The Family Man

Barack Obama Cares About the Common Man.
How do we know?

Look at how well he treats his beloved half-brother, the cute round-headed kid!

Look at how well he treats his beloved aunt, the incredible dancer!

Look at how well he treats his beloved grandmother!

If he treats his family this well, how much better can we - who are not family - expect from him?

Clearly, he CARES!
Even though his lower lip doesn't quiver, a la William Jefferson Clinton, make no mistake.
Barack Obama CARES.
Yes, he can!

Welcome to Chicago!

Welcome to Chicago!
The city limits are expanding, according to the principles of manifest destiny, from sea to shining sea.

Remember to use the new rules and terminology at all times:
It isn't voter fraud, it's voter empowerment.
Accepting fraudulent donations isn't criminal if no one prosecutes.
No one prosecutes if they want to keep breathing.

Please step to the left and hand us your money on the way out.
If we need anything else, you will be notified.

And, finally, remember that we have ALWAYS been at war with EastAsia.

Inconvenient Question

According to electoral-vote.com, Barack Obama is up by 11% in Pennsylvania.
According to Zogby, Barack Obama is up by 11.4% in Pennsylvania.
Muhlenburg and Temple has him up by 13% and 9% respectively.

So, if he has a double-digit lead in Pennsylvania 7 days out, why is he still campaigning there?

Vietnam All Over Again

In 1968, the Vietcong launched the Tet offensive.
Designed to destroy the power of the United States military in Vietnam, the Tet offensive instead turned into a slaughterhouse of Vietcong soldiers, as their regular troops died by the thousands without gaining a single piece of territory.

What was won on the battlefield was lost in the newspapers.
This unmitigated victory was portrayed as a sound trouncing of US troops.
The newsies turned the course of Vietnam from military triumph to disaster.


Things haven't changed much in forty years.

London Sunday Times assessment of the War in Iraq
August 8th, 2008

London Sunday Times assessment of the War in Iraq

The Investor’s Business Daily editorial board ask, “What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn’t tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we’ve defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq .”

London’s Sunday Times called it “the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror.” A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush’s surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Al-Qaida’s loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province , which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion’s Roar the Iraqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Sunday T imes reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government has achieved “satisfactory” progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces.. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, “the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday night about the benchmarks” that signaled political progress.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck to his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don’t seem to consider this historic event a big story.

Captain Nemo

Below is a list of items requested and the Obama campaign's responses...

1. Occidental College records -- Not released

2. Columbia College records -- Not released

3. Columbia Thesis paper -- "not available"

4. Harvard College records -- Not released

5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released

6. Medical records -- Not released

7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- "not available"

8. Law practice client list -- Not released

9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate - - Not released

10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth

Not released

11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None

12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None

13. Your Record of baptism-- Not released or "not available"

14. Your Illinois State Senate records--"not available"

He's the original Captain Nemo.

Here's A Thought

So, I'm looking at the Obama website,
and it suddenly occurs to me
like a flash - a burning vision out of the heavens.

McCain/Palin supporters can help Barack Obama.

Just go to: http://my.barackobama.com/modules/votercontact/login_signup.php

Sign up to help.
Call the voters they give you to target.
Convince those voters to vote for McCain/Palin.

If they vet their callers like they vet their on-line donations, this should work beautifully.

Help Obama spread his wealth around a bit, and help those who have fallen behind: John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Remind them of one of the 101 reasons not to vote for Barack Obama.

Or this:


Hit the economic points especially hard.

Citizens Against Government Waste say that Obama has an 18% rating, McCain is rated 88%. Senator Biden is rated the worst with 0%: http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/citizens_against_government_waste_obama_isnt_the_worst_senator_on_waste_bid/

Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton for her financial ties to Wal-Mart, while conveniently failing to mention his own wife’s ties to Wal-Mart: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1551441/Obama-called-hypocrite-for-wife

Obama implied he was poor and grew up on food stamps; Obama grew up mostly with his grandparents, who were upper middle-class bankers in Hawaii. Food stamps weren’t available in Hawaii until the seventies: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/when-was-obamas-mom-on-food-stamps

Obama claims to not accept oil money, but in fact he has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of

Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for him: http://www.newsweek.com/id/129895

Obama claims to have no ties to lobbyists, but several registered lobbyists have raised over a million dollars for his campaign, sometimes having their wives write the check to conceal his ties to them: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/bad_americans/hows_that_obama.php

Obama has no executive experience. He has never run a business or done a pay roll etc..
He himself has admitted that he does not have the experience to be the President of the United States: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BnLozS-TnM&feature=related

