“Mr. Biden, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination himself this year before pulling out after performing poorly in the first contest, in Iowa, has shown himself to be a tough political brawler, a characteristic that many Democrats say Mr. Obama has not displayed against Mr. McCain. That is something that presidential candidates typically look for in a running mate.”

So Obama has his enforcer but with the pugilistic ability of Biden, the messiah also has someone who doesn’t think much of him as a possible president. In one commentary sure to be exploited by the McCain campaign, Biden inadvertently spoke the truth in August, 2007:

“I think he (Obama) can be ready, but right now, I don’t believe he is; the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.”

If that wasn’t bad enough, Senator Biden evidently thinks he or John McCain would be a better president than Obama. On The Daily Show in 2005, Biden said while talking about Senator John McCain:

“I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off.”

Some think Biden is not the best choice for Obama because of his tendency to “shoot from the lip.” For example, he was quoted as describing Mr. Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” a remark that was regarded as racially insensitive. In addition, while campaigning in New Hampshire, Biden said “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.”

Main stream Democrats may overlook Biden’s careless comments because the senator led the fight against confirmation of Justice Bork and Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court but if they have any sense the McCain camp won’t let the public forget what the chosen VP candidate said about the man he is running with for the top leadership position in the country, if not the world.

Of course the question remains how much good Joe Biden will do to the election prospects of Barack Obama; since Obama may be his own worst enemy. Obama is the epitome of the classic “tax and spend” Democrat, but in this case “socialist.” In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Obama said that he was trying to put together tax and spending policies that deal with two challenges; competition from developing countries, like India and China and the U.S. becoming what he called a “winner-take-all” economy, where “the gains from economic growth skew heavily toward the wealthy.”
But that’s not all Obama has to hide in his campaign and hope his friends in the news media don’t point out. According to Michelle Malkin:

“· Last May, he claimed that Kansas tornadoes killed a whopping 10,000 people: “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed.” The actual death toll: 12.

· Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: “Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

· Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement: “There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.” Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965.”

Just for fun I invite you to take the following “test.” Don’t look at the answers below before deciding who said the following:

1. “A new day is dawning. Our country is at a turning point. This is a time of great possibility. Across the land, people are coming together to reshape our nation’s priorities to make government ‘of, by and for the people’ a reality.”

2. “From the Midwest to the south, from coast to coast, in big cities and rural communities voters have turned out in record numbers for change.”

3. “While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35% over the past five years. Health care costs have risen faster than wages.”

4. “Voters are demanding a new kind of politics to rebuild our country for the common good. A democratic spirit of unity is inspiring millions to get involved.”

Answers:
1. Communist Party of the United States.
2. Communist Party of the United States.
3. Obama’s Platform for Change.
4. Communist Party of the United States
(With thanks to Human Events)

How did you do? Is Obama running for the Democrat Party or the Communist Party of the United States?

Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net

It’s interesting to hear the euphemisms bandied about in campaigns.  After Barack Obama’s and John McCain’s appearance a week ago at Saddleback Church, for instance, the former’s ardent supporters were as effusive in their praise as ever.  His stammering and copious “uhs” weren’t signs of a befuddled and muddled mind, but of “thoughtfulness” and “nuanced” thinking.

Yeah, sure, and when President Bush occasionally invents a new word, we can chalk it up to creativity.

The truth is that, sans teleprompter and prepared speech and contrary to myth, Obama is at best a mediocre speaker.  (If you say that we’re electing a president and not a professional orator, fair enough.  But given that Bush’s wanting speaking skills have made him the butt of jokes and have been used to paint him as an idiot, I think it bears mention.)  Yet neither this nor “thoughtfulness” explains his fumbling tongue.  After all, politicians are people who are supposed to live and breathe issues and policy, so there should be few things they haven’t been asked about or at least pondered before.  Thus, they should have oft-rendered, memorized, standard responses at the ready.  For sure, John McCain did, despite his supposed status as a septuagenarian with senior moments.  And if politicians don’t have them – neither sublime answers nor slick dodges – what does it tell us?  Well, perhaps it means they haven’t put much thought into things at all.  For if a person makes it a practice to think deeply about issues, he doesn’t have to think about them on stage.  It’s the difference between preparation and improvisation. 

