Political correctness more about appeasing voting block than equality

Political correctness zealots are hyper-vigilant, ready at the slip of a tongue to malign public figures who speak with the slightest taint of prejudice or stereotyping. The PC police are so rabid that they turn even innocuous sparks lit from minor imperfections into raging fires of racism and intolerance.

Case in point, ESPN broadcaster Bob Griese has been suspended for a comment he made about NASCAR driver Juan Pablo Montoya. During an ESPN broadcast, a graphic was shown listing the top five drivers in NASCAR's points race. When asked why Montoya was not in the graphic, Griese replied he was "out having a taco."

The PC police would have us believe that Griese is a racist and stereotyped Montoya as lazy. Griese's casual remark was stupid, given its public nature and America's racially charged atmosphere but it does not make him a racist.

Recognizing that a tar-and-feathering was imminent, Griese apologized for his remark but was still suspended. Talk about overkill. Even Montoya dismissed the remark stating: "Somebody mentioned it to me. I don't really care to tell you the truth. I could say I spent the last three hours eating tacos, but I was actually driving the car." Apparently, Montoya does not need the PC police to champion his ethnicity; he is a champion all on his own with a nice dose of common sense thrown in.

Griese is guilty of assuming Montoya was a snack-loving Mexican. As insults go, that is really lame. In actuality, Montoya is Colombian. Colombians are a population descended from three racial groups: Indians, blacks, and whites. I think it is still OK to say Colombian. Safer to say Montoya is a dude with brown skin who drives really, really fast.

Discrimination based on identity is wrong, but the current purpose of political correctness is more about censoring words and actions using the tools of public shame and the labels "racist," "hater" and "bigot" to intimidate rather than inspire racial and gender harmony. In addition, although political correctness stems from a desire for equality, it is not equally enforced.

For example, why didn't the National Football League demand that liberal MSNBC news anchor Keith Olbermann resign from sportscasting when, in 2007, he suggested on national television that a black Buffalo Bills player was motivated by "Chicken and Waffles" - a restaurant chain that serves "soul food"? Yet, in 2003 conservative Rush Limbaugh has to resign after he said of Philadelphia Eagle Donovan McNabb's performance on the field: "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."

Why is it that Limbaugh is too divisive to buy the NFL's St. Louis Rams but the NFL does not consider Keith Olbermann's nightly vitriol divisive? Just recently, on MSNBC's "Countdown," Olbermann described conservative blogger Michelle Malkin as a fascist and "a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." Divisive and bizarre all in one fell swoop and this was just one example of Olbermann's many "hater" moments.

According to exit polls, 67 percent of Hispanics and an estimated 95 percent of black voters voted for Obama. I can safely say black because even CNN identifies Obama as "the first black president." The liberal PC police appeasing voting blocs just might be the incentive behind the inequality of their attacks.

This leads me to wonder if Griese would have been suspended if Montoya was of Italian descent and Griese had suggested he had gone out for a pizza. I doubt it, although Mark Sanchez, the quarterback of the New York Jets caught stealthily eating a hot dog during a game against the Raiders, is now making amends by donating dogs and buns to the Community Soup Kitchen of Morristown, N.J. The guy was lightheaded and was flexible enough to solve the problem. Imagine the fallout on the commentators if he'd been eating a taco.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Obama wants longer schools hours: A Captive Audience?

President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have proposed extending the school year and length of the school day by as much as three hours. They purport that keeping kids on campus longer will improve their academic scores and help America compete with students from around the globe. Obama even wants kids in school on Saturdays to keep them "safe."

American students do have lower test scores in technical subjects, like mathematics and chemistry, than students in Asian countries, such as Singapore, Japan and Taiwan. However, Asian students actually spend less time in the classroom than American students although they do have access to more academic after-school options and a longer school year.

Perhaps American students score lower on fundamental subjects because they are spending too much time learning from alternative books such as "Mom and Mum are getting married" and honing their condom application techniques on bananas rather than focusing on core academics. Asian students probably eat the bananas instead with an understanding of the health benefits of potassium while Americans use it as an "educational" phallic symbol.

Our students, who could legitimately study geography in conjunction with conservation and climate change, are watching a little nugget of liberal indoctrination called "The Story of Stuff." This is an anti-capitalist video that portrays the free-market system as being a very bad thing for America and the world. The video, shown in schools across the nation, promotes big government and socialist policies - by stating, for example, "It's the government's job to watch out for us, take care of us; that's their job" - under the cover of environmental concerns.

Right after "Stuff" class, Sensitivity 101 and You and Your Condom, our students can use their vital academic time to view the "I Pledge" video. No, not a video about pledging allegiance to the United States of America, a video fed to schoolchildren in Utah about pledging to help Obama. In New Jersey, they can sing along to the altered version of "Jesus Loves the Little Children," in which teachers altered the lyrics and replaced Jesus's name with Barack Hussein Obama.

Education Secretary Duncan states, "Our school calendar is based upon the agrarian economy and not too many of our kids are working the fields today." Nice job disrespecting the farmers - are those families who expect their kids to help at home of no consequence? Who needs family unity and the time-held tradition of teaching children to be self-sufficient when we have enough illegal aliens to do the work for us anyway?

Duncan further states: "Those hours from 3 o'clock to 7 o'clock are times of high anxiety for parents. They want their children safe. Families are working one and two and three jobs now to make ends meet and to keep food on the table." Here is an idea: Cut taxes instead of creating social programs that are going to increase taxes and perhaps some of those families could spend time with their kids.

Conspiracy theorists might say that keeping kids a captive audience for more hours each day has little to do with improving academic scores and, if the current trend holds, everything to do with further indoctrination. Maybe we can call them "schoolies" to go along with the "birthers." It's a very far-fetched idea, but if this proposal becomes law and Obama starts dictating lesson plans, I'm going to put on my black Nike sweatsuit and wait for the mothership.

All liberal agenda bashing aside, the impact of a longer school day will be detrimental to American students, families and the economy. It will infringe on enriching athletic and artistic programs, create academic burnout for both teachers and students and cause the summertime vacation economy to crash.

In addition, since so many teachers received their layoff notices this year, where does Obama expect to get the money to fund these extra hours? Can you say property taxes?

Keeping kids away from home and "safe" on campus will fracture family time and further diminish the role of parents as chief advisers to their children while increasing government control of pliable minds. It's not about the quantity of time spent in school, it's about the quality of time. If we want to compete globally, let parents teach their children about sex, morals and tolerance, and let teachers focus on academics.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Obama's Approval Ratings Fall as Americans Come To Their Senses

President Barack Obama's approval ratings, once sky high and fueled by Obama-hysteria, have dropped precipitously. A recent Rasmussen Reports Presidential Tracking Poll indicates that while 28 percent of the nation's voters strongly approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President, 40 percent strongly disapprove.

These numbers are a clear indication that Americans are coming to their senses and saying, "Whoa Nelly!" to a man who, once hailed as "The Great Uniter," has earned the title "The Great Divider."

When faced with these numbers, liberals fire back with statistical comparisons to other presidents. Similarly, when Obama makes a mess of things, his supporters vociferously point out President George W. Bush's failings, as though that somehow makes Obama's easier to swallow. However, approval ratings are not relative, they are an accurate snapshot of how Americans feel right now, about Obama's performance as commander in chief.

Apparently, Obama is just not that into bipartisanship, patriotism and fiscal responsibility, and has no qualms about ignoring the majority of Americans in order to further his personal agenda. He's also OK with preying on the emotions of the middle and lower classes who, in financial straits, could really use some stimulus, but don't want to burden their children and grandchildren with an insane deficit and an unsustainable economy.

The adage "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" works well for liberals. They don't want to give up their mouthpiece role in politics, and it makes them frothing mad that impassioned conservatives, moderates and independents are chiming in at town hall meetings. Oh, and someone please provide commentator Keith Olbermann a dictionary so that he can add the word "satire" to his limited vocabulary. Obviously, Rep. Wally Herger is already familiar with the term.

Obama's plan to ram through the trillion-dollar-plus health care reform bill without bipartisan support is a perfect example of his arrogance. Clearly, health care needs an overhaul and Obama paints a sad picture with his claim that "46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today." However, this figure includes illegal aliens, those who choose not to have insurance (they are invincible) and those who have access to programs such as Medicare but don't take advantage of them. The actual, much contested number of uninsured is elusive, but significantly lower.

The passing of this bill is going to prevent logical reform and instead increase the deficit while crippling medical care. Apologies to Canadians desperately seeking health care - you'll have to look somewhere else. Further, championing Ted Kennedy as the health care poster boy to garner support for the bill is manipulative and abhorrent.

