from developers, many projects in his former district have fallen into disrepair.

CHICAGO - The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can't afford to live anywhere else.

But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing.

As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Some of the residents of Grove Parc say they are angry that Obama did not notice their plight. The development straddles the boundary of Obama's state Senate district. Many of the tenants have been his constituents for more than a decade.

"No one should have to live like this, and no one did anything about it," said Cynthia Ashley, who has lived at Grove Parc since 1994.

Obama's campaign, in a written response to Globe questions, affirmed the candidate's support of public-private partnerships as an alternative to public housing, saying that Obama has "consistently fought to make livable, affordable housing in mixed-income neighborhoods available to all."

The campaign did not respond to questions about whether Obama was aware of the problems with buildings in his district during his time as a state senator, nor did it comment on the roles played by people connected to the senator.

Among those tied to Obama politically, personally, or professionally are:

Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Obama's presidential campaign and a member of his finance committee. Jarrett is the chief executive of Habitat Co., which managed Grove Parc Plaza from 2001 until this winter and co-managed an even larger subsidized complex in Chicago that was seized by the federal government in 2006, after city inspectors found widespread problems.

Allison Davis, a major fund-raiser for Obama's US Senate campaign and a former lead partner at Obama's former law firm. Davis, a developer, was involved in the creation of Grove Parc and has used government subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,500 units in Chicago, including a North Side building cited by city inspectors last year after chronic plumbing failures resulted in raw sewage spilling into several apartments.

Antoin "Tony" Rezko, perhaps the most important fund-raiser for Obama's early political campaigns and a friend who helped the Obamas buy a home in 2005. Rezko's company used subsidies to rehabilitate more than 1,000 apartments, mostly in and around Obama's district, then refused to manage the units, leaving the buildings to decay to the point where many no longer were habitable.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.

Butler and Davis did not respond to messages. Rezko is in prison; his lawyer did not respond to inquiries.

Jarrett, a powerful figure in the Chicago development community, agreed to be interviewed but declined to answer questions about Grove Parc, citing what she called a continuing duty to Habitat's former business partners. She did, however, defend Obama's position that public-private partnerships are superior to public housing.

"Government is just not as good at owning and managing as the private sector because the incentives are not there," said Jarrett, whose company manages more than 23,000 apartments. "I would argue that someone living in a poor neighborhood that isn't 100 percent public housing is by definition better off."

In the middle of the 20th century, Chicago built some of the nation's largest public housing developments, culminating in Robert Taylor Homes: 4,415 apartments in 28 high-rise buildings stretching for 2 miles along an interstate highway.

By the late 1980s, however, Robert Taylor Homes and the rest of the Chicago developments had become American bywords for urban misery. The roughly 30 developments operated for poor families by the Chicago Housing Authority were plagued by crime and mired in poverty.

In Stateway Gardens, a large complex just north of Robert Taylor, a study of 1990 census data found the per-capita annual income was $1,650. And the projects were falling apart after decades of epic, sometimes criminal, mismanagement.

Similar problems plagued public housing in other cities, leading the federal government to greatly increase funding to address the problems. Many cities, including Boston, mostly used that money to rehabilitate their projects, maintaining public control.

Chicago chose a more dramatic approach. Under Mayor Richard M. Daley, who was elected in 1989, the city launched a massive plan to let private companies tear down the projects and build mixed-income communities on the same land.

The city also hired private companies to manage the remaining public housing. And it subsidized private companies to create and manage new affordable housing, some of which was used to accommodate tenants displaced from public housing.

Chicago's plans drew critics from the start. They asked why the government should pay developers to perform a basic public service - one successfully performed by governments in other cities. And they noted that privately managed projects had a history of deteriorating because guaranteed government rent subsidies left companies with little incentive to spend money on maintenance.

Most of all, they alleged that Chicago was interested primarily in redeveloping projects close to the Loop, the downtown area that was seeing a surge of private development activity, shunting poor families to neighborhoods farther from the city center. Only about one in three residents was able to return to the redeveloped projects.

"They are rapidly displacing poor people, and these companies are profiting from this displacement," said Matt Ginsberg-Jaeckle of Southside Together Organizing for Power, a community group that seeks to help tenants stay in the same neighborhoods.

"The same exact people who ran these places into the ground," the private companies paid to build and manage the city's affordable housing, "now are profiting by redeveloping them."

Barack Obama was among the many Chicago residents who shared Daley's conviction that private companies would make better landlords than the Chicago Housing Authority.

He had seen the failure of the public projects in the mid-1980s as a community organizer at Altgeld Gardens, a large public housing complex on the far South Side.

He once told the Chicago Tribune that he had briefly considered becoming a developer of affordable housing. But after graduating from Harvard Law School in 1991, he turned down a job with Tony Rezko's development company, Rezmar, choosing instead to work at the civil rights law firm Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, then led by Allison Davis.

The firm represented a number of nonprofit companies that were partnering with private developers to build affordable housing with government subsidies.

Obama sometimes worked on their cases. In at least one instance, he represented the nonprofit company that owned Grove Parc, Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., when it was sued by the city for failing to adequately heat one of its apartment complexes.

Shortly after becoming a state senator in 1997, Obama told the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin that his experience working with the development industry had reinforced his belief in subsidizing private developers of affordable housing.

"That's an example of a smart policy," the paper quoted Obama as saying. "The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace; but at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."

