Why I Can’t Vote for Obama

The following is a result of a challenge from a politically left-leaning friend who asked me to put strained associations of Obama’s aside and list concrete reasons why I or anybody else should not vote for Barack Obama for president. So here goes...

Obama's Rules

Unless you’ve been in a Pakistani cave for two years, you’ve already heard the overriding theme of the Obama campaign. So where do we even start on the idea of “change”? How about with the guy who wrote the book on it…

Saul Alinsky was a community organizer and establishment agitator in Chicago who penned a ground-breaking book in 1971 called “Rules for Radicals.” His book was intended to instruct those who seek drastic change in their capitalistic society how to realize their goals by not shirking societal norms (as radicals tend to do) but working within the existing system, convincing the lower and middle classes of a need for change and rousing them to action.

Alinsky taught his disciples that any and all means are justifiable so long as they help you achieve the end that you seek. He taught that, while the “community organizer” must adhere to no moral code, they must, in turn, use the morals of their enemies against them. They are to force Christians to live up to their belief system knowing full well that no one can live up to that standard and then destroy them with it.

The original printings of this book included a shout-out to the “very first radical”, who “rebelled… so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” That radical is none other than Lucifer. And, no, I’m not kidding. I think I can honestly say that this is the first book I’ve ever read that credited Satan.

For fellow Chicagoan Bill Ayers (heard of him?), Alinsky’s method helped turn him from a radical that blows up buildings and whose motto was “Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents” into a radical who is now a college professor actively changing the education system from the inside out.

Those who study Senator Obama’s beginnings in Chicago know that he not only learned but taught Alinsky’s method. Obama came to Chicago to become a community organizer answering a help wanted ad for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC), an institution built on Alinsky’s principles. Obama took advanced training at the Industrial Areas Foundation that was founded by Alinsky. In 1990, an article written by Obama was included in a book called “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.”

Alinsky taught organizers to achieve their self-interests by appealing to the self-interests of others. In a truly bizarre quote, Obama told the New Republic last year that “Alinsky understated the degree to which people's hopes and dreams and their ideals and their values were just as important in organizing as people's self-interest."(…and what are an individual’s hopes and dreams if they aren’t their self-interest?... ). But, Obama regurgitated the self-interest principle. I know that, not because it was revealed in a hard-hitting interview or investigative report on 60 minutes but because this photo shows Obama teaching that idea at the University of Chicago Law School.

Obama was also a consultant and trainer for the Gamaliel Foundation, an institution focused on community organization in the Alinsky tradition.

What’s more, Obama was not only a student and teacher but a master of the “Rules for Radicals.” On Obama’s use of Alinksy’s organizational methods, one of his mentors said this:

"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."

Why Should You Care

Alright, I get it. You may be thinking that it’s no big deal that Obama studied some guy who was good at working the system. Here are several important points to keep in mind:

Point #1 – “Rules for Radicals” and the methods detailed therein are intended to be used by Marxist ideologues and it teaches them to use the existing establishment to radically and completely change their capitalistic society.

Though the bulk of the 196-page book focuses on the “how” of revolution and not the “why”, the opening chapter entitled “The Purpose” leaves the reader with little doubt who the intended audience is and what they stand for.

Barely two paragraphs into the prologue, Alinsky makes a very telling admission: “Few of us survived the Joe McCarthy holocaust of the early 1950s.”

Later, Alinsky bemoans the fact that the fellow revolutionaries of his day insist on bucking societal norms thus giving the public every reason to brush them off as “one of those” (Prologue - Pg. xviii) and, in the process, brush off their message entirely. He goes on, “Today revolution has become synonymous with communism while capitalism is synonymous with the status quo… These pages are committed to splitting the political atom, separating this exclusive identification of communism with revolution.” (pg. 9)

Alinsky intends to make people believe that Marxism is not the revolution that his followers seek but makes sure that his disciples are aware that “…the failure to use power for a more equitable distribution for the means of life signals the end of the revolution and the start of the counterrevolution.” (pg. 10)

Later, he makes clear his version of the desired path of a Marxist revolution: “a Marxist begins with the prime truth that that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order or the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage-the political paradise of communism.” (pg. 10)

Point #2 - Alinsky’s followers are taught to use any and all means necessary to accomplish their ends.

