The Silver Linings in a Dark Day for the Pro-Life Cause

With the election of the most Culture-of-Death-candidate the Presidency has ever seen, there are some silver linings that we can take away from this election season:

1) The "Pelosi Heresy," brought out in the open during this campaign, marked a turning point for the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in America. 89 Bishops and Cardinals definitively and loudly spoke out without filter or political concern for the unborn in America. Our brave leaders (Chaput, Martino, Burke, Gracida, etc…) are ready for the task at hand in defending life during an Obama Presidency. Also, the misdirected, Catholic vote last Tuesday was byproduct of decades of prelates confusing Catholics and watering down morality in order not to offend anyone. Likewise, a decade from now there will be a byproduct of these great prelates’ preaching. The future of the RC Church in America is very bright.

2) Despite an electoral landslide behind the most liberal presidential candidate ever, one of the most liberal states (CA) voted for a State Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Activist judges already have their overturning opinions written on this one, but the majority of people (52%) in this most liberal state are still against gay marriage, meaning the totals are much higher across center-right America.

3) Al Franken has apparently lost his Senate bid. This defeat happened in one of the most liberal states in America, Minnesota. As a note we heard ad nauseum on how Sarah Palin was "unqualified", while the national media never used this term when a professional joke writer ran for Senator. Recognize the bias.

4) Speaking of Sarah Palin, during this campaign she exploded on the national stage. Without a question, she will be a major force in the political landscape for many years to come. More on Palin later.

5) Democrats now hold control of the Presidency, House and Senate. If their failed, tax and spend policies, like the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac catastrophe, don’t improve the country, who are they going to blame in 2012, George Bush? Pelosi now has the opportunity of being exposed for what she really is. A dimwit. This could be setting up a Republican landslide in 2012.

6)Speaking of Bush, Conservatives and Republicans now have to now take a long, hard look at their failings and they will discover that they abandoned their bedrock principles on fiscal and moral responsibilities and this is what brought on this disaster.

7)With an African-American being elected to the highest office in our land by a popular vote, any support of Affirmative Action should be dead in America. With hard work, intelligence and dedication obtaining any office is possible in America. I once heard a comment about Affirmative Action citing, that based on its historical roots of discrimination, it discriminates against someone who was not present, nor guilty of the discrimination it is trying to remedy, to favor someone who was not necessarily discriminated against. If Michael Jordan’s child went up against a white, dirt-poor farmer’s child from the heartland, Jordan’s child would get preference. It is a ludicrous philosophy and should have been based on economic considerations, and not race, to begin with.

8) The most likely U.S. Supreme Court justices set to retire Ginsburg (75 years) and Stephens (88) are the most liberal judges on the court. Obama would be replacing liberals with liberals. The prize of the Supreme Court would be Anthony Kennedy’s (72) replacement, as Kennedy always serves as the swing and deciding vote. He is 72 years old and hopefully can hold on 4 more years as a thank you to the Republican Party that put him in the office.

9) Both the Conservative and Pro-Life causes now are the opposition cause. This tends to bring out more action, dedication, resolve and result. Our country needs it at this time.

The Big Day: The Big States

After looking at the Electoral Map more times than I ever wanted to over the past month, here is what the election will come down to. John McCain has to take 3 out of 4 of these states: Ohio, Pennsylvania,Virginia and North Carolina to have a chance to win the election. If McCain does not take three out of four of these states, the election is over and call it a night. If he does, it is a ballgame and he must flip one more Obama leaning state for the Presidency.

There was a great story on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America radio show this morning. 50 public polls had all stated that Dewey was going to beat Truman on the eve of the election. Harry Truman, thinking there was little hope, went to bed early and told his staff wake him up if something happens. Can you imagine being a candidate for the Presidency of the United States and not staying up for the election returns? He woke up at 4AM in the morning to find out he was up by 2 million votes, then said “We won, it’s over…”

More Worries for Camp Obama

Politico.com cites a Pew Research survey of 21,000 respondents (a very large sampling) citing that Obama has not made any advancements with evangelicals.

"Barack Obama has courted white weekly churchgoers as avidly as any Republican-leaning bloc of voters, though it now appears his efforts may fall flat on Election Day. The Gallup Poll now shows Obama backed by 28 percent of white voters who attend church at least once a week — a group that makes up a roughly a third of all voters — which would be no improvement from the 29 percent of these voters who, according to exit polls, backed Democrats John Kerry and Al Gore in the previous two presidential election. “There has been remarkably little change among whites in the religion gap,” said John Green, of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and a top specialist on the convergence of religion and politics. "

This is of major importance because the Karl Rove strategy could come into play. This core constituency of the Republican party is 25% of the overall voting public. If these evangelicals come in the numbers they did last time, McCain would only need 1.28 of the remaining 3 votes to win the Presidency. I firmly believe these evangelicals will show up in numbers similar to 2004 and 2000. They have been programmed by now and have deep convictions.