Obama translated that belief into legislative action as a state senator. In 2001, Obama and a Republican colleague, William Peterson, sponsored a successful bill that increased state subsidies for private developers. The law let developers designated by the state raise up to $26 million a year by selling tax credits to Illinois residents. For each $1 in credits purchased, the buyer was allowed to decrease his taxable income by 50 cents.

Obama also cosponsored the original version of a bill creating an annual fund to subsidize rents for extremely low-income tenants, although it did not pass until 2005, after he had left the state Senate.

"He was very passionate about the issues," said Julie Dworkin of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, who worked with Obama on affordable housing issues. "He was someone we could go to and count on him to be there."

The developers gave Obama their financial support. Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko all served on Obama's campaign finance committee when he won a seat in the US Senate in 2004.

Obama has continued to support increased subsidies as a presidential candidate, calling for the creation of an Affordable Housing Trust Fund, which could distribute an estimated $500 million a year to developers. The money would be siphoned from the profits of two mortgage companies created and supervised by the federal government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"I will restore the federal government's commitment to low-income housing," Obama wrote last September in a letter to the Granite State Organizing Project, an umbrella group for several dozen New Hampshire religious, community, and political organizations. He added, "Our nation's low-income families are facing an affordable housing crisis, and it is our responsibility to ensure this crisis does not get worse by ineffective replacement of existing public-housing units."

One of the earliest public-private partnerships of the type supported by Daley and Obama took place in the Woodlawn neighborhood, a checkerboard of battered apartment buildings and vacant lots just south of the University of Chicago.

Grove Parc Plaza opened there in 1990 as a redevelopment of an older housing complex. The buildings had a new owner and a major renovation funded by the federal government. Even the name Grove Parc Plaza was new.

The owner, a local nonprofit company called Woodlawn Preservation and Investment Corp., was led by two of the neighborhood's most powerful ministers, Arthur Brazier and Leon Finney. Obama had relationships with both men. In 1999, he donated $500 of his campaign funds to another of their community groups, The Woodlawn Organization.

Woodlawn Preservation hired a private management firm, William Moorehead and Associates, to oversee the complex. In 2001, the company lost that contract and a contract to manage several public housing projects for allegedly failing to do its job. The company's head, William Moorehead, was subsequently convicted of embezzling almost $1 million in management fees.

Woodlawn Preservation hired a new property manager, Habitat Co. At the time, the company was headed by its founder, Daniel Levin, also a major contributor to Obama's campaigns. Valerie Jarrett was executive vice president.

Residents say the complex deteriorated under Moorehead's management and continued to decline after Habitat took over. A maintenance worker at the complex says money often wasn't even available for steel wool to plug rat holes. But as late as 2003, a routine federal inspection still gave conditions at Grove Parc a score of 82 on a 100-point scale.

When inspectors returned in 2005, they found conditions were significantly worse. Inspectors gave the complex a score of 56 and warned that improvements were necessary. They returned the following year and found things had reached a new low. Grove Parc got a score of 11 and a final warning. Three months later, inspectors found there had been insufficient improvements and moved to seize the complex from Woodlawn Preservation.

After negotiations with tenants, the government agreed to allow a new company, Preservation of Affordable Housing, a Boston-based firm, to replace Habitat as the manager of Grove Parc. The company is negotiating to buy the development, which would then be demolished and replaced with new housing.

Officials at Woodlawn Preservation say the government didn't give them enough money to properly maintain Grove Parc. Habitat's Jarrett declined to comment on Grove Parc in particular but said it is hard to manage something you don't own.

But other Chicago developers and housing activists say federal subsidies can be adequate if managed properly. They say Grove Parc stands apart for how badly it fell into disrepair.

Preservation of Affordable Housing has assumed responsibility for numerous subsidized complexes across the country.

"Grove Parc is quite an exception to what we've normally done because it's in such bad shape," said the nonprofit's chief executive, Amy Anthony. "These complexes are often tired, they're always denser than today's philosophy, but they're not usually anywhere near as deteriorated."

Similar problems also plagued the next generation of affordable housing de velopment in Obama's district, created as part of the Daley administration's efforts to subsidize smaller apartment buildings scattered throughout neighborhoods.

One of the largest recipients of the subsidies was Rezmar Corp., founded in 1989 by Tony Rezko, who ran a company that sold snacks at city beaches, and Daniel Mahru, who ran a company that sold ice to Rezko. Neither man had development experience.

Over the next nine years, Rezmar used more than $87 million in government grants, loans, and tax credits to renovate about 1,000 apartments in 30 Chicago buildings. Companies run by the partners also managed many of the buildings, collecting government rent subsidies.

Rezmar collected millions in development fees but fell behind on mortgage payments almost immediately. On its first project, the city government agreed to reduce the company's monthly payments from almost $3,000 to less than $500.

By the time Obama entered the state Senate in 1997, the buildings were beginning to deteriorate. In January 1997, the city sued Rezmar for failing to provide adequate heat in a South Side building in the middle of an unusually cold winter. It was one of more than two dozen housing-complaint suits filed by the city against Rezmar for violations at its properties.

People who lived in some of the Rezmar buildings say trash was not picked up and maintenance problems were ignored. Roofs leaked, windows whistled, insects moved in.

"In the winter I can feel the cold air coming through the walls and the sockets," said Anthony Frizzell, 57, who has lived for almost two decades in a Rezmar building on South Greenwood Avenue. "They didn't insulate it or nothing."

Sharee Jones, who lives in another former Rezko building one block away, said her apartment was rat-infested for years.