Speaking of which, we might want to take note of how the senator’s “thoughtfulness” and “nuanced” thinking were on full display at the Saddleback forum.  I refer to his answer to event moderator Rick Warren’s question about when a developing being (dare I call him a child?) inside the womb becomes human.  Obama’s response was:

 “Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.”

While this dodge was delivered artfully, its conception cannot be thus characterized (perhaps it should have been aborted).  For starters, a thoughtful person might understand that science and theology are simply different methods for uncovering Truth, the former using the scientific method and the latter reason and divine revelation.  Thus, if each one is applied correctly using adequate “data,” they will arrive at the same answer to a given question. 

As to theology, there is an incongruence between the supposed seriousness with which Obama takes his faith and the ignorance he pled in his answer.  While I’m not sure what the black liberation theology that influenced the senator teaches on Warren’s question (unless it’s that whites become human when they assent to reparations), traditional Christianity holds that life begins at conception.  Moreover, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t know this to be some esoteric point such as the “law of double effect.”  It’s Sunday school 101.

Transitioning from the theological to purely logical, when would human life begin if not at conception?  If, like Obama, you cannot provide specificity, it doesn’t matter.  Just pick a month – any one you wish – my follow-up will always be the same.  I’ll ask, what week of that month would it be?  Then, what day of that week?  What hour of that day?  What minute of that hour, second of that minute and nanosecond of that second? 

This places the matter in perspective.  Is it really tenable to claim that one moment the baby isn’t human but the next he is so, unless the moment is that seminal one called conception?  There is a reason why “conception” has a definition of “origination” or “beginning,” for it is the nascence of new life, human life.  And if some say this life only becomes human at some later point, we need to ask not only when that critical juncture might be, but what definition of “human” would be congruent with such an assertion.  After all, if certain physical qualities are necessary to attain such status, can it be lost if those qualities are lost?  If your heart stops beating and you receive a mechanical one or head trauma causes a cessation of brain waves, do you cease to be human?  To think so is to cease to be humane.   

In a way, it is much like fire.  Once you have the necessary elements – flammable materials and a spark – and there is ignition, a fire is born.  It then will exist until it burns itself out and its life ends . . . or until it is snuffed out.       

Whether or not you accept that reasoning, there is no denying that there are only two possible answers to Warren’s question: A, human life begins ____ , or, B, I don’t know.  Obama’s answer was a more stylish version of the latter, and, generally speaking, a man deserves credit for admitting ignorance.  Commentator Alan Colmes would certainly agree, as he recently said on “Hannity & Colmes” (I’m paraphrasing):

 “Obama may simply be saying that this is something for God to decide, not him.”

While this at least shows that, unlike true Obamaniacs, Colmes hasn’t confused his political messiah with a divine one, he omits an important point.

God doesn’t make policy.

People such as Obama do. 

Thus, no separation-of-church-and-state argument will fly here.  Obama wasn’t being asked about his position on the Trinity or transubstantiation, but on a hot-button issue existing within a continual maelstrom of legislative battles.  So if it is above his pay grade, I suggest that the presidency if not politics itself is also so.

Strangely, though, while Obama claimed that the question was above his pay grade, legislating in areas in which it must be answered never seemed to be.  Why, he never shrank from making policy or pronouncements regarding abortion.  He never said, “I’m, uh, sorry, but this issue is, uh, above my pay grade; I’ll have to withhold judgment and, uh, recuse myself from votes.”  Nor did he take the logical, compassionate and humane default position, which is to say that since I don’t know whether this being is human, I’ll err on the side of caution.  I won’t allow him to be killed.  Instead, whenever Obama was called to weigh in, there was never any question as to where he stood: Shoulder to shoulder with the most radical elements of the pro-abortion lobby.  And, as with them, we have to wonder not about when Obama believes human life begins, but whether he believes in the human right to life at all.