His running mate Senator Biden charged that Obama lacked the experience to be President: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lknTPvH1wSg

Senator Obama voted against his own economic package. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-CO) combed through Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-IL) many campaign promises and compiled a list of 188 new spending proposals that he then packaged together and offered as an amendment to the Fiscal 2009 budget plan. Allard calculated that for the 111 proposals for which cost estimated were possible, Obama’s promises would cost the American taxpayer $300 billion per year and $1.4 trillion over five years. Allard released a floor statement highlighting the size of this spending package, including:

• The $300 billion is more than the $294 billion the U.S. spent on imported oil last year.
• Obama’s current tax raise proposal would cover only $225 billion over 5 years … far short of the $1.4 trillion in spending.
• To finance just the first year of $300 billion in spending, Congress would have to raise taxes on the top 1% of tax payers by 57%.

Obama voted against his own platform and the measure was defeated 97-0.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/03/14/obama-votes-against-his-own-platform/

In his campaign speeches he has claimed to want to renegotiate NAFTA. At the same time he sent an advisor to Canada to reassure Canadians that this was just politics and wasn’t true: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0338038720080303

Obama got more kickback money from Fannie Mae in less time than any other senator.
Obama counts rich, fat-cat billionaires as his advisors - people who made money by lying (Bill Gates) or ignoring small business (Warren Buffett).
Obama also counted former Fannie May advisors as campaign members.

The Rights of the Church

The recent letter from the Catholic bishops of North Texas has raised considerable discussion over whether churches have a right to explicitly endorse or repudiate specific policies. Indeed, certain policies are so deeply identified with specific candidates that the endorsement or repudiation of a policy can seem to be an endorsement or repudiation of a candidate.

For instance, for some reason Barack Obama appears to be synonymous with legal abortion, even the right to infanticide, while John McCain is identified with an infant's right to life.

"By what right," demands the irate citizen, "do these Catholic bishops dare to tell Americans what policies or candidates are to be endorsed or repudiated? I am an American, and no one may tell me how to vote!"

Oddly enough, the Catholic Church does not necessarily disagree. According to the principle of subsidiarity, a higher power should not interfere in the functioning of a lower power if it is at all possible to avoid such interference.

A Catholic who has properly formed his conscience in the teachings of the Church, a Catholic who therefore knows how to live the moral life under every circumstance, has no need to be instructed by the Church in what is to be endorsed or repudiated. Such a Catholic already knows the right course of action, judges the situation rightly, acts on that judgement and everyone goes on about their business.

But what happens if the Catholic in question does not have a properly formed conscience? What if Catholics are influenced not by Christ, but by Chrysler, what if their Messiah is MTV and Oprah is their prophet, what if they pay more attention to the Dow then to the one Who died for them?

In that situation, the Catholic bishops have an obligation to properly form the consciences of the Christian faithful. They have to re-teach them the basic tenets, the bedrock principles, by which a Catholic is to judge how to act in the public sphere.

If Catholics fail to follow that instruction, the bishops have a duty to tell the Catholics precisely who to vote for and the Catholic has a duty to follow that instruction.

"But that's illegal!" shout the even more irate citizens, "That's against the Constitution!"

Actually, it is not. The Constitution gives no one the right to regulate this kind of instruction. In fact, the Constitution specifically says it has no power to regulate religion at all. That is why the state cannot tax religious institutions - the state has no power to regulate religion. The Constitution may be the supreme law of the nation, but it recognizes religion, religious belief and religious instruction as being in some sense extra-national and beyond its proper authority.

Consequently, the Constitution implicitly recognizes that every citizen who belongs to a church belongs to an authority which the Constitution does not and expressly cannot speak to. Just as Europeans have a right to express their opinion about who should be the next president and instruct each other and America in why one choice is superior to another - without being subject to US taxation or regulation - so do members of religious institutions have the same right with the same freedom from regulation or taxation and for exactly the same reasons.

Lyndon Baines Johnson managed to pass a law in 1954 which pretends otherwise. That law is not constitutional, and insofar as it impedes the Constitutionally-recognized power, the divinely ordained power, of the church to regulate its own affairs and its own instructions, no one has a duty to obey it.

I'm Just Askin'

The Bishops of Fort Worth and Dallas have written a joint letter on the duties of faithful citizens that is simply superb. I've never seen the teaching on how a Catholic is required to vote laid out more clearly.

That having been said, one sentence stood out: "To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or 'abortion rights' when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil - and, therefore, morally impermissible."

Now, it is commonly accepted that abortion is the ultimate form of child abuse.

According to the USCCB guidelines, anyone who participates in child abuse is to be immediately removed from ministry.