Also, another big area of concern for the Obamanites is that the White Catholic vote has determined every election since 1972 as cited by Chris Cillizza:

White Catholic Vote (1972-2004)
2004: George W. Bush 56 percent, John Kerry 43 percent
2000: George W. Bush 52 percent, Al Gore 45 percent
1996: Bill Clinton 48 percent, Bob Dole 41 percent
1992: Bill Clinton 42 percent, George H.W. Bush 37 percent
1988: George H.W. Bush 56 percent, Michael Dukakis 43 percent
1984: Ronald Reagan 57 percent, Walter Mondale 42 percent
1980: Ronald Reagan 52 percent, Jimmy Carter 39 percent
1976: Jimmy Carter 52 percent, Gerald Ford 46 percent
1972: Richard Nixon 57 percent, George McGovern 42 percent

The polls are split who has the white Catholic vote right now. The most accurate poll in 2004, the IBD/TIPP poll, has McCain way ahead on this vote, 51% to 38%. I being a White Catholic can not believe Obama is ahead. No way, no how. The Church has never been more vocal on an election, and the Reagan Democrats have been shifting heavily to McCain.

Again, this election is far from over.

McCain/Palin: An Upset in the Making?

Acknowledging a McCain/Palin victory is a very uphill proposition, here are some things that should make the Obama camp tremble in their boots:

1) Zogby cites that for the first time in many weeks, McCain polled higher than Obama (48% to 47% respectively) in yesterday’s daily poll taking independents and blue collar workers:

Pollster John Zogby: "Is McCain making a move? The three-day average holds steady, but McCain outpolled Obama today, 48% to 47%. He is beginning to cut into Obama's lead among independents, is now leading among blue collar voters, has strengthened his lead among investors and among men, and is walloping Obama among NASCAR voters. Joe the Plumber may get his license after all. "Obama's lead among women declined, and it looks like it is occurring because McCain is solidifying the support of conservative women, which is something we saw last time McCain picked up in the polls."

2) Dick Morris stated yesterday on the Michael Medved radio show that McCain has an "excellent" chance to pull an upset. Morris claims large blocks of demographics are still shifting both ways and this election is far from over. He sites the youth vote is now shifting towards McCain in greater numbers while the elderly vote is shifting towards Obama likewise. Morris the other night on Fox News also stated that Obama has been "hemorrhaging votes" these last two weeks.

When most Conservatives are discourage at the gap between Obama and McCain in the polling, Morris, though his experience in running actual campaigns, knows better. He points out Obama is having great difficulty breaking 49% in the national polls as quoted in the Washington Post. He is looking at election day top down:

"It does not matter how wide or narrow the gap is between the two candidates. What matters is how far above or below 49 percent Obama is in the final polls (49 percent assumes that Ralph Nader gets 1 to 2 points as he did in 2004). Right now, Obama is straddling the 49 percent mark; about half the polls put him over it and half under it. If the final polling numbers indicate that Obama is not convincingly north of 49 percent, we are in for a long night."

He also believes that the "Undecided’s" will break heavily to McCain. I agree with this thinking and anticipate McCain will take these votes 2 to 1. With everything as bad as it is right now, if they haven't decided on Obama by now, they won't.

3) Obama also has had a stranglehold on the Hispanic vote to date. That might change in these last few days. As a population that has the iconic of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the patroness of the unborn, as a symbol that marks their ethnic identity , their heritage and core is pro-life. This is not compatible with pulling a lever for Obama.

Retired Bishop Rene H. Gracida sent out an e-mail in Spanish to 2.9 Million Hispanics instructing them to vote pro-life. The letter has been made into a radio commercial and will play in battle ground states over Spanish airways. This is a nightmare for the Obama campaign.

4) Finally, politics is all about reading the nuances. The Obama campaign, and their supporters in the media, are throwing out the idea that if Obama loses this campaign, while being so far ahead, it must be racism. It is not the middle class relating to "Joe the Plumber," it is not Obama’s stupid mistake of saying "spread the wealth", it is not the definition of the middle class that keeps being adjusted down, it is racism. The Obama campaign is hoping by making these remarks public it will make people feel guilty if they vote for McCain. This was mentioned on Fox News this AM as a quote from the Obama operatives, and others like Susan Estrich have been floating this out. This really speaks to the issue of how the Obama camp is feeling the tides turn and the pressure. Playing the race card has serious implications on the voting electorate and is never played from a position of strength.

So take heart this is not over yet.

So Proud of Our Church

Here is a roll call of prelates citing abortion is the primary focus of this election. It cites 89 Bishops and Cardinals to date have preached the unfiltered Gospel and lead their flocks. Here are some highlights:

Archbishop Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican: "Catholics who support pro-abortion candidates participate in a grave evil. They must show a change of heart and be sacramentally reconciled or refrain from receiving Holy Communion." In addition, he stated, "At this point the Democratic Party risks transforming itself definitely into a 'party of death.'"

Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas, Bishop Kevin Vann of Fort Worth: "...there are no 'truly grave moral' or 'proportionate' reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. 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."