After all, in 1997 Obama voted “present” on two bills that would have prohibited partial-birth abortion (in the Illinois legislature, such a vote counts as a “no”).  In the same vein, while a member of that body, he effectively blocked his state’s version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA).  This bill was proposed because some babies in Illinois who were meant to be aborted were born alive and then, unbelievably, were left to die in soiled store rooms.  Now, to understand just how far off the rails Obama was on this issue, know that senators Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy all supported the federal BAIPA, and even the radical NARAL Pro-Choice America went neutral on it. 

So what are we to conclude from this?  Is it that Obama isn’t sure if human life begins after birth, either?  Perhaps, just as he once over-estimated the size of the U.S. and spoke of our “57 states,” he is under the impression there is a 4th trimester.

Yet, at the end of the day, a truly thoughtful voter will have no trouble interpreting Obama’s actions.  It’s simple really: The senator may not know when human life begins, but he sure knows that political life for a leftist Chicago politician ends when he fails to accede to blood sacrifice at the altar of the pro-abortion baal.  So I suspect that Obama has never actually put much thought into the nascence of human life for a simple reason. 

He doesn’t really care.

To him, life – human or otherwise, born or unborn – all melts into political calculation.  This is why he could render the poorly conceived “pay grade” answer.  It bespoke of a complete lack of seriousness and understanding of the gravity of the issue.  It was immature, flippant and disrespectful to the voter, the “I tried it but I didn’t inhale” response of the abortion debate.

Speaking of inhaling, before casting a vote for Obama, a deep breath and a 10 count may be in order.  Because whatever his pay grade is, I’m quite sure that we cannot afford to have him in the White House.   

Contact Selwyn Duke    

For unique cargo types that do not lend themselves easily to these established screening methods, TSA permits alternative screening methods to be employed, such as verification of the description of the cargo and matching the identity of the shipper with information contained in the shipping manifest.

Additional layers of security augment the required screening. For example, with very few exceptions, cargo may only be accepted for transport on passenger aircraft when there is an established business relationship between the shipper and accepting IAC, aircraft operator, or air carrier. Employees and authorized representatives of aircraft operators, foreign air carriers, and IACs with unescorted access to cargo must undergo a security threat assessment (STA), and the Security Identification Display Area (SIDA) security requirements at regulated airports have been expanded to include areas where cargo is loaded and unloaded. TSA has timely processed and adjudicated 170,000 STAs for IAC employees.

The 9/11 Act mandates significant changes to this regime. Section 1602 of the 9/11 Act amends TSA’s primary screening authority, 49 U.S.C. §44901, to require TSA to implement a cargo screening program that will, no later than August of 2010, achieve the screening of 100 percent of cargo transported on passenger aircraft in a manner that results in a level of security commensurate with that of checked baggage.

The 9/11 Act defines the term “screening” to mean “a physical examination or non-intrusive method of assessing whether cargo poses a threat to transportation security” and includes within that definition x-ray systems, EDS, ETD, explosives detection canine teams certified by TSA, and a physical search combined with manifest verification.

The 9/11 Act also provides TSA the flexibility to develop additional methods to ensure that the cargo does not pose a threat to transportation security, including a program to certify the security methods used by shippers.

The requirements are easily stated, but the enormity of the task cannot be overstated. Essentially, this legislation mandates the reinvention of air cargo security.

The 9/11 Act’s mandate cannot be achieved by relying on the current system, whereby aircraft operators and air carriers are almost exclusively responsible for screening cargo. Currently, aircraft operators alone do not have the capacity to screen the volume of cargo that is now transported on passenger aircraft daily. Requiring passenger aircraft operators to screen 100 percent of air cargo would result in carrier delays, congestion at airport cargo facilities, backlogs of unscreened cargo, and missed flights—in short, such a requirement would significantly impede the flow of commerce.

Likewise, requiring screening of the current volume of cargo carried on passenger aircraft at the airports by parties other than the aircraft operators would be impractical, if not impossible, if only because of the lack of space to accommodate such an operation.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he’s a staff writer for the New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he’s the new editor for the House Conservatives Fund’s weblog. Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. He’s former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed “Crack City” by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He’s also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He’s a news writer for TheConservativeVoice.Com and PHXnews.com.  He’s also a columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he’s syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   He’s appeared as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, Fox News, etc.  His book Assume The Position is available at Amazon.Com. Kouri’s own website is located at http://jimkouri.us