Consequently, it would seem that anyone who votes for Barack Obama would be subject to immediate dismissal from whatever parish or diocesan position they hold, for they would, by their vote, be cooperating in the worst form of child molestation.

I only hope that all of the bishops who have taught so well on the issue of voting and abortion not only teach, but also link their words and their actions, immediately dismissing every parish or diocesan employee who participates in child molestation via their vote.

Now, you may argue that no one knows how anyone will vote.
I agree.

But if we made the question a condition of employment - as we already do make similar unverifiable questions ("Do you attend Mass regularly? Are you actively practicing the Faith?") and similar intensely private questions ("Have you ever been accused of child molestation? When you supply references, we will also ask them if they have any knowledge of your predilictions towards children.") conditions for employment - we will necessarily change the culture at the parish.

It doesn't matter if people lie to get hired. They will know they had better not promote their child molestation agenda (i.e., abortion rights politics) or they will be subject to immediate dismissal. Indeed, parishes that implemented the policy of asking candidates:

1. if they were aware of Church teaching on voting and,
2. who they voted for in the last presidential election

would undoubtedly find that the pool of unsavoury candidates has dried up, as people realize that heretical Catholics really aren't welcome.

There is no law that says you have to hire people who support the Party of Death.

Now, you may further argue that voting is a personal issue that the Church has no right to interfere in.
If you were to raise this argument, I would merely point out that you are wrong.

The Church has the right to teach on faith and morals.
She teaches us how to avoid sin.
The bishop is responsible for that teaching.
Thus, the bishop has a responsibility to tell us how to avoid sin when we vote.
If we refuse to follow his teaching, then we have ignored a teaching on faith and morals.

The state has no right to tell us how to live our religious life.
The Church, on the other hand, has EVERY right to tell us how to live our religious values in the public square and in our political activities.
That's the whole reason She exists, for heaven's sake.

So, yes, the Church has the right and the duty to tell us how to vote.

She did it for the Catholics in Nazi Germany when She warned the faithful about Hitler and his party of death through the promulgation of Mit Brennende Sorge.

In 2007, She told the Catholics of Portugal they would be excommunicate if they voted in favor of abortion in a national referendum

She can certainly tell us how to vote.
Who can disagree?

John ACORN must die

Let's see...

What is the common thread between the 2008 voter fraud in Michigan, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Colorado, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Virgini?

I would say, but I can't, since connecting the dots is, apparently, racist.

An Interesting Dilemma

Well, well, well, I think we will soon discover how strong the convictions against the Extraordinary Form of the Mass really are.

The coming economic collapse means that parish collection plates will dry up. Pastors are going to have interesting times ahead as they try various ways to snag parishioners.

Currently, the most popular format for snagging parishioners is to snag the children and hope the parents' hearts and wallets follow. Even though the Vatican has just announced that the Eucharistic prayer for the Children's Liturgy will be abolished (thank God), the "youth Mass" still reigns supreme as the way to increase the parish population and "stay relevant."

But how long will that last?

Youth Masses are all well and good, but youth don't have any money. The collections at those kinds of Masses - when anyone bothers to try - are pathetic. The pastor who creates these things is counting on parents to stick with the parish their children are being "fed" in. He's also counting on the same mystique Apple computer counted on - if you get them young, they'll stay with you for life.

It isn't clear that either strategy is all that effective.

Consider the second idea first: the idea that getting them young means lifelong loyalty.

IBM harbored no such long term strategy. They went directly for the deep pockets of the corporate executives, the Jesuit strategy that says if you convert the leaders, the rest have to follow because they have no choice. That strategy allowed IBM to kick Apple's assets up and down the block for decades, because IBM targeted a group with money while Apple targeted a group with no money.

Apple is only making money now because they switched their product line to dirt cheap music and cell phones - the two things a teenager will reliably invest in. True, teens aren't buying iPhones in droves yet, but the switch to music is what made the iPhone development possible. It's what drove their sales for the last ten years. Apple finally started marketing the right product to the generation they've been trying to buy all these years.

They could, and probably will, sell off their computer line in the next few years because it's a losing proposition. In fact, you could argue that they already have, as they now put Intel chips in Apple machines.

And, when we consider that between 60% and 80% of evangelical churches are made up of fallen-away Catholics, it's pretty clear that the "get 'em young" strategy doesn't work all that well.

Well, but certainly targeting the kids in order to snag the adults works, doesn't it? Yes and no.
Sure, it gets the adults who don't particularly care about the Mass and don't know much about the Catholic doctrine they claim to espouse, but those are exactly the parents who don't contribute a whole lot to begin with.

