After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad.

He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take f*cking pictures with them?”

True? Not true? Exaggerated? I’ll give Obama a bit of the benefit, since we weren’t there. But, like Ron Paul and his newsletters (donations from neo-Nazi white supremacists, hanging with Truthers, etc), the appearance can be more important than the truth. Is Ron Paul a racist? Maybe. Maybe not. But, there is the appearance of being a racist, hating Jews, hating Israel, being a Truther and conspiracy nut. And with Obama, there is already the appearance of not being particularly pro-military, and being part of a political Party that is not exactly pro-military. There is also the appearance that with Obama, it is all about Obama. No other president speaks more about himself than Obama.

Paul is doing too well and there are many reasons besides his uncanny ability to raise lots of money and a spooky, devoted blind following. He is one of the best spokesmen for libertarianism out there and people are tired of what the status quo two party system has been bringing to the table. He preaches small government and fiscal conservatism and has a record to back it up and that is the appeal to many people.

His anti-war and irresponsible isolationist philosphy on foreign policy is appealing to many independents and democrats weary of war. As a matter of fact more Democrats voted for Ron Paul in New Hampshire than Republicans. He got 24% of the Democrat vote, 32% of the independent vote, and only 16% of the Republican vote. Huntsman got 41% of the Democrat vote! I guess appealing to all parties is important in the general election, but there is no way it will make much of a difference against Obama.

The bottom line is that Ron Paul, as right as he is on many issues, has a dangerous foreign policy position that everyone needs to study closely before jumping in and pulling the lever for him. He also has a lot of fringe baggage. Just so it’s all out in the open while his popularity is pulling votes away from other conservatives….there is a case against Ron Paul.

He may be worse than Obama on foreign policy. He is an isolationist that would allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. That is a big deal. Remember that the leaders of Iran are insane and have repeated several times how they would wipe Israel off the map. Ron Paul blames America first, and as a matter of fact has blamed America for the 911 attacks while courting 911 conspiracy nuts. There is also the racist publications published under his name. Fair or not, don’t think that won’t come up in the general election running against the first black president.

If his magnet to fringe isn’t enough, then take a careful look at his foreign policy. First off, he doesn’t want a border fence because it could be used to “keep us in”. He uses arguments of moral equivalency as the foundation to his isolationist views. I understand that Viet Nam and Iraq were unpopular wars and I understand people weary of America’s interventionalism, but not all interventions are unnecessary. What would the world be like if America had not intervened against Hitler? What if we didn’t contain Communism? Standing by and doing nothing but talk and appease while allowing evil to play by its own rules is a recipe for disaster.

Rich Lowry has a good summary of some of Paul’s views:

In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push “to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,” as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.

This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.

Paul never knows when to stop. He lets his suspicion of centralized power slip into paranoia worthy of a second-rate Hollywood thriller about government malevolence. In January 2010, he declared: “There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military.”

On his latest appearance on the radio show of the conspiracy-mongering host Alex Jones, he opined that the alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil was “another propaganda stunt.” He exclaimed that the latest defense bill authorizing the indefinite detention of enemy combatants will “literally legalize martial law” (yes, “literally”).

Check out what a former staffer of his has to say:

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

The majority of Republicans and Americans in general will not get behind Ron Paul. He is too fringe and too radical. So as far as Ron Paul asking everyone else to get out so he can beat Romney, I think he should be the one dropping out. I don’t like Romney, but I’d rather vote for him than take a risk with Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

Ron Paul is a pure, absolutist libertarian extremist with a dangerous isolationist foreign policy. He may be right on some things, but not on everything (foreign policy for sure). If the only issue important to you is the legalization of drugs then vote for Ron Paul. If you think foreign policy is even a little important pick someone else.

Doug Mataconis says last night was Paul’s high mark. I agree, but he is still sucking votes away from other non-Romney candidates and while he should drop out I think we all know he won’t. So, perhaps someone else should so the votes for “other than Romney” are not so divided up. I pray South Carolina shakes things up for this race, and I pray Ron Paul doesn’t run third party in the general.

