In his own words, Senator Obama pushes redistribution of wealth

October 27, 2008

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

     In a

2001 interview in Sen. Barak Obama is clear that he supports "redistributive change" and that one of the tragedies of the Warren Court was that it didn’t do more to help redistribute the nation’s wealth.


     In the interview Obama gave in 2001 with Chicago Public Radio WBEZ.FM he discusses the best way to bring about a redistribution of wealth, how the Warren Supreme Court interpreted the law and the fact that it wasn’t terribly radical.

     During the discussion Obama says, "Generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you,but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf . . . because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change."

News media in bed with Obama?

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 10/27/2008 5:00:00 AM


     Yet another study backs up the contention that the mainstream news media’s coverage of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is more favorable than its coverage of Republican John McCain.

     An analysis by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that 57 percent of the print and broadcast stories about John McCain since the political conventions were decidedly negative, while only 14 percent were positive. The study concludes that 29 percent of the mainstream media’s coverage of Barack Obama was negative.

     Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the


Media Research Center, says the study affirms what many observers have known for quite some time.

     "The only thing surprising about results like these is that you’d almost have to do the study," he says with a laugh. "Everybody who’s looked at these stories can see the decided negativity they have towards Senator McCain; and everybody who’s seen the entire last two years of coverage of Barack Obama knows.

     "They remember all the news magazine stories with the halo around his head. That’s the kind of coverage he’s received for two years now."

     Graham contends the percentage of negative coverage of Obama would be much lower if the study encompassed merely the so-called "objective news media." He notes the Project for Excellence in Journalism study is not completely scientific because it not only measures the news media, but also talk radio from Air America to Rush Limbaugh.

Obama interview points to ‘Marxism’ philosophy

Jim Brown – OneNewsNow – 10/28/2008 5:00:00 AM


     John McCain and his supporters are hammering Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama for saying in a 2001 interview on Chicago Public Radio that wealth redistribution is a necessary form of "economic justice."

     The McCain campaign and other critics of Barack Obama are seizing on newly uncovered audio from an interview Obama did with WBEZ in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator and University of Chicago law professor. In the interview, Obama suggested that it was a "tragedy" the U.S. Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, did not pursue "redistribution of wealth" for black Americans.

     "Because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change," said the state senator. "And in some ways we still suffer from that."

     Former Republican presidential candidate Gary Bauer is the president of

American Values and a supporter of John McCain. He says the 2001 audio tape "closes the circle" on Obama’s "spread the wealth" philosophy he shared recently with an Ohio plumber.

     "He even goes so far as to criticize the Constitution of the United States because it doesn’t guarantee equal outcomes," Bauer points out.

     "Barack Obama is saying both to Joe the plumber and [in] this earlier interview that he believes the power of government ought to be used to redistribute wealth in the United States," he continues — "to take wealth from productive people and give it to people who have not been as successful. And that is socialism at best — and I think you could even make a case that, in its own way, it’s Marxism."

     Bauer warns that if Obama’s economic policy is implemented, it will "guarantee the U.S. decades of sub-par economic growth and class warfare."

     NOTE by WSW: Obama may criticize and even ridicule McCain and the Republicans for calling him a "socialist." He may keep saying, "I am not a socialist" (just as Nixon kept saying, "I am not a crook"?) But if it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist, then it must be a socialist. A socialist by any other name (i.e., "progressive" or even "liberal") is just as antithetical to American freedom.



By Rose Godfrey (For the Appeal-Democrat, Oct. 1, 2008)

     Homeschooling doesn’t come up much on the election trail. Most homeschoolers would probably like to keep it that way. Sure, we look around to see what we think the future might hold, but there are so many issues, this freedom to educate our children is just one of the rights we’ll keep in mind when we go to the polls.

     In looking at the candidates, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain have mentioned much about homeschooling. Joe Biden and Sarah Palin seem pretty mum on the concept as well. The best we can do is look at their views on education to try and figure out what that might mean to our families and our way of life.

