Home News

As I stated in the last update the Book,
WILL begin printing this month, June 2009 and I will have and begin signing, numbering and shipping the copies to those who ordered a signed/numbered copy THIS month, June 2009.
As for the process inwhich Barnes and Noble goes through in ordering books I cannot tell you at this point. I will tell you that Barnes and Noble has not once listed information correctly as is listed by Books In Print or Bowker Indentifiers.
I will receive the copies ordered directly from the printer when printing begins shortly and when that starts I will post it here for all to see as well as on the company web site at http://www.sinclairpublishingllc.com/ .
Once printing begins I will then post a link on the Company web site where the book can be ordered directly through Sinclair Publishing, Inc for anyone wanting to do so.
Again, let me make it clear, printing of the book WILL begin this month as will shipping of those signed/numbered copies ordered through this blog.

Copyright 2009 by Larry Sinclair/larrysinclair.org/larrysinclair-0926.blogspot.com/LarrySinclair0926.com and Larry SinclairBarackObama.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

James A. Dorn, vice president for academic affairs:

After 20 years China has made substantial economic progress, but the ghosts of Tiananmen are restless and will continue to be so until the Goddess of Liberty is restored.

The Chinese Communist Party's "Human Rights Action Plan" (2009-10) addresses several human rights abuses, but it fails to establish a well-defined boundary between the individual and the state that protects rights to life, liberty, and property. Until China limits the power of the CCP and allows people to exercise their natural rights, there will be corruption, and the goal of "social harmony" will be elusive. The lesson of Tiananmen is that the principle of nonintervention (wu wei) is superior to the heavy hand of the state as a way to bring about true harmony.

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper conducted a five-minute long interview of Diane Elder, a woman who decided to let her infant daughter live despite her severe genetic defects, during his program on Tuesday evening. The interview came about after Elder wrote Cooper after watching a similar interview he conducted the previous night of Lynda Waddington, a ?Spro-choice? blogger for the Huffington Post and RH Reality Check, who decided to have a late-term abortion herself (the anchor did not mention Waddington?"s left-wing affiliations during the interview). (audio clips from the interview available here)

On Wednesday afternoon, the network?"s ?SSituation Room? program played an extended clip from the interview, which followed an additional segment with a different parent whose twins were aborted late-term at the hands of murdered abortionist George Tiller. During this second interview, the father of the twins described how Tiller had the two babies ?Swrapped up in a baby?"s blanket? and how the abortionist ?Sbaptized them.? Despite the two-to-one imbalance in the segments, CNN did at least try to balance the segments with the two supporters of late-term abortion with that of the interview of Elder.

During the interview with Cooper, Elder described her experiences during the four months after she found out that her daughter had Trisomy 18, a severe genetic disorder, and during the half-day that she shared with her daughter, whom she named Angela. Despite all the hardships that she and her family endured, Elder recounted how after her daughter was born, ?Swe were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms.? Cooper dealt with the subject very sensitively, and thanked her for her strength at the end of the interview.

The full transcript of Cooper interview?"s interview of Diane Elder, which began 20 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday?"s ?SAnderson Cooper 360? program:

ANDERSON COOPER: Diane Elder chose not to have an abortion, even though, medically and legally, she had every right to. She joins us now, and Diane, thanks so much for being with us. You actually sent me an e-mail earlier today because of- of an interview you read that we had on last night. We had a woman on who, in the 20- 20th or 21st week, chose to have a late-term abortion, because her baby had a severe- severe genetic defect. You had a similar situation. You made a different choice. Why?

DIANE ELDER, CHOSE NOT TO HAVE LATE-TERM ABORTION: Because I wanted my baby to have a natural death. I did not want my child to die at my hands. She-

COOPER: What did your baby have?

ELDER: My baby had a- had a syndrome called Trisomy 18, which is a very severe chromosomal abnormality that is incompatible with life. That?"s what -- that?"s the phrase doctors used to me.

COOPER: And you found this out what- at what stage of the pregnancy?

ELDER: I was somewhere in the fifth month of pregnancy.

COOPER: And, obviously, I mean, it?"s devastating news.

ELDER: It was devastating. I found out on Mother?"s Day, and all I can remember is collapsing to the floor, because I had been trying for this baby for a very long time. So, it felt like a cruel- almost a cruel joke to me that this happened. And so, I- I went forward with the pregnancy another four months, probably the most difficult four months of my life. We were prepared for basically a- a monster, because we were told she was going to not have a brain, and she was going to have possibly cleft palate, club feet, and she was born with all those things. She was born missing part of her brain. She had one club foot, one rocker-bottom foot. She had just everything that goes along with that condition, which is- is bad.

But we were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms. I told the hospital I did not want any extraordinary measures taken, because I wanted what happened to her to be natural. I didn?"t want to try to- to force her to stay alive with needles and tubes, if that would cause her pain and just prolong a very difficult life. But I didn?"t want to kill her either. So, I just decided to completely turn myself over to nature and let it take its course, and the resolution was really a very good resolution. She- she never suffered.

COOPER: How long did she live?