Obama's approval ratings are sinking because he will not listen to the people he was elected to serve, and he insults the intelligence of Americans almost daily with disingenuous oration. Americans prefer a straight talking president, even if the news is bad, to a sneaky Barack. It is no wonder that currently the Real Clear Politics average shows that 58 percent think the country is headed in the wrong direction with only 36 percent thinking we are on the right track.

From the stimulus package, the bailouts and cap and trade to the health care fiasco, a fetish for shady czars and the emasculation of the CIA, Obama has implemented policy that has radically increased spending, centralized big government, weakened national security and divided the country.

They say that the higher you climb, the farther you fall. In a very short period of time, Obama has managed to deflate the dreams of millions of Americans who believed in change for the better, not just radical change. Even those who did not vote for Obama hoped he would succeed and bring America back to her former glory days, not bring her to her knees.

Obama promised great things for our country and convinced enough people that he had the skills, resources and heart to make his words a reality. However, if he does not realize that, as David Brooks, columnist for The New York Times put it, Americans want "fiscal responsibility, individual choice, and decentralized authority," the only positive legacy he will leave behind is that he was the first black president.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Alana Marie Burke: Taxes aside, legal pot would cost us dearly

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. It damages the lungs; impairs memory, concentration and motivation; and contains more carcinogens than cigarettes. However, California is economically in the tank, and this may be a boon for those who believe that smoking pot is "no big deal" and want marijuana legalized.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has introduced Assembly Bill 390, which removes all criminal penalties for personal marijuana possession and cultivation for adults over age 21, allows persons 21 or older to grow up to 10 mature plants, and makes possession and sales of marijuana paraphernalia legal for adults 21 and up.

According to Ammiano, efforts to eradicate marijuana have not succeeded, so it is time to bring "a major piece of our economy into the light of day."<0x00a0>In other words, if at first you don't succeed, give up. Other ballot initiatives in recent months indicate that California potheads have found their voice and, since the state needs money, lawmakers are listening.

If taxed like cigarettes and alcohol, marijuana could generate an estimated $100 million a year, with additional savings in law enforcement resources. These funds would ameliorate California's budget issues. However, when the smoke clears, the collateral damage from the government pimping dope will exceed the monetary benefits of retailing and taxing it.

California, fraught with inept government and a populace bent on pushing every sociopolitical limit, cannot afford to be dumbed down by legislators championing drug use to make a buck. The big question is not whether marijuana use for recreation is unhealthy and dangerous, which it is, but whether the right to do self-harm is a civil right and, if so, if all drugs should be legal for personal use.

One argument purports that drug use is a victimless crime; after all, the user is not necessarily recruiting or dosing others. Moreover, if we follow the Roe v. Wade model, people have the right to control their own body and should be able to alter their consciousness however they see fit. If marijuana is legalized, then this opens the door to all illicit drugs - there is no ideological difference between any of them even if the physical consequences vary.

No man is an island and the actions of one create a ripple effect. Drug use is an indolent way to alter or avoid reality, and abusers become less and less of a viable resource. Consequently, addicts become a drain on society, as individuals, employees, students and parents, and this makes them everybody's problem, especially in this new age of universal bailout.

The arguments for legalizing marijuana cite the legitimacy of alcohol and nicotine, the high rates of crime and the cost of enforcement caused by the prohibition of illicit drugs. Alcohol and nicotine abuse already exact a hefty medical, financial and sociological price. It is neither right nor necessary to endorse yet another substance that will create more addicts and further drain.

It is more than reasonable to enforce dealing and smuggling laws and continue to discourage drug use. If this were not the case, then why does Assembly Bill 390 contain a hypocritical clause levying a $50/ounce excise tax earmarked for state drug education and treatment programs? A percentage of the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol fund drug and alcohol education. Promoting a new drug, so that it can be taxed, so that the taxes can be used to discourage the drug use is just asinine.

Marijuana is medically useful in alleviating pain and certain medical conditions. However, board-certified physicians, not yahoos with Kool-Aid stands writing "prescriptions," should regulate dispensing - in pill or inhalant form. Neighbors with their prescriptions, pot farms, uncut pit bull "pets" and multitudes of "friends" are blights on any community.

It is right to continue the war on drugs, even when the costs are high. It is illogical to expect to win it completely, but the fight is a worthy one. It is absurd to take the low road and promote a drug known to distort perceptions, impair coordination and adversely impact memory and learning. As Jefferson Airplane said in their song "White Rabbit," "When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead ... Keep your head!"

POST SCRIPT: A reader has informed me that the correct lyrics end with "Feed your head" and that my mistake is a common one. Both versions can be found on the net but "feed" appears to be accurate.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Change

President Obama recently hosted a White House reception in honor of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month. It was not enough, however, to assuage the discontent of the gay community about his failure to uphold his campaign promises advocating additional rights for gays. LGBT Americans are threatening to withdraw their support for Obama if he does not step up soon.

Among other promises, Obama pledged to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy, which allows gays to serve provided they keep their sexual orientation private. More than 20 nations do allow gays to serve openly. Israel, for example, has successfully integrated homosexuality into its ranks while Bermuda, which allows gays to serve under its conscription process, is a hotpot of homophobia and harassment.

With full knowledge of the law, gays who enlist and then engage in homosexual behavior deprive the military of their much-needed skills and deny themselves the opportunity to serve our country. The core of this issue is whether the sexual identity of gays is more significant than the group identity of military personnel charged with protecting America.

The "don't ask, don't tell" law is specific and if gays defy the law they are ousted even if they have excellent qualifications. This has resulted in the discharge of individuals who, with wars on two fronts and Korea and Iran running amuck, could have bolstered America's thinning ranks.

However, until "don't ask, don't tell" is repealed or modified, those gays who defy the law should reap the consequences. The military's strict rules on heterosexual relationships disallow public affection in uniform and fraternization between officers and the enlisted. Why is it so difficult for gays to follow the same guidelines while in service?

Congress defines homosexuality as incompatible with military service, and there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. Further, before they enlist, gays know that, as the U.S. code says, "military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior that would not be acceptable in civilian society."

It seems then that the LGBT community would be content with "don't ask, don't tell" as a compromise, allowing them to serve without having to change the structure and focus of the existing military for a small percentage of people with preferences outside of the mainstream.

Further, in 1999 the policy was amended to include "don't harass" because, as then-Pentagon spokesperson Ken Bacon said, "Harassment on the basis of sexual orientation is wrong, just as it's wrong on the basis of race or religion or whether a person is male or female."

Current military policy does not prohibit gays from serving but it does require a sacrifice for the greater good. There have been gays in the military who have had lengthy, successful careers without putting their sexual identity to the forefront. They have managed, perhaps not without some heartbreak and frustration, to serve and to live, or die, in the service of our country.

Do gays really want segregation, individual housing and a gay label that will define them more than any other behavior they exhibit? Perhaps they would prefer to serve with troop unity focused on the job at hand for the love of their country with no one asking, telling or harassing them about their sexuality. Current law does need some tweaking but fundamentally, it makes sense.

Legislation has been introduced (HR 1283) that will ban "discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation" in the military, and I expect that Obama will work with Congress to push it through. I wonder, though, if the LGBT military personnel will be happy with the consequences. I expect it will ultimately cause more grief, not less, with an increase in harassment and discrimination even as it allows gays the freedom to express their sexuality in a military setting.

It is culturally volatile to require all people to accept homosexuality as mainstream and it is culturally desirable to ask that the majority tolerate behaviors of a minority that are of a personal nature and inherently harmless. The issue of tolerance must be extended in both directions, however, from straight to gay and gay to straight. This means that the sexual identity of gays should not prevent them from serving their country, but they ought to be willing to work within the confines of military stricture for the greater good.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Obama's Supreme Court Pick: Racist and Sexist?

Burke: The real racism is cheap ethnic pandering

By Alana Burke, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, June 7, 2009

Whether Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, is a racist or sexist is a critical question that will be addressed during her confirmation hearings. The media, however, has blown the issue out of proportion at the expense of other, more central questions while the Democrats seem blatantly dismissive of the idea.

Based on a speech by Sotomayor in 2001, accusations of racism have been brandished repeatedly by Republicans and yet, if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is any example, the Democrats don't really give a rat's behind as long as they get a liberal in the seat. "I understand that during her career, she's written hundreds and hundreds of opinions," Reid said. "I haven't read a single one of them, and if I'm fortunate before we end this, I won't have to read one of them."

If Sotomayor's racist words were as offensive as the media claims, then they should also be outraged that Obama, jockeying for more votes in 2012, chose this candidate because she is a Latina woman, and he thinks this will secure him the Hispanic and female vote. His nomination highlights his insulting view that women and minorities suffer from a dearth of critical thinking skills and will fall at his feet simply because he has thrown them a bone. This makes him both racist and sexist.

The media's harping on Sotomayor's misguided verbal blurts has served to obscure the insidious motivations that led Obama to nominate her. Perhaps, given their love affair with Obama, this fixation has been a deliberate move to obscure the bigger issues at hand.