     With this election cycle, either our new president or our new vice-president will bring school-aged children to Washington. How they educate their children also says something about how they might shape future education policy.

     Sen. Obama’s thoughts on education include spending billions on universal preschool. He opposes school vouchers that would allow poorer students to flee underperforming schools.

     In an interview with ABC News earlier this year, Obama indicated that introducing a voucher program would be problematic because there would not be enough slots in private and parochial schools.

     You might think he would consider the law of supply and demand, but this is from the guy who gives his girls one whole dollar a week for allowance to teach them about fiscal responsibility.

     Obama also speculated that funding a voucher program would likely drain the brightest students and most involved families from failing public schools. He should know — his daughters attend a private school with an annual tuition of about $20,000. Failing public schools are fine for other people’s children, not his.

     Sadly, both Sen. Biden and Gov. Palin have expressed agreement with Obama on the voucher issue. Biden even voted against a proposed voucher plan that would have been implemented in the abysmal schools in Washington, D.C.

     Sen. McCain’s voting record shows consistent support of school voucher programs and charter schools. In many areas, charter schools are the means of choice for homeschooling parents.

     Of course, there are those in the homeschool community who would say that charter schools are co-opting the homeschool movement, but that is another column altogether.

     Palin, who has actually sent children to the public school system, got a lot of attention in the blogosphere when someone speculated that the Palin children were going to be homeschooled.

     There have been various stories linking the Palins to homeschooling — including one that Todd Palin was homeschooled — with only chatter and no substance to back up the information.

     The fact is, our presidential election will likely have little impact on our freedom to homeschool our children. Most legislation and regulation of homeschooling lately has come about after high-profile nut cases do something horrific to their children and knee-jerk politicians — or judges — take a stab at limiting homeschooling in order to protect children.

     News flash to politicians: People who say they are homeschooling but plan instead to abuse their children aren’t really concerned about their children’s education. New regulations will not change their behavior.

     If the Democrats win the presidency this November, there will be plenty of quality private schools for the Obamas to choose from, all pricey enough to keep out the riff raff. Should the Republicans take the election, the Palin family may have to rethink their love of the public school system.

     [NOTE from WSW: Palin’s support of public schools and opposition to school vouchers does not appear to be the result of any basic anti-homeschooling philosophy but was the result of her position as Governor of Alaska in which the state constitution, as in most states, requires the state to provide money for public schools and also appears to make private school vouchers against the law.]

     Maybe they should check out the new homeschool regulations in D.C., just in case some of those Internet rumors about homeschooling turn out to be true.

     —Rose Godfrey is a speech pathologist and homeschooling mom in Hallwood. Her homeschool blog can be found on the Appeal-Democrat Web site at . Note from WSW: While I agree that I seriously doubt whether the "right to homeschool" will be affected that much by an Obama victory (thank goodness we have HSLDA!), I am fearful that many of our other rights that could relate to our homeschooling will be eroded away much faster under an Obama administration. Unfortunately, Obama represents change that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN!



Barack Obama Says Your Kids Should Speak Spanish

by Phyllis Schlafly (July 23, 2008)

     [Editor’s note: The Presidential election is next week. Whomever our nation chooses as its President will set the tone of our culture for at least the next four years. The following is information that you need to know in helping you make an informed choice. My only question is, can we really afford four years of Obama? WSW.]

     One would think that a presidential candidate who has no military service, who survived a public controversy about attending a church for 20 years where the pastor preached "hate America," plus a flap about his refusal to wear an American Flag pin, would bend over backwards to showcase his patriotism. But Barack Obama has just given his critics another reason to question his support of American identity.

     Obama said, "Understand this: Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English … you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." But who "needs to make sure"? parents? public schools? government nannies?

     Expanding on this theme, Obama added, "You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual… It’s embarrassing … when Europeans come over here, they all speak English … And then we go over to Europe, and all we can say is Merci beaucoup."

     Embarrassed? We surely don’t want a President representing our nation in foreign travels who is embarrassed about our country. We want a President who is proud to stand up for America, our culture, our language, our laws and our customs.