“He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiar conception of ‘Personal Salvation’; he doesn’t care enough for people to be ‘corrupted’ for them.” (pg. 25)

The second chapter, called “Of Means and Ends”, goes into detail on 11 different rules concerning how to realize the revolution you seek. In short, anything and everything is on the table. The chapter stresses the moral relativity of any given moment and that the reader must ask themselves if adhering to their own morals supersedes the goals of the revolution. The answer is always “no.”

Point #3 - Senator Obama is not simply a student, teacher and master of the Alinsky method, his current campaign is the culmination of nearly forty years of “community organization” in adherence to the Saul Alinsky method.

How Obama Uses Alinsky’s Methods

Now you might be thinking, “Senator Obama seems like a nice guy, I don’t think he’s devious or as morally bankrupt as he would have to be to follow a guy like Saul Alinsky.” Not so fast. The evidence says otherwise. Read the following quotes from “Rules for Radicals” and ask yourself if they jibe with things that Obama has said or done.

Hope & Change

“The organizer’s job is to… get people pregnant with hope and a desire for change and to identify you as the person most qualified for this purpose.” (pg. 103)

“The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty Equality, Fraternity’, ‘Of the common welfare’, ‘Pursuit of Happiness’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’” (pg. 45)

“A word about my personal philosophy. It is anchored in optimism. It must be, for optimism brings with it hope, a future with a purpose and, therefore, a will to fight for a better world.” (pg. 21)

“The middle classes are numb, bewildered, scared into silence. They don’t know what, if anything, they can do. This is the job for today’s radical – to fan the embers of hopelessness into a flame to fight. To say… ‘You can’t turn and look away-look at it-let us change it together!’ ’Look at us. We are your children. Let us not abandon each other for then we are all lost. Together we can change it for what we want.’” (pg. 194) Tell me that one doesn’t sound like the makings of an Obama speech.

Clingers

Concerning the middle class: “Insecure in this fast-changing world, they cling to fixed points-which are very real to them.” (pg. 188) Like say… guns or religion.

Obama’s Bush Doctrine

“The thirteenth rule [of power tactics]: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” (pg. 130)

“The other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract...” (pg. 133)

It’s a fairly simple argument. Bush is terrible, McCain is Bush. Honestly, can you count the number of times you’ve heard any of the following phrases this past year: “this administration”, “past eight years”, “third Bush term”? It’s powerful and simple. Its lack of specificity should be its flaw because it should lead the listener into questions like “What’s been so horrible?” or “When were things better?” Instead, the a lack of specificity and a dash of derision results in nodding heads and a run on pitchforks at the hardware store.

The Middle Class

In the eerily prescient final chapter, Alinsky pleads the case for the next and most important step of the revolution. The chapter entitled “The Way Ahead” details how and why the community organizer must inspire and recruit the middle class to achieve his goal.

“Organization for action will now and in the decade ahead center on America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. …their action or inaction will determine the direction of change” (pg. 184)

“Our rebels have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class… but we must begin from where we are if we are to bring about change and the power and the people are in the big middle class majority. Instead he should realize the priceless value of his middle class experience.” (pg. 185) Which explains this ad.

“[the organizer] will view with strategic sensitivity the nature of middle-class behavior with its hang ups over rudeness or aggressive, insulting or profane actions. All of this and more must be used to radicalize parts of the middle class.” (pg. 186) Which may explain why you’ve never seen Obama angry or even upset.

On that same train of thought, “Tactics must begin with the experience of the middle class, accepting their aversion to rudeness, vulgarity and conflict. Start them easy, don’t scare them off. The opposition’s reactions will provide the ‘education’ or radicalization of the middle class. It does it every time.” (pg. 195)

“[the members of the middle class] see a United States Senate in which approximately one-third are millionaires… and then say to themselves ‘The government represents the upper class but not us.’” Which explains this ad on McCain’s seven houses.

Finally, Alinsky speaks of the importance of vagueness in describing both the current problems as well as your proposed solutions: “ [The middle class has it’s] role to play in the essential prelude of reformation, in their acceptance that the ways of the past with its promises for the future no longer work and we must move ahead- where we move may not be definite or certain but move we must.”

The means justify the ends – even if that means you lose your morals…

Obama lied about Jeremiah Wright

By now you’ve probably heard enough of Reverend Jeremiah Wright to know that you don’t like him or, at very least, that he says some crazy things. After Wright reiterated all of his wackiest statements to the National Press Club last April, Obama distanced himself from Wright saying that he was “not that man I knew for 20 years.”