In fact, if you examine legal proceedings adjudicated by 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in which Sotomayor participated, the evidence is clear that racism did not cloud her judgment. According to Tom Goldstein, a partner at Akin Gump who has argued more than 20 cases before the Supreme Court, in 96 cases, "Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times," and "the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous."

Sotomayor's statement that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" alone does not make her any more or any less racist than any other judge. It is likely that a truth serum would reveal that men and women of all ethnicities in positions of influence hold similar, self-aggrandizing sentiments. Sotomayor, however, made the mistake of saying it publicly instead of over Latina cuisine with good friends who would be sure to understand the context and motivation for her slip of the political tongue.

A real concern that deserves in-depth examination is whether Sotomayor is a constructionist who will not attempt to make laws, but cleanly apply the law, or if she is a judicial activist who will allow empathy and a preset liberal agenda to color her judgment. Yet to be determined is whether Sotomayor can be just as a powerful force in the highest court in the land, or if she is Obama's newfound equalizer with the intent to level the playing field without judicial integrity.

Thus far, the media has been critical of Sotomayor in two areas. First, she spouted incendiary verbiage in her 2001 speech entitled, "A Latina Judge's Voice," which included her better than a white male phrase. This phrase has been repeated so often now that it will soon be a jump-rope rhyme in the schoolyards of the underprivileged.

Secondly, her involvement in the firefighter discrimination case Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she ruled against a group of white firefighters who claimed the city discriminated against them by throwing out the results of a promotion exam after minority firefighters did not score high enough. This act seems racist enough to give any critical mind a moment's pause and clearly indicates her support for the asinine policy of affirmative action.

However, Sotomayor is well educated and experienced. She has a motivating history of pulling herself up by her bootstraps. Unless there are undiscovered skeletons in her closet, she is adequately qualified.

Whether Sotomayor is the most qualified for this tenured position is debatable and statements, such as "She'd be an asset as the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, as well as the third woman," only serve in this modern-day era to reinforce issues of race and bigotry.

The sooner the political arena disallows identity politics, the sooner America can, like a phoenix, rise above the antics of men like Obama and Reid and reap the benefits of direct competition in the playing field. Only then will advancements be based on actions, competence, dedication and skill instead of genetics and power mongering.

Burke: President's version of 'change' is truly radical

During his first months in office, President Barack Obama clearly delivered the message that by "change," he meant "radical change" and that he is not particularly proud of America. This is a message that he globally broadcast, with bowed head, as he cuddled up to our historical enemies, disrespected our allies and hand over fist threw good money after bad in the form of bailouts.

Obama is moving the country far to the left and at least 50 percent of Americans believe this is the right direction. The other half of Americans are struggling to quell a persistent sense of unease as Obama puts in place his overreaching government policies and a $3.4 trillion budget and more than doubles the national debt.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "Mr. Obama's budget assumes that nearly all of the new stimulus spending will be temporary - a fantasy." Who knew Obama would be given free rein to enslave future generations to a nonsustainable economy?

The New York Times reports that Obama's budget "signals a radical change of course by redirecting enormous streams of deficit spending toward programs like health care, education and energy, and paying for some of it through taxes on the rich, pollution surcharges and cuts in such inviolable programs as farm subsidies."

More than any other president, Obama has polarized the country and even he no longer pretends to be bipartisan. The politically moderate veil that served him well on the election platform has dissolved and revealed the liberal nature of his intentions.

Americans have grown weary of terrorism, economic strife and political malpractice. This fatigue makes it easier for so many to swallow Obama's policies, especially when they are rammed down the throat before what is in the mouth can even be identified.

For example, Obama lied on the campaign trail when he promised that any bill signed by him would be reviewable for at least five days before he signed it. In fact, not even the House and Senate were extended that consideration before they committed $787 billion dollars to the stimulus bill.

Much of Obama's support can be attributed to personal appeal and Bush-jerk reaction. Polls indicate the man is liked more than his legislation. If he had run for president on the heels of the Reagan or Clinton administration, would Obama be faring as well or would a rested and stable America have chosen a patriot instead of a radical to lead the country?

Obama's speeches induce euphoria in the lovers, dreamers and those drained by the grimness of the Bush years. Nevertheless, his policies belie his concerned tone and extend the power of the government, not citizens. Lawrence Kudlow, host of CNBC, states: "This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned, liberal tax and spend and regulate. It's plain ol' big government."

This cannot be good for a capitalist country founded on individualism, free market competition and privacy.

Obama has a remarkable following and the members of his narcissistic flock, although no longer from a Christian nation, are as loyal to him as the disciples of Jesus. They appear unwilling to examine Obama's plans beyond the short term. This indolence has given rise to higher taxes (yes, they are coming), massive spending (which is why those taxes are coming), and the imminent nationalization of private industry, which is an unconstitutional power grab.

Americans want change, but perhaps not in this way, at a frenzied pace without scrutiny, and a blatant disregard for the intelligence of citizens. Americans are entitled to succeed or fail, without massive government intervention and have traditionally been allowed to keep the fruits of their labor, as the Constitution intended.

Obama recently stated that, "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," and he claims to be a "global citizen." Despite his kowtowing, the current European Union president identified the Obama administration's program as a "road to hell" and said that European leaders were "quite alarmed" at the White House's policies.

While 50 percent of Americans carry a crush for Obama and his critical view of our country, others admire America with its big heart backed by a big military and the opportunities to dream big or fail big. We believe our standards of morality are worthy of emulating and we are not ashamed.

We have a sincere passion to shine our beacon of light on the oppressed, even if it takes military might to make that happen, and we are capitalists, individualists and patriots.

We want America to succeed, even if we are led by a president who is not proud of our country, considers our own soldiers terrorists, is willing to leave our country open to attack and whose deceptive rhetoric puts Slick Willie to shame. We will continue to teach our children to respect his office, but to view it with a critical, independent eye, and that self-reliance, not government control, is the key to freedom and prosperity.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

You call it OCO I Call it GWOT: If it's not a war, what's with the victory garden?

When is a war not a war? When you call it something else so that it feels better, does not risk offending the delicate sensibilities of foreign countries, and assuages the stirrings of discontent that are bubbling to the surface of President Obama's fan base.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced that the term "war on terror" no longer applies to the American response to extremist aggression. Clinton told reporters, "The administration has stopped using the phrase, and that speaks for itself, obviously." President Obama has not officially banned the phrase but, according to Clinton, "It's just not being used." Much fun can now be had on blogs sporting "New names for that which cannot be named" competitions, an exceptional entry being "Global Conflict Against Exploding Annoyances."

Yet, when Obama announced his new policy for dealing with Afghanistan and Pakistan, he stated, "Our cause could not be more just," and that "the United States and its allies need to increase efforts against al-Qaida militants." These are the same militants who have found haven in Pakistan's western border regions, which Obama identifies as "the most dangerous place in the world," and who are even now "actively planning attacks" on America.

Obama is concerned that if the Taliban take hold of the Afghan government, "that country will be a base for terrorists who want to kill us." When asked last fall if the United States was in the middle of a war on terror, Obama replied, "Absolutely." When asked who the enemy was he stated, "al-Qaida, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam, and so we have to go after them."

Since we can't use the "W" word, we are now involved in a more politically correct, "Overseas Contingency Operation." It will be confusing when we are attacked on our own soil to reconcile the whole "overseas" thing. Perhaps "Overseas Contingency Operation and Stuff" would be more apt.

Obama's current strategy involves "a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future." This sounds remarkably like war: as though Obama, just like Bush, were advocating a "war on terror."

The whacked extremists who continue to, as per the dictates of the Qur'an (8:60), try to "strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah" darn well believe they are in a war. Their enemies are America and all countries of the free world, and they call a bomb a bomb, not an "overseas contingency exploding device."

Whatever doublespeak this administration uses to effect "change," the fact remains that President Obama deliberated just long enough to create the appearance of "change" and a separation of his war, or um, "contingency" plans from the previous administration. He is deploying more troops, investing more money and expecting Americans to rally around his policies rather than the reality that "Obama Nation" partygoers might soon be waking up with one heck of a hangover.

Just as President Bush could not avoid Islamic extremism and be the "education" president, President Obama cannot fully unclench his fist and play patty-cake with radicals who want to annihilate a superpower. However, if Obama continues his fire sale of America to China and Japan, Pakistani Taliban Chief Baitullah Mehsud won't need to follow through on his recent threat to bomb Washington, D.C. and "amaze the world." Instead, al-Qaida and the Taliban can just sit back and watch America implode.

Critics attacked the semantics of President Bush's phrase "war on terror," claiming he used the term to justify preemptive strikes or human rights abuses. President Obama is using semantics to satisfy the emotional needs of his politically correct fan base who don't want to "offend," while maintaining a war on terror that even he realizes cannot be avoided at this time.