     Most Americans look upon the English language as the number-one factor that defines our national identity: "e pluribus unum," one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans.

     The Zogby Poll reports that 83 percent of Americans favor legislation to make English our official language. Thirty states have designated English as the official language of their states, and ten more states are considering such legislation.

     Obama is pandering to Hispanic voters by suggesting that the rest of us have a duty to speak Spanish. Most Americans not only don’t want to speak Spanish, we are annoyed by voices on the telephone telling us to "Press 1 (or sometimes 2) for English," and we are outraged at the thought that a President would try to impose a Spanish obligation on us.

     Only 26 percent of Americans, according to a Rasmussen survey, believe that every American should be able to speak two languages. Even that low number would probably nosedive if confronted with the notion that the government might enforce bilingualism on us.

     Why should that second language be Spanish? The United States today has immigrants who speak over 200 different languages. Should the Asian immigrants be forced to learn Spanish as well as English?

     Obama’s statement is not only out of sync with the big majority of Americans, but it is condescending and further evidence of the elitist attitude the Obamas displayed when Barack looked down his nose at Americans whom he said rely on religion and guns because they are "bitter," and when Michelle said that Barack’s campaign was "the first time" she was "really proud of my country."

    Americans are not backward hicks because we don’t learn a second language. We consider it a waste of time because English is fast becoming the worldwide language and because the ability to speak English is the litmus test of whether or not immigrants are assimilating into the American culture.

     Obama conceded that immigrants should learn English but, unfortunately, many do not. The Pew Hispanic Center reported that only 52 percent of Hispanic naturalized citizens speak English well or pretty well, and that 28 percent of Latino immigrants speak only Spanish on the job.

     Obama voted against making English our official language on four Senate roll-call votes. In 2006 and 2007 he voted twice against Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) amendment to repeal Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 13166, and voted twice in favor of Senator Ken Salazar’s (D-CO) amendment to make Executive Order 13166 stronger than it already is.

     Executive Order 13166 discourages assimilation by committing all executive-branch agencies to provide all federal benefits and services in foreign languages (even though the Supreme Court held in Alexander v. Sandoval that immigrants have no right to demand this).

     The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission discourages assimilation by suing over 200 employers for requiring English to be spoken by employees on the job (even though a Rasmussen survey found that 77 percent of Americans believe that employers should be allowed to do this).

     Providing foreign language ballots discourages assimilation (even though only citizens are supposed to vote and to become a naturalized U.S. citizen, the immigrant must demonstrate "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English").

     Bilingual education (known as language apartheid) discourages assimilation by keeping children with Hispanic-sounding names for years in Spanish-language public school classes (even though bilingual ed has been rejected by the voters in referenda from California to Massachusetts).

     It’s no surprise that the Rasmussen survey reports that 59 percent of Americans believe government actually encourages immigrants to retain their home-country culture instead of assimilating into America. Senator and Mrs. Obama should tell immigrants to assimilate and get the facts from the new Bradley Foundation report called "E Pluribus Unum: America’s National Identity."



By Michael Gryboski ( Correspondent, June 16, 2008)

     (Editor’s note: Our friend, Dave Pratte, who is a gospel preacher and a homeschooling father whose children are all now graduated, sent this item and said, "I thought you might be interested in the following article." Indeed, since judges have recently declared that parents lose their parental rights and have no control over their children’s education when those children step through the door of a public school and that homeschooling in California is basically illegal, though the latter decision has been stayed for the time being, homeschoolers should be very concerned about the kind of judges that the two candidates would appoint–and support the candidate who will appoint the judges who will be in our nation’s best interest! WSW.)

     The records of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) are very different when it comes to judges and courts.

     The Republican and Democratic candidates for president are far apart when it comes to judicial philosophy and the votes they cast on major judicial nominations during the 109th and 110th Congresses.

     McCain wants to appoint judges who hold a constructionist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, according to his campaign’s Web site.

