The Pope of Liberal Hope

I’ve come to the conclusion that—with regard to politics—there are three types of people in the world:

1. Those who really don’t care about politics, don’t follow it, don’t like it, and have no use for discussions of it;

2. Those who find it interesting, are willing to apply reasoning to it, debate it with analysis and logic, and are able to be contradicted without responding with anger;

3. And those who worship their politicians the way they worship their saints and celebrities.

The first kind should create a mild annoyance, or a sense of disappointment. In Venezuela, where the society has been deeply polarized into two main camps (the Chavistas that support el comandante, and the Opposition), this group of disinterested individuals are called “ni-nis”, which, translated to English, means “Neither-nors”. They support neither Chavez nor the Opposition, and so they sit on the sidelines, totally involved in their own personal interests and don’t care to take a side or try to make a difference. Their indifference, and their abstinence from voting, has enabled Chavez to establish a quasi-dictatorship.

The second kind is best identified by pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and others on the right, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs in the center, or Alan Combs, Rachel Madow, and Keith Olberman on the left. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, these personalities take politics seriously and for the most part apply logic and reasoning to their arguments, and generally remain civil during discussions, even while it may get rather passionate.

But it is the final kind that concerns me today. This group of people does not scratch past the surface of their candidates speeches, do not research, do not seek a variety of opinions, and place all of their “faith” in their candidates. These are the people who—if they are journalists—cannot seem to muster the courage to ask their candidates tough questions. They exploit every weakness in candidates they dislike (note that it’s dislike, more than “with whom they disagree” because it is a personal opposition, not a conflict of ideas). They will even lay traps to trip them up and make them look foolish, rather than explore their ideas.

These are the individuals who vociferously proclaim their political ideas in the workplace, but become absolute livid if someone disagrees with them. These people hang on every word of their beloved politician as if they were a benediction from their Priest. They do not think about the meaning behind the words, but instead repeat them as if they were a holy invocation of God.
For this reason, when they are confronted by anyone who questions the words uttered by their saintly leader, their reaction is visceral, and they feel compelled to hate their opponent as a fanatic would hate a heretic. The new religion of the left is personified by Barack Obama, who has been exalted and is now the Pope of Liberal Hope.

One inaugural attendee stated that Obama was like "any one of the Biblical leaders", such as Joshua. Denzel Washington said "he is like one of those apostles for our day."

Obama evokes tearful adoration. Women swoon, and metro-sexual journalists get thrills down their legs as they watch him.
This cannot end well. Although I may blaspheme by saying it, Obama is only human, is inexperienced, and is characterized by excessive naiveté and insufficient executive experience.

Obama is not divinely inspired, and the problems he faces are fractals of infinite complexity, completely beyond repairing by the simple evocation of heartwarming mantras such as Hope and Change. The philosophical ideals the liberals hope to promote look great on paper, and sound great when they flutter from the lips of their god’s earthly representative, but in practice they inevitably will have unexpected consequences.

Close down Guantanamo, and what becomes of those highly trained, dedicated kamikaze terrorists? Who will die because you placed your ideals above our security?
Force companies to buy “carbon credits”, and you increase the cost of the products, decreasing competitive edge, and what will happen to those companies? Will they move overseas? Will they lay off workers?

Force our coal industry to invest billions to “clean up emissions”, and what will result? Will energy prices sky rocket? What other prices will rise? Will the coal go out of business?

Promote alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and what is the environmental impact? Will hundreds of thousands of acres of viable farmland be converted instead into wind and solar farms? What impact will that have on food supplies and prices?

Promote bio fuels, and will corn that normally feeds us be diverted into fuel for our automobiles?

Will rising energy prices inspire a boom in hydroelectric projects? How many valleys will be flooded?

Promote a single-payer health care system, and what will happen to the high quality of the American medical system?

Will “investing in the future” by way of multiple trillion dollar deficits bankrupt the country?
Some of these projects may turn out well, but without a doubt, not all of them will. There will be unexpected and negative consequences. There will be failures, there will be scandals, and the Pope of Hope will not be able to deliver everything he promised.

But, not to worry: I’m sure the Pope will find some new devil to blame.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

While reading the Venezuelan news at El Universal, I found this Rayma cartoon that just seems to demonstrate what I had thought. People are just going NUTS over this NUT. It shows Obama's photo tucked in between a number of Catholic Saints.

