It Don't Change: You Can't Save The Planet With Magic

Three things, real fast, and I'm gone:

1) I don't quote The New York Times much anymore, but our morons have flipped the script enough that even the NYT can crow:

  “Sarah Palin finally got her death panels — a direct blow from the Republican House. In shutting down the government, leaving 800,000 people without a paycheck and draining the economy of $300 million a day, the Party of Madness also took away last-chance cancer trials for children at the National Institutes of Health.

And now that the pain that was dismissed as a trifle on Monday, a “slimdown” according to the chuckleheads at Fox News, is revealed as tragic by mid-week, the very radicals who caused the havoc are trying to say it’s not their fault. It’s too late. They flunked hostage-taking,...

...Politically, the shutdown is terrible for a party trying to rebrand itself. When Bobby Jindal said Republicans have to “stop being the party of stupid,” he swallowed a teaspoon of common sense. That’s been washed away by a river of stupid.”

2) Here's what I just wrote at Lem's a little while ago:

   I'm assuming, though it's awful to do, that somebody hasn't seen that episode of Star Trek with the blob that gets stronger every time you shoot at it.



Or they've never been outnumbered and knocked down in a fight, or a "hazing" (or, Ladies, possibly being raped) and the attackers are getting off on the victim struggling to get free. What is the victim to do? Answer:



Look your attacker in the eyes and STOP FIGHTING.



Look, guys, this one is un-winnable. There is no - NO - upside. All you can do now is stop the bleeding.



The Right read too much Alinsky. We've got a million tacticians (listen to Cody talk) but no strategists. And, right now, we're screwed for it.



Dana Loesch is part of the problem. Every one of these pricks that have led us to this Dead End is responsible for us being here.



All you can do is demand Ted Cruz end this now.



It was the wrong fight, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason.



And everybody gets that but the people doing it.

3) And, if we don't get serious about killing the West's cult problem, we will have a bigger one on our hands - grey emphasis mine:

   The Devon cult that canes tiny children to ‘cleanse their sins’: As social services launches an investigation, a mother’s shocking testimony lifts the lid on the mysterious commune squatting on a farm

• 'Vicki' has lifted the lid on the commune she escaped from in 2005

• Then a vulnerable, single mother, she was ordered to beat her son

• The commune is linked to the controversial US Twelve Tribes cult

• Forty children were taken in to care at two German branches recently

• The NSPCC has now raised concerns with Stentwood Farm in Devon

We can do this,...

 

See, On One Side Is Uncle Sam, But On The OTHER,...

"Obama made political hay back in the day by mocking GWB and Iraq. Just like the rest of the peoplewearing the "D" on their foreheads. 



So why is it bad to point that out?"

Ha - He gotcha!

Yep - Uncle Saul's done it again.

I've been telling you our politics have been juvenile on the Right. The Right's been trying to keep up with the neener, neener, neener bullshit on the Left. Everybody from Rush on down said to do so, and now they've O.Ded on it. Anybody should be able to see what's making them sick:

...Partisanship. 

That’s the conclusion that emerges from a recent study by professors at the University of Michigan and Indiana University. Evaluating surveys of more than 5,300 anti-war protestors from 2007 to 2009, the researchers discovered that the many protestors who self-identified as Democrats “withdrew from anti-war protests when the Democratic Party achieved electoral success” in the 2008 presidential election. 

Had there been legitimate reason to conclude that Obama’s presidency was synonymous with the anti-war cause, this withdrawal might have been understandable. But that’s not what happened — the withdrawal occurred even as Obama was escalating the war in Afghanistan and intensifying drone wars in places like Pakistan and Yemen. The researchers thus conclude that during the Bush years, many Democrats were not necessarily motivated to participate in the anti-war movement because they oppose militarism and war — they were instead “motivated to participate by anti-Republican sentiments.” Not surprisingly, this hyper-partisan outlook and the lack of a more robust anti-war movement explain why political calculations rather than moral questions are at the forefront of the Washington debate over a war with Syria. 

In that Beltway back and forth, the national media has focused as much on the horserace (will an attack politically weaken the president?) and political tactics (should the president have submitted to a congressional vote?) than on whether an attack would actually make things better in Syria. Similarly, a top Democratic strategist told CNN that potential Republican opposition to a Syria attack “will coalesce Democrats around the president” in support of a military strike. Confirming that dynamic, Democratic Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton said a war resolution will pass not because of the supposed merits of an attack on Syria, but simply “because of loyalty of Democrats” who “just don’t want to see (Obama) shamed and humiliated on the national stage.” 