And Curt, please…you are scaring me.

Update: More insane positions from Ron Paul:

Other than abortion, there is no particular on which Ron Paul differs with either libertarianism or the Libertarian Party. Like them, he would legalize hard drugs and abolish age of consent laws, which violate the rights of 24-year-olds to have sex with 14-year-olds.

(Des Moines Register) Sobriety, wisdom and judgment.

Those are qualities Mitt Romney said he looks for in a leader. Those are qualities Romney himself has demonstrated in his career in business, public service and government. Those qualities help the former Massachusetts governor stand out as the most qualified Republican candidate competing in the Iowa caucuses.

Sobriety: While other candidates have pandered to extremes with attacks on the courts and sermons on Christian values, Romney has pointedly refrained from reckless rhetoric and moralizing. He may be accused of being too cautious, but choosing words carefully is a skill essential for anyone who could be sitting in the White House and reacting to world events.

Wisdom: Romney obviously is very smart. He graduated as valedictorian at Brigham Young University and finished in the top 5 percent in his MBA class at Harvard, where he also earned a law degree. Romney also exhibits the wisdom of a man who listened and learned from his father and his mother, from his church and from his own trials and errors in life. He does not lack self confidence, but he is not afraid to admit when he has been wrong.

Judgment: Romney disagrees with Democrats on most issues, but he offers smart and well-reasoned alternatives rather than simply proposing to swing a wrecking ball in Washington. He is a serious student of public policy who examines the data before making a decision. His detailed policy paper on the economy contains 87 pages of carefully crafted positions on taxes, energy, trade and regulatory policy, complete with 127 footnotes.

It’s a long piece, and it should be noted that not only did they pay attention to all the candidates, their speeches, their debates, their history, but they also interviewed them (except for Huntsman).

Bachmann: Overall impression: An impressive fireball who can absorb and regurgitate tons of information, even if some of it turns out to be inaccurate.

Newt: Overall impression: Between the books he’s read and the books he’s written, Gingrich juggles endless ideas, but he has yet to make the case he could focus his attention on the important ones.

Crazy Uncle Ron: He insists these principles he’s held for 30 years make him the only true Republican. (You know, like dropping pork into bills then voting against them so he can say he doesn’t vote for pork, blaming the US for 9/11, taking money from neo-Nazi’s, hating Israel, taking Iran’s side against the US – all Republican ideas or something)

Perry: Overall impression: After some debate stumbles, he asks voters to take a second look, but it may take more than that. (Perhaps if Rick would stop speaking in simplistic soundbites and offer some real world policies, rather than unrealistic unicorn droppings)

Santorum: Overall impression: He’d use the presidential bully pulpit to be the nation’s minister-in-chief.

Now it’s down to the voting.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(USA Today with the full transcript) This week marked an historic moment in the life of our country and our military.

For nearly nine years, our nation has been at war in Iraq. More than 1.5 million Americans have served there with honor, skill, and bravery. Tens of thousands have been wounded. Military families have sacrificed greatly — none more so than the families of those nearly 4,500 Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice. All of them — our troops, veterans, and their families — will always have the thanks of a grateful nation.

On Thursday, the colors our Armed Forces fought under in Iraq were formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad before beginning their journey back home. Our troops are now preparing to make their final march across the border and out of the country. Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its own people. Our war there will be over. All of our troops will be out of Iraq. And this holiday season, all of us can finally say: welcome home.

This is an extraordinary achievement — one made possible by the hard work and sacrifice of the men and women who had the courage to serve. And there’s a lesson to learn from that — a lesson about our character as a nation.

Starts off well, eh? He spends some more time saying how great the troops are that his party actually hates and has wanted to gut the money for the armed services branches they serve since the 1970’s.

After years of rebuilding Iraq, it is time to enlist our veterans and all our people in the work of rebuilding America.

This. Is. Pathetic. And. Shameless. Using a congratulatory speech to push for infrastructure spending. I guess Obama thinks the only good use of veterans is paving roads, as if they have no other skills. As if that is the only thing we did in Iraq.

