Friday, July 04, 2008

Obama, Remember Their Efforts!

The South was attacking from the north, and the North was defending from the South, and the battle was in its third day when General Lee ordered Longstreet to send General Pettigrew's, General Trimble's and General Pickett's brigades into the Union center.
Approximately 12,500 men in nine infantry brigades advanced over open fields for three quarters of a mile under heavy Union artillery and rifle fire. Although some Confederates were able to breach the low stone wall that shielded many of the Union defenders, they could not maintain their hold and were repulsed with over 50% casualties, a decisive defeat that ended the three-day battle and Lee's campaign into Pennsylvania.[1] When asked, years afterward, why his charge at Gettysburg failed, General Pickett said: "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it

You DO recall reading of this, don't you Mr Obama? 12,500 men waiting out their own artillery barrage against the Union lines, then bravely marching out over the more than a mile of flat land leading up to the Union's lines... These were Americans -Confederate Americans, granted- who were fighting with all they could bring to bear, in order to win the right to have THEIR States be left alone to carry on enslaving other humans, mostly blacks, for commercial and racist purposes.

Before the nine brigades neared the Union lines, more than 20 Union batteries -unharmed by the Rebel barrage- opened fire at 400 yards range, with explosive shot and shell, ripping holes in the lines of advancing white men. At about 300 meters, the left of the line was getting hit with canister, cannon shot that sent out a 1-meter cloud of lead marbles, Obama, so that when that fast-moving cloud hit the Rebels, 3 or 4 men disappeared completely in a blast of bloody mist, and several more were injured.

Over 1,600 artillery shells were fired into the Confederate brigades that day, this day, years ago... the left of the line never got much closer to victory than several hundred meters (the strong fence at the Emmitsburg road) but the center of the line made it to The Angle (in the Union's defensive position) and there engaged the Union in ferocious, hand-to-hand, bayonet-in-the-gut, muzzle in the face fighting...

Until it became apparent to the Rebels that the Boys in Blue HAD been reinforced (8th Ohio and 72 Pennsylvania) and apparent that the Rebels had lost half their number AND there would be NO reinforcements coming...

Why is this important, you ask? Well, Mr Obama, those fierce, determined, brave and courageous white men REALLY WANTED TO WIN, for "States' Rights" and for slavery and for their own regimental colors and for honor...

But the Union ALSO wanted to win, and despite losses and despite the courage of the men attacking, the white men DEFENDING the Union WON the field, and history later marked July 3, 1863 as the high-water mark of the Confederacy.

The Union HAD to defeat the Confederacy in order to restore the Union, and the Confederacy had only to NOT LOSE in order to win, but the forces fighting for the principles of unity, harmony and the oneness of humankind WON the day. Slavery in America was defeated, although some Arabs around the world would continue it legally until the late 20th century and illicitly to this day.

That war, Mr Obama, was a defining moment in America's life. The grand American experiment stumbled through the horror and pain of fighting itself, 3 million 5 hundred thousand uniformed combatants, and 600,000 deaths, Obama.

Like many Americans before them, they died for YOUR freedom. Honor them, and honor America in your efforts to lead America now, in THIS time of war.

Cross-posted at I Call BS!


Blogger Kenneth E. Lamb said...

I ran across your post at one of the blogs that picked up my Obama post. I thought I’d send this to you since you were listed among the posts concerning my article.

For those reading this post for the first time, my references to "this blog" apply to the other blog where this blog's writer posted his comments; it doesnot refer to this specific blog you are reading now.

Also, for those seeing this for the first time, this is in reference to my article about Sen. Obama’s racial composition. You’ll find the article at my blog, “Reading Between the Lines.” ("Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is "African-American" a lie too?" ( )

To fully understand what follows, you may want to read the article above first, then return to this comment.

The post below updates the research from that article, and notes the change in definitions posted in the Federal Register by the US Census Bureau.

Kenneth E. Lamb


I was cruising through Google, and came across this blog. I appreciate the opportunity given to have my work posted here.