This is red-versus-blue tribalism in its most murderous form. It suggests that the party affiliation of a particular president should determine whether or not we want that president to kill other human beings. It further suggests that we should all look at war not as a life-and-death issue, but instead as a sporting event in which we blindly root for a preferred political team. 

An anti-war movement is supposed to be a check on such reflexive bloodlust. It is supposed to be a voice of reason interrupting the partisan tribalism. When it, too, becomes a victim of that tribalism, we lose something more than a political battle. As the distorted debate over Syria proves, we lose the conscience that is supposed to guide us through the most vexing questions of all.

Our chattering class, Right and Left - and no matter what the subject - are just really, really, mature.

Isn't it amazing how worked up they can get?

   

 How much time is wasted. How much of our lives. For nothing. 

Really - I don't say that lightly:

How many lives - both here and abroad?

You know, the big issue.

Absolutely nothing constructive is being done for anyone, no new ideas being introduced or tried, or a way out foreseen of any kind, while morons are running before the cameras - and blogs - screaming, "Oh yeah? Well I know what I am but what are YOU?" On every level, this is the same silly crap in the foster homes - even our enemies know it:

“We should remind Obama that if you are a bastard, there are other bastards all around the world who can assault Sasha.”

I'd rather watch a fight - any fight - than this candy ass madness:

At least then, I'd know somebody truly gives a damn,...

Looking At TMR's Past (To Find TMR's Future)

Every so often, I'll do a post I'm really proud of, or that proves to have staying power with the public by being passed around for years and bringing in new readers. Here's a few of those, so the rest of you can see what's so special and maybe start passing them around as well. In no particular order:

Hay Is For Horses: Reading Between The (Circular) Lines (Of Reasoning) On Louise Hay

"Eternal War Must Never End" - Barack Obama And The Alinsky Method: Leftist NewAge Beliefs

The Big Bang (Part 1)

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Wolf?

Women Getting Squirrelly (And Collecting Nuts)

Black Bigotry Won't Lead Us To Freedom Either

We Love You, Too, John (And Your Lovely Wife)

"It's absurd. We've lost our minds. We're in a period of know-nothingism in the country, where truth and science and facts don't weigh in. It's all short-order, lowest common denominator, cheap-seat politics. The obstructionism is stunning. I think America really needs to know more of this kind of tactic and how it's shortchanging us."

-- John Kerry, the first Democrat to acknowledge two can play the "we're crazy" game - and probably the only one not to have read Alinsky by now - in The Boston Globe.

The man's a putz.

No Rules For Radicals (Except For Defeat)

Hat Tip: Mind Numbed Robot

Haiti Better Watch It: A Change Is Gonna Come

"'There is zero legacy from when Obama was here,' says Phillip Jackson, director of the Black Star Project, a community group dedicated to eliminating the academic-achievement gap. Jackson, like other local leaders, is reluctant to criticize Obama, however. 'I won’t minimize what Obama was doing then,' he says."

Heather Mac Donald, giving us "Chicago’s Real Crime Story" - and a picture of the president's role in it - which hasn't really been investigated, except in the City Journal.

"The squat brick buildings of Grove Parc Plaza, in a dense neighborhood that Barack Obama represented for eight years as a state senator, hold 504 apartments subsidized by the federal government for people who can't afford to live anywhere else.

But it's not safe to live here.

About 99 of the units are vacant, many rendered uninhabitable by unfixed problems, such as collapsed roofs and fire damage. Mice scamper through the halls. Battered mailboxes hang open. Sewage backs up into kitchen sinks. In 2006, federal inspectors graded the condition of the complex an 11 on a 100-point scale - a score so bad the buildings now face demolition.

Grove Parc has become a symbol for some in Chicago of the broader failures of giving public subsidies to private companies to build and manage affordable housing - an approach strongly backed by Obama as the best replacement for public housing."

Binyamin Appelbaum, showing us the "Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy" - and a picture of the president's role in it - which was actually quite extensive, according to The Boston Globe.

"I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he was certain to be executed on Monday."

Saul Alinsky, the president's ruthless political godfather - in Alinsky's now-infamous book "Rules For Radicals" - making a statement of purpose that would impress any Amused Cynic.