Cardinal Edward Egan of New York City: "Do me a favor. Look at the photograph [of a 20-week preborn baby] again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of 'legalized' abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act."

Bishop Joseph Martino, Diocese of Scranton, Pa.: "No social issue has caused the death of 50 million people [as abortion has]. This is madness, people." (to parish forum)
"Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to... take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door... Let us continue to speak the language of love and affirm the right of every human being to have the value of his or her life, from conception to natural death, respected to the highest degree."

Three Campaign Thoughts this Tuesday

Here is something extremely interesting. Investors Business Daily, who had the most accurate Presidential Poll in 2004, gives access to their polling demographic data to their respondents. Let’s look at what happened to the Catholics polled over the past few days as to whom they were voting for:

October 20th:
Obama: 49% of Catholics Polled
McCain: 38% of Catholics Polled

October 21th:
Obama: 46%
McCain: 41%

October 22th:
Obama: 39%
McCain: 48%

October 25th:
Obama: 40%
McCain: 47% (McCain lead held)

So what happened to the Catholics responding to the poll ending October 22nd that caused the huge flip to McCain? Well, since it is a rolling 3-day average poll, this means the poll dated the 22nd, with the flip, would have been started on Monday, October 20th. Here is my guess as to what happened. All those Sunday bulletins with Bishop letters on the 19th.

2) Major Garrett brought up a good point tonight on Fox News. Obama has spent the last 2 days in Pennsylvania. Bill Clinton will fly in tomorrow and bang the drum for Obama, with Joe Biden returning to his hometown PA area to campaign in the next day or two. The in-state polls say Obama is up by 10 points in the Keystone State. The Obama campaign is not acting like these numbers are true. If they were up by 10 points they would not be spending so time in Pennsylvania, they would have a comfortable lead. The Obama campaign is forecasting a much closer race in Pennsylvania than the polls and media would have you believe. Please remember, Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania when he outspent her in the state.

3) I had a whimsical thought last night. Lorne Michaels, the creator of Saturday Night Live, mentioned Sarah Palin would do well with her own talk show, and there might be opportunities for her in this venue. Wouldn’t it be poetic justice if Palin took 50% of Oprah’s audience away. Oprah would not interview Palin due to her blatant support of Obama. There is a large portion of her audience who is getting tired of her new age sales pitches and her liberal colors. Her audience is core, middle-American, stay-at-home woman, which is more aligned with Palin’s views and personality.

Charles Krauthammer: Case for McCain "Straight Forward"

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated, national columnist and frequent guest commentator on Fox. His life has a truly inspiring story as he became paralyzed in a diving accident in college, still went on to earn an M.D. from Harvard; became the Chief Resident in psychology in Massachusetts General; then entered the world of politics as a speech writer for Jimmy Carter, followed by a political writer and commentator.

His writings have defined terms such as the Reagan and Bush Doctrines. He corrected Charlie Gibson’s understanding of the Bush Doctrine when Gibson used it against Palin citing Gibson did not understand the term himself. He is a very independent, non-partisan thinker. When reading the link above, you will see how his art has influenced life.

Unfortunately, he is pro-choice but I predict he will come around to the pro-life side eventually. I see some rumblings in his writings.

He had the quote of the week last week humorously stating the Joe Biden was a plant by the Republican Party after the umpteenth gaffe by Biden.

Krauthammer wrote a great column that should be read in its entirety, here are a few excerpts:

"The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the last year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of "a world that stands as one"), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as "the tragedy of 9/11," a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts, but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis -- indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he's been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it and, finally, deny its success.

The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor.

Today's economic crisis, like every other in our history, will in time pass. But the barbarians will still be at the gates. Whom do you want on the parapet? I'm for the guy who can tell the lion from the lamb."

This column appeared in Krauthammer's 200 syndicated newspapers. I hope it gives people pause before they vote next week.

Colin Powell: Four-Star Turncoat

I wanted to address the Colin Powell endorsement of Barack Obama.

It should always be understood that Colin Powell is a politician first, and a General second. Americans frequently confuse this order. Powell’s political instincts are a vital part of his core as a person and have served him extremely well in life. They have been constantly used as a tool for his advancement. After being a "C" student at City College in NY, he rose up the ranks in the military with his political skills and amazingly achieving the rank of Four-star General without ever being a divisional commander. This is an extremely rare military occurrence. This also happened to Dwight Eisenhower. Franklin Roosevelt needed a calm demeanor that he could trust directing his war efforts and he could not control the egos of Patton and MacArthur, so he appointed Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a politician as well, proven by he later became president.

To underscore this statement of Powell being a politician first, how many Generals do you know that have the political aptitude and diplomacy to be Secretary of State? I mean, can you image Norman Schwarzkopf sitting across the table, drinking tea, with North Korea’s Kim Jong Il? Schwarzkopf would lunge across the table and take him out. That is a general who is a general first. The spartan element.

I also believe Powell road the coattails of Normal Schartzkoft’s success in Desert Storm for his own benefit. At the press conference after the successful invasion of Kuwait, Powell’s handed off the press conference to Schwarzkopf to explain the invasion. He did this because Schwarzkopf knew it best to explain in, because Schwarzkopf was the mastermind behind it.