We would be much better off to target the parents of young children with a liturgy that appeals to the parents. After all, good parents will want their children to worship the same way they do. Parents who understand the Mass don't send their children out for a "children's liturgy of the word" because they want their children to grow into adults. Children become adults by being treated like adults. Speaking down to them helps no one.

So where is all of this going?

Well, it is no secret (to anyone paying attention) that the population with the highest net worth and disposable income are the elderly. While it is true that many are impoverished, as a rule of thumb, the older the person, the more likely that person is to be (a) a regular Mass goer and (b) well-off enough to tithe, or to at least approach the idea and wave in its general direction.

It's a simple case of non-presence. People who aren't at Mass don't give money at Mass. Conversely, people who attend Mass frequently are more likely to put money in the collection plate, if only because they see it more often.

Now, who attends Mass most religiously (pun intended)?

That would be the men and women who follow the Extraordinary Form.

The Extraordinary Form tends to attract two populations: the elderly and parents with young children. Both groups are very serious about the Faith and will give whatever they can to keep the Extraordinary Form going.

However, most priests are unwilling to offer the Extraordinary Form.

But most priests will also be looking desperately for new revenue streams in the very near future.

So, whichever priest in a region is the first to overcome his scruples, break ranks and actually offer an Extraordinary Form Mass, even on a once-a-month basis, is going to absorb all the EF adherents from the surrounding parishes. His revenues will go up, the orthodoxy of his parish will go up, the average unruliness of the child population will drop - in short, it's a win-win situation for the parish that does it first.

So, an economic crash may turn out to be God's way of spreading the Extraordinary Form throughout the world.

I Can't Believe We're Losing to This Guy

Ok, let me see if I have this straight.

Barack Obama is currently faced with a federal lawsuit alleging that he is not a natural-born US citizen. Instead of simply producing the documents necessary to demonstrate that he is (and suing the litigant for defamation of character), the Obama camp moved to dismiss the lawsuit. This month (October 2008) the dismissal attempt was denied by the judge. It looks like Obama may have to produce the documents. One would think that if he could, he would have already done so. He hasn't.

Bill Ayers, best known for starting the Weather Underground, which specialized in killing police officers and blowing up buildings, was also famous for telling children to kill their parents to help foment the revolution. He also desecrated a flag in 2000 for a magazine photo op.

Ayers gave Obama his political start by hosting a political fund-raiser in his own living room. He was praised by Michelle Obama for his knowledge of children's issues (which I suppose they got their issues from killing their parents??? but I digress). Now the Obama camp is denying that Barack had any knowledge whatsoever that Ayers was ever a terrorist.

We have the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who famously taught Black Panther socialist philosophy, married the Obamas, baptized their children and gave Barack the name of one of his two books. Barack sat in his church for 20 years, but never heard any of the sermons, except for that little snippet he used to title his book.

Jeremiah Wright was also on the board of directors of the organization that owned Christ Hospital, the facility which specialized in killing children after they survived abortions. When nurse Jill Stanek blew the whistle on them, she did so in part by testifying before both Illinois Senate and the US Congress - she was an eyewitness to the fact that Christ Hospital policy was to throw unwanted infants into soiled utility rooms until they died hours later.

Barack essentially called Stanek a liar, denying this ever happened, and asserting that if it did, then it must be allowed to continue in order to protect abortion rights. He voted in favor of keeping infanticide legal four times.

Barack campaigned in Africa in support of his cousin, the leader of the Kenyan Orange Democratic Movement opposition leader, Raila Odinga, who has fomented a civil war after losing an election there.

Barack's half-brother, George, is homeless in that same country. Barack has not sent a penny to help his own brother.

Barack was also one of the lead lawyers for ACORN, the organization that helped pressure several administrations into supplying bad loans to unqualified borrowers. He got more kickback money in less time from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac than any other US Senator in history (true, Dodd and Kerry got more money in total, but Obama had served far less time in the Senate than either of them, though his "inexperience" didn't seem to affect his bottom-line). His work, and the work of the organizations he supports, helped create the housing crisis that spread, through the sale of bad mortgages, throughout the world so as to become what is now a world-wide banking crisis.


So, we have a presidential candidate who:

• is not a natural-born US citizen,
• got his political start in the living room of his friend, a known and unrepentant terrorist,
• was spiritually mentored by a demagogue,
• supports infanticide,
• supports and is related to socialist revolutionaries,
• refuses to help the poorest of the poor, even when it's his own brother,
• helped create the current US and arguably the current world-wide economic crisis.

And he's winning?

I can't believe we're losing to this guy.

Update: Mr. infanticide's Foreign Policy Expert in Action