Now for a couple of updates - here first, then in my blog later this weekend; and then a quick response or two for those who posted about my article:

1) As a matter of integrity, I must update my findings by telling you that the US Census Bureau changed the definition of "race" for classification purposes. You'll find it in the Federal Register. The quotes following are from them:

Race is no longer defined by "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics as illustrated in my article. Race is now a matter of "sociopolitical self-identification." The Bureau now allows an individual to classify him- or herself by as many, and whatever, "sociopolitical self-identification" classification(s) appeals to the individual. You can be African-American today, change your mind and be Native-American tomorrow, add Asian the day following, and toss them all out the next day and classify yourself whatever you please the day after that.

So as it stands now with this change in the law, Sen. Obama is legally anything he wants to be. Any of us are; more on that in a moment.

The effect of this was meant to give minority-gerrymandered districts more foundation by removing requirements that challenges to them rest upon the ability of district residents to "prove their lineage" and thus validate their minority status. In sympathy to the Bureau, it's reasonable to believe that coming up with birth records from say, the former South Viet Nam, or Myanmar, to prove Asian minority status, might prove daunting.

The same is true for America's African-American population. I won't go into it too deeply now, but here is a short explanation how it affects that particular segment of American society:

While there may be some states that do not do what follows, I am not aware of any: states do not allow the mother of a child to claim a father's name on the birth certificate unless the father acknowledges paternity, either by being married at the time of birth, or through a court order. The most recent figure on black illegitimacy that I am aware of is about 70%. You can figure this out for yourself; if your lineage is from a series of illegitimate births, as we now have with our multi-generational welfare class, with no father named on the certificate, how do you prove your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics if the father is not listed through multiple generations of birth certificates?

This high illegitimacy rate applies to Hispanics as well, although not yet to that level. The reasoning is the same; how do you prove your minority status if half your lineage through multiple generations doesn't exist on paper?

Especially note that this is a "change" in the method of defining racial classification. My research was based on the rules before the Census Bureau changed the rules. For those defiling my work, go research for yourself what was the method the Bureau used before it made its "change" in classification methodology.

The reason there were definite standards defining racial classification was to keep the use of affirmative action programs, set-asides, and racial quotas enforceable by keeping out whites who tried to claim minority status. If you take someone to court to deny them a seat in the classroom, you must have a defined set of characteristics in law to define why that person does not qualify for the set-aside. It's too bad so many of this blog's posters are too dense to get past that rather obvious legal construct.

If all it takes is a claim of, as one poster said, "a single drop of blood," then you have just set up a legal definition of what it takes to qualify as a member of the minority group. Poster after poster attacked my work because they didn't like the criteria I cited; too bad, take it up with the courts. How do you think they kept whites out of Harvard who claimed to be blacks? They did it by saying the whites didn't have any black in their lineage. That then raises the question of how much black they needed to be classified as blacks. That is where the 1/8 (12.5%) rule of law came from. And it is that 1/8 rule that the Census Bureau tossed out the window in its "change."

Now the rule of law is "sociopolitical self-identification."

It escapes many posting here that you must have a legal definition if you plan to enforce a law. Apparently, the posters ranting against my article missed the concept that the law is not allowed to be "arbitrary and capricious" - it must be defined, clearly, so that everyone knows when it does, and when it does not, apply.

It's truly scary to read these people and see they completely fail to put the idea that the law consists of definitions, or else you can't enforce the law. How else do you think you determine if an applicant for a set-aside qualifies if you don't have a legal definition of what it takes to meet the set-aside criteria? Yes, they are truly scary spouting off their brain-dead, hate-filled bigotries.

Unfortunately, this new twist to defining race is about to prove a major problem for many sectors of society. Let's start with Federal set-aside programs.

Now that anyone is able to classify him-or herself by their own, private, "sociopolitical self-identification," anyone can legally cash in on these minority-directed programs. If there is a set-aside for African-Americans, just check the box because you feel that your "sociopolitical self-identification" is African-American that day. It's now all perfectly legal.