Whores

This is what it's all about:

Two ACORN workers in Baltimore - and, let it not be lost on anyone, two black women - encourage (what they think are) a pimp and a prostitute to evade the law, and common decency, in multiple ways. There are so many points these videos can make it's crazy:

ACORN was one of President Obama's main support groups during the election, and, just like then, they're still operating on a ruthless "ends justifies the means" basis.

These women don't give a damn about the sexual exploitation of women, whether here or anywhere else.

These are blacks who are more-than-willing to work with two white people - as long as it's in a criminal enterprise that opposes the government and the law.

These ACORN workers are cynically attempting to assist a criminal in getting into government (the "pimp" is supposed to be using the prostitution money to fund a run for public office).

Incredible:



One more thing - and this is the best of it:

The "pimp" decided to try this after reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" - the subject of Hillary Clinton's college thesis and Barack Obama's working model for "community organizing" - especially the part about making your opponent live by their own values. It's just too much. It's a microcosm of everything I've said about these people, and more, because even I never thought they'd be so stupidly blatant about it that they can be exposed in this manner. I saw the same thing happening during California's first push for "medical" marijuana, which was as cynical an operation as I thought I'd ever personally witness, but this is even more open, obvious, deceitful and, yes, evil. These liberals know no shame.

Needless to say, I think it's long past time we teach them what that word means, again. Get to it.

Liars: The NewAge Left Are Evil Cowardly Liars

"It’s kind of scary! They have learned all of the tricks,..."

-- Sue Esty, the assistant director of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Maryland, commenting on the Right's discovery of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" - an influence the Obama cult vehemently denies - but still can't help but blab to The Washington Examiner.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Once You're Out You Have To Stick It To Them

Black Boys, White Girls, Peace, You Know,...

"IN THE MAIL — well, in the sense that they’ve put it in the mail, anyway — is Michael Leahy’s new book, Rules for Conservative Radicals. He urges combining the tactics of Saul Alinsky with the morals of Martin Luther King."

-- Glenn Reynolds, seemingly unaware that's what I do already - now where's all the white bitches? - but endorsing it none-the-less as a political tactic, as the Instapundit.

NewAge Politics: Letting The Devil Run Things

"Cut off the support network; isolate the target from sympathy; go after people, not institutions, because people hurt faster than institutions. Well, I don't hurt. I am not hurt by any of this. What this is, though, is cruel. It is cruel because it is a game of manipulation emanating from the Oval Office. It is an attempt to distract Americans from the destruction of their ability to earn a living. It is an attempt to distract you from your plunging economy. It is an attempt to distract you from your ability to save for retirement and to pursue happiness. See, honest face-to-face discussions and debates are fair. I gave a speech at CPAC on Saturday, televised my first national address, address to the nation. In that speech were not just illustrations of what's wrong with this administration and liberalism. There were solutions, solution after solution after solution, because conservatism is a solution. None of the things that I said in that speech are being repeated by the Drive-By Media which I knew would be the case, because face-to-face discussions and debates are not going to happen. Instead, Alinsky's Rules for Radicals number 12 has been employed: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

-- Rush Limbaugh, describing what's happening as exactly what this blog warned against, merely by looking at politics through the NewAge lens (how often have we been right - and not just right-wing?) even before it could be found on Rush Limbaugh.com.

Is Not Smoking Starting To Get To The President?

"Your publication and website have documented Obama's ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy's Rules for Radicals:

'Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.'"

-- Rush Limbaugh, nailing the creepy political philosophy of President Barack Obama - which calls for attacks on individuals and private citizens - while responding to the president's claim that Republicans "can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," to The National Review.

The Cult Of Obama: It's Creepy

Evan Thomas
by dollarsandsense123

TMR has made every point in this video ("We have seen this before,..") to the dismay of many of my readers, but now comes Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham after the election is over - great. Only Rush Limbaugh (whose show we're listening to here) gets it. Well, now we've got America's first cult-inspired presidency, boosted by followers too "in the tank" to understand what they're swimming in. I won't say what it is but, man, something sure does stink about this election:

THOMAS: There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this. I mean, he is such an admirable --

ROSE: ‘Slightly creepy cult of personality’?

THOMAS: Yes.

ROSE: What’s ‘slightly creepy’ about it?