The fact is, in his book “Dreams from My Father”, Obama quoted the very first sermon he heard Wright give, a sermon that changed his life, a sermon called “The Audacity to Hope” (which, yes, inspired his address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention and his second bestselling book of a similar name). Obama quotes Wright describing our world as a one “where white folks greed runs a world in need.” Obama knew full well, and from the first time he heard Wright speak 20 years ago, what Wright was capable of spreading from the pulpit.

Obama went back on campaign financing promise

In June, Obama broke his oft-repeated promise to use abide by recent campaign finance reform efforts in the general election if his opponent did the same. This move (or “political jujitsu” as Alinsky called it) not only adheres to the entire second chapter (“Of Means and Ends”) but with pages 152-155 on “Their Own Petard.” By doing the “honorable” thing of abiding by his own campaign finance “suggestions”, John McCain is virtually out of money while Obama is running 30-minute infomercials on every major network.

Obama refuses to release any personal history he doesn’t have to

In short, Obama has yet to release all of the following records: Occidental College Records, Columbia College Records, Columbia Thesis, Harvard College Records, Selective Service Registration, Medical Records, Illinois State Senate Schedule, Law Practice Client List, Certified Copy of Original Birth Certificate, Embossed and Signed Paper Certificate of Live Birth and Record of Baptism.

Obama refuses to call out ACORN for voter fraud

Obama lied about doing political favors for Tony Rezko

Obama is accepting untraceable donations

Etc., Etc., Etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum

If Alinsky is Not Enough…

If knowing that Obama has been taught (and has taught others) to do and say whatever it takes in an effort to radically change society is not enough for you, here are a few of my non-Alinsky-related reasons for not voting for Barack Obama:

Obama’s Healthcare system is designed to fail

There are two vital details to keep in mind about Obama’s Healthcare “solution”:

Key #1 - Individuals adults don’t have to buy health insurance

Key #2 - Insurers must cover individuals regardless of any preexisting condition

Both of these sound like good ideas. Unfortunately, telling Americans that they need not insure themselves until they become sick will result in higher costs for those who do choose to cover themselves. Higher insurance costs will lead to more individuals dropping insurance creating a spiral that ends somewhere down a figurative drain.

To my knowledge, this problem was only addressed by Senator Obama once, during a debate with Hillary Clinton last February. He said “if it turns out that some are gaming the system then we can impose potentially some penalties on them.” That doesn’t sound like a plan to me.

To be sure, Obama is not proposing nationalized healthcare. He is proposing a plan that will set up a central, government-run healthcare entity that will remain as a cornerstone for nationalized healthcare that will inevitably follow when his current plan fails.

Socialism

I cannot argue that we have programs in this country, some of which were created by “Conservatives”, that are socialistic in nature. I’m sure, if I looked around McCain’s proposals enough I could find some class warfare rhetoric and proposals that will only benefit the poor at the expense of the rich. The question for me is not who is a socialist, it’s a question of who is more of a socialist? And for (A) his government-subsidized healthcare plan that’s only available to lower income Americans and (B) his tax plan that targets only the top 5% of wage earners and gives “tax breaks” even to Americans who don’t pay taxes, that winner is Barack Obama.

So, why should you be opposed to socialism? Well, I’m glad you asked.

Earlier this month, Obama accused McCain of wanting to cut Medicare. It’s an old Democrat trick and a demonstrable lie. But it’s indicative a larger, more important point: when an entitlement program is put into place, it is simply irreversible. From time to time we can raise or cut defense spending, investment in infrastructure, maybe even in education. But almost never do you see significant reductions in the budget for firmly entrenched entitlement programs. Politicians play retirees and the disabled against the opposition, claiming that that other guy will take away your check (or “benefits”).

The truth is that there simply won’t be enough money to cover Social Security and Medicare in the not too distant future. Obama is creating a brand new government-subsidized healthcare program that’s only available to the “less fortunate” and the government-subsidy will only be paid for by the “more fortunate”. And if Medicare and Social Security are any indication, (A) this program will not be able to be reversed and (B) it will be bankrupt (and potentially bankrupt us) in a matter of time.

I could go into more detail about the value of personal responsibility and even give examples of how welfare reform worked in the 1990’s. Suffice it to say, we are a free society that has attracted hard-workers and self-starters to our shores, it is what made us great and that has not changed. Punishing achievers and rewarding failure will result in a loss of the initiative that made us great.