"You could hear them under the floor and in the walls, and they didn't do nothing about it," Jones said.

By the time Rezmar asked Chicago's city government for a loan on its final subsidized development, in 1998, the city's housing commissioner was describing the company in a memo as being in "bad shape." The Daley administration still made the $3.1 million loan.

Shortly thereafter, Rezmar switched from subsidized housing to high-end development, fueled by the money it had made in subsidized work. Rezko's companies also stopped managing the subsidized complexes.

"Affordable housing run by private companies just doesn't work," Mahru, who no longer works with Rezko, said in an interview with the Globe. "It's difficult, if not impossible, for a private company to maintain affordable housing for low-income tenants."

Responsibility for several buildings fell to the Chicago Equity Fund, which had purchased government tax credits from Rezmar to help finance the projects. After Rezko walked away, the fund was obliged to maintain the buildings as affordable housing. If it did not, it would have to repay the government for the tax credits.

The fund found the buildings in terrible condition. In a 2001 plea to the state to temporarily suspend payments on its mortgages, a fund executive wrote that heating problems, lapsed maintenance, and uncollected rent made the buildings almost impossible to manage.

Most of the buildings have since been foreclosed upon, forcing the tenants to find new housing.

All the while, Tony Rezko was forging a close friendship with Barack Obama. When Obama opened his campaign for state Senate in 1995, Rezko's companies gave Obama $2,000 on the first day of fund-raising. Save for a $500 contribution from another lawyer, Obama didn't raise another penny for six weeks. Rezko had essentially seeded the start of Obama's political career.

As Obama ascended, Rezko became one of his largest fund-raisers. And in 2005, Rezko and his wife helped the Obamas purchase the house where they now live.

Eleven of Rezmar's buildings were located in the district represented by Obama, containing 258 apartments. The building without heat in January 1997, the month Obama entered the state Senate, was in his district. So was Jones's building with rats in the walls and Frizzell's building that lacked insulation. And a redistricting after the 2000 Census added another 350 Rezmar apartments to the area represented by Obama.

But Obama has contended that he knew nothing about any problems in Rezmar's buildings.

After Rezko's assistance in Obama's home purchase became a campaign issue, at a time when the developer was awaiting trial in an unrelated bribery case, Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times that the deterioration of Rezmar's buildings never came to his attention. He said he would have distanced himself from Rezko if he had known.

Other local politicians say they knew of the problems.

"I started getting complaints from police officers about particular properties that turned out to be Rezko properties," said Toni Preckwinkle, a Chicago alderman.

She had previously received campaign contributions from Rezmar and said she had regarded the company as a model, one of the city's best affordable housing developers.

But in the early 2000s, she called Rezko to ask for an explanation for the declining conditions. He told her Rezmar was "getting out of the business," she said - walking away from its responsibility for managing the developments.

"I didn't see him nor have anything to do with him after that," she said.

Preckwinkle, who will be an Obama delegate at the Democratic National Convention, said she would not answer any questions about Obama's role in her district, nor his relationship with Rezko.

Allison Davis, Obama's former law firm boss, dabbled in development for years while he worked primarily as a lawyer. He participated in the development of Grove Parc Plaza. And in 1996, Davis left his law firm to pursue a full-time career as an affordable housing developer, fueled by the subsidies from the Daley administration and aided, on occasion, by Obama himself.

Over roughly the past decade, Davis's companies have received more than $100 million in subsidies to renovate and build more than 1,500 apartments in Chicago, according to a Chicago Sun-Times tally. In several cases, Davis partnered with Tony Rezko. In 1998 the two men created a limited partnership to build an apartment building for seniors on Chicago's South Side. Obama wrote letters on state Senate stationery supporting city and state loans for the project.

In 2000 Davis asked the nonprofit Woods Fund of Chicago for a $1 million investment in a new development partnership, Neighborhood Rejuvenation Partners. Obama, a member of the board, voted in favor, helping Davis secure the investment.

The following year, Davis assembled another partnership to create New Evergreen/Sedgwick, a $10.7 million renovation of five walk-up buildings in a gentrifying neighborhood. The project, a model of small-scale, mixed-income development, was subsidized by almost $6 million in state loans and federal tax credits.

Conditions deteriorated quickly. Chronic plumbing failures consumed the project's financial reserves while leaving undrained sewage in some of the apartments. In October, after repeated complaints from building residents, the city government sued the owners, and a judge imposed a $5,500 fine.

New Evergreen/Sedgwick is managed by a company run by Cullen Davis, Allison Davis's son and also a contributor to Obama's campaigns. Cullen Davis said the problems were rooted in the way New Evergreen/Sedgwick was financed. Like most new projects, it is owned by a company created to own one building. That company determined how much to spend on renovations, how much to set aside for maintenance - and how much to keep as profit. When the maintenance funds ran out, there was no other source of money.

"All these deals are set up as islands," Cullen Davis acknowledged. In this case, "The margin of error at Sedgwick was a little too close to begin with."

Chicago's struggles with the deterioration of its subsidized private developments seemed to reach a new height in 2006, when the federal government foreclosed on Lawndale Restoration, the city's largest subsidized-housing complex. City inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations, including roof leaks, exposed wiring, and pools of sewage.

Lawndale Restoration was a collection of more than 1,200 apartments in 97 buildings spread across 300 blocks of west Chicago. It was owned by a company controlled by Cecil Butler, a former civil rights activist who came to be reviled as a slumlord by a younger generation of activists.