Is it just coincidence that he is located next to Judas?

Whose welfare is it, anyway?

Near the end of the Obama/McCain presidential campaign, a Florida television station recorded a woman who was extactic that--if Obama were to win the election--she wouldn't have to worry any more about paying her mortgage, or filling her gas tank. Yes, it's gotten to the point that some people appear to think that Uncle Barack will provide for everyone.

This reminded me of a discussion I had with some of my students way back in 1994.

I was a teacher in an inner urban school, during the period when the Republicans in Washington wanted to reform welfare and make it Workfare.

One of my students walked up to my desk in front of the class and asked me; “Sir, what do you think about them taking away our welfare?”

“Our Welfare? What do you mean, ‘our’ welfare?”

“I mean, it’s mine and my Momma’s, it’s what we need to get by.”

So I asked him, “What makes you think it’s yours?”

“Well, ‘cause we are the ones that need it, so it’s ours.”

I looked at him carefully, and noticed that—as he was a basketball player—he was wearing a pair of expensive Air Jordon’s that cost about three times what my shoes cost.

“Do you have a job?” I asked him.

“What? You know I don’t, Sir, I’m a basketball player!” he protested. “My Momma works two jobs just to support me and my brothers!” Understandably, he seemed indignant that his momma had to work so hard.

“Why does that mean, you can’t have a job?”

“Because I have practice every day, and I have games every week, I don’t have no time to be working at no $5 a hour job!” he answered, indignantly.

“OK, that makes sense.” I commented... “those are nice Air Jordon’s, buddy. Who bought those for you?”

“My Momma did,” he said, a little cautiously.

“Nice Momma, you know those are worth more money than I could afford to pay for shoes, right?” I asked

“Yes, you do wear some lousy shoes!” he joked, and the class laughed.

“Right. Now, whose shoes are those?” I asked.

“Mine!” he quickly answered.

“Are they? Let’s pretend for a moment that your Momma bought you those shoes so that you would do really well at basketball. She hopes you will work hard, and get a scholarship, and build a future…”

He smiled. “That’s right, she does.”

“But let’s pretend that instead of working hard, you loafed around in the gym, and didn’t practice, and just chased the girls, and your Momma got really mad and said to you, ‘Son, I paid for those shoes to give you an advantage, to help you succeed, and you blew it! Instead of working, you just lazed around, so since you don’t appreciate what I gave you, I’m taking those shoes away, and I’ll give them to your little brother, who is willing to work hard!’ Now, she would have the right to do that, wouldn’t she?”

He was silent. The whole class was silent. “So…really, whose shoes are those?”

He paused, thinking about the question, and obviously uncomfortable with the conclusion to which I had led him. Finally, he sheepishly answered: “My Momma’s.”

“Because she paid for them. Right. Now, who pays for ‘your’ welfare?” He didn’t answer. “I do. And all the other teachers do. And all the other workers do. We give you all some money to help you—not to ‘get by’, as you put it, but to get ahead. And here you are, wearing shoes I can’t afford, and not working because you are an athlete, and making your Momma work two jobs, and talking about how all of this is yours. It is NOT yours. I bought the welfare, I paid for it, it’s mine. And I have the right to demand that you and everyone else who receives it do something with it, and work for it, and not just laze around chasing girls. Your Momma has the right to demand that you work for your shoes, and I have the right to demand that anyone who receives welfare work for that money. Now, that’s what I think about that.”

An amazing thing happened. That huge, 6 and a half foot tall black athlete stood up tall, looked at me very critically, and then gave me his hand. And he said, “You know what, Sir? That’s why we all love you. You say it the way it is.”

He went to his seat and that was the last we ever talked about it.

Biden, Obama, and the objective paralysis caused by moral relativism

When Senator Barack Obama accepted the invitation to a ‘town hall’ discussion with mega-pastor Rick Warren, he surely must have anticipated that he would be asked about his pro-abortion stance. And when the inevitable question was posed to him, to consider the nearly forty million aborted fetuses in the United States, and to answer “at what point {does} a baby get human rights?”, Obama’s response was admittedly “flip”:

“…whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity…is above my pay grade.”

A number of weeks later, having selected Senator Joe Biden as his VP choice and running mate, it was Biden’s turn to state his opinion on the issue. NBC anchor Tom Brokaw asked Biden,

“When does “life” begin?” Biden answered:

“I know when it begins for me. It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you, there an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths—Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others, who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They are as intensely religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life. And they have different views as to when… {life begins}. I am prepared as a matter of faith, to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am, it seems to me as inappropriate in a pluralist society. But then you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that fascism is all right.”