Per GDP, Americans are by far the most charitable people in the world especially when compared to truly socialist nations around the globe. America’s economic greatness (and our ability to affect change in the world) is strong in spite of, not because of, the socialism that exists in our country today.

Taxes

Please do not be fooled into thinking that if Barack Obama raises taxes on only the top 5% of wage earners that you will not be affected by it. When Obama taxes businesses, like the business you work for or the businesses from which you buy… well… everything, they pass on the tax burden to you in higher prices for goods and services and, eventually, by cutting jobs to keep up with rising costs.

Fairness??

A recent Rasmussen poll found that a whopping 49% percent of Obama’s supporters do not want Supreme Court Justices to rule based on the Constitution but on the judge’s sense of “fairness.” This next section will be of no use to those of you who truly wish to eschew the Constitution or any rule of law for governing our country.

Confronted in an April 2008 debate about raising the Capital Gains Rate and why he would raise it when all the historical evidence says that when we do less tax revenue is generated, Obama’s stated reason for wanting to raise the rate was “fairness.”

Raising the Capital Gains Rate, which will make rich people poorer and make poor people poorer (by reducing the tax revenue that they see in government entitlements), is OK with Obama because it is “fair”? Apparently Obama’s utopian society is one where everyone has an equal-sized portion of the turd sandwich his tax policies will leave us with.

When asked about Obama’s top 5% tax plan and whether or not it’s “class warfare rhetoric”, Senator Biden said “where I come from, we call it fairness.” Well, Joe, where I come from taking money from people who’ve earned it and giving it to people who haven’t is the antithesis of fairness.

Democrats in complete control

Obama has shown an inability to stand up to his party. As a Senator he voted with his party 96% of the time and he has yet to call out Democrats for causing the housing crash that left us in the current financial crisis.

Why does that matter? It means he’s likely to go along with whatever comes out of the Democrat-controlled congress. And what kind of ideas are they proposing?...

Charlie Rangel’s Trillion-Dollar tax hike

Taxing your 401(k)

instituting the Fairness Doctrine

And Teddy Kennedy’s deathbed Universal Healthcare bill

Abortion

Senator Obama has the single most radical record on abortion that we have seen from a US legislator in our lifetimes. He has a 100% rating from NARAL for each of his years in the Senate. He received a zero rating from the National Right to Life. He has voted for embryonic stem cell research and against non-embryonic stem cell research.

As a state senator Obama voted four times against a Born Alive Infants Protection Act and lied about why. He’s claimed that his vote was intended to protect the sanctity of Roe v. Wade (which is a laughable notion on its face). In 2003, he made his final vote on the matter. That bill included an amendment with the verbiage he required that protected Roe v. Wade. He still voted “no.”

Immigration

Since McCain has an immigration record worth hiding, this issue has not come up. Nevertheless, Barack Obama supports giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Doubtless, you have your own reasons to be against that. I oppose this because it’s the sort of thing was instrumental in the 9/11 attacks and will likely lead to voter fraud in the future.

Conclusion

The bottom line is: Obama is a well-trained liar. His campaign is the culmination of a generation of Alinsky’s “realistic radicalism.” But even if you still do believe him, know that his proposals will be disastrous for America in many different ways.

If nothing else, I hope this will inspire you to do some research, arm yourself with the facts and vote accordingly on November 4^th.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.” - Ronald Reagan

Obama: The Candidate of (Constant) Change

This past spring, on CNN’s Compassion Forum, Illinois Senator Barack Obama reiterated his firm belief that God created the universe. He even spoke about sharing this fundamental truth with his daughter. Not seven sentences later, he followed it up with this clarification: “…let me just make one last point on this. I do believe in evolution.”

Most assuredly, Barack-o believes in evolution. Quite a few of his positions have evolved over the past year. Earlier this week, Obama broke his oft-repeated promise to uphold recent campaign finance reforms by accepting public financing in the general election if his opponent did the same. This may be the most recent “evolution” of one of his positions but it is hardly the first (nor will it be the final) instance where our “change” candidate is living up to his name...

On whether or not he would run for president in 2008:

As recently as January 2006, Obama continued to assert that he wouldn’t be in the 2008 presidential race. Among his reasons for not running was his self-acknowledged inexperience. In 2004, he said “I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job… if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate... some people may be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people.”

According to his campaign website, Obama is, indeed, running for president in 2008.