Powell has always been a Democrat in Republican clothing, His RNC speech a few years back could have been given word for word at the Democratic Convention, highlighted by his pro-abortion view, the same year and been well received. He was a Republican because that was the political party/administration that was in power for the 12 years when he needed to rise through the ranks, literally.

Powell saw his Obama endorsement as a way to find his way back to his true party, and advance the Powell cause at the same time. A perfect political move. He waited until Obama was up double-digits in some polls and there were only two weeks left to the election to endorse him. Not really a brave move of conviction; it was a political move of expediency. So goes Powell.

Powell endorsed Obama with talking points that seem as if they were directly taken from Obama’s campaign. Obama represents change - - a "transformation figure", is a dynamic orator, he has "style and substance" [Blogger Note: tons of style, no substance], and Powell didn’t like people mentioning Obama’s Muslim background (which is a electorate concern in middle America). Sarah Palin was a ditz, not ready to be President, which according to the polls is a deciding factor to undecided voters. Could not have been scripted better. On Meet the Press, no less.

The Monday after the endorsement, Obama stated that Powell would have a role in his administration. It was a Quid Pro Quo, nothing else. Nothing of courage, nothing of integrity, nothing of underlying principled value. Sadly, the endorsement will sway some people.

The Old Guard Dies Hard

Two very similar stories that most people would not piece together.

First, in July of this year, Jesse Jackson blindsided his constituents with off-camera remarks about what he really thought about Barack Obama. For those who remember these comments, Jackson’s words left no room for opinion as how he felt about Obama.

It was a legacy leader of a movement showing hostility at the person who would replace his status as the leader of the African-American community.

In September of this year, Peggy Noonan was similarly caught off-camera telling her true feelings towards Sarah Palin, citing the election is "over" and McCain picked her only as a "narrative."

Make no mistake about it, this as well is a legacy leader of a movement showing hostility towards the person who is replacing her.

Palin is an attractive, articulate, talented woman who stirs Conservative hearts. This once was Peggy Noonan’s mantle.

I could accept and respect Ms. Noonan’s view on Palin if it was sincere by being consistent from the beginning. But it has been anything but consistent. As mentioned above, there was the off-camera "narrative" comment.

Then within the next few days, Noonan wrote a piece trying to water down her comments.

Then she turned and went into a pro-Palin phase of praise:

"That normality in turn highlighted the courage she showed in being there, on that stage for the first time in her life and under trying circumstances. Her averageness accentuated her specialness. Her commonality highlighted her uniqueness.

She seemed wholly different from, and in fact seemed a refutation to, all the men of Washington at their great desks who make rules others have to live by but they don’t have to live by themselves, who mandate work rules from which they exempt Congress, for instance. They don’t live by the rules they espouse. She has lived her expressed values. She said yes to a Down Syndrome child. This too is powerful."

Then followed it up with another Pro-Palin column saying how she is the star saving the McCain campaign:

"Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We’ve got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend. She’s about to get jumpers, the old political name for people who are so excited to see you they start to jump."

Then yesterday she did the dirty. Rage and vanity are so erratic.

"But we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office."

There are two types of people who are infuriated by Palin. The first group is liberals; the second group is elitists. Noonan is obviously not a liberal. But she does use terms like "averageness" and "commonality" to describe Palin as seen in the above quote. A normal person would never describe Palin in these terms. She went from PTA president to VP candidate in 17 years. There is nothing average and common about her. It is the difference between looking up at her, and looking down at her. Noonan obviously does the latter, proving she is the latter group.

Noonan runs in elite, literary circles of affluent writers and Washington power-brokers. When she talks, she is intensely listening to every word that comes out of her own mouth and sounds like she could be sipping tea on the Queen Mary.

It is a sad day for me. I used consider Peggy Noonan the female voice in the Conservative movement. Noonan’s actions alone can tell you she has been replaced.

Post Note 10/26: Tony Blankley agrees on Noonan:

"Peggy's unconscious fear may be that it will be precisely Sarah Palin (and others like her) who will be among the leaders of the about-to-be-reborn conservative movement. I suspect that the conservative movement we start rebuilding on the ashes of Nov. 4 (even if McCain wins) will have little use for overwritten, over-delicate commentary. The new movement will be plain-spoken and socially networked up from the Interneted streets, suburbs and small towns of America. It certainly will not listen very attentively to those conservatives who idolatrize Obama and collaborate in heralding his arrival. They may call their commentary "honesty." I would call it -- at the minimum -- blindness."

Archbishop Chaput: "Private, Legally-Protected Little Murders..."

Douglas W. Kmiec writes a farce of a column in the L.A. Times citing that a Catholic in good conscience can vote for Barack Obama:

"So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you've then got "some 'splain'n' to do." It's a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

Archbishop Charles Chaput recently spoke at a dinner answering this ludicrous column.