Lawndale Restoration was created in the early 1980s, when the federal government helped Butler take control of a group of old buildings, including lending $22 million to his company to redevelop the buildings and agreeing to subsidize tenant rents. In 1995, Butler's company got a $51 million loan from the state to fund additional renovations at Lawndale Restoration. In 2000 Butler's company brought in Habitat Co. to help manage the complex.

Nonetheless, the buildings deteriorated badly. The problems came to public attention in a dramatic way in 2004, after a sport utility vehicle driven by a suburban woman trying to buy drugs struck one of the buildings, causing it to collapse. City inspectors arrived in the ensuing glare, finding a long list of code violations, leading city officials to urge the federal government to seize the complex.

In the midst of the uproar, a small group of Lawndale residents gathered to rally against the Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Barack Obama.

Obama's Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, trailed badly in the polls and was not seen as a serious challenger. But the organizers had a simple message: Cecil Butler had donated $3,000 to Obama's campaign. Habitat had close ties to Obama. And Obama had remained silent about Lawndale's plight.

Paul Johnson, who helped to organize the protest, said Obama must have known about the problems.

"How didn't he know?" said Johnson. "Of course he knew. He just didn't care."

Butler did not return messages but in the past has said the government did not give him enough money to maintain the project. Habitat emphasized in a statement that its role at Lawndale was restricted to tasks that included financial oversight and management.

In 2006, following the foreclosure, the federal government sold the buildings to the city for $10. The city has since parceled out the buildings among two dozen developers, who are rebuilding Lawndale for the fourth time with yet another round of government loans and subsidies.

Even as Lawndale Restoration and Rezmar's buildings were foreclosed upon, and Grove Parc and other subsidized developments fell deeper into disrepair, Obama has remained a steadfast supporter of subsidizing private development.

And although he has distanced himself from Rezko, Obama has remained close to others in the development community. Jarrett participates in the campaign's senior staff meetings. And Obama chose another close friend, Martin Nesbitt, as his campaign treasurer. Nesbitt is chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, one of the key overseers of the shift toward private management and development.

"Throughout his career in public service, Barack Obama has advocated for the development of mixed-income housing and public-private partnerships to create affordable housing as an alternative to publicly subsidized, concentrated, low-income housing," the Obama campaign said in a statement provided to the Globe.

As a result, some people in Chicago's poorest neighborhoods are torn between a natural inclination to support Obama and a concern about his relationships with the developers they hold responsible for Chicago's affordable housing failures. Some housing advocates worry that Obama has not learned from those failures.

"I'm not against Barack Obama," said Willie J.R. Fleming, an organizer with the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and a former public housing resident. "What I am against is some of the people around him."

Jamie Kalven, a longtime Chicago housing activist, put it this way: "I hope there is not much predictive value in his history and in his involvement with that community."

Home

"...a chilling look at the future of black Americans under a Barack Obama Administration..."

Source: NBRA

National Black Republican Association

We The People By Lloyd Marcus (video)

The Democratic Party Owes Blacks An Apology By Frances Rice

Obama And Plantation Politics (Obama To Poor Blacks – Stay Poor) By Frances Rice

Obama’s America – No Freedom

AP Photo
An NBC report exposes how Brenda Lee, a black female journalist, was dragged “kicking and screaming” from near Air Force One. In an AP interview Ms. Lee said she just wanted to hand President Obama a letter, urging him "to take a stand for traditional marriage." Click here to see the full article by Christina Hoag of the NBC Los Angeles News.

Obama’s America – Voter Intimidation

Black leaders called for an investigation of the Obama Administration after Obama’s Justice Department dropped charges against Black Panthers who wielded weapons, hurled racial insults at voters and blocked polls at a Philadelphia polling place in the 2008 Election. Click here.

For more details see the article: “Career lawyers overruled on voting case - Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls” by Jerry Seper. Click here

“Protecting Black Panthers” is an editorial by The Washington Times that reveals how Jerry Jackson, one of the Black Panther defendants, is an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Click here

The video of a Black Panther saying: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker”. Click here

The video of the Black Panthers intimidating voters. Click here

NBRA Launches Rush Limbaugh Billboard Campaign on I-26, about 15 miles south of Columbia, SC

"Take the Limbaugh Challenge" By Andrew Klavan, encourages people to actually listen to the Rush Limbaugh Show before bashing him.

Listen to "Two Trillion Tons" by Jim Gossepp featured in an NBRA video

Listen to "American Tea Party" by Lloyd Marcus featured in an NBRA video

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures from The Heritage Foundation - President Barack Obama has quadruple the deficit with his stimulus package. The Washington Post has a great graphic which helps put President Obama's budget deficits in context of President Bush's.

Frances Rice protesting wasteful spending at a Sarasota, FL "Tea Party" rally.

NBRA Newsletter - Tribute To Michael Steele


NBRA Chairman Frances Rice with RNC Chairman Michael Steele

The Myth Of Republican Racism - click here to view the NBRA Civil Rights Newsletter

The Trouble With Socialism - Socialism means that everyone gets free stuff from the government, so nobody wants to work to give the government the money to hand out the free stuff.

Click here to see a parody cartoon about socialist America under Obama.

Obama's Plan to Enslave Blacks - A cartoon created for the NBRA by Brett Noel provides a chilling look at the future of black Americans under a Barack Obama Administration as "Socialist Slaves" dependent on government handouts on the Democratic Party's economic plantation. As a corrupt Chicago "Community Organizer" for 20 years, Obama produced unlivable slums and wants to repeat his failure for the rest of America.