Couldn't get into the college of your choice because you didn't get past the minority set-aside hurdle? No problem; if you feel that your personal, private, "sociopolitical self-identification" is one of the targeted minority groups, well, go ahead and check the box. With the legal criteria now "sociopolitical self-identification," the days of Harvard, and the University of Michigan, or any of the other hundreds of institutions of higher education throwing you out when you show up white to fill one of their black set-asides is over. You met the legal definition. What are they going to argue in court now that your "genealogical or anthropological" characteristics aren't legal standards for defining racial classification?

I'll let the brains of this blog work on that for a while. It will be breaking nationally soon enough.

Now a couple of very quick responses to those commenting on my article:

TO ALL: I didn't write the headline for the article that appeared in this blog. My headline is: "Barack Obama: Washington Post, Chicago Tribune investigations confirm autobiography lies; now asking: Is "African-American" a lie too?" ( )

I note that particularly for those posters who did not comprehend that those first-tier news organizations are the source for much of the article. That's why I included their links. Too bad those of you trashing it didn't pick up on that validation of the article's contents. Perhaps you find reading articles that make your prejudices into lies too disconcerting. For you, it's just easier to hate, and run.

Kent Paul Dolan: I see you need a course in the realities of racial and ethnic segregation as practiced in Africa. Have you yet noticed the fierce tribal identities that cause the bloodbath in Darfur? Perhaps you missed the slaughter along tribal lines in Rwanda? Or the Congo? Or the Ivory Coast?

No, Mr. Dolan, Arabs do not intermarry with African Negroes in Kenya, or anywhere else in Africa. And neither do African Negroes intermarry with Arabs. Your ignorance of the realities of the African continent is appalling.

Which, by the way, gives the lie to gitaka, as well. Pick your false jaw up off the false floor; you are no more African than I am.

The "black" Obama "great-grandmother" trotted out by the NY Times is his "step" grandparent. She is therefore not in his bloodline. It's a point the Times didn't dwell upon, just as they didn't bother to go to his father's relatives in the capital and show off their Arab characteristics and family photos.

This brings up another point about the senator’s father. Please note that the Times ran into a serious problem describing his father's relationship with a woman in Kenya when he married "Barry's" mother in Hawaii. It turns out that Mr. Obama was already married to the Kenyan (who was not African Negro either.). That makes Senator Obama the product of a bigamous marriage. And we all know what that means as far as the legality of the marriage and the legitimacy of the marriage's offspring.

I had to laugh watching them wordsmith the relationship with the Kenyan woman as "unclear" and end up calling her his "consort."

And what is the definition of a "consort?" According to the dictionary, it is a spouse. Leave it to the NY Times to be so conflicted about telling the truth about Sen. Obama's situation, that they resort to using their own "unclear" description to paper over it.

I'll be updating my blog this weekend. I appreciate the compliment paid by having this blog post my article, and this update.

“Reading Between the Lines,” by Kenneth E. Lamb

Saturday, July 05, 2008 2:06:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Your work is thorough, coherent and courteous.

Thank you for the original and thanks for the update!

I'm hoping Obama (and his handlers) see all his hopes fly out the 'natural-born' window.

Saturday, July 05, 2008 10:30:00 AM  
Anonymous suek said...

But wait...if Obama is illegitimate, then he has to be "natural born", doesn't he? Doesn't he then _have_ to take the citizenship of his mother? Otherwise, any illegitimate child of the period born to a woman under 21 would be ineligible for the entire class of people, I suspect. Interesting problem. It would mean that he would be better off if he claims to be illegitimate. _That_ could gall...

Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:55:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Maybe, Suek... I'd be satisfied to see this brought out in the open... and cleared up.

His Democrats can't even organize their own national convention (its under-funded and imploding more every day) so why should ANYONE think they can coordinate all of America?


/Hey, THANKS for posting!

Monday, July 07, 2008 8:04:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home