Whether Obama follows Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's lead and calls terrorism "man-made disasters" or simply calls it a risky business with political repercussions, the fact remains that America is under attack and she must be defended accordingly.

As Shakespeare said, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." No matter what you call terrorists, they are still radical enemy combatants who, while making war on America, defy the combat rules of the Geneva Convention and commit atrocities beyond any torture tactics ever employed by the United States.

If we are not at war, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to give up her military jet and Michelle Obama should re-name her victory garden. If we are not at war, then what are our brave soldiers fighting and dying for?

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Good Samaritans shouldn't have to think twice

(or: Burger flippers wanted: Heroes need not apply)

The optimistic "It's morning in America" perspective that Ronald Reagan once inspired the country with is long gone. Americans are staggering under the weight of the daily doom and gloom of the recession and all the hard work that "change" is going to require.

The pilot, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger, who splash landed US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River, provided a brief respite from the gloom with his commanding competence. His aeronautic feat inspired a collective joy as people marveled at a modern-day hero. The figurative standing ovation that the country gave him, even though, truth be told, he was also saving his own life so the act was not completely selfless, showed that Americans are hungry for good old-fashioned heroism and happy endings. Thanks to our convoluted legal system, however, they may not get what they crave.

A case in point involves Nigel Haskett, an employee at a McDonald's in Arkansas. In August, Haskett came to the rescue of a woman inside the restaurant being beaten in the face by a man. Haskett grabbed the man and forced him out into the parking lot. He then blocked the entrance to prevent the man from returning. Moments later, the assailant shot Haskett in the abdomen multiple times and then fled.

Haskett underwent three abdominal surgeries and racked up medical bills in excess of $300,000. The assailant was arrested and charged with first-degree battery.

Haskett filed a claim with the McDonald's insurer, Ramsey, Krug, Farrell and Lensing, for workers' compensation, as he was unable to work for six months and needed assistance with his medical bills. The firm denied benefits, "as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett's injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment." In other words, the insurers found some wiggle room because he acted heroically, which was considered out of the scope of his burger-flipping job description.

Haskett went from being a young local hero to a man buried in medical debt with a bullet fragment in his back. Perhaps the next time he sees a woman being beaten in the face in a family restaurant, he will just look away, call 911 and hope that the police arrive in time to prevent a tragedy.

In another Samaritan case last year, the California Supreme Court determined that "nonmedical good Samaritans are not protected from lawsuits if they inadvertently or negligently cause harm." The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity. This ruling resulted from a case in which a person pulled a victim from a car accident and the victim sued her rescuer, alleging that the movement caused her subsequent paralysis. The change in law did much to undermine existing laws designed to protect good Samaritans and prevent bystander apathy.

Just recently, Jim Moffett, a concerned bus driver in Denver, got off his bus to help two elderly women crossing a busy street where there was not a crosswalk. Moffett and another passenger assisted the women and were almost to the other side of the street when Moffett was struck by a pickup truck that was driving in the turn lane. Before he was hit, he managed to push the women and the other passenger out of harm's way. While in the hospital recovering from extensive injuries, Moffett, a hero to most, received a ticket for jaywalking. Despite the ludicrousness of the citation, Moffett is quoted as saying, "If that's what it takes to help little old ladies across the street, I'll take a truck head on and a $22 ticket and do it again."

Three very important new bills have been introduced in the California Legislature: AB 90, AB 83 and SB 39. If passed, these bills will extend liability protection to good Samaritans whether they are offering medical or nonmedical emergency care. If these bills do not pass, non-apathetic bystanders with the moral tenacity and courage to reach out to help a stranger may become reluctant to do so. They will have to take precious time to reflect on whether the benefits to the victim outweigh the legal ramifications of offering help in an emergency.

America needs homegrown heroes now more than ever. Individual and collective selfless acts of courage deserve to be rewarded, encouraged and emulated. As the old saying goes, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. If modern-day heroes cannot act on the courage of their emotion, in the adrenalin-fueled moment, then victims may have to sink or swim, stop, drop and roll, or perform miraculous self-resuscitation. Not to mention all the damsels in distress who will have to get used to disappointment.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

The Biden Prophecy - Krauthammer

I don't usually cut and paste but this is such a good read....

The Biden Prophecy
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 20, 2009

WASHINGTON -- The Biden prophecy has come to pass. Our wacky veep, momentarily inspired, had predicted last October that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama." Biden probably had in mind an eve-of-the-apocalypse drama like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Instead, Obama's challenges have come in smaller bites. Some are deliberate threats to U.S. interests, others mere probes to ascertain whether the new president has any spine.

Preliminary X-rays are not very encouraging.

Consider the long list of brazen Russian provocations:

(a) Pressuring Kyrgyzstan to shut down the U.S. air base in Manas, an absolutely crucial NATO conduit into Afghanistan.

(b) Announcing the formation of a "rapid reaction force" with six former Soviet republics, a regional Russian-led strike force meant to reassert Russian hegemony in the Muslim belt north of Afghanistan.

(c) Planning to establish a Black Sea naval base in Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia, conquered by Moscow last summer.

(d) Declaring Russia's intention to deploy offensive Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if Poland and the Czech Republic go ahead with plans to station an American (anti-Iranian) missile defense system.

President Bush's response to the Kaliningrad deployment -- the threat was issued the day after Obama's election -- was firm. He refused to back down because giving in to Russian threats would leave Poles and Czechs exposed and show the world that, contrary to post-Cold War assumptions, the U.S. could not be trusted to protect Eastern Europe from Russian bullying.

The Obama response? "Biden Signals U.S. Is Open to Russia Missile Deal," as The New York Times headlined Biden's Feb. 7 Munich speech to a major international gathering. This followed strong messages from the Obama transition team even before the inauguration that Obama was not committed to the missile shield. And just to make sure everyone understood that the Bush policy no longer held, Biden in Munich said the U.S. wanted to "press the reset button" on NATO-Russian relations.

Not surprisingly, the Obama wobble elicited a favorable reaction from Russia. (There are conflicting reports that Russia might suspend the Kaliningrad blackmail deployment.) The Kremlin must have been equally impressed that the other provocations -- Abkhazia, Kyrgyzstan, the rapid reaction force -- elicited barely a peep from Washington.

Iran has been similarly charmed by Obama's overtures. A week after the new president went about sending sweet peace signals via al-Arabiya, Iran launched its first homemade Earth satellite. The message is clear. If you can put a satellite into orbit, you can hit any continent with a missile, North America included.

And for emphasis, after the roundhouse hook, came the poke in the eye. A U.S. women's badminton team had been invited to Iran. Here was a chance for "ping-pong diplomacy" with the accommodating new president, a sporting venture meant to suggest the possibility of warmer relations.

On Feb. 4, Tehran denied the team entry into Iran.

Then, just in case Obama failed to get the message, Iran's parliament speaker rose in Munich to offer his response to Obama's olive branch. Executive summary: Thank you very much. After you acknowledge 60 years of crimes against us, change not just your tone but your policies, and abandon the Zionist criminal entity, we might deign to talk to you.

With a grinning Goliath staggering about sporting a "kick me" sign on his back, even reputed allies joined the fun. Pakistan freed from house arrest A.Q. Khan, the notorious proliferator who sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Libya and Iran. Ten days later, Islamabad capitulated to the Taliban, turning over to its tender mercies the Swat Valley, 100 miles from the capital. Not only will sharia law now reign there, but the democratically elected secular party will be hunted down as the Pakistani army stands down.

These Pakistani capitulations may account for Obama's hastily announced 17,000 troop increase in Afghanistan even before his various heralded reviews of the mission have been completed. Hasty, unexplained, but at least something. Other than that, a month of pummeling has been met with utter passivity.

I would like to think the supine posture is attributable to a rookie leader otherwise preoccupied (i.e. domestically), leading a foreign policy team as yet unorganized if not disoriented. But when the State Department says that Hugo Chavez's president-for-life referendum, which was preceded by a sham government-controlled campaign featuring the tear-gassing of the opposition, was "for the most part ... a process that was fully consistent with democratic process," you have to wonder if Month One is not a harbinger of things to come.

Burke: MySpace is a much needed outlet for teens

Back in the day, social networking meant meeting behind the lockers, passing notes in class and gabbing on a princess phone under the covers after midnight. Of course, back then Styx on 8-track was the ultimate cool, the Whole Earth Catalog was the Google of the times and a Macintosh with just slightly more memory than a pencil was high-tech heaven provided you did not get carpal floppy disk syndrome.

Now with social networking sites like MySpace, networking occurs with a click of the mouse, at cyber speed, anytime of the day or night. At their best, these sites provide a framework in which to communicate with friends and family and express creativity. At their worst, they expose and exploit the innocent.