     "When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law," McCain said. "The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility."

     The McCain Web site offers the promise that his "judicial appointees will understand that the federal government was intended to have limited scope, and that federal courts must respect the proper role of local and state governments."

     Obama, meanwhile, has said he wants to appoint judges who have "empathy."

     "We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom," Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007. "The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.

     And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges."

     McCain supported Supreme Court nominees John G. Roberts, Jr., and Samuel Alito, Jr., to become chief justice of the United States and associate justice, respectively. McCain voted to confirm both men, whom he said were "strict constructionists." Obama voted against both.

     Obama explained his decision in speeches, which, while acknowledging the intellectual and legal qualifications of Roberts and Alito, argued that other issues had to be considered.

     Speaking on the Senate floor during Alito’s confirmation hearings, Obama said: "I’ve seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens."

     In his speech on Roberts’ confirmation, Obama said that the Supreme Court’s role is "a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch." [Editor’s note: "A check on the majoritarian impulses"? Whatever happened to "democracy"? WSW.]

     The two contrasting philosophies were showcased again over the controversial nomination of Judge Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

     McCain voted for Southwick, speaking on behalf of the judge in a statement as "clearly qualified" who would not engage in "judicial activism."

     Obama voted against Southwick, stating that "now more than ever, we need to restore integrity and a commitment to civil rights in the courts."

     Despite holding views of the judiciary, the two presidential candidates have come together in voting in favor of several judicial nominations for lower federal courts — including those of Lisa Godbey Wood of Georgia, Philip S. Gutierrez of California, Gregory Kent Frizzell of Oklahoma and Norman "Randy" Smith of Idaho.

     WSW:  Our nation is still suffering from eight years of leftist judicial appointments by Bill Clinton.  I keep asking, can we afford even four years of Obama?



by J. Kenneth Blackwell 

     (Note: This is the entire column from Ken Blackwell a black columnist for the New York Sun.)

     It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

     We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender.

     Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics. The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.

     Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U. S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

     Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

     Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

     Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."

     Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

     Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

     Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban – ban – on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

     The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

     But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and – yes – they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

     It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

     —J. Kenneth Blackwell has served as Mayor of Cincinnati, OH; Under Secretary of Housing and Urban Development; Ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Commission; Ohio State Treasurer; and Ohio Secretary of State. He ran for Governor of Ohio in 2006. Also, for the record, he is an African-American. Remember, any vote for a third party candidate may well help put Obama in the White House. Can our nation survive that?

Good Reading

      The Oct., 2008, issue of Home School Helper, the free newsletter from Bob Jones University Press ( ) has an excellent article entitled "Award-Winning Books…Says Who?"(them’s my sentiments exactly!) about choosing good literature for children by Nancy Lohr, a former elementary school librarian; "Fostering Verbal Skills" by Dr. Rhonda Galloway, an English professor; and a review of the 2008 Newbery Award winning Good Masters! Sweet Ladies! by Laura Amy Schlitz. The Sept./Oct., 2008, issue of The Home School Court Report from HSLDA ( ) has a special feature "Highlights: Homeschooling Today and Tomorrow" compiled by the Court Report Staff; an article "California Court Affirms Freedom to Homeschool" by James R. Mason III; and more information about "The Homeschool Lawyers/Dads of HSLDA." There is a priceless quote from former State Superintendent of Public Instruction in California, Bill Honig, that should be a warning to all homeschooling parents who are considering using a public school "independent study program." He wrote, "The California Department of Education encourages school districts, through independent study, to bring back within the public school system the children of those parents who wish them to study at home. Public education can constructively accommodate home study–but not homeschooling, as that term has come to be used. A basic difference between the two is that the parent’s role in independent home study is that of an instructional aide, not that of the teacher." Forewarned is forearmed! Family Times is a home-school resource for Christians. Recently editorship passed from our friends, Dave and Karen Pratte, to our friends Jonathan and Sally Anne Perz. It began as a printed newsletter, then went to an all electronic format that is now e-mailed as a PDF attachment. The Sept./Oct., 2008, issue features articles about a visit by the founding editors, Dave and Karen Pratte, to the Creation Museum in Hebron, KY; a family profile of the homeschooling family of Jimmy and Roan Johnson in Saltillo, MS; "Spelling Rules and Hints" (part 2) by our friend Dawn Thompson; "The Homeschooling Mom as a Wife" by editor Sally Anne Perz; and "Books Build Character" by our friend Wendi Capehart; among other interesting information. If you would like to receive it, you can contact Sally Anne Perz at .