The Archbishop continues to be one of the blazing pro-life voices in America, cleaning house and setting everyone straight. He preaches the unfiltered Gospel; bringing Kmiec back to the Truth (capital "T"). This article should be read by every Roman Catholic in America and sent to every family member who tells you at a family gathering that Barack Obama is a legitimate Catholic choice:

"I believe that Senator Obama, whatever his other talents, is the most committed 'abortion-rights' presidential candidate of either major party since the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in 1973," he added. "Despite what [...] Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively 'pro-choice;' it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing.

"The prelate affirmed that the platform of the Democratic Party that emerged from its national convention in August "is clearly anti-life."

"Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama," continued Archbishop Chaput. "Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates."

The prelate continued: "To suggest -- as some Catholics do -- that Senator Obama is this year’s 'real' pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred 'pro-life' option is to subvert what the word 'pro-life' means."Archbishop Chaput said he thought Kmiec's endorsement of Obama has "done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

The truth is that for some Catholics, the abortion issue has never been a comfortable cause," said the Denver prelate. "It’s embarrassing. It’s not the kind of social justice they like to talk about. It interferes with their natural political alliances."And because the homicides involved in abortion are 'little murders' -- the kind of private, legally protected murders that kill conveniently unseen lives -- it’s easy to look the other way."

The archbishop called it "wrong and often dishonest [...] to neutralize the witness of bishops and the pro-life movement by offering a 'Catholic' alternative to the Church’s priority on sanctity of life issues."

"As I suggest throughout 'Render Unto Caesar,' it’s important for Catholics to be people of faith who pursue politics to achieve justice; not people of politics who use and misuse faith to achieve power," he said.

Archbishop Chaput lamented that for 35 years he's watched the pro-abortion lobby fight tooth-and-nail against the pro-life movement: "Apparently they believe in their convictions more than some of us Catholics believe in ours. And I think that’s an indictment of an entire generation of American Catholic leadership."

The prelate continued by affirming that being pro-life is much deeper than looking to overturn Roe v. Wade, or being a "single issue" voter: "The cornerstone of Catholic social teaching is protecting human life from conception to natural death. [...] Every other human right depends on the right to life."

He added: "So I think that people who claim that the abortion struggle is 'lost' as a matter of law, or that supporting an outspoken defender of legal abortion is somehow 'pro-life,' are not just wrong; they’re betraying the witness of every person who continues the work of defending the unborn child."And I hope they know how to explain that, because someday they’ll be required to.""

I think if the unspeakable does happen, and Barack Obama is elected President, history will look back and Chaput's comments in Denver at the time of the Democratic Convention as the origin of a very long and adversarial relationship between these two. Chaput's conviction will not permit him to be silent, and he does not care if the truth upsets politicians or lessens his place in secular society.

What John McCain Must Do at Final Debate

As anyone can see in the polls, Wednesday night's debate is a make or break for John McCain. He does not need a tie. He does not need to be a gentleman in a losing cause, ala Bob Dole. He needs to be an attack dog and deliver a knockout punch.

Here, in my opinion, are the three essential things he must do at Hofstra to right the ship than has recently been rudderless:

1) He must compound significantly the doubts that America has about Barack Obama becoming President

Dick Morris this weekend on Fox News summed up exactly the position that the average American voter is in regarding this election. He said the average voter is very disenfranchised with the direction the country is going in and they want to boot the Republicans and their administration (the buck stops at the presidency). At the same time, these voters have great reservations about Obama. They are stuck between rage and fear.

The Obama camp criticized the McCain campaign for not bringing up personal criticisms while he had the chance at previous debates. Implying McCain was two-faced, or a coward.

If I was McCain, I would start early in the debate with the comment, "With your campaign stating I do not bring up the concerns of your character when we are face to face... , let me ask you to confirm or deny, Senator, that one of your first political gatherings to launch your poltical career was in the living room of Bill Ayers in 1995, a terrorist who has blown up government buildings.” If Obama deflects this question, you go back to it two more times. By the third deflection, American will have figured out the truth. Then close, “Senator, I don’t blame you for not answering this question, a truthful answer to America on this would cause you this election.” This would be the sound byte played on every news cast. The debate would be won on this sound byte alone.

Morris also said something spot on (Palin term) this weekend. He said that if Obama had applied for any lower-level government job he would not pass the security check with his relationship to Bill Ayers. So we have a candidate who is not trusted enough to check your luggage at the airport, but might be entrusted with overseeing the free world. Incredible.

A caller on Bill Bennett’s morning in America radio show this AM, posed an insightful question, “Why is the Obama camp asking McCain to stop all the “negative campaigning” if it is hurting his poll numbers, as the Obama camp claims? Wouldn’t the Obama camp silently allow him just to self-destruct if this was true?" These “attacks” are helping McCain’s poll numbers because they are feeding into the uncertainty that America has already with Obama. Today, 3 likely-voters polls have the spread at around 5 points between Obama and McCain, it was an 8 point spread last week.

2) McCain must definitively hang the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac scandals around Obama’s neck like an anchor.