Teens in our community are shocked over the recent deaths of several of their peers. In addition to receiving support from family, friends and dedicated school counselors, they have turned to MySpace as an outlet for their grief. On this open forum, they are able to ask questions, post comments about what they wish they had or had not done, say goodbye when they are ready and participate in discourse that will facilitate mending.

Together with their peers, on MySpace they can celebrate the lives of those who died in a forum that they fully understand - one that does not have the adult world flavor where tragic death is followed by recrimination, autopsies and funeral arrangements. While the forum of MySpace can also serve to inflame the drama of events, with care, the benefits of allowing teens to network, especially while emotionally vulnerable, outweigh the risks.

MySpace pages are personal and bear the unique stamp of their creator. When the creator dies, it is as though a part of that person still lives. Much like the leaving of flowers and teddy bears at memorial sites, the leaving of comments serves as a tribute to the fallen and while on the site teens are able to reinforce their memories of the friend they have lost. They are also able to commiserate with each other and the power of a virtual hug can be almost as effective as a "real life" one.

Unfortunately, the flipside of MySpace is a nasty one. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine indicates that 54 percent of the profiles contained information on risky behaviors, with 24 percent referencing sexual behaviors, 41 percent referring to substance abuse and 14 percent posting violent information. Networking sites are not to blame for this behavior - they simply provide a place to express it. This should be a no-brainer for parents; if your kid is posting this crap, you should be aware of it and find out why.

Clearly, without oversight, the narcissistic nature of teens can lead to the exposure of too much personal information, acts of cruelty and exaggeration. Therefore, it is essential to enforce the same codes of conduct that apply in the "real world" to the "cyber world." Parents who deny their teen's access to MySpace are simply avoiding the effort it requires to be involved and vigilant. Social networking is here to stay. Most teens will find a way onto the space anyway, and if parents stick their heads in the sand, this can result in dire consequences.

MySpace is a positive place for teens to "be" and an invaluable tool for parents. The space provides a neat snapshot of emotional status, peer groups and personal preferences. It is likely that signs of trouble in a teen's life will show up first on a social network where they feel comfortable, and this can give parents, and friends, a heads-up if they are paying attention.

Teens on MySpace actively share their thoughts, their emotions, their creativity and their humor. They also examine, define and refine their own identities, sometimes on a daily basis. Through the Web site, they learn communication and technical skills and apply critical and artistic thinking, and these skills will serve them well in the future. They may also become more tolerant of others with different views as they build up their "friends" lists.

Sadly, during this time they are also grieving for the jarring loss of their friends who somehow, slipped through the cracks, made poor choices and paid the ultimate price. Perhaps, by using all of the tools at our disposal, we as a community, both in "real life" and on MySpace, can become more vigilant as friends, parents and leaders so that we can catch those kids who are straddling the fence between despair and choosing life before they fall.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

For America: Hope Springs Eternal

Burke: In spite of it all, spring is around the corner

By Alana Burke, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, January 4, 2009

The trials, tribulations and tragedies of 2008 have most certainly dampened the inexorable optimism of Americans. The year brought us a plummeting stock market, a failing economy, the real estate crash, the murders of children and a rampaging psycho in a Santa suit who stole the lives of nine innocents. Children died from toxic toys, tainted food and poor judgment. Lives were lost in the Iraq war, to cowardly terrorist acts and in bitter struggles over land and religion abroad. Raging fires destroyed property and personal histories, and the sickening perversions of a man named Josef Fritzl surfaced and shocked us all.

Last year, ugly events jumped out from behind every corner. Just as we calmed our hearts, another crisis emerged to send our adrenaline soaring and our spirits on a nosedive. Now our country stands on shaky legs upon unsure footing as we all wonder what will transpire in 2009 and whether, as an individual, family or business, we will sink or swim.

It is true that money can't buy happiness, but whether through mismanagement or unforeseen circumstances, the lack of it can be crippling. This recession, depression or economic downturn, depending on your perspective, ought to have brought this country to its knees and yet it has not.

It is, however, going to take an enormous effort to pull the country and Americans out of the current funk. However, as John Kennedy put it, "The American, by nature, is optimistic. He is experimental, an inventor and a builder who builds best when called upon to build greatly." It is this resilient perspective that will keep this country afloat as we rebuild our economy, our confidence and our standing in the global community.

Most Americans' belief that better times are coming and may already be in the works is evident in a September poll conducted by CNBC. The poll determined that although "a vast majority of Americans, 93 percent, describe the country's current economic condition as 'poor to fair,' two in three Americans are both pessimistic about the economy today and optimistic about the economy for the future."

A few things have changed. Americans can no longer assume that if they do their job well, they'll receive raises in pay, health coverage and that their 401(k)s are safe and secure. One cannot assume that lines of credit, even if extended previously, will remain available, nor that banks, despite their brick-and-mortar appearance of strength, can withstand the current financial storms. Further, although we believe, rather egotistically, that America is on the side of right, we cannot assume that the rest of the world will agree and not attack us.

In addition, taxpayers now know that they can be blackmailed into bailing out institutions that, because of their influence on the job market and retail economy, will not be held accountable for their transgressions but cannot be allowed to fail. One can only hope that as nation we have learned a difficult lesson and that oversight will be the new catchword in 2009 and beyond.

One thing that we can count on is the wondrous power of free speech, which provides sufficient friction over ideas, cultural values, and political ideologies to fuel the American think tank. This unrelenting energy source defines us as a nation of purpose. We share a fierce drive to make a reality that tomorrow can always be better than today for each and every one of us.

Like many this past year I've bitten my cuticles to the quick. I've checked and rechecked bank balances, fretted over politics, worried about world events and those closer to home, and commiserated with friends and relatives over the anxieties of raising teenagers in increasingly difficult times.

Each day I've put one foot in front of the other. I've shed mammoth tears over recent tragedies, balled my fists in frustration over random acts of violence and perversity, and laughed uncontrollably at unexpectedly hilarious events. To keep my head above water I've clung, no not to my guns and religion, but to my family, my belief that good triumphs over evil and to the blessings that I only have to open my eyes to see all around me.

A terrific author, Annie Lamott, once wrote: "Hope begins in the dark; the stubborn hope that if you just show up and try to do the right thing, the dawn will come. You wait, and watch and work: you don't give up." This epitomizes the unique American perspective. We never quit. We always believe that we will succeed as a nation of historic purpose, for the common good of all. It has been a long and stressful year, but spring, with its promise of new life, is just around the corner.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

PARDON: Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean

Burke: The pardons President Bush ought to make

According to the Constitution, the president has the power to issue pardons or commute the prison sentences on any criminal conviction. This pardon, regardless of justification, cannot be overruled. Every pardon should either right a judicial wrong or show mercy where mercy is due. However, history clearly shows that those requisites do not always dictate who receives forgiveness. Self-serving or relatively inconsequential pardons are often the norm.

One would think that, having committed the crimes, felons ought to bear the ramifications of their actions. However, President Bush's pardons include a multitude of drug users, embezzlers, thieves of government property, and a moonshiner. He has also pardoned criminals involved in bank fraud, stolen explosives, and drug importation and distribution.

On the other hand, Bush has issued less than half the number of pardons presidents Clinton and Reagan did during their two terms and, while he did commute Scooter Libby's sentence, he has not pardoned any famously slimy criminals (think Hearst, Hoffa, Felt and Weinberger).

Given the awesome power of the pardon, Bush has an opportunity to re-evaluate cases where the law has not been merciful - given unusual circumstances. Yet while he is comfortable pardoning thieves and drug dealers, he has not pardoned two Border Patrol agents who shot a fleeing drug smuggler in the rump.

In 2005, the two agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, shot a drug smuggler as he fled back into Mexico. The agents ordered the smuggler to stop. He chose to run for it instead and left behind a van containing almost 800 pounds of marijuana destined for the streets of America. The two agents offered conflicting testimony and concealed evidence out of their fear of "getting in trouble," and there is controversy over whether they actually believed the drug dealer was armed. Clearly, the agents made mistakes.

One undisputed fact is that the agents were simply trying to do their job, a complicated job that by its nature creates a highly charged atmosphere fraught with danger and an instinctive sense of self-preservation. Another fact is that the man they shot had criminal intentions. If the agents had wanted to kill him, out of malice, racism or for sport, the buttocks would not have been their primary target.

The drug smuggler, an illegal alien named Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, escaped. Later he was granted immunity so that he could testify against the agents. The agents were sentenced to 11- and 12-year prison terms on charges of causing serious bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, discharge of a firearm, and violating the drug smuggler's civil rights.

Ironically, earlier this year Aldrete-Davila pleaded guilty to smuggling more drugs into the U.S. just months after testifying against the agents. Clearly, the shot to the rump and his subsequent elevation from criminal to victim of civil rights abuse did nothing to reform his criminal mentality.