On Iraq:

After vehemently opposing the war at a time when our best intelligence said that our terrorist-supporting sworn enemy had WMDs, Obama said, in 2004, that he supported an increase troops in Iraq (a.k.a. a “surge”). He even went as far as to say that withdrawal would be a “slap in the face” to troops already deployed. Even better, he claimed that withdrawal “would add to the chaos there and make it an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity.”

In 2006, he stood against John Kerry’s proposed retreat: “Having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them.”

According to his campaign website, Obama’s current plan is to withdraw troops by the end of his first year in office.

On Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

Obama claimed that he was not “in the pews” when his pastor of two decades told the congregation that the US government created AIDS to kill them. He was assuming, of course, that we would all agree that if Obama wasn’t there to hear them then Reverend Wright’s comments are not worthy of reproach. In his leg-thrilling race speech, Barack-o claimed that he could “no more disown him than he can disown the black community.”

After Rev Wright simply reiterated all of his crazy statements to the National Press Club, an event that Barack Obama did not personally attend, Barack disowned the man he could not disown. Inadvertently, Obama confirmed what we had feared, that anything and everything can be said inside his church and garner his tacit approval. However, when the same statement is uttered by the same man in a different location it is deemed reprehensible.

On the level of threat Iran poses to the US:

Despite the fact that we live in a world where 19 men with box cutters can perpetrate an attack like the one on September 11^th, 2001, Obama reassured a crowd in Oregon that Iran (as well as Cuba and Venezuela) are tiny threats compared to the Soviet Union. One wonders how advanced the Iranian nuclear program must become before the Democratic Nominee will upgrade their threat status from “tiny” to “negligible.”

Forty-eight hours later, in a speech in Montana, Barack-o had the audacity to claim that for “years” he has made it clear that he believes that the “threat from Iran is grave.”

On whether he’ll meet with Iran without preconditions:

In a July 2007 debate, Obama was asked, "would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?" His response, “I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them - which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous.”

In May, Obama clarified his position in an interview with Jake Tapper saying that while he still plans to meet with Iran without precondition it won’t be without preparation. Preparation, of course, being a precondition that you only place on yourself. Wonderful! He’s capitulating to terrorists already!

Earlier this month, Obama had a slight change of heart when he claimed that he would meet with Iran at “time and place of my choosing if and only if it can advance the interest of the United States.” Which brings our precondition total to three: (1) they must meet where Obama chooses and (2) the meeting must advance the interest of the US and (3) we have to adhere to the Boy Scout motto (“be prepared”).

On May 15^th Obama got some help from Flip-Flopper-In-Chief, John F. Kerry who, in an appearance on MSDNC, claimed that Obamessiah himself wouldn’t meet with Ahmadinejad directly. He said “That’s why you have a Secretary of State.”

Kerry and Obama should probably check out and/or have someone update the campaign’s official website which says, “Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.”

Let’s chat! After all, Iran only poses a “tiny-grave” threat to American’s who are not currently being attacked by Iranian-supported Sunnis in Iraq.

On whether or not we should call Iran's Revolution Guard a Terrorist Organization:

In a June 4^th speech before AIPAC (America’s Pro-Israel Lobby), Obama preached to the choir saying he agreed with those that believed that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force was, indeed, a terrorist organization.

According to his campaign website, Obama opposed and continues his opposition of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment which would allow the US government to dub Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and prosecute them as such.

On the gas tax holiday:

Obama is against what he calls a “gimmick” of giving consumers and OTR drivers a break on federal sales taxes on fuel for the summer. Barack-o was an advocate for a similar measure while a state senator in Illinois.

On wearing his American Flag lapel pin:

Obama made a scene over eschewing his flag lapel pin claiming that it’s a substitute for true patriotism. True patriotism, according to Obama, is speaking out on the issues. However, since that declaration, Obama been seen multiple times on the campaign trail brandishing this symbol of faux patriotism.

In other news, Barack is planning a speech where he will throw away his wedding ring and tell everyone what a horrible cook his wife is. After all, that’s how you show true love.

On government-sponsored health care for illegal immigrants:

In 2003, at a forum on health care, Obama declared his support for giving in-state tuition and health care to children of illegal immigrant and undocumented workers.

His current health care program will not cover illegal immigrants.

No complaints here.