Regardless of your feelings about the upcoming election…

     The following was submitted by Mark McWhorter ( ) on Wed., Oct. 15, 2008,

What Makes a Nation Great?

by Alexander Blackburn (1844-1921)

Not serried ranks with flags unfurled,

Not armored ships that gird the world,

Not hoarded wealth nor busy mills,

Not cattle on a thousand hills,

Not sages wise, nor schools nor laws,

Not boasted deeds in freedoms cause —

All these may be, and yet the state

In the eye of God be far from great.

That land is great which knows the Lord,

Whose songs are guided by His word;

Where justice rules twixt man and man,

Where love controls in art and plan;

Where, breathing in his native air,

Each soul finds joy in praise and prayer —

Thus may our country, good and great,

Be God’s delight — man’s best estate.

(from One Nation Under God: an anthology for Americans by Robert Gordon Smith)

I hate to keep harping on this subject, but….

     An Oct. 22, 2008, WorldNetDaily article headlined, "School holds surprise ‘Gay’ Day for kindergartners: Parents outraged at public elementary’s secretive ‘coming out’ event by Chelsea Schilling reported that one mother of a kindergartner who attends Faith Ringgold School of Art and Science, a K-8 charter school in Hayward, CA, said she asked her 5-year-old daughter what she was learning at school. The little girl replied, "We’re learning to be allies." Allies of what, you ask. This mother and some parents were shocked to find that their children were learning to be homosexual allies and would participate in "Coming Out Day" at a public elementary school tomorrow – and they claim the school failed to notify parents. The mother also said a Gay Straight Alliance club regularly meets in the kindergarten classroom during lunch. According to a Pacific Justice Institute report, Faith Ringgold opted not to inform the parents of its pro-homosexual activities beforehand. The school is celebrating "Gay and Lesbian History Month" and is in the process of observing "Ally Week," a pro-"gay" occasion usually geared toward high school students. When WND contacted the school to confirm the event, a female representative replied, "Yes, it is scheduled on our calendar." When asked if the school made any efforts to inform parents, she refused to answer and said the Hayward Unified School District would have to respond to additional questions. However, the district did not answer its phones or e-mails, and a voicemail recording would not take messages. "Coming Out Day" is not listed on the district’s online school calendar. Some of the parents contacted Pacific Justice Institute for representation when they learned the school was pushing pro-"gay" events for young children without warning. Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, said opponents of California’s proposed ban on same-sex marriage, or Proposition 8, often say the measure would not have an effect on public schools – but this is one of many recent developments that prove otherwise. "Do we need any further proof that gay activists will target children as early as possible?" he asked. "Opponents of traditional marriage keep telling us that Prop. 8 has nothing to do with education. In reality, they want to push the gay lifestyle on kindergartners, and we can only imagine how much worse it will be if Prop. 8 is defeated. This is not a scenario most Californians want replayed in their elementary schools." This is what we can expect in our schools as the radical homosexual rights agenda is aggressively pursued.