Now it is up to us to serve these brave men and women as well as they serve us. Every day, they meet their responsibilities to their families and their country. Now it’s time to meet ours — especially those of us who you sent to serve in Washington. This cannot be a country where division and discord stand in the way of our progress. This is a moment where we must come together to ensure that every American has the chance to work for a decent living, own their own home, send their kids to college, and secure a decent retirement.

He wants to stop division and discord. Perhaps he should not have called Iraq a “dumb war” during his “big speech on Iraq” in 2002. Perhaps he should attempt to be POTUS, instead of simply the leader of the Democrat Party.

This is a moment for us to build a country that lives up to the ideals that so many of our bravest Americans have fought and even died for. That is our highest obligation as citizens. That is the welcome home that our troops deserve.

They fought and died to simply repave roads, paint bridges, and build turtle tunnels? Those were their ideals? We should welcome them home by allocating money to do the same thing again, after all the wasted Stimulus money?

He could have simply used the Weekly address to congratulate them and welcome them home. Instead, he had to go down his stupid road, and ruin it.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

[Givler] The Constitution recognizes the necessity of war, and sets forth the process for declaring it. What it does not recognize is the state of violent un-war that we have come to accept as normal.

Here is a snippet.

Givler describes the Japanese surrender and the Emperor’s message to his people, and compares it to the end of Saddam Hussein. About the people, he says:

We’re of no help to them in making that leap if, while we’re trying to destroy insurgents, we’re building schools and digging wells. We should be doing nothing of the kind. Suffering is what is needed to make the population shift its perspective, and alleviating the suffering at the same time we’re administering it does not help. The Japanese people went from preferring suicide to laying down their arms and accepting occupation because they had suffered grievously first, which made the surrender acceptable and meaningful. If we had been passing out lead suits and airdropping food at the same time we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, our message would have been seriously muddled. It’s no different in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

For the next year, we will all be caught up the 2012 elections, but our troops, in reduced numbers, are still searching for IEDs, rebuilding infrastructure, making short peace with villagers, and doing an incredible job of ferreting out the most dangerous of the dangerous in some of the most difficult terrain in the world – still fighting with the right to win forbidden them. I hope you will read the entire article and pass it on to your readers if you are a blogger, or to friends and family.

Posted by Maggie @ Maggie’s Notebook

So much for campaigning against Jimmy Carter.

In the aftermath of Osama bin Laden’s death, Republicans are adjusting to a new political reality: with the bin Laden trump card now in President Barack Obama’s possession, it’s looking increasingly likely the 2012 campaign will ride on a single number—the national unemployment rate.

Anyone remember mentioning Carter’s failed hostage rescue as a comparison to Obama, except as an afterthought? Yeah, me neither. The comparisons mostly revolve around rising gas prices, rising food prices, rising consumer goods prices, a stagnant economy, pervasive high unemployment, reckless spending, low consumer confidence, and tone deafness to the wishes of the American public. Oh, and a terrible foreign policy, which reduces the role of America in international politics.

The same hail of bullets that tore through the terrorist leader’s compound appears to have cut through the GOP’s desired narrative for the presidential election, at least temporarily dispelling the image of Obama as a weak-kneed pushover. And that leaves the economy as the president’s single major point of vulnerability.

Wait, I thought it was the unemployment rate? Much like Obama himself, Alexander Burns is jumping all over the place. But, Burns is right in that this is temporary, unless the economy shores itself up by next summer. And, isn’t that whole “hail of bullets…cut through the GOP’s desired narrative” rather violent rhetoric, which could lead to assaults against Republicans?

Anyhow, much of the rest of the article is about how Republicans are suddenly no longer able to take the national security banner because Obama gave an order and watched for 40 minutes

“People like to see a pattern of sustained leadership,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and a former adviser to John McCain. “Remember, for every one of these [victories], he’s got, ‘Explain the Libya flip-flop.’ It’s not like he’s nailed down the foreign policy profile and owned that completely.”

Still, Holtz-Eakin said, the bin Laden killing is likely to stand out as a monumental achievement for Obama in an election focused “primarily on his record as a steward of the economy.”