THOMAS: It just makes me a little uneasy that he’s so singular. He’s clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He’s a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy -- you know, this could be a useful thing in a leader --

ROSE: How so is he ‘deeply manipulative’?

THOMAS: I think he's always in control, you know -- he controls events, events don't control him. He's a pretty calm guy. He seem to be able to get people to do pretty much what he wants.

No matter who you voted for, folks, this is a dangerous moment of shame for America.


Why is this shameful? On top of Evan Thomas and Jon Meacham knowing they helped elect a cultist, these are white liberals calling the first black president "creepy" and a "creature" - on The Charlie Rose Show - an attitude that ain't worth a dime at:

"Eternal War Must Never End" - Barack Obama And The Alinsky Method: Leftist NewAge Beliefs

"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."

-- David Moberg, on "Obama's Community Roots", in The Nation Magazine.

"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."

-- Hillary Clinton, in her BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969, from Front Page Magazine.

“Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly.”

“The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”

Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.” The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict” and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’” “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.

But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out” precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst. In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.” Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.

Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.” He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”

Alinsky also advised organizers to focus their attention on a small number of selected, strategic targets. Spreading an organization’s passions too thinly was a recipe for certain failure, he warned.

Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not “100 per cent devil,” or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being “a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband.” Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and amount to sheer “political idiocy.”

Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.” Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.” But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).

Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit. “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”

Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right -- we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’” Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.

-- John Perazzo, on how the American people are being lied to and manipulated in the name of evil, for Front Page Magazine.

"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

"Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bullshit and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself."

Not this time."

-- Mark Morford, power mad whack-job columnist (and obvious NewAge pod person), in the SFGate.

Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no relation to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost.

In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances; cf. Romanian Luceafăr). The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hêlēl), which also means "Morning Star". In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall. This passage was later applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James Version for what more modern English versions translate as "Morning Star" or "Day Star".

— Wikipedia

The best-selling American new age guru Deepak Chopra is fond of the word "quantum": reading his work, one begins to suspect that he has it set up as a shortcut in Microsoft Word, so that he doesn't have to type it out in full every time he wants to refer to "quantum health", "quantum healing" or "the quantum mind".

This kind of thing makes physicists want to sob uncontrollably, so they've learned to ignore him. But not long ago, Chopra used the word in a new context that bears closer inspection: if Barack Obama enters the White House as president next January, he declared, "it will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness".

Chopra, it turns out, is far from alone. A curious side-story in this year's election campaign is that the new age movement in the US has embraced Obama even more fervently than most of his supporters. New agers are traditionally liberal, so it's no surprise that they're backing the Democratic candidate. But the question that's been gathering steam among them in recent weeks goes much further than that, and brings - shall we say - a whole other dimension to the race: could Obama be a "lightworker"?

Many spiritually advanced people I know ... identify Obama as a lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who [can] actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford in a piece headlined "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?" On the higher astral planes of the blogosphere, the notion met with enthusiasm. "He may play a major role," one blogger wrote, "in bringing us to [what] the Hopi Indians call the Great Shift." The endorsement of Oprah Winfrey, increasingly involved in new age spirituality, underscored the point.

The cultish side of Obama-worship has been noted before: the online magazine Slate has been running an Obama Messiah Watch, as has a blog, obamamessiah.blogspot.com. Star Wars creator George Lucas said - perhaps facetiously - that he thought it "reasonably obvious" that Obama was a Jedi knight. But the Obama-as-lightworker notion is more than a matter of tone. We're talking about the dawning of the age of aquarius.

New agers are often unfairly maligned: look at life through a slightly different lens, and you instantly get associated with a tiny handful of crystals-cure-cancer maniacs. But if they want their preferred candidate to win, they might consider keeping quiet for now. Already, the right, in the form of unhinged pundit Michelle Malkin, has started exploiting the story to mock the Democrats. And Obama has quite enough to do to fight the threat of pigeonholing - as "the black candidate", "the elite candidate" - without becoming the kooky candidate too.

-- Oliver Burkeman, displaying how today's normal person - rather than showing the concern "kooky" people deserve - will breezily dismiss deadly serious NewAgers (even as a group) after they voice a determination to, somehow, attain power over non-believers lives, while writing in The Guardian.

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

-- Saul "The Red" Alinksy, the community organizing godfather of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in his book "Rules For Radicals", according to the World Net Daily.

“A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.”

-- Barack Obama