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, generally a staunch supporter of the liberal view (which in this case has promoted the rights of this drug smuggler and condemned the agents), asked a witness at a hearing the following question: "Any drug dealer on the border who doesn't obey a command and runs cannot be shot?" She then remarked, "No wonder so much [sic] drugs are coming across the border. That's amazing to me."

Margaret Colgate Love, the U.S. pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997, recently suggested that pardons have not been used enough and that "punishments have become too harsh and the stigma of conviction too permanent." Her position enables moral and cultural decline and empowers criminals who, with a smug confidence, can play the system until they can, literally, get away with murder. What Love fails to understand is that it is not the quantity of pardons but the quality of pardons that brings mercy and justice.

The motivation for pardons ought to be altruistic. This was not the case in President Clinton's pardon-palooza, where pardons were issued to protect his backside. Clinton's last-day pardon of fugitive Marc Rich, a man who evaded more than $48 million in taxes and ran illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, was widely disparaged, especially in light of the large donations Rich's ex-wife gave to the Clintons. At the time, then Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder was heavily involved in facilitating that pardon. Holder is now President-elect Barack Obama's nominee to run the Justice Department.

Bush has issued one mercy pardon, to farmer Leslie O. Collier, who accidentally killed two bald eagles when he poisoned some coyotes and the eagles subsequently ate the meat and died. Unfortunately, he has yet to define the sentencing of these two Border Patrol agents as overly harsh. He would do well to pardon them and put them back to work where they belong, patrolling our nation's border.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: How does Obama win votes? He buys them!

Obama Buys Votes with Cigarettes, Dollar Bills and Cheesburgers

In February 2007, Barack Obama promised, for the sake of the principles he believed in, to accept public financing for his campaign. He loftily stated, "My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election." John McCain agreed to the plan. Less than four months later, when Obama realized he could successfully raise enough money milking the elite and the disenchanted to drown America in his personal media circus, he reneged on his promise claiming that the public financing system was "broken."

If Obama wins this election however, it won't be because he has spent almost $230 million dollars on television advertising or that he has outspent McCain almost 4-1 across the board. It won't be because he has ads in the ever popular Xbox gaming system or because his handlers know their way around MySpace, Facebook and YouTube and have cultivated young voters.

If Obama wins, it won't be because he has disabled the credit card security systems on his Web page that prevent fraudulent contributions or that he is allowing untraceable donations from out of the country to be deposited in his account. This unsavory tactic and his unwillingness to publish his donor list - which McCain has done, amounts to allowing "countries that don't like us very much" a say in our election. There are foreign countries that would pay enormous sums of money to help elect an American president who is clearly soft on military power, who espouses risky economic policies and whose social ideologies might cripple our intelligence agencies.

If Obama wins, it certainly won't be because he is advocating that his supporters play hookie - even students - on Election Day to get out and vote for him. This juvenile tactic amounts to offering middle-school students extra recess time if they "Vote for Pedro!"

If Obama wins this election, it will be because he was able to buy votes from the downtrodden, the apathetic and the tragic, with cigarettes, cheeseburgers and dollar bills. It will be because he has slithered his way into the minds and the registrations of the poor, who, understandably, will vote themselves a buck. As author Robert Heinlein put it, "When the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader."

This presidential race is neck and neck. Obama's sleek abilities have turned parts of America into red-light districts where a concert, a dollar and a forked tongue will garner a vote. Obama has cheapened the system by preying on a vulnerable populace and buying multitudes of phony registrations just to give the impression that more Democrats than ever are so enthused by his presence that they are coming out to vote. He wants more Republicans and conservative-leaning independents to feel as conservatives do in California, that there really is no point to voting red in a blue state.

It is interesting that despite all of his endeavors to intimidate, hypnotize and obfuscate, Obama is still not a shoo-in for the presidency. He has used every manipulative means at his disposal to win this election and he has broken campaign finance records from both parties in doing so. However, despite the fact that John McCain has had far less money to influence the public, the race remains close. This is because a majority of Americans are not interested in Obama's plans for our country.

The monumental events of the last eight years, beyond a doubt, have divided this nation.

On the conservative side, we have informed voters who are concerned about our national security, who are not interested in the kinds of change that Obama promises and who do not trust his ability to lead or his allegiance to the country.

On the liberal side, we have informed voters who believe in the trickle-up theory and spreading the wealth and who are beyond frustrated with the policies of the Bush administration. Inspired by Obama's eloquence and vision, they believe that his way is the only way. These are both legitimate and fair positions and the discourse and debate between both sides has been good for this country.

However, if Obama, who is so far left he should have left this country long ago, wins this race, it will not be because those who truly believe in his ideology have won it for him. It will be because the percentage of uninformed voters that Obama bought, with cheap goods and promises that he will not be able to keep, will give him just enough of an edge to buy the election.

Unless those people refuse to be taken advantage of by a candidate whose ethics are clearly questionable, on Nov. 4 we will not have an accurate representation of the true opinions and will of America.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Political restraint is dragging McCain down

Burke: Political restraint is dragging McCain down

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Halfway through the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, it became apparent that Obama had a competitive edge over McCain. Despite my political leanings, I found myself drawn to the warmer personage of Obama and annoyed with McCain's mannerisms. Although the consensus is that no clear victor emerged from the carefully managed duologue, and lamentably for the press, there were not any juicy sound bites or major gaffes, I believe McCain lost the event.

Clearly, Obama boned up on foreign policy and economics and as usual, he was a personable speaker. McCain was crotchety, even more so than usual, and drew far too much on his distant past to really score under present circumstances. Jim Lehrer tried unsuccessfully to exploit the five-minute "draw your guns and fire!" segments, but his patronizing instructions to the candidates to talk directly to each other, as though they were at a couple's retreat weekend, just made me nauseous.

During the debate, I shouted at the television like a lunatic as though McCain might actually hear me. This silliness caused my three dogs to fling themselves against the back door in case I was vociferously offering them bones, but it did nothing to affect any political outcomes. With many a sigh, I rolled my eyes, twice at least, and watched McCain lose ground.

If McCain is, the left likes to paint him, a crusty old curmudgeon, then Obama is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with the crust cut off - nice, neat and perhaps tasty, but I like a little fiber in my political diet. The question of McCain's competence to lead is not what is currently holding him back in the polls. It is his strict adherence to the safety of his laurels that is restraining his campaign.

McCain's life experience, his intense dedication to the service of this country, and the weight of the nation's eyes are heavy stuff, but in order to gain certain hearts, minds and "chads," the man needs to step out of his political confines and lighten up. Both candidates have a solid base of voters. However, it is the independents and undecided who, at this point, will determine who wins this election. McCain, whether he likes it or not, needs to woo them and as Obama has shown, a little razzle-dazzle goes a long way.

At the same time, McCain needs to dismiss Obama rather than react defensively to him. As the elder statesman, McCain can effectively wield the weapon of experience, pat Obama on the back for a good effort and then send him to perhaps the University of California at Berkeley, where his socialistic utopian ideas would sit well in a first-year philosophy class.

The adage that politics is dirty business is true, yet it usually refers to what happens behind closed doors. Between now and November, what happens on stage may be much more influential. Uninformed voters don't really care that McCain has visited every country that ends in 'stan, that he was politically active during Reagan's SDI era (which to them probably sounds more like a sexually transmitted disease than a defense program) or that he is bipartisan although the word might get him a misguided "bi-five." Fans of the television show "Scrubs" will understand that last reference.

The younger, uninformed voters are influenced by how cool, fly and sick the candidate is. I had to get an urban dictionary to make that statement, but I think the meaning is clear. In other words, McCain needs to up his "hipness" quotient. Edgy is in and, right now, the word that better defines McCain is staid.

To increase his chances of success in November, McCain must be more willing to play the political popularity game while still holding fast to his well-respected principles. He needs to draw the eye, to produce a laugh based on something fresh, be anything but boring. He should take advantage of his maverick reputation, lose his temper just a wee bit and verbally bite Obama when he is vulnerable. Similarly, the next time Sarah Palin is challenged about her beauty pageant days, she ought to say, "You know what fellas? Hold my tiara and watch this!"

The two candidates need to flip-flop. Obama, no longer able to ride the crest of his glorious oratories of hope and the support of the Hollywood elite, needs to get serious. If his studious air at this last debate is any indication, he is now fully motivated to find ways to back up his words - even if it means redefining the "change" that he exhorted his followers to believe in. McCain on the other hand ought to work on getting some fainting in the aisles, hit the tanning machine, host "Saturday Night Live" and convince some folks that he, not Obama, may be the one they have been waiting for.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Girl Athletes: Future Palin, Clinton or Rice?