My next purpose would be to nail Obama to the mortgage mess and the stock market collapse. Again with the “Since your campaign thinks I will not call you on this, please confirm or deny that only one Washington politician has received more ear-mark money than you from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac . How did these ear-marks affect your judgment and behavior as this mortgage crisis destroyed millions of people’s 401K’s?”

I would then follow it up by saying:

“Senator Obama, please tell where the CEO’s of these corrupt companies, like Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae, are employed today. Are not they senior advisers to your campaign? Please confirm of deny this.”

This would accomplish very efficiently nailing Obama to this mess.

3) Finally, I would make a clear-cut case that Obama is inexperienced, and a tax and spend liberal who will destroy the economy.

A final question, " Senator Obama, you were completely wrong in regard to the surge in Iraq. How do you believe the voters can support you knowing there are no "do-overs" in the Oval Office?" (This "do-over" term feeds into the inexperience fear, it is a child's game term). With this Obama will bring up McCain's misjudgments. One of them is always, "Senator McCain, you said we would be seen as liberators in Iraq, and we were not..."
McCain waits for this comment and pounces, "Senator Obama, tell the woman who were constantly raped by Sadam and his sons, and the families who had loved ones dragged out in broad daylight and shot in the back of the head, we are not liberators... shame on you Senator for discrediting the achievements of our service men and women!"

Then finish with the economy and how Obama voted 94 times for tax increases. I would say, "If you saw the sun rise 94 mornings in a row, would you be willing to bet the hard earned money in your wallet that it would not rise on the 95th day? That is what you are doing with a extreme liberal like Barack Obama..."

Obama would not know what hit him. Or even better during this beating he would lose composure on stage.

Debate over, election polls tied within 2 days.

John McCain: "Show" Don't "Tell"

Starting with a past experience story, as I sometimes do, in college I took a Creative Writing class. The one thing I remember from this course was my instructor pounding into our heads the notion of when you write you are supposed to "show" and never "tell". For example, don’t "tell" that the main character in your writing is impoverished, "show" how she rips single tissues or slices of bread in fours prior to using them because she can’t afford to buy any more and has to make them last.

I thought about this lesson Tuesday night watching the debate. John McCain spent the whole debate telling and not showing.

He mentioned in the town hall forum that you don’t want to have our incompetent government regulating your health care. This did not resonate with the audience because he did not connect with them on an emotionally level. Everyone feels at some point that people deserve health care. He should have used this time to “show” instead of “tell” by saying, “People in places where they have nationalized health care pray they don’t get sick. In America, if a loved one (making it very tangible and personal to the listener) needs urgent, life-saving surgery they can have it within a week if they have employer coverage. With socialized health care, they will deteriorate for 6 to 8 months on some waiting list somewhere for this critical surgery, if they are lucky enough to ever get it.” Both the McCain statement and the story draw the same conclusion, only one will connect with voters with his position.

One of the first questions of the night had a blue-collar worker asking how this bail-out was going help him. McCain rattled off talking points, Obama said that small businesses sometimes are cash-strapped to pay their employees, where they need a short term loan from their local bank. Without this bailout, there are no loans and employees don’t get paid. Everyone has a fear of not getting paid and the devastating consequences that would bring. This is very tangible to people and an underlying fear. Obama made the connection.

I think what McCain has to do is starting “showing” instead of “telling." He needs connections with the voters, because right now it is not happening.

Here is the story I would "show":

Picture you and your love ones barely surviving on the side of a mountain as nighttime descends. The temperature is plummeting and the only thing you have to keep you warm and alive is a small, flicker fire that is struggling to stay lit. Someone comes from behind you and, not understanding the situation, throws a fire blanket over your live-protecting fire completely extinguishing it. This is what Obama’s tax increases will do to our struggling economy. You will be left on the side of that freezing mountain without a way to survive. As you thought you were in a bad situation that couldn't get worse before the fire was put out, you will then find yourself in a much more severe situation without experienced leadership that knows what it is doing.

Sarah Palin: A True Champion of the Middle Class

Governor Palin released her financials today. Last year, her AGI reported as a married couple was $166,000. Included in this was $46,600 that her husband made from working at BP and $15,500 he made from his commercial fishing business. In the prior year they made $128,000 AGI. I know for the many struggling out there this sounds like a lot of money, but she is probably the most impoverished person to be on a presidential ticket since Lincoln. In addition it should be noted that she has 5 children to provide for. This was reported in the Wall St. Journal.

By way of comparison, the Obamas made over $4 Million dollars of AGI last year. The article also cites that John McCain paid his household help more in total salary than what the Palin's earned last year.

The article lists Palin's largest asset as her home, very aligned with the middle class.

The Palins gave 1.5% of their income to charity last year. This is a truly authentic number because she could not have imagined that she would have to release her income specifics due to the fact that she would be named a vice-president candidate. Obama's charitable contributions went way up this year because he knew he was running for President.