ELDER: Twelve hours. The nurse woke me up at 5 am, and said, ??Diane, I think you might want to get up now. The baby?"s having trouble breathing, and this might be her time, and she put Angela into my arms.

COOPER: You named her?

ELDER: Yes, Angela- Angela Diane Elder, and Angela looked- it was funny, because she was able to make eye contact with me, and it seemed as though she were looking into my eyes. I could hear her breath becoming more and more shallow, sort of a rattling breath, and then she took two large breaths, and then a very large breath, literally sat up, and then fell back, and she was gone. And it was a very difficult moment, even at this time.

COOPER: Do you- do you regret it, looking back on it?

ELDER: Not in one- not one minute of it. She died peacefully, with no pain. The suffering was ours. For two weeks, of course, at least two weeks, really a whole year, we were in mourning for her, as you would grieve over any loved one who dies. That?"s a normal part of life. You can?"t get away from the fact that- that people die and people get sick, and they die. And- but we felt very clean when it was over, and- and as though the situation was- there was closure. There was a resolution, and-

COOPER: Obviously, other women, other families in that situation make different choices.

ELDER: Right.

COOPER: Do you believe that- that women should have the right to make that choice?

ELDER: When a baby is a fully formed, living baby, I don?"t think that, really, we have ever had the choice to- to take a life at that stage. I think that- that?"s a -- that?"s a fully-formed baby. I mean, I think you had some of the pictures up there, and you saw her. She?"s a fully-formed baby. She was born early, by the way. She came out at eight months.

COOPER: And, when you heard about Dr. Tiller?"s death, your thought?

ELDER: Oh, I think that was awful. No one has the right to do that, particularly not someone who considers themselves to be an advocate for life. How can they take another life? It?"s inexcusable.

COOPER: Well, I- I appreciate you coming on and talking about this. I know it?"s not easy, and I appreciate you writing the e-mail to me and- and that we were able to have you on today. Thank you very much.

ELDER: Thank you so much.

COOPER: Thanks. Thanks for your strength.

ELDER: All right.�

According to CNN, the aide -- who still works for Tancredo -- has ties to fringe racist groups.

You can see the gulf in the world that Obama is trying to bridge when you compare the shock that some in Washington feel when they see Obama actually trying to stop illegal West Bank settlements and the latest poll from Egypt:

Just last week, Denver Post and Reason.com columnist David Harsanyi asked, "Is The Abortion Debate Changing?" Based on a recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life" for the first time since the question started being asked in 1995, Harsanyi suggested "that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue" after decades of legalized abortion. And, he argued, the morality of abortion is a lot more complicated than most pro- or anti-abortion slogans let on.

Earlier today, in response to killing of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Jacob Sullum asked why anti-abortion activists rushed to condemn the death of a man who by their own accounts was slaughtering innocents. Jacob understands why the activists might say that, but argues that it's really a tactical response: That they need to distance themselves from murderous extremists.

So what do Reason readers think? Will the killing of George Tiller push more Americans to identify as pro-life? Or will it push voters in the other direction? Does it matter that Tiller was known for doing late-term abortions, which are statistically rare but gruesome?

You go back to that Gallup Poll and one thing sticks out on the basic question of whether abortion should be legal under some circumstances: Since 1976, the percentage answering yes has been around 50 percent or higher (there are a few years where it dipped into the high 40s). That is, it's been pretty stable at or around a majority number.

And the percentage of people saying abortion should be illegal under all circumstances has rarely cracked the 20 percent figure (though it has again in recent years). Similarly, the percentage saying abortion should be legal under all circumstances, which peaked at 34 percent in the early 1990s, has always been a minority position (which currently stands at 22 percent and has been dropping lately).

I suspect that as abortion becomes rarer (as Reason's Ron Bailey pointed out in 2006, abortion has been getting rarer since the 1990s and also occurs earlier in pregnancies than before), it's quite possible that the either/or positions might change, but that their movement will have little effect on the middle position of abortion staying legal under some circumstances. Even those, such as Harsanyi, who is plainly troubled by the logic of abortion, generally concede that prohibition would cause more problems than it would fix ("I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.").

Back in 2003, on the occasion of Roe v. Wade's 30th anniversary, I argued that regarding abortion the country had reached a consensus that

has little to do with morality per se, much less with enforcing a single standard of morality. It's about a workable, pragmatic compromise that allows people to live their lives on their own terms and peaceably argue for their point of view....

This isn't to say that the debate about abortion is "over"-or that laws governing the specifics of abortion won't continue to change over time in ways that bother ardent pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. But taking a longer view, it does seem as if the extremes of the abortion debate - extremes that included incendiary language (including calls for the murder of abortion providers) - have largely subsided in the wake of a widely accepted consensus. Part of this is surely due to the massive increases in reproduction technologies that allow women far more control over all aspects of their bodies (even as some of those technologies challenge conventional definitions of human life).

That isn't an outcome that is particularly satisfying to activists on either side of the issue or to people who want something approaching rational analysis in public policy. But it's still where we're at and it's unlikely the Tiller case will do much to move things one way or the other. The one thing that would likely change it would be if there was a massive shift toward later-term abortions, which seems unlikely based on long-term trendlines and technological innovations.