Look, I’m not going to take anything away from Obama giving the “GO!” order: it was a big decision, and he made the right call. Yet, it’s not just the Libyan issue, which has mostly disappeared from the news (cause it makes Obama look bad): it’s how long it took him to get involved in the Egypt issue, it’s ignoring the Green uprising in Iran, watching hundreds of protesters being killed in Syria, attempting to prosecute KSM and other terrorists in civilian court near the former site of the WTC, ticking off our allies and pandering to enemy nations, and, for Left side voters, failing to close Guantanamo Bay, targeted killings, still in Iraq, escalating the Afghanistan war, renditions, and all the other things Bush did that Obama still does. But, yes, it will mostly be about the economy….well, for voters in the know: Obama supporters would still vote for him if the unemployment rate was 15% and inflation was going through the roof. Because he gives good speeches or something.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

The kindness of a civilization originating from Christian thinking indulges them for the moment but if ever they start to do serious harm they will be squashed, as bin Laden eventually was.

It’s a pity he was not taken alive, though. Crushing his balls to squeeze information out of him could have been very productive. Just the threat would probably have made him very talkative.

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.). For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me here

At least 72 protesters have been killed by security forces in Syria, rights groups say – the highest reported death toll in five weeks of unrest there.

Demonstrators were shot, witnesses say, as thousands rallied across the country, a day after a decades-long state of emergency was lifted.

The Washington Post editorial board has decided that this is shameful for the US and the Obama administration, yet, they refuse to specifically call out Mr. Obama. Were Bush sitting in the Big Chair, think they would have blamed him solely?

FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.

Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.

The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.

Of course, that kind of language from people who are on the far left and were some of the primary cheerleaders for Obama is the media equivalent of pulling out the leather belt for a good butt smacking. And it was obviously very hard for the WP board to not notice that Obama is pulling his typical disappearing act on yet another international issue (he tends to do the same on domestic issues, as well).

As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.

Hey, folks, it is not the stance of the USA: it is the stance of President Obama.

But, then, do we really know who these protesters are? What they truly want? Do they want a true Western style democracy, or one where terrorist groups are involved in the Democratic process, such as in the Palestinian areas, where Hamas is a part of the government? Is the Muslim Brotherhood and their offshoots involved, like in Egypt? Or Al Qaeda, as in Libya? Do they want Constitutional Law, or Sharia Law? Would one dictatorial and brutal regime be replaced with an Islamist regime? So far, none of these uprisings have resulted in a democratic system. And by the same token, Obama and his administration have sat on their hands, typically getting involved late in the game, if at all.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Anyhow, Roger Simon has a little man-crush for Obama’s speech

It was “Mission Accomplished” but without the banner.

In a strong, almost pugnacious, speech Monday night, President Barack Obama said he had achieved his initial goals in Libya. “So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: the United States of America has done what we said we would do,” he said.

No one doubted the capacity to carry out Operation Porn Star Odyssey Dawn, we just really didn’t know what the objectives were, just some vague humanitarian notions. Of course, this speech apparently meant little to Obama, despite sending Americans to war, since he gave it at 7:30 pm, outside primetime, and not even at the White House.

Why, yes, The Politico did go for the halo effect.

Obama admitted that he militarily intervened in Libya even though America was not at any risk. “There will be times…when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and values are,” he said.

So, there you have it, Libya has no interest to the United States. He outsourced our military to the EU for no value to the US. Though, it does have some real world value, since what was happening in Libya was affecting EU oil prices, and world oil prices. Oops. A “neocon” war for oil.

And that is why we are fighting in Libya. Our interest is to have a stable world and our values are to promote democracy and to prevent a “massacre” in Libya and “violence on a horrific scale.”

What about Iran, Syria, Darfur, and Yemen, among others, Mr. President? How about Iraq, which you gave speeches against? One could say the exact same things about Iraq. Why is this different?