Brokaw followed up: “You’ve stated that you believe that life begins at conception, and you’ve also voted for Abortion Rights.”

Biden responded: “What I voted {for was} against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion, I voted against telling everyone else in the country, that they have to accept my religiously based view.”

For the purpose of this essay, I’d like to call this belief system the “Biden Principal”. Let’s make it official, and tag it onto the man who believes he is so experienced in International Affairs that he is singularly qualified to be Vice President and eventually President of the United States--and yet is incapable and unwilling to make any moral judgment that might impose values on anyone else.

Now, contrast Obama and Biden's responses—inspired by the Biden Principal—to the one from Senator McCain, when asked the same question:

“At the moment of conception.”

This simple dialog is one of the most revealing and crucial moments in the entire presidential campaign, and has to be explored. Although the theme is focused like a Laser on the Abortion/Pro-Choice debate, it has ramifications for all aspects of a Democratic Presidency and the type of policies that the country could expect from them.

Because at the heart of the matter, the Democrats are basically saying that Morality is not a universal value, that opposing opinions almost always should be valued equally, and that it would be “inappropriate” for anyone to “impose” their values on others in a “pluralistic society”. In every case, the Democrats have made an absurd attempt to state that the Catholic Church is still “struggling” with the issue about when a human fetus should be considered human life—despite the extremely clear signal from Rome that Abortion is murder, it is a sin, and it is condemned.
But, to state it another way, the Democrats are practicing a form of the old adage to “Eat your cake and have it to.” A more accurate revision might read: “Abort your child and commit no sin.”

Now, I simply cannot help thinking, Obama should thank God that President Lincoln was a Republican, and not a Democrat. Because if Lincoln had applied Biden’s moral relativism to the issue of Slavery—had he wavered or waffled or caved to public pressures as did his Democratic opponent, General G. McClellan—Obama and all other African-Americans living in the United States today, would all be a slaves.

Because this exact type of moral decision making is not an optional skill for a President. It is not enough to vote “Present” when facing the moral crises that rock the nation.

• “Is slavery wrong? Shall we wage a civil war, killing hundreds of thousands of our own citizens, in order to free millions more?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we enter the war and push back the advances of Fascism?” YES!
• 
  “In order to end history’s most horrendous war, shall we drop a nuclear bomb, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, in order to avoid an invasion that would kill millions?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we change the laws of the nation to give Women or Blacks the right to vote and participate fully in the society?” YES!
• 
  “Shall we condemn Islamic extremism and launch a war to destroy the enemy who attacked us and killed our citizens?” YES!
  

The issue of Abortion is highlighting a moral contradiction within our society that echoes the sins of our ancestors, and cannot be put to bed. Obama worshipped at the altar of a minister who regularly called not only for redemption, but also for reparations, for the sins committed in the name of Slavery.

What redemption is possible for the murder of 40 million unborn souls? This staggering number makes the horrors of Nazi Fascism look paltry! Six million Jews killed? That’s barely a fraction of the number of children who were butchered inside the womb. For what? What exactly is the equation in which “ABORTION” is the “final solution”?

Biden’s statement about Fascism is absolutely crucial: “you get the pushback, ‘What about Fascism’, everybody, you know, you gonna say “Fascism is alright?” Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks that Fascism is all right.”

The most logical interpretation of this statement is that it is fascist for any group to impose a moral imperative upon any other group who holds religious conviction that what they are doing is correct. But by this very same illogic, if Southerners in the Confederacy held religious convictions that Blacks were not human, or were sub-human, it would therefore be fascist for the Northern abolitionists to impose their values upon the Confederacy and force them to end slavery.

Let’s extrapolate further: the Islamist terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, immolated themselves in a religiously-inspired suicide mission designed to fulfill the Fatah of their religious leaders and their Prophet Muhammad and kill as many infidels as possible. The Biden Principal logically would not allow for the United States to respond militarily to the Taliban and al Qaeda threat—since these enemies are inspired by deeply held religious beliefs, we are morally obliged to recognize those religious beliefs and elevate them to an equal standing with our own.

The United States, having attacked the Taliban with the intention of supplanting the Islamist regime with a less radical regime, is therefore a fascist aggressor.