On whether or not Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel:

Speaking to the pro-Israeli crowd at AIPAC in early June, Barack-o stated that he believes that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel (as opposed to sharing it with the Palestinians). After drawing the ire of his terrorist lobby (he wouldn’t want to risk his Hamas endorsement), his position evolved: “Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.”

Personally, I appreciate it when someone uses the word “obviously” when they are forced to clarify something that is anything but obvious.

On keeping the embargo on Cuba:

In 2004, Obama declared that it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" which contrasts with his recent speech to a largely Cuban audience in Miami where he said that would not "take off the embargo" as it is "an important inducement for change."

On NAFTA:

Last October, Barack-o became the first presidential candidate to support the expansion of the current version of NAFTA to include Peru.

According to the Obama campaign website, Obama now stands for a renegotiation of the current iteration of NAFTA that “works for American Workers.”

On the Patriot Act:

Understandably, Obama must be truly conflicted on this one. On one hand, his official definition of patriotism is speaking out on the issues (see Lapel Pin section). On the other hand, this legislation is called the “Patriot Act.” It’s impossible for him to be both for the “Patriot Act” and be, by his own definition, a patriot. Or can he?

The fact is, after campaigning against the Patriot Act, Obama voted to pass the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006.

Playing “messiah’s” advocate here, it may be that Obama just likes to keep all of options on the table. After all, it’s not the worst strategy to give every possible answer to a given question. Eventually you’ve got to be right.

More to come…

2012: The Search for a Pastor-less Candidate

Barack Obama is to Jeremiah Wright as John McCain is to ?

DNC Chairman Howard Dean's approved response is “you’re a racist!” This is, of course, how Democrats would like to keep our long-awaited conversation on race. Democrats call Republicans “racist” while Republicans inaudibly mutter something about which side of Slavery and Segregation the Democrats were on (not to mention Jim Crow Laws, Poll Taxes and the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Republicans might even mention Bull Connor and Bob Byrd (former Kleagle in the KKK, current senator) but to no avail, the label sticks.

Moreover, the “racist” claim is in step with the updated version of how Democrats define attacks against their candidates:

Swiftboating: Presenting an indisputable fact about a white Democrat politician that may be devastating to their campaign

Racism: Presenting an indisputable fact about a black Democrat politician that may be devastating to their campaign

If you’re one of the 0.02% of the population that watches the DNC’s network (MSDNC), you know the real answer to our initial question is that McCain’s Reverend Wright is John Hagee.

Hagee has been accused of calling the Catholic Church the “great whore” (from Revelation) which he later attempted to clarify. Unfortunately, not everyone is afforded the luxury of “context.” Hagee also said Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment on New Orleans for its collective sin including the sin of homosexuality.

As abhorrent as the Left finds Hagee’s use of Old Testament Wrath-ology, they certainly weren’t appalled when former Democratic Presidential Nominee, Albert Arnold “Al” Gore, Jr., implied that Katrina was a result of our sin of SUV-driving. If only Hagee had implied that we had been punished by Mother Earth and not by God he’d be eligible for a Nobel Peace Prize!

The truth is, there is a world of difference between Wright and Hagee, and there’s an even bigger difference between their respective relationships with Obama and McCain. McCain has never been to Hagee’s mega-church, let alone called the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio his spiritual home for two decades. Hagee didn’t lead John McCain to Christ, never baptized his kids, didn’t marry him and Cindy. Hagee didn’t inspire any of McCain’s books or his initial run for elected office. Hagee was not McCain’s personal spiritual mentor on the campaign trail.

However, the fact that one could continue on this train of thought into infinitude is the point of this article.

Lost in all the pastoral sniping is how someone else is getting a total pass on the matter. Hillary Clinton doesn’t regularly attend church and has no spiritual mentor to speak of. And her campaign is better for it.

What’s more, in a July 2007 New York Times interview Clinton claims to have “felt the presence of the Holy Spirit” and says that she’s officially “open” on the idea that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation.

That’s it! As is the case with every other issue on the table this year, she says just enough info to pacify the electorate. Her comments were made sufficiently under the radar so as to not attract attention. (FYI, if you want people to know what sound a tree makes when it falls in the woods, don’t broadcast the event on MSNBC or write about it in the New York Times.)

What does this all mean? Would Obama or McCain be better off if they, like Ronald Reagan, didn’t go to church (at least not publicly)? Is this the collective lesson learned from JFK and Mitt Romney? Would Mike Huckabee’s political aspirations been better served by going to Law School rather than Seminary? Could Carter and Bush [43] be the last presidents to positively motivate bloc voters based on their profession of faith?