An Eagle-eye view of Obama’s America Under Socialism:

Look at Chicago where Obama worked for 20 years or any other black community in this nation to see what Obama has in mind for the rest of America. Click here to view pictures of the dilapidated buildings and the poor blacks who are suffering in the decrepit housing that Obama claims responsibility for as a "Community Organizer.”

Click here for a Boston Globe investigation with an article and video produced by Scott LaPierre about poor blacks condemning Obama for funding dilapidated slum projects in Chicago with tax payers’ money. Obama's friends and associates profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Paul Johnson who helped to organize a protest against Obama and condemned Obama for funding dilapidated slum projects in Chicago said: "Of course he knew. He just didn't care."

History Test (click here)

Home

The Green Dragon Tavern

(Click on picture to enlarge.)
_________
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Home

Cap and Trade...gone to the Senate (you might want to read my note)

Source: WOKV

Cap and Trade Senate Side

By Jamie Dupree July 7, 2009

The battle over Cap and Trade/climate change legislation officially moves to the Senate today, as a key committee there begins hearings on the bill approved by the House in late June.

Again, if you want to download the House bill, to look at it yourself, then here is your link: http://is.gd/1omP8

The text of that over 14-hundred page bill will be a starting point for Senators, as they try to fashion a measure that can make it through the Senate, just one reason why I have been digging through it after it was approved in the House.

Some of you have been nice enough to plow through parts of the bill looking for various nuggets that might make you shake your head in disbelief.

Josh Fahey found provisions on "Watersense," in the bill that had caught my eye as well, basically an effort at water conservation.

Section 215 of the House passed bill would establish a new office in the Environmental Protection Agency, "to identify and promote water efficient products, buildings and landscapes."

That would be accomplished with, as Josh pointed out, labels (like the Energy Star label) that tell consumers which products get the thumbs up from the feds on water and energy conservation.

The bill authorizes $7.5 million to start the program, and then after a few years, envisions a steady $50 million a year funding level, which would be adjusted for inflation in the future.

Meanwhile, Adam noted Section 754, "Requirements for International Deforestation Reduction Program," worried that it will be "sending our borrowed money overseas."

I wondered that too, but after reading some really confusing legislative language in that section, it doesn't seem like the bill does anything more than offer moral support for existing programs to help developing nations avoid deforestation, as no money is diverted for such actions.

But there is a fund that would send some money overseas in another section, as Jerry found the "Stratospheric Ozone and Climate Protection Fund" on page 1005.

That allows for US contributions to multilateral funds that deal with global warming.

Now how about what is not in the bill.

Tom checked in by saying that there is $86 million for a new polar icebreaker. But my review of the bill doesn't show that. It's been talked about a lot, but you're going to have show me what page before I agree it's in there.

As for what else I have stumbled on in this bill, I decided to again look today for bureaucratic additions that are made by this legislation.

On page 776, Section 731 establishes the "Offsets Integrity Advisory Board," which will be an independent panel within the EPA, with the job of "ensuring the overall environmental integrity of the programs established pursuant to those regulations."

The board will have nine members, who have to be fairly well versed in the climate change field according to the bill.

But while I was trying to figure out the job of that board, I stumbled upon another part of the bill, Section 464, entitled "Advisory Board."

This section sets up another advisory panel between 10 and 20 members, whose job it is to "provide scientific and technical advice and recommendations" on how climate change impacts the US and the world.

Oddly enough, this advisory board would be appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Then on p. 1328, I found another advisory board, also between 10 and 20 members, which would be appointed by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior, to give advice on how climate change affects ocean acidification

Nowhere in any of those sections was it clear how much money could be spent on those "Advisory Boards," not even a "such sums" as may be necessary.

It's just more of the fine print already approved by the House, much of which may find its way into the Senate version of the Cap and Trade legislation.

_______________________

Note: One reason the Cap and Trade Bill was not read by the Pelosi-Reid gang was that it has been written for some time and read by the powers behind the scenes...or should I say, "The powers behind our government!" One such power is the United Nations. They're not only behind the Cap and Trade, they are one of the originators of the Stimulus Plan (And you thought it was Obama! Obama is just a tool (or should I say fool) for the politic elite who will control the world...if you let them. On page 1252 of the Cape and Trade Bill you will find reference to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. What is this you ask? Go here http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.htm and tell me what you find. That's right! THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE...at the UN! (Wake up folks!) Another thing, you remember that Obama wants to control all your water (Located here: Obama To Control Water - Senate Bill S787), well the United Nations has already been snooping around without your knowledge. You can read all about it here: North America There's really not much more that I can say and I've been warning you for a number of years now, but if you don't clean house and senate in 2010 you can kiss your red, white, and blue goodbye...as for Obama, he has got to be impeached before his term is up, the survival of your country depends upon it! ~ Norman E. Hooben

________________________________

When discussing global warming know your facts...especially about cause and effect!
...causeand effect!

Cap & Trade... Nonsense

----- Original Message -----

From: Politics Alabama
To: (link removed)
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 1:06 AM
Subject: Politics Alabama - Cap & Trade Based On Nonsense Theory - plus 2 more

Politics Alabama - Cap & Trade Based On Nonsense Theory - plus 2 more



Cap & Trade Based On Nonsense Theory

Posted: 06 Jul 2009 01:16 PM PDT

You guys DO know what Cap & Trade is all about, right? The theory is that the earth is warming because of all the “greenhouse gasses” that us nasty humans pump into the air. In order to keep that temperature from rising and all sorts of disasters befalling our formerly fair planet (I won’t list all the disasters, but find a Warmer and ask him… they’ve memorized the entire list), we MUST cut back on our usage of fossil fuels.