Go USA

Burke: Girls join the game, and the play gets rough

By Alana Burke, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, September 7, 2008

A distinct blend of sweetness and ferocity emanates from teenage girls who play competitive sports. Sure, they hug, giggle and flip their ponytails. However, when the ball is in play, they sweat just like the boys and their expressions reflect their resolve to be the first to the ball, to win, and they push hard to make it happen. In the heat of the game they are not their gender, they are simply athletes.

Women in politics operate on a similar playing field. They push hard to maximize their skills and to further their agendas while at the same time moderating their femininity (think pantsuits) so as not to appear weak or manipulative in an arena most commonly populated by men. Many of them maintain successful families as well, a multitasking skill worthy of admiration.

At the Red Bluff Labor Day soccer tournament last Saturday, I had the opportunity to watch female athletes compete in the annual games. I also had the misguided opportunity to eat a funnel cake that had been fried in 4 inches of recycled grease. My husband, lured by the vanilla and sugar scent, did the same despite my warnings. Intestinally it was not a good day for either of us.

In the year that had passed since last season, the girls matured and their mannerisms seemed to impart that they knew more, about life, about boys, and given the setting, hopefully about soccer. I wondered how much attention they had been paying to the historic presidential race and the complexities of its unfolding. I wondered too if their mothers were raising them to reach for the stars and to take full advantage of the evolving American perspective on equality.

With that thought in mind, I asked the woman next to me what she thought about John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin. My query was met with a blank stare and the question, "Who?" So, I asked about her thoughts on Joe Biden as I realized that the Obama ticket was where her synaptic efforts lay. Again, the blank look only this time it seemed tinged with a wee bit of resentment. Curious, I then asked her if she planned to vote in the election and she responded with an adamant "Yes! I'm voting for change!" with a big ol' head bob to back it up. Her vacuous responses made me nauseous and, at about that time, the funnel cake threatened to re-emerge.

As I watched the game, it occurred to me that one of the girls out on that field might be a future Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or Condoleezza Rice. Nancy Pelosi came to mind as well, which, I'll admit, made me grimace. I scanned the field wondering which one of the girls might become a political mover and shaker and for one cowardly moment, I wished that fate on none of them.

How do the Hillary Clintons and Sarah Palins of the world withstand the hateful barrage of cheap sexist shots volleyed by the opposition? In particular, the personal vilification of Sarah Palin has gone beyond the pale to the extent that even many Democrat women are appalled. US Magazine disgraced its publication with its headline, "Babies, Lies and Scandal" — the polar opposite of its Obama cover, "Why Barack Loves Her" about his devotion to his wife Michelle. Worse yet, that publication, displayed at most grocery store checkouts, may be the only information some voters imbibe before making their presidential choice.

Liz Trotta, a Fox News contributor who once "jokingly" advocated the assassination of Barack Obama, recently made the sexist statement that Sarah Palin should not be running for any office but should stay at home with her children. Can you say Dark Ages? It is insulting to fathers everywhere when they are not even considered in the equation. For some, the option of staying at home as a full-time mother is an ideal one; for others, not so much. The crux is to find the right family balance and that balance is very much achievable.

On the second day of the tournament, the wind was a fierce opponent and the gusts, some up to 40 mph, made a mockery of the games. The fields were full of thrashing flags, blowing debris and wildly spinning soccer balls, causing the teams to look more like circus performers than athletes. At one point, the clueless woman from the previous day whined about the wind. I agreed that it was a bit rough but remarked that it could be worse — we could be waiting in New Orleans for Gustav. Placidly she looked at me and said, "Who?" I sighed and turned away hoping against hope that the child that was hers on that field had a multitude of resources to pull from so that, despite her mother's apathy, she too might reach for the stars.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

You can burn the flag -- but why would you?

The First Amendment, which provides for freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the United States, is one of the most powerful pieces of legislation ever drafted. Without it, the dissenting opinions of our citizens that serve to push and pull the progress cart would be lost in a cloud of fear and governmental suspicion. With it, people, such as the Shasta County high school student who earlier this year felt "free" to burn the American flag, can do so without fear of legal persecution.

Much like shareware from the Internet that comes bundled with all sorts of crap-ware, with all the good that the First Amendment provides, it also allows for the bad, the ugly and the asinine. Acts of self-expression are guaranteed to offend some and please others. Determining which examples of freedom of speech are acts of indecency or hate crimes is a process often on politically shaky ground.

There are exceptions to the First Amendment. You can be prosecuted for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no fire exists because of the potential for injury. However, it is acceptable to wear a T-shirt that reads, "I had an abortion" courtesy of Planned Parenthood. You may also fill a glass jar with urine and blood, stick a crucifix in it and receive $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts for your "work." In both cases, freedom of expression clearly applies even if the acts are clearly offensive to many.

I recently witnessed a man in a convenience store wearing a shockingly rude T-shirt. Its slogan was deemed too offensive to print, which is ironic in a piece about freedom of speech. Suffice to say it extolled the use of the handicapped in the sex slave trade complete with a truly awful graphic, and yet not one person verbally tackled the man.

On the other hand, CBS canceled shock jock Don Imus' radio show because he used the phrase "nappy-headed hoes" when describing the Rutgers women's basketball team. Presumably, it was the larger audience and the defaming word "ho" that got Imus fired, but apparently self-expression regarding the victimization of handicapped people is OK. So too is the annual Aryan Nations Parade in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

So where does flag burning fall into the heady mix of freedom of expression, obscenity and hate crime? Flag-burning "patriots" claim that by burning the American flag they are exercising their freedom of expression to protest, whether it is against the current administration or the high cost of gasoline. The student in Shasta County, who burned the flag and published the photo in his high school newspaper, did so just because he could and apparently was starved for attention.

Given the many lurid acts of freedom of expression in our current culture, from dykes on bikes to the "naked guy" on the Berkeley college campus who claimed his nakedness "challenged the sexual repression of Western society," flag burning seems tame. However, the act strikes at the very heart of our country and serves no political purpose.

Yes, you can burn the flag, but why would you? The American flag stands for the freedom of all people not just some people. The flag has no point of view. It is not a tool for the president, the left, the right, the rich or the poor. Of all of the symbols in American society, the flag is the purest, dearest and the most nonpartisan. To burn the flag is to dismiss the very rights it symbolizes, the right to freedom of expression and to burn the flag.

Unless you are retiring the flag in an honorable disposal ceremony, the only justification for burning it is if you despise everything that America stands for including all its inherent rights and privileges. There are innumerable and effective protest options available to address specific perceived injustices. Flag burners are just narcissists who seek public attention but lack any observable talent.

Gen. Arthur MacArthur said, "The flag ... is a visible symbol of the ideal aspirations of the American people. It is the one focus in which all unite in reverential devotion. We differ in religion; we differ in politics; we engage in disputes as to the true meaning of the Constitution, and even challenge the wisdom of some of its provisions; we inject self-interest and cupidity into most of the ordinary transactions of daily life, but through the sanctifying folds of the flag, the collective intelligence of the nation rises superior to the wisdom of its parts, and thus ensures the perpetuity of the Republic."

Americans are blessed, thanks to the intelligence of our forefathers, to live free, and this freedom should never be taken for granted. Rather than burn our national symbol, it would be more fitting to salute the flag first and then proceed to protest with gusto knowing that in America, land of the free, your freedom of self-expression is protected.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Any chance of seeing a politician's true face?

There are three things that are true about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is a mostly black man, Clinton is a white woman, and in dog years McCain is 504 years old. Most of the other "truths" about them bear the political face of manipulative deceit. This manicured visage does not accurately portray true intention, experience or morality, therefore no matter whom you vote for, what you see is not what you get.

There are multitudes of jokes about how politicians, snakes and lawyers distort the truth in order to achieve what they want. With poker faces and forked tongues, politicians unabashedly manipulate facts to further their own agendas. When the lies surface, politicians obfuscate until the truth is buried under the verbiage rubble of conservative and liberal warfare.

If honesty were the policy that garnered votes, Obama could remain committed to his long-standing alliance with the likes of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger instead of hypocritically withdrawing from the Trinity United Church of Christ after more than two decades of loyalty. He would not have to deny his support of black liberation theology and could identify himself as the "black power" president. Of course, if he did so, he could not lay claim to the title the "great uniter."

According to James Cone, an influential mentor of the Rev. Wright, "There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. ... What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."

Logic dictates that Obama was influenced by this message in his church. The assumption can be made that Obama expects black people to vote for him in order to gain ground against white oppressors. To admit this publicly would be political suicide. Instead he waters down his life so that he is no longer too white, or too black, to fit the generic mold that sits so comfortably with his supporters. As a talented orator, he mesmerizes people with beautifully phrased platitudes and his Martin Luther King-esque delivery and yet I wonder if his "changes" are ones he can implement or if they are just a load of pie in the sky. I'm thinking pie.