If all those things are true, it would truly be unfortunate. In 2004, just 13% of Americans considered themselves non-religious. Over three quarters of Americans are self-proclaimed followers of Christ. It’s no secret that our country was founded on religious (particularly Christian) principles.

It would be a shame if future candidates for our highest elected office were disqualified in some way based on their affiliation with an institution so integral to our past and present.

Why Rev. Wright Will Endure

If you believe Barack, neither the “out-of-context” Reverend Wright from YouTube snippets or the in-context Wright at the National Press Club is the man he met 20 years ago. We can all agree that people change. But no one becomes a virulent anti-American preacher overnight, especially at the incredibly inconvenient moment that one of your parishioners is running for President.

Which leaves millions of voters begging questions such as, how much anti-government, anti-white rhetoric has Obama heard from the pulpit over these past two decades and how much of it has seeped into his subconscious or, worse, his conscious?

Furthermore, how can someone who claims he wasn’t “in the pews” when these statements were made have never heard the news from someone else? No one thought to tell the US Senator that his pastor credited the government with creating AIDS to kill people of color? No one tipped him off when the reverend exhorted the church to stop singing “God Bless America” and collectively sing a prayer of damnation for their country? Really? No one said a word to Obama? What kind of political environment is Chicago anyway?

As preposterous as that all sounds, those who endorse Obama (college students, “Latte Liberals”, MSNBC, Hamas, etc.) believe he is the candidate with the “judgment” to lead America. He has the “judgment” to lead but lacks the ability to determine that his friend and mentor of 20 years is really an anti-American race-baiter?

This speaks to his ability to perform the duties incumbent upon the US President. If he’s oblivious to the thoughts of Wright, can Obama be trusted with selecting Supreme Court Justices or cabinet members? Is he fit to be Commander-in-chief of all four branches of our Armed Forces?

But, for Obama supporters, the only choice is to believe his words. It’s his words that have incited fainting on the campaign trail and sent “thrills” up the legs of the Chris Matthews of the world. If you can’t believe him at his word what does Obama have?

Without words, Obama’s supporters may actually have to look at his wafer-thin resume. They may even consider the fact that Chicago is as downtrodden and corrupt as it was when he was first elected to the state senate.

They may even start looking at how their “post-partisan” candidate has little-to-no history of crossing the political aisle and working with “the other side” to get things done for the good of the country. They’ll realize that the only Republicans who support his candidacy are former congressmen like Lincoln Chaffee (you know the pro-Abortion, pro-Gay Marriage, anti-war, Sierra Club Republicans… a.k.a. Democrats). They might have to consider his consistent Mike-Dukakis-Ultra-Liberal stances on every issue facing America.

Moreover, not believing his spoken words means that we’ll have to start looking at his written words. Handwritten words, like those on a General Candidate Questionnaire filled out prior to his state senate run. He felt the need to write that he was member of the AFL-CIO and the Sierra Club but neglected to correct the portion that said he was against all capital punishment and advocates a ban on handguns. To explain it, he took the very Clintonian step of blaming a staffer for filling out the questionnaire that was at odds with his moderate image. One is left to assume that they forged his handwriting as well. Admittedly, I can’t remember exactly what he said. I was feeling a tad lightheaded at the sound of his voice.

Finally, for Obama’s supporters to believe him at his word, they will have to come to terms with the idea that in the twenty years that their “Agent of Change” knew Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the only change that took place in Wright was that he began to spread hatred and lies from the place where he was entrusted with ministering the love of Christ.

“Change We Can Believe In.” I beg to differ.

The Reverend Wright issue will live on not because of the Wright’s words but because of Obama’s.

What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”?

What is “Vigorous Diplomacy”? I can’t honestly say that I know. It’s a phrase you’ve probably heard more than once this campaign season. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both say they advocate “Vigorous Diplomacy” and seem to consider it the cure-all for America’s anemic foreign relations. So, if two of the three finalists in this year’s election of the Free World’s leader think it so crucial, then shouldn’t we, at very least, try and figure out what the heck it is?

John McCain believes it involves becoming a “model citizen” in the global community. Last month, the Four-Term Arizona Senator cited the need to respect the collective will of our democratic allies as opposed to wielding our power to “do whatever we want whenever we want.” He holds that several issues have tarnished our collective rep. Among them: torture. And, while he may (by his own admission) not be an economic expert, I believe he’s the closest thing Americans have to an authority on the matter, so I yield to his expertise.