Enter Cap & Trade. By “capping” emissions from the usage of fossil fuels, we can reduce the amount of “greenhouse gasses” produced and save the planet! By “trading” permits to burn a little extra, the US government can rake in a ton of cash… you DO know that everybody in the country will pay a lot more for everything, right?

So that’s the idea. The problem starts right at the very beginning, though, with the concept of man-caused global warming. Let’s forget the “man-caused” part for now and focus on the “global warming” part. Is the earth warming? According to an EPA report that was suppressed, no, it isn’t. The whole theory is so much nonsense.

"Global temperatures have declined -- extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 2007-2008," said a draft report written in March by an expert at the Environmental Protection Agency.
Are people still buying the “global warming” mantra? Not as much as they used to, no.

“An unusually cold winter (it snowed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq; temperatures fell to minus 80 degrees in Siberia) was followed by an unusually cool spring (it snowed in North Dakota in June for the first time in 60 years). This may be why only 42 percent of respondents in a Rasmussen poll published June 18 think human activity is causing global warming, and many of those who do don't see it as a serious problem. (In a Gallup poll in March, warming ranked last among eight environmental concerns.)”

What is it intended to do?

“If the Waxman-Markey bill, named after its Democratic sponsors, Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, were to work exactly as its sponsors claim (and what bill ever has?), global temperatures 100 years from now are projected to be one-tenth of a degree Celsius cooler than they otherwise would have been. We'd pay a lot for that tenth of a degree, though how much is hotly in dispute. Cost estimates range from about $100 per family when the bill would go into effect in 2012 to $3,900 per family.”

Make no mistake, raising the cost of energy is the INTENDED purpose of the bill!

“The whole point of cap and trade -- which President Obama is careful not to make explicit -- is to make fossil fuels so expensive we will use less of them.”

Recall also that PresBo is selling this as important to our economic recovery. He even falsely claims that it will create jobs.

“Mr. Obama calls Waxman-Markey a jobs bill, on the specious assumption it will create more jobs building windmills and solar panels than it will destroy in the coal, oil and natural gas industries and in the industries dependent upon them. But Charles River Associates, a Harvard-based economic consulting firm, estimates the net loss of jobs at about 2.5 million a year.”

This Cap & Tax bill is about as bad as bills can get. It will massively increase the cost we pay directly for energy, and will increase the price of every item we buy. After all, every item uses energy to create and transport to market, and those costs will be passed onto the consumer, thus making everything more expensive. As for gasoline prices… (shudder).

What effect on our economy will all this “price-raising” have? Essentially, it would be like throwing our economy into a deep freezer and padlocking the door. Economic activity will drop like a rock, even as unemployment shoots through the roof. It will be, in short, very bad for us.

Cap & Trade Blank Checks

Posted: 06 Jul 2009 10:00 AM PDT

Would you hand somebody a blank check, signed and available for that person to fill in whatever amount they wish? That’s a good way to go bankrupt. But that’s exactly what the Cap & Trade bill, as passed by the House, does.

I use as my source for this one Jamie Dupree, who is a reporter covering Congress, and posts periodic blogs about interesting subjects. He has been focusing on Cap & Trade because of the vast amount of interest out here in America. And Jamie Dupree found an interesting phrase repeatedly in the bill: “Such sums as may be necessary.”

“One thing I zeroed in on were certain parts of the bill that were entitled ‘Authorization of Appropriations.’ In other words, the bill ‘authorizes’ the Congress to spend certain amounts for certain items in the Cap and Trade legislation. But in many cases, it authorizes a never ending amount of money, just ‘such sums’ as might be necessary. ‘There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this paragraph,’ it says on page 24 of the Waxman Amendment. Oh, you just gotta like that one. ‘Such sums as may be necessary.’ I think I would call that an open-ended appropriation.”


Obviously, these blank checks will boost the cost of this bill considerably. There are 20 sections that are authorized “such sums as may be necessary.”

* Sec. 122. Large-scale vehicle electrification program.
* Sec. 123. Plug-in electric drive vehicle manufacturing.
* Sec. 131. Establishment of SEED Accounts.
* Sec. 144. Smart Grid peak demand reduction goals.
* Sec. 216A Transmission planning.
* Sec. 184. Clean energy investment fund.
* Sec. 319. Office of Consumer Advocacy.
* Sec. 201. Greater energy efficiency in building codes.
* Sec. 205. Tree planting programs.
* Sec. 214. Best-in-Class Appliances Deployment Program.
* Sec. 241. Industrial plant energy efficiency standards.
* Sec. 242. Electric and thermal waste energy recovery award program.
* Sec. 265. Consumer behavior research.
* Sec. 273. Affiliated island energy independence team.
* Sec. 296. Residential energy efficiency block grant program.
* Sec. 705. Review and program recommendations.
* Sec. 706. National Academy review.
* Sec. 333. Black carbon.
* Sec. 433. Protection of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
* Sec. 480. Natural Resources Climate Change Adaptation Fund.

And look for the feeding frenzy to begin, as the Feds will pay manufacturers of “energy efficient appliances” for each and every unit they produce. We’re talking $75 for a dishwasher, $200 for a refrigerator, and $300 for a water heater. Considering the number of appliances produced each year in the United States, that is going to cost taxpayers a BUNDLE!