By way of comparison, Dem VP Joe Biden made over $320,000 in AGI and gave less than $1,000 to charity last year. Blue-collar Joe has average $369 a year to charity over the past 10 years.

This VP charitable contribution comparison aligns with major studies than have been done that states Liberal compassion doesn't always make it to their check books.

Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" saw the following truth when running the data on how the different political ideologies give to charity:

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)."

Back in December of 2006, John Stossel on 20/20 did a test that gauged similar patterns of giving. He put Salvation Army buckets in two different towns. One was very liberal and affluent San Francisco, the other was modest and church going Sioux Falls, SD. His findings:

"Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."

This is why I usually give very little credence to Liberal-activist celebrities whom speak out as to how we should donate to charities.

Sarah Palin: Spotting Dimes and Eating Onions

One of the best lines in the television series “Seinfeld” came when George Costanza went through an episode without his glasses. Midway through a conversation with Jerry, George, without his glasses, breaks away and spots a mercury dime on the floor completely on the other side of the room... being able to see that it is indeed a mercury dime. He follows up this eagle-sighted achievement by then proceeding to the refrigerator, opening it, and taking a chomp out of an onion thinking it was an apple. Jerry in a state of complete confusion and desperation pleads, “I don’t know what to make of you, you’re spotting dimes and eating onions…”

This is what the American public is going through with Sarah Palin right now. How can a person have difficulty with an one-on-one interview with dullard Katie Couric but then also be able to tear down a convention hall with a fiery and self-confident speech? They don’t know what to think of her, and this is making her so much more intriguing than anyone else on either ticket.

Joe Biden didn’t know what to expect or how to handle her. A hockey mom that is nonthreatening enough to deal with phrases like “You bet,” and give shouts out to a 3rd grade class in Alaska during a VP debate - - a time that historically has been serious - - but is also capable of disassembling her opponents with a smile and moving on before they realize what has happened.

Here is an interesting case and point of this in last night's debate. It was very audible when Palin greeted Joe Biden at the beginning of the debate and asked if she can call him, “Joe.” Biden melted to her request and broke a smile, nodding. Here is the insight. Sara Palin was not discretely asking Biden this question for etiquette purposes; she was saying it loud enough so that Alaska could hear it.

With this concession of Biden’s, Palin set him up for the sound byte line “Say it ain’t so, Joe...” close to an hour later. If Biden did not give permission, this would seem like a disrespectful way to address an U.S. Senator, but Biden melted in the moment to Palin’s charm and at the same time was set up like a fool. He was played. Very hard to do with a political master like Biden, but so much easier to do when someone underestimates their opponent.

This is case and point that Palin not a stupid woman as the media hopes you believe. Folksy, which is Palin’s essence, is widely believed to be stupid by elitist, while polished-speaking politicians in thousand dollars suits are taken as smart. My life has showed me the complete opposite is true.

Last night, folksy met a polished-speaking politician on stage. The politician stood there in handcuffs clawing to the podium as folksy repeatedly slapped him senseless. He attacked McCain as Palin attacked Biden. He could do nothing but take it. It was energy, youth and personality verses rigor mortis. She was winking to the audience; he was gritting his teeth privately knowing he was not able to attack her. With everything done, you could not say that the Governor lost the debate. It was a tie at best. And that tie always goes to the challenger, - - a victory for Sarah Palin. She stood toe-to-toe with one of Washington’s most glib, senior Senators and held her own for 90 minutes.

There were quite a few good quotes in the media today about Palin's comeback. Rich Lowry in the NY Post summed it up better than anyone on how the night went:

"One wonders if [Biden] ever realized that, even with 35 years in the Senate and all his expertise and fluidity in policy, he wasn't beating the hockey mom from Wasilla. "

Liberals have underestimated her twice now to their peril. It should not happen again, but it will. She will be dismissed again as just “folksy,” a simpleton, in Obama’s war room and an epicenter of a threat in the liberal media rooms across America. Expect an increase of attacks on her.

On election day we will see by exit polls if America's voting public believes she is spotting "mercury dimes or eating onions".

Sarah Palin Debate Thoughts

Two female perspectives on last night's debate:

First, from Peggy Noonan, trying to make amends for her off camera remarks:

"Sarah Palin saved John McCain again Thursday night. She is the political equivalent of cardiac paddles: Clear! Zap! We've got a beat! She will re-electrify the base. More than that, an hour and a half of talking to America will take her to a new level of stardom. Watch her crowds this weekend."

From Michelle Makin:

"Pause to reflect on this: She matched — and trumped several times — a man who has spent his entire adult life on the political stage, run for president twice, and as he mentioned several times, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. Sarah Palin looked presidential. Joe Biden looked tired. Sarah made history. Biden is history."

Barack Obama's Citizenship: The Missing Ruler

On Sept. 27th, the lawyers of Barack Obama and the DNC made a motion to dismiss Democrat Philip Berg's lawsuit claiming that Barack Obama is not a citizen of the U.S., and therefore ineligible to run for President:

"Senator Obama and the Democratic National Committee claim in the accompanying brief that any harm done to Mr. Berg "would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance" and, therefore, Mr. Berg, as an individual voter "does not have standing based on harm he would suffer.""