While the presumptive GOP-nominee has mentioned it in a stump speech or two, Tulzan sniper fire couldn’t keep Senator Clinton from what seems like an hourly mentioning of “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Hillary has offered it as a solution to just about every international conflict we have. Specifically: Iran and North Korea but China and Venezuela as well. These are strained relationships, to be sure, but none as tenuous as the definition of the phrase itself.

As best I can tell, there’s no generally accepted definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” As such, let’s begin by examining its constituent parts. Here are the respective definitions from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary:

Vigorous:

1: possessing vigor : full of physical or mental strength or active force : strong

2: done with vigor : carried out forcefully and energetically

Diplomacy:

1: the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations

2: skill in handling affairs without arousing hostility : tact

Invoking Occam’s Razor, the simplest answer when combining the definitions of the two words is that “Vigorous Diplomacy” is “Forcefully and skillfully negotiating between nations without arousing hostility.” Sound reasonable?

The proof, then, should be in the proverbial pudding. Do recent actions of Hillary Clinton fit our reasonable definition?

Let’s start our inquiry with Russia, a very large, very powerful democratic ally. Its leader, President Vladimir Putin, has a decade and half of experience in the KGB. Like the majority of the free world, Putin supported the invasion of Afghanistan but balked at endorsing our use of military force in Iraq. Bush [43] famously liked what he saw when he got “a sense of his soul” (whatever that means) and has worked with him to reduce both countries’ nuclear arms which remain a truly unfortunate lasting symbol of our generation’s most significant non-conflict.

So what has Clinton said or done to improve this important but strained relationship whilst on the campaign trail? For starters, she all but canceled-out Bush’s sentiments while campaigning in New Hampshire last January declaring that Putin “doesn’t have a soul.” To which Putin retorted “I think that a statesman must have a head at a minimum… And in order to build interstate relationships, one must be governed by the fundamental interest of one's own country rather than by emotions.” Ouch.

Furthermore, when asked in a February debate about the Russian heir apparent, Clinton stumbled over his name calling him “Medved... whatever” and implying that it was a moot point since he’s been “hand-picked” by the “soulless” KGB agent and will effectively be a puppet of the former regime. Nice.

One must conclude that our definition cannot be correct since the champion of Vigorous Diplomacy was neither skillful nor able to avoid hostility with the Russian leadership.

Let’s try a different track. Maybe this is one of those terms best defined by what it is not, for example, “antipathy” (as in “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”). You can attempt to describe what it means but your best bet in effectively explaining it is to say something to the effect of “it’s the opposite of sympathy.”

So, what is not “Vigorous Diplomacy”? After listening to the Clintons (all three of them now), the polar opposite of “Vigorous Diplomacy” must be “Cowboy Diplomacy”. Though mentioned by the Clintons nearly as often as “Vigorous Diplomacy”, “Cowboy Diplomacy” may be no less nebulous an idea. However, if one were to venture a contextual guess, one might believe that “Cowboy Diplomacy” is best thought of as “whatever the Bush Administration does.” And, what the Bush Administration did is invade a country without the approval of the global community (but, oddly enough, with the approval of the Clintons).

With that in mind, if I were to give you a completely ridiculous hypothetical situation… let’s imagine… I don’t know… what if the Olympic Committee went off the deep end and granted hosting rights for the 2008 Summer Olympics Games to a Communist country that has been exacting religious oppression not only it’s on own people but on its neighbors. Now imagine that country has the largest army in the world.

George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton offer two opposing diplomatic options in dealing with this entity: One says we should organize a boycott of the Opening Ceremonies of the event in an effort to embarrass the country into changing their ways. The other wishes to continue meeting one-on-one with their leadership hoping to come to peaceful resolution that results in improved standing in the world-wide community for all involved.

Thinking objectively, which one do you believe is advocating “Vigorous Diplomacy” as opposed to “Cowboy Diplomacy”?

This is seriously confusing.

Unfortunately, it seems we’re back where we started, without a definition for “Vigorous Diplomacy.” Therefore, I resolve to continue to define it as I always have.

“VD” a communicable illness, with no known cure, that has unpredictable, unfortunate and embarrassing side-effects, spread by the act of …[edit]…, perpetrated by the shameless among us and enabled by mass ignorance.