And in the case of abortion, the liberals must fight to contradict any attempt to provide the human fetus with a status of “human”, because to do so would be to impose their “religious values” upon others who do not share that value. Faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the liberals have chosen to dehumanize the human fetus in order to secure the more concrete liberty; carefree sexual intercourse without the “punishment” of consequences.
By contrast, the conservatives have taken the opposite solution to the very same problem: faced with an unsure, unclear, ambiguous decision, the conservatives have chosen to humanize the human fetus, eschew carefree sexual intercourse and consider the consequences of an unwanted child not as a punishment but as a direct consequence of a poor decision that is, nevertheless, a blessing from God.

This moral clarity is essential in a President. Reconsider the list of decisions that past presidents had to make, from Slavery to Suffrage, involvement in world wars and how to achieve victory, as well as when and how to defend our national security in a time in which the enemy is a religious fanatic determined to destroy the nation by any means possible.

This is why it is unacceptable, and even shameful, that Barack Obama responded to Minister Warren’s question by stating that the judgment was “beyond his pay grade.” The sort of false-humility, this "Biden Principal" that paralyzes leaders into inaction, this will get us killed.

In the case of American children, it has already resulted in the deaths of forty million.

It is, quite literally, a holocaust of indecision.

Sara Palin is the GOP's Will Rogers

A quick note on Sara Palin’s VP acceptance speech.

First of all, let me clarify that I am still a registered Democrat. Old habits die hard. And I’m hopeful that somehow we can save the party and bring it back from the socialist abyss and make it the party of the average Joe.

My opinion on the Dems is that they have allowed arrogant urban liberals to take over the party, they idealize European socialist values and have been convinced by their liberal college professors that the average American is a tacky, unsophisticated hillbilly who is incapable of comprehending the complex reality that they—the leftist elite—understand. And they have been sucked into the populist morass that has them convinced that the only way to solidify electoral support is to flirt with class warfare, romanticize revolution, and offer up government subsidized give-aways.

Finally, they are right to believe that Americans want the war to end. But they are committing George McClellan’s mistakes during the Civil War and assuming that a war-weary public wants peace at any cost. History will prove that Obama is committing the same mistake that cost McClellan the Presidency.

I listened to the Sara Palin speech last night—twice—and was enthralled by her. After the speech, I heard a commentator say that "the conservatives have found their Obama."

But, I don't think that's right. Because Obama is one of those types that fulfill the role that is often referenced in the following way: "Everyone serves some sort of purpose, even if it's just a bad example."

Obama may have "a back-story", but it's more of the story of the wayward child who eventually finds his way and becomes endearing to a certain element of the population—but really is the antithesis of the average American out there on the range, or the ranch. How many of the average American at one point turned to cocaine and sold drugs? How many of them took advantage of their race to get preferential treatment and go to an Ivy League school and STILL resented America?

Palin’s acerbic wit was spot on last night. She really “took the Mickey” out of the Obamas, Harry Reid, and the libs in a way that was astonishingly powerful yet amusing. She presented herself as a bulldog with lipstick, an analogy that serves her well. She gave the Democrats a tongue lashing with a home-spun flavor that reminded me of a conservative Will Rogers.

If there was one primary successful tactic in Palin’s speech, it was that she totally undermined the Obama story and subtly revealed Obama’s elitist, unpatriotic attitude, and humorously highlighted his total lack of experience. And she reinforced the correct interpretation of American attitudes about the Iraq War. As a mother of a soldier deploying to Iraq, she wants her boy to come home victoriously. This effectively confirms the notion that Obama is to the Iraq War what George McClellan was to the Civil War: a surrender monkey.

To quote George C. Scott’s Patton, “Americans love a winner, and abhor a loser.” We want our troops to come back—victoriously.

I had not been expecting such a powerful speech from Palin. But she truly delivered, in spades. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that Palin may have demonstrated that she is—as a political speaker—on a par with Bill Clinton.

Watch out, Obama and Biden. The McCain camp just rolled out a secret weapon that might just turn the war.