For some more details on spending in the Cap & Tax bill, try these links:

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/07/cap-and-trade-extras.html

http://wsbradio.com/blogs/jamie_dupree/2009/07/more-cap-and-trade.html

Aren’t you glad we have PresBo in office?

Alabama Power: Higher Prices For Worse Service?

Posted: 06 Jul 2009 06:15 AM PDT

Has anybody else noticed that we seem to be having more brown-outs and black-outs recently? It seems that not a week goes by when the power doesn’t flicker at least once. And last night was the topper… we get a small shower and some lightning far in the distance, and the power goes out for THREE HOURS!

Come ON, Alabama Power, you got your rate increase, now how about we see a little improvement in service?

I remember a time when I could call Alabama Power to report a power outage, speak to a live person, and be told what was wrong! “The problem seems to be in your local substation, and a technician is on-site working on the problem.” These days they have an “automatic reporting system” to report power failures… you never speak to a live person, never get an estimate on how long repairs might take, nothing! You CAN get to a live person, by navigating through their regular telephone menu system… but that person is little more than a phone operator who can tell you nothing more than (maybe!) an estimated time to repair.


Q: “So, what’s the problem? What caused the three-hour power failure?”

A: “I don’t know, Mr. Givens. But I am showing a problem in your area.”

No kidding? What was your first clue, the three-hours we spent without so much as a working light bulb?

Why are we paying higher rates for electricity if service is just going to get worse and worse?

And another thing: why isn’t the Montgomery Advertiser reporting on news? I would think that a multi-hour power outage during what turned out to be a very light storm would be news, but apparently not. I read the online version of the paper this morning, and saw not a whisper about it.

I don’t know... Maybe these blackouts happen so often now that they’re really not news anymore. If that’s the case, why ARE we paying higher power rates? So, to the Alabama Power Company and the Montgomery Advertiser, I say this: Get your act together! There is NO excuse for this kind of shoddy service.
H

Monday, July 6, 2009

Not Just Another Tea Party...more like a wake up call!

"...we would Save the Planet from Global Warming. Just like that! "

Source: American Thinker
July 06, 2009

Let's cap and trade oxygen!

Enough already with carbon cap and trade. I say let's cap oxygen, and then tax any family that can't achieve the Average Family Oxygen Target of 80% BOOTS (Before Obama Oxygen Trading Scheme). Remember, if you weren't inhaling all that O2 you wouldn't be belching out clouds of noxious CO2. Yuck. Yes, I know oil refineries smell bad and coal looks dirty. But none of that carbon would ever see the light of day if it weren't for all the oxygen you suck in, you greed bucket. So let's get down to root causes.
Here's the goal. If we can only get five billion people around the world to breathe 20% less oxygen per person, we would Save the Planet from Global Warming. Just like that!
Twenty percent less O2 going into your body means 20% less CO2 out-gassing, atom-for-atom. It's just like cutting down the world population by a billion polluting oxygen hogs.
Capping oxygen is actually the hardest part. Once you learn to cut down your intake, we just set up a market to trade official credits for the unbreathed O2 that you could have inhaled but didn't. Let's assume for the sake of planetary computer modeling that you can personally cut down your breathing by 20%. Try it! Just hold your nose and breathe through a straw. And when you get that strangled feeling, just remember you're Saving the Planet. Lay back and think of Paul Krugman.
Did you ever want to lose weight? This is the ecologically responsible way to do it. It's the Oxygen Sparing Diet. If you breathe just one-fifth less oxygen you'll be eating one-fifth less food, because your body uses all that oxygen to metabolize your French fries and fat-burgers. The benefits are out of this world.
Now here's the free market angle. Congress can pass a law stating that if you achieve more than the mandated National O2 Reduction of 20% you will receive an official US Government Oxygen Trading Credit for all the oxygen you did not breathe beyond 20%. It's like price supports for farmers, except that everybody can play. For instance, if you cut your O2 down by 25% you receive a 5% Oxygen Trading Credit, to sell to your huffing and puffing neighbors on a free market basis. If you breathe 30% less, you get a 10% OTC. It's supply and demand!
Or consider this option: For the average family of five --- two adults, two kids and a dog --- just get rid of a family member. You can start by getting rid of your dog. Do you have any idea how much oxygen a running dog breathes? Do your Planet a favor, please. And once you get the hang of it...
Even cars breathe oxygen to burn gasoline. Cut your driving by 20% --- after all, you won't need to drive now that you're breathing less --- and not only will you cut carbon pollution, but you can slice even more off your greedy Oxygen Excess. And don't forget that you can sell all your Oxygen Trading Credits to your O2-hogging neighbors.
Once you get used to cutting down your O2 you'll like yourself a lot better. The Planet will thank you. So will your neighbors.
Try it if you don't believe it. Breathe in just a little bit less every single day, until you're down 10%, then 15%, 20% ... and more? You could actually build your income from the Oxygen Trading Credits if you manage to cut down by 30% or even 40%. Just breathe through that straw and hold your nose.
Remember, Oxygen is Poison!

An International Crisis Guaranteed…Could this be it?

An International Crisis Guaranteed…Could this be it?

By Norman E. Hooben

Remember last October when Joe Biden guaranteed (guaranteed mind you…wow!) that Obama will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

Let me guarantee you that Obama will make unpopular decisions but I don’t expect any American should stand by him. He has been in the White House now just shy of six months and a crisis is unfolding as we speak. Now who in their right mind would believe Joe Biden had the foresight to predict such an event…nobody! That leads us to believe they have been planning for some time behind the scenes to manufacture a crisis of convenience to cover up another scenario…The New World Order! (more on NWO another day).