If Clinton had admitted during the primaries that she expected women to vote for her because they are angry about lower pay, condescending pats on the rear end and the stigma attached to the title "housewife," she would have received a lot of flak about girl power. Thus, she appeared to disavow the whole "you go, girl" shtick, slugged whisky like a man, invented snipers and wore bulletproof lipstick except when it served her purpose to show her softer side.

McCain can't tout the fact that during his run for the big house he has a competitive edge because his opponents are a woman and a black, but I imagine he is quite pleased and feeling confident of a win. However, going up against a black man and a hardheaded woman on the same ticket might deflate his balloon a bit.

There are men who would not have voted for Clinton just because she is a woman and it "ain't gonna happen." There are whites who won't vote for Obama just because he is black and those ignoramuses will use the N-word over the dinner table. There are blacks who won't vote for anything white because they blame whites for their own circumstances, and there are young people who won't vote for McCain because although he is a tough nut, he's also an old fart.

Rather than remain true to their beliefs, warts and all, the candidates are compelled to homogenize themselves. Like chameleons, they adjust their focus and rhetoric so that they are always sailing with the political wind but never against it.

In a perfect world candidates could state exactly what they intend to do in office, what their religious and moral beliefs are and why they want to wield the highest political power in the land. Perhaps then, we could elect leaders who would lead the country in the direction the majority wish to go based upon their talents and commitments, not their image.

Instead, we will elect a president who will be reviled and ridiculed by at least half the country if he cannot live up to his "I'll say anything you want to hear" campaign rhetoric. Those voters who played lemming to the chameleon will have willingly participated in a national bamboozlement scheme and until we hold candidates accountable, America deserves what it gets.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

In vitro meat: Kind to animals, cruel to humans

The first International In Vitro Meat Symposium, held last month at the Norwegian Food Research Institute, brought together researchers intent on furthering the science of engineered meat. Couple this assembly of scientists with PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recent offer of $1 million to anyone who can grow chicken meat from stem cell cultures, and within a few years we may find animal flesh from a "meatri" dish on the family dinner table.

Whether or not the "meat" will be a big culinary hit depends on whether empathy for chickens outweighs the creepiness of eating flesh that never clucked, walked or took a breath. While it would be more humane to the animals that we eat not to raise them for slaughter, it is not humane to expect people to eat engineered flesh, just because it is possible to create it.

The concept of growing meat is not a new one. In 1932, Winston Churchill suggested that it would be "more efficient to cultivate wings and breasts in vitro rather than growing an entire chicken." Indeed, in 1912, Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize winner and surgeon, cut a piece of heart muscle from a chicken embryo and fed it nutrients. When Carrel died 32 years later, the muscle was still alive and thriving. Carrel's experiment was described as "horrific" and, after he died, the living heart muscle was terminated.

The rules of PETA's contest are simple. Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh. Manufacture the product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially and sell it in at least 10 states. While the rules are simple, the process, which would have been right at home in Frankenstein's lab, is not.

The production of in vitro meat involves taking cells from an animal and then placing them in a nutrient-rich environment. The cells proliferate and are mechanically stretched to increase their size. However, "real" meat is made up of muscle, fat, blood and connective tissue, so to get this vat-grown meat to resemble a steak or chicken breast, other measures have to be applied. For example, by applying an electrical stimulus, muscle cells can be induced to contract and develop. (Frankenfilet anyone?) In addition, researcher Dr. Carlijn Bouten suggests, "One can also simulate blood flow by putting thin tubes in the tissue." This makes me more queasy than the stench of a feedlot.

According to Jason Matheny, the director of New Harvest, an organization that funds research on in vitro meat, the easiest way to engineer edible flesh is to "grow meat sheets," layers of animal muscle and fat cells stretched out over large flat areas. These sheets could be stacked to get a thicker, and perhaps the assumption can be made, juicier cut of meat. Matheny also states that, "With cultured meat, there is no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."

Is the process of engineering meat any more revolting than the sad state of chickens living in airless warehouses with their little beaks clipped off so they can't peck each other to death? Is a "meat sheet" a better option than antibiotic-laden beef from cattle that have never had a "happy cow" moment? While producing meat without the expense of feeding and slaughtering animals would solve some of our ecological (less burping bovines destroying the ozone layer) issues, the probability of the final product being palatable to the public is slim and there are better alternatives available than pseudo burgers.

It would be more beneficial to apply PETA's $1 million dollar reward to an entrepreneur who developed more humane methods of raising livestock. They could require that the methods consider the quality of life of the animals and put meat in the market while still providing a profit to the farmers and cattlemen. If these methods raised the cost of meat, perhaps meat consumption would be more conservative, thus also helping to alleviate the ecological issues of water pollution and greenhouse gases.

The debate over whether humans are inherently meat eaters will rage on as long as there are vegetarians, carnivores and animal rights activists. Buckminster Fuller, an American visionary, author and the second president of Mensa, once said, "Why would I go to all the trouble of eating all my vegetables when the cow does all the work for me?" Humans eat meat and although we have evolved from eating raw rabbit on a spit to serving up a nice filet mignon, wrapped in applewood-smoked bacon and topped with bearnaise sauce, our biological desire for meat remains the same. Even though advances in nutritional analysis clearly indicate that humans can live without meat, do we really want to?

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Sanctuary cities undermine immigration laws

Cities with sanctuary policies ignore federal immigration laws and provide a safe haven for illegal aliens, allowing them to take advantage of local services and report crimes without fear of deportation. These sanctuary policies prohibit the police from reporting an illegal alien to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless the illegal has committed a crime.

However, isn't entering the country illegally a crime in and of itself? These hypocritical policies, wherein one crime, that of illegal entry into the country, is ignored so that other crimes might be reported, undermine the legitimacy of United States law.

If Anderson were a sanctuary city, Jose Salvador Alcantar-Ruiz, the illegal alien who ran over a 3-year-old in March, would not have suffered any consequences other than his own grief and guilt. While Alcantar-Ruiz's illegal status didn't directly cause the accident, it certainly adds insult to injury. His time in jail, however, will only add to California's already huge cost of incarcerating illegal aliens -- $1.4 billion a year, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security and report illegal aliens. However, over 29 sanctuaries in California alone have policies that prevent local agencies from reporting them, which simply provides further incentive to sneak across the border.

Proponents of these policies claim to be protecting immigrant rights, and it is true that illegal aliens have been the victim of crimes, in fact may have been targeted specifically because they had something to hide and, therefore, were less likely to report the incident. However, while legal immigrants have the right to local services and protection, illegal aliens don't and should be immediately deported. It's time to stop babysitting criminals and send them packing.

The touchy-feely humanitarian perspective on this issue is nice and comfy but also weak and dangerous. The harsh reality of what the illegal alien invasion is doing to this country is much uglier. From a financial perspective, the invasion is strangling our economy. FAIR estimates that California's illegal alien population costs the state's taxpayers "more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration."

The tired argument that the tax contributions of illegal workers subsidize this expenditure is flawed. Despite the tax income, the outlay is still over $9 billion per year, FAIR calculates. That is approximately $1,183 per legal household per year, which isn't chump change. The flimsy "American's won't do these jobs!" excuse is, as the younger generation puts it, really lame, because the reality is many of our welfare recipients could do these jobs and, as an added bonus, their money would go back into the economy instead of out of the country.

There is legislation pending that would penalize sanctuary cities. For example, in Maryland, a bill would require local governments to comply fully with federal immigration law or lose state financial aid. Opponents of the bill claim that it is not the responsibility of the local police to enforce complex federal immigration law, and there are not enough local resources to do so. So apparently, the rights and needs of illegal aliens supersede those of legal Maryland residents and their local governments are incapable of upholding complex laws.

If it is not the responsibility of the local authorities to enforce immigration law, than whose is it? When did it become an option to pick and choose which crimes are more convenient to prosecute or which laws should be upheld? Either it is illegal to violate immigration laws, or it isn't. Sanctuary cities make a mockery of the justice system and serve only to weaken the rights of legal citizens.

In California, a bill (AB 2601) has been introduced that would deny sanctuary cities proceeds from vehicle license fees collected by the DMV. This might discourage cities from adopting sanctuary policies, but it will also punish legal residents who did not set the city's sanctuary status.

The hypocritical policies of sanctuary cities serve a political purpose. Politicians want to appease illegal immigration lobby groups and garner financial contributions and votes despite statistics that indicate that illegal aliens contribute to crowding in schools, lower wages and are responsible for a high percentage of crime. Those "humanitarians" who believe that illegal aliens should have full access to American resources while breaking the law are humanitarian only in name. Their support for illegal aliens serves only to further burden the American taxpayers and the economy at a time when our nation is struggling and resources are minimal.

Alana Marie Burke