Wiley experience versus unsteady charisma: McCain Vs. Obama

On August 28, 2008, Democratic Presidential Candidate and apparent wanna-be Caesar Barack Obama gave the speech of his life at the Denver Invesco stadium to a huge crowd of nearly 80,000 fans. Fans, I say, because it has become clear that Obama is more of a celebrity than a candidate. The mainstream media treats Obama like a Rock Star: ignore his foibles, pretend that he is not frightfully lacking in experience, do not draw attention to the confused and conflicting policies he has put forth, try to cover for his arrogance and haughty attitude that reinforces the feeling from many Americans that he is either totally out of touch or woefully elitist.

So today, August 29th, it would be natural to expect that Obamania would cover the pages of the electronic media. But no. Look at Foxnews.com, and you don’t see Obama today. Nor will you find his Lordship gracing the cover of the more liberal CNN.com. No, instead you see McCain—and his newly announced running mate.

Just at the time when the press was all giddy about Obama—McCain may have just upstaged him!

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been tapped to be McCain’s VP, surprising most people who thought that Romney or Pawlenty would have been the natural choices. Was this a brilliant strategic move by McCain? Palin is young, relatively inexperienced, could this have been a mistake?

Coming out of the Democratic Convention, CNN talking heads proudly pronounced that “76% of Democrats said that the convention unified the party.” Interesting spin on a statistic that we already knew weeks ago: about 30% of the Hillary Clinton supporters were bitter about how she was treated by the Obama campaign and surrogates, and were not likely to vote for Obama. Many women in the country, who are likely to be the swing voters and turn the tide in this campaign, felt deeply disappointed that Clinton was not the Democratic nominee, or at the very least, Obama’s choice for VP. So saying that 76% of Dems feel that the party has unified is just another way of saying that 24% are still not happy. And that 24% equates to hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.

Whenever I analyze this situation, the most logical analogies that come to mind seem to be either Chess or military strategies. I am a fan of chess and in chess there are three principal elements to the game that must be mastered in order to win the game.

They are Space (territory on the board), Momentum, and Material.

Once upon a time, Obama had all three of these to his advantage.

Voter support, translated into votes, won states, and thus delegates, is the territory. And according to most polls, Obama appeared to ahead. But he has slowly leaked that support away through a number of missteps. Obama gave up territory.

In order to win—Chess or war battles equally—combatants sometimes must sacrifices territory in order to gain either momentum or material.

Obama apparently decided that, by nominating Joe Biden to be his running mate, he could use Biden’s years in Senate to counter the attacks on Obama’s lack of experience, and hopefully come out of the convention with increased momentum. But this didn’t seem to work. Many who had hoped that he would choose Hillary were disappointed. And while Biden is a fairly serious choice, back when Biden was one of the Democratic candidates opposing Obama, he had made a number of stinging criticisms about Obama’s lack of experience.

This gave new ammunition to the GOP, and facilitated the attack on Obama’s lack of experience—and judgment: Obama's choice actually undermined the weak flank he had hoped would be reinforced. And Obama left the convention without gaining in momentum.

McCain’s choice of Governor Palin appears to be a classic flanking maneuver. McCain had attacked Obama on experience, which forced Obama to choose Biden over Clinton, since Clinton—in spite of her popularity—could not claim many years of experience as anything other than the wife of a former President. The choice of Biden reinforced the public’s suspicion that Obama was inexperienced, but it also reinforced the resentment by Hillary’s supporters, and the women who had so wanted to see a woman in the White House in a role other than first lady or sexy intern.

That third element in chess, material, is usually the “pieces” that empower the player. Rooks, Knights, Queen, etc. Without material, the player simply cannot control the board or the momentum. In politics, it can be equated to financial support, and that intangible support that is media attention and buzz.

The Palin choice, announced the day after Obama’s biggest speech, has taken that advantage away from him, and with it will come momentum. After all, on the day when everyone should have been talking about Obama’s great speech, they are instead talking about VP candidate Palin. Women callers to the Laura Ingraham show this morning were energized, excited, and without an exception said that this decision will encourage them to donate to the McCain campaign. In other words, McCain has now gained additional material to propel his campaign forward.

On all three fronts, material, momentum, and space, McCain has slowly whittled down the Obama advantage. We are witnessing a classic example of a battle led by two very different generals: an older, experience statesman, and a young, brash, charismatic celebrity.

And it is becoming very clear, that while there is a romantic attraction to the young and charismatic leader, unless that charisma is enhanced by some real street smarts, he can easily be outclassed by the wily old man.

In my opinion, barring some unforeseen disaster on the McCain camp, Obama just lost the lead, and may be headed toward doom.