So what this is saying is that Obama's lawyers are not arguing the fact that Obama is indeed a citizen, they are saying if he is not Mr. Berg will not incur enough damages individually to be entitled to this lawsuit.

I don't know about you, but if someone sues me for lying about my height I bring a ruler to court and end the lawsuit.

Obama's lawyers are now asking that this lawsuit be dismissed.

Obama's 57 U.S. States: Mistaken or Mispoken?

Rush Limbaugh has a piece on his web site that points out the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, an international organization with permanent delegations to the U.N., has 57 Muslim member states. Could this possible be where Obama got his "America has 57 states" from? It is far too random of a number to come from nowhere. Indonesia, where Obama spent time in his youth, is a member of this organization.

This opens up the question that Barack Obama may not be forthright in regard to his beliefs, or at least his tendencies. You couple this with his other misstatement of "my Muslim faith," on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and more questions could follow.

Please, let me be absolutely clear on this. There is nothing wrong with a person of the Muslim faith, or any other faith for that matter, running for the Presidency or any other political office in America. Their religion should be a non-determining factor. The problem occurs if someone is not being forthright about their beliefs since their beliefs are at the center of their core as a person. And if religious beliefs can be fudged by a person for political expediency, than anything can.

Not All Polls Are Created Equal

Daily, we see different polling companies issue their snapshot of where the fall election stands at this precise moment. One would think that if all the pollsters did their job correctly that their polls would be in sync, but as of a few days ago some have the election at a dead heat, and others had Barack Obama up by at least 4 points. To understand how polls can be different, let's dissect the methodology of two specific ones:

First, for example, the recent Rassmussen poll last week had the Presidential race dead even. McCain and Obama each had 48% of the vote.

Now, let’s go to the small print of this poll, its methodology. Rasmussen had 3,000 respondents. Each of these respondents were "likely voters", meaning they intended to vote in the upcoming election.

Rassmussen called these respondents between 5-9PM on week nights, from 11AM-6PM on Saturday and 1PM -9PM on Sunday.

Now as a point of consideration for all polls, during the week most of my die-hard Republican friends get home between 6-8PM. They work in the private sector. So if we take their middle time in coming home on the weeknights (7PM), they would not be available for 50% of the time when polls normally call during the week.

On the other hand, core supporters of the Democratic Party base, such as teachers, retirees and union workers have a higher probability to be home at these times.

In addition, I believe a person is more likely to partake in a 15 minute automated phone call when you get home at 4:30PM in the afternoon, then if you got home at 7PM at night. So there is some inherent bias in these times to begin with.

Now lets look at our second poll to compare. CNN this week has Obama up by 4 points. Four points ahead of the Rassmussen poll which was taken the same time. What gives?

Here's what gives. When diving into this poll's methodology it states that 1,020 respondents were polled, but 30% of them were not "likely voters" or not even registered to vote.

Compiling "registered voters" instead of "likely voters" always benefits the Democratic Party numbers returned and shades the results towards the Democratic candidate. Democratic voters are more likely to be registered and not show up to the polls than Republicans. That is why the most sophisticated polls use "likely voters."

So in conclusion, the Rassmussen poll had close to 3 times the sampling and 30% more "likely voters" incorporated in it. It is my opinion that the Rassmussen poll would be the one out of these two polls that I would look to.

In keeping how methodologies can screw up results, today the Washington Post came out with a poll that had Obama 9 points ahead. Bill McInturff, a pollster for the McCain campaign, points out that Democrats had a 16 point higher representation in the poll than Republicans, meaning it was 51/36% Democrats to Republicans (trust me on the numbers) when including which way the undecided voters in the poll leaned as well. This means they polled close to 1.5 Democrats for every Republican. Are they kidding? So goes the Washington Post.

In addition, 28% of the Post's respondents, more than 1 out of 4, of those polled were not "likely voters." Garbage In.... Garbage Out. No wonder the ridiculous result.

Now, I would not be surprised to see a 2-3 point swing to Obama with last week's financial crisis. But 9 points?

Com'on guys, polls are your livelihood and your profession. At least try to make it a somewhat fair.

As Mark Twain popularized the saying in America, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Breathing Room in Dick Morris' Electoral Map

Dick Morris coupled his political expertise with recent polling data and comprised what he believes to be an up-to-the-minute, presidential electoral map for Newsmax. The map shows McCain has 290 electoral votes, Obama has 172. 76 electoral votes are toss-up's. 270 electoral votes are needed to win the Presidency. This map was done by Morris on 9/16.

The map is called the "Shift to McCain." He cites the Palin nomination and the backlash from her vile treatment by unmarried woman as the prime reason for this shift.

Joe Biden Loses Boston Vote

Several news outlets reported Joe Biden's words that paying higher taxes for some Americans is "patriotic."

If this was true, wouldn't Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty being drinking their tea in Boston parlors instead of dumping their tea in Boston Harbor?