So now we have Joe Biden giving the green light to Israel for military action to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat, saying, “… the U.S. cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.” (Hey Joe, “Is “giving” the green light not a dictate?) Read more here: Biden: U.S. Won’t Stand In Israel’s Way On Iran (NewsMax).

Then we have Saudi Arabia turning a blind eye (same as Biden’s green light) to Israeli jets flying over Saudi airspace during any future raid (more of Biden’s prediction) on Iran’s nuclear sites. Read more here: Saudis Give Nod To Israel Raid On Iran (Times On Line UK)

The two stories above are from different sources, an ocean apart, and yet come out at the same time as if they were in collusion with one another. Which leads me to believe it is a manufactured crisis. How else could they guarantee it! Get ready for war folks. Nobody messes with Joe!

Home

We need more black people with guns. We need more women with guns. We need more good "people" with guns.

Source: Second Amendment March

June 29, 2009

New Brother from a Different Mother
by Skip Coryell

A few days ago I did a radio interview with a man named Kenn Blanchard from Washington DC. He owns and operates a website called www.blackmanwithagun.com. To tell you the unvarnished truth, I was a little bit apprehensive at first because I just didn't know what to expect from him. I think when I'm painfully honest about it, then I have to admit I have a negative stereotype of black people with guns who live in big cities.

Kenn emailed me and wanted to discuss the Second Amendment March, and we did talk about that for quite a bit while on the air. But I think it's the things that didn't get aired that made the biggest impact on me. Truth is, I don't have a lot of contact with black people in my life. No real reason for that other than they just don't tend to live out here in the boondocks. Sometimes I wonder why that is. Kenn and I talked about a lot of things we had in common: guns, concealed carry, the Marine Corps, family and our faith. Then the topic turned to black people and political correctness. I'll paraphrase the conversation for you as best I can.

Skip: I know I'm not supposed to call you a black person, Kenn, but saying African-American just takes too long and the truth is you're not African-American, you're a regular American just like I am. You and I are the same for the most part.

Kenn: (Laughter) Yeah, it's a load of crap isn't it. I liked it in the Marine Corps when everyone was the same color - "green"!

Skip: Yeah, tell me about it. I mean I don't know what to call you, Kenn. Can't I just call you a fellow Marine, or an American Patriot, or my Christian brother?"

Kenn: (More laughter) Skip, I'll just call you my brother from a different mother.

That's when I started laughing, all the while knowing that I'd made a potential lifelong friend. Sure, I understand that there are some cultural differences between blacks and whites as well as a long and bitter history of racial tension, but they all seem to fade away when we meet on the range or when we start talking about guns and the Second Amendment. I've never believed that a person's skin color really means all that much. I just think it's a statement about God: He loves wondrous variety!

Just yesterday I spoke at a Second Amendment Town Hall meeting in Traverse City hosted by Michigan Open Carry, and one of the topics in my speech was the danger of political correctness. I said:

"One of the travesties about political correctness is that it makes gun owners afraid to speak out. Someone hidden in the shadows has made up a list of approved terminology and if we use the wrong term we are labeled as racists, homophobes or gun-toting lunatics! One of the problems with ordinary gun-owning citizens is that they are good people. And good people care what others think about them. They want to be viewed as good people because their reputations are important to them. But political correctness has cowed us into silence, rendering us impotent in the fight to defend the right to keep and bear arms. Folks, it's time to stop caring what other people think about you. It's time to stand up and tell people what you believe in. It's time to be bold, loud and proud! Stop fearing what other people think, because fear is the weakest part of a person's character, and shouldn't keep you from speaking out for the Second Amendment. Everywhere you go, proudly and politely say Yes, I own a gun. I protect my family and I'm proud for the honor."

Conversely, the strongest part of a person's character is courage, and Kenn Blanchard is a very brave man. He put his reputation on the line by standing up in a hostile environment and proudly proclaiming, "I am a black man with a gun." He is the original "pariah patriot of color".

We need more black people with guns. We need more women with guns. We need more good "people" with guns. The details of a person's skin or gender or religion have no bearing on a person's right to keep and bear arms. We are all equal under heaven.

Since the radio interview, I went onto Kenn's website to learn more about him. He's quite an accomplished person: Marine Corps veteran, former federal law enforcement, published author, ordained minister and devout family man. Kenn Blanchard is "good people". I plan on keeping in touch with Kenn, not because he's a black man with a gun, but because he's honest and genuine and because I like him.

Just yesterday I received a copy of Kenn's book in the mail. Appropriately enough it's titled Black Man with a Gun. I opened the cover and read the following inscription:

"To Skip, from his brother from a different mother.

From Kenneth V.F. Blanchard, 2009"

Yes, I have a new friend in Washington DC, and I can't wait to shoot with him on the range. Better yet, I can't wait to march with this "Black Man with a Gun" on April 19th beneath the shadow of the Washington Monument at the Second Amendment March. Because, after all, it doesn't matter what color he is; it only matters that he's my new brother from a different mother!

You can listen to the podcast of Kenn's interview with Skip Coryell by going to www.blackmanwithagun.com and clicking on episode #120, or listen to the 13 minute interview-only segment here. Kenn Blanchard hosts his weekly radio show "The Urban Shooter" from his website.