Connecticut Supreme Court Imposes Same-Sex ‘Marriage’

Family Research Council Action today sharply criticized the Connecticut Supreme Court for its decision to impose the legalization of same-sex "marriages" in the state of Connecticut. "It’s outrageous and shameful that the Connecticut Supreme Court took it upon itself to legislate from the bench," said FRC Action President Tony Perkins. "This radical redefinition of marriage will have severe consequences for children, families, religious liberties, businesses and every facet of society as we know it. "This decision puts marriage at risk all across the nation and highlights the need for a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is imperative both Presidential candidates address the problems created by four activist judges in Connecticut. We call on Senators John McCain and Barack Obama to explain what they would do as President addressing the issue of same-sex marriage and articulating their criteria for ensuring that judges they appoint follow the law of the land and not legislate from the bench. Family Research Council had filed an amicus brief in the case to help insure the preservation of one-man, one-woman marriage in the state of Connecticut and we will continue to do so in cases across the nation that directly threaten the family." One of the best ways to protect our children against this kind of thing is to homeschool them.

my opposition to Barak Obama

     A recent commenter responded to some information provided on this blog by characterizing it as having a "hateful nature" and spreading "lies and fear," saying that God would not approve of such "hate and lies and character assault of this man." Unfortunately, the anonymous writer simply charged the post with being such without citing any specific examples. In my response, I noted that Mr. Obama and his allies also apparently feel that ANY kind of opposition to his policies is the result of hate, and that everything in the blog had a link for confirmation. This person did say, "If you disagree with Barack Obama for issues that is fine," and that is exactly what I was trying to do. I am sorry if it seemed hateful; it was not mean to be. However, since this question has come up, I feel it necessary to provide an explanation for my opposition to Barak Obama and support for John McCain.

     First, my opposition to Mr. Obama has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the color of his skin. If a man like J. C. Watts, or Alan Keyes, or J. Kenneth Blackwell (or even a woman like Condaleeza Rice) had won the Republican nomination, I would gladly be supporting him or her because I believe that their general position is far more in tune with what the Bible teaches and the basic Judaeo-Christian moral principles that made this nation great. I had the same opposition to Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, and even Bill Clinton that I have for Obama because I simply believe, honestly and sincerely, that their position is wrong morally. It is NOT my desire to engage in hate, lies, fear-mongering, and character assault to achieve my goals, but if someone equates disagreement with someone on the basis of firm convictions as being that, then I will have to plead guilty.

     One can vigorously disagree with and firmly oppose another individual, even publicly and vocally, yet still be respectful of his person and even his position if he is in authority. Ahab was King in Israel. Elijah, a prophet of God who certainly had respect for rightly constituted authority, still accused Ahab of being the troubler of Israel because he promoted that which was evil. Barak Obama supports abortion rights and homosexual rights. The Bible teaches that God hates hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6:16-17). What more innocent blood can be shed than that of unborn babies? The Bible teaches that homosexuality is against nature and shameful (Romans 1:26-27). How can Christians oppose these things without speaking out against candidates who promote them?

     I certainly do not advocate any attempt to kill or otherwise bodily harm Mr. Obama, or the abortionists and homosexuals whom he supports and who support him. My respect for all of them, and indeed my love for them as my fellow human beings, prohibits that and leads me to allow, in a free country such as ours, their right to their beliefs. But that does not make their beliefs right, nor does it require that I remain silent. "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). What Mr. Obama advocates (rights for abortion which is murder and homosexuals) is plainly declared in the Bible to be "unrighteous" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21). While I will try to do so as respectfully as possible (and not everyone’s judgment as to what is respectful or not may be the same), I must still point out that what Mr. Obama stands for is an abomination in the sight of God, according to what He has revealed in His word.

     Let me say one more thing. While I believe that rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s requires that I support those candidates whose views are most in tune with what God’s word says, I do not put my faith and trust in "politics" but in God who "rules in the kigdom of men, and give it to whomever He chooses" (Dan. 4:32) God sometimes allows evil men to rule, as He did Nero and Domitian in the first century, for reasons that may be beyond my ability to comprehend according to His purposes. If the candidate whom I oppose because I believe that his positions are morally wrong wins, I will still be subject to the governing authorities and strive to give "honor to whom honor" is due to the best of my ability (Rom. 13:1, 7). However, I will also continue to exercise my right to express my beliefs as to the evil that may be endorsed and promoted, with zeal and boldness, yet with love in my heart. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).