Anyhow, I listened to the speech after work, and thought it was much better than usual, though, devoid of anything new, and, kinda forgot to say what the end game is. This has got those big meaning ODS Republicans up in arms, saying too little too late

While President Obama on Monday defended the military assault on Libya, he was blasted by Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who says Obama is no different than his predecessor when it comes to dealing with foreign affairs.

According to Kucinich, “The economy is falling apart. Our cities are starved. People are without health care. All we’re getting is war.”

Kucinich says the situation in Libya is no different than the situation in Iraq, saying “We have to be very concerned we are getting dragged into another Iraq.” The Democratic congressman from Cleveland’s west side says funding for the action in Libya should be cut off immediately.

Well, you have to hand it to Dennis, he’s consistent. And his wife is hot. But, he’s also consistent.

Finally, I forgot who wrote this, but, essentially Obama was just checking the box next to “wartime speech”, because he’s off to NYC for two DNC fundraising events on Tuesday, along with some other events, including some friendly banter with three TV anchors.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

U.S. foreign military intervention shouldn’t be taken lightly, and the current one in Libya deserves a full debate. But Libya’s case is exceptional — in more ways than one.

Both U.S. national interests and its values come together here, and Arab support is unprecedented. In addition, the interests at stake extend far beyond Libya’s borders.

Well, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense, has said that Libya was not a vital national interest. Interesting.

That the intervention is moral is not a hard case to make. Libya is an exceptional case. Qadhafi’s brutality was matched by his chilling threat to “purify” Libya “house to house,” using his military and foreign mercenaries.

Had Qadhafi been allowed to overtake Benghazi, with possible massacres, no one could have pretended surprise. The pressure to act would have only increased when it would have been too late and too costly.

And, somehow, because Gdaffy is reviled throughout the Arab world, it’s different from the massacres in Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Darfur, etc and so on? That’s funny, because so many Liberals were dead set against any military action against Afghanistan, and the Taliban and al Qaeda, after the horrid events of 9/11, when 3,000 of our friends, neighbors, and loved ones were killed. Remember, Obama preached restraint and empathy with the murderers just a few days after September 11th. But action in Libya is somehow “moral?” You know, the more liberals try and hem and haw to defend Obama, the more they make me think that I am wrong to support Obama’s Great Kinetic Operation.

For those who ask what the U.S. national interest in Libya is, the correct question is about broad U.S. regional interests. Had the Libyan crisis emerged before the Arab uprisings, intervention would still have been the moral course — though it would have been harder to make the case about U.S. interests. But there is a link among the revolutions sweeping the Arab world that cannot be denied.

Shibly goes on to discuss the mostly peaceful (Syria, Yemen, even some parts of the Egypt uprising were violent. And what about the Green Uprising in Iran, Shibly?), and an anti-dote to “militant extremists.” Good thing the Muslim Brotherhood isn’t involved in Egypt, and al-Qaeda in Libya. And then 6 more paragraphs which pretty much ignore any sort of answer as to why this is in the US national interest, till we get

But one test of the intervention is what would have happened without it. Aside from the moral issue, the empowered millions of Libyans would have had to turn to militant means — leading to prolonged civil war and opportunities for Al Qaeda. International public opinion would have dictated isolating Qadhafi, leading him to become an international menace. And his will to meddle in the transitions of Tunisia and Egypt would have increased.

Let’s see: Saddam Hussein and his minority Bathist regime brutalized the Iraqi people, murdered them, tortured them, displaced the Marsh Arabs, mass murdered the Kurds, a Jordanian doctor did a study that said 50,000 Iraqi children where dying in Iraq each year, Hussein paid families $25k for their children to go blow themselves up in Israel, there were numerous terrorist training camps in Iraq, he was a threat to regional stability….but, obviously, there was no moral or national security interests there. Or, it was simply a case of Bush being a Republican?

And, again, don’t forget that so many Liberals were against action in Afghanistan, where there were quite a few moral and national security reasons, not to mention 3,000 dead, and all the injured.

But Libya is somehow different to the anti-war kumbaya Left. At least some of them. Most of the rest who are against this action have mostly been silent, in order to protect their Lightworker.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.