Wednesday, February 20, 2008


With so many people alluding to the alleged Messianic Complex of Barack Obama, I looked up his name and "666".  Sure enough, a ton of people have thought it. One had a math error though. I suppose you can do this with anyone's name (it worked for a relative of mine).

The United States of America Presidential Election (using number values for letters totals 465) Barrack Hussein Obama, 6/4/2008   (November is the sixth lunar month) adds up to 201, and you got it, 666!  Oops!  Only one R in Barack.  Let's try again.  The 11/4/2008 (forget the lunacy) United States Presidential Election Winner, Barack Hussein Obama.   666!  Viola!!!!
The purists prefer Roman Numerals.  After all, the popes used to wear "Vicarivs Filii Dei" on their chiaras until someone added up the Roman numerals and they came to 666.  Someone tried that with Barack Hvssein Obama (no "u" in Latin) and a whole bunch or words including his birthday of 8/4/1961 until they got 666.  But the math was wrong.  Can't you use enough words to make it come out for anyone?  Let's try "Maverick Presidential Election Candidate" (2,910) and subtract "Really Liberal Repvblican Straight-Talk Express 71-year old John Sidney McCain III" (2,244).  You get 666.  Whaddaya know.   Needed that seldom mentioned middle name and the "III" to get there.  Hey, we're on a roll. Let's see.  If you take Doctor James Dobson (that's two D's at 500 each, one M at 1000, and one C at 1oo, or 2100 total.   If you take Focus on the Family, that is one C at 100, one M at 1000, and one i for 1, or 1101.  If you subtract Focus on the Family (1101) from Doctor James Dobson (2100), you get 999.  Now this isn't for your benefit, it is for the person across the table, so the 999 to you will read 666 to them! Ain't it obvious!

Unfortunately, for over one thousand years people have been trying to figure it out. I think we will know when the time comes. Meanwhile, let's not jump to conclusions but enjoy the moment.  I for one think that bringing people together is a great thing.  We just have to sure what to do with them when they get there.  One thing we should NOT be doing is making people out to be the anti-Christ if we differ with their politics.  If you read the Bible, you will know that the Anti-Christ will bring peace of a sort, and he is likely to be some kind of reputed Christian leader - why else would so many be deceived? He will be a miracle worker and  very effective.  Some folks may try to ID a TV evangelist for the job, but I think we may have to wait - the Anti-Christ will actually DO a lot of wonders, not simply talk about it - it will be far beyond the small stuff we see today.  Enjoy the political season  - this other stuff will happen in its own time and hopefully later rather than sooner.


I get a kick out hearing Hillary talk about working the night shift  and having all these accomplishments.  She is basically asking for the same things her husband Bill said were necessary before he won.  People ask you to put them in power to solve problems, and then years later when people have the same problems still unsolved, we are supposed to believe them again. Unlike bills named McCain-this, McCain-that  (none of which I liked by the way),  I don't see any ground-breaking legislation in her name, Clinton-this, Clinton-that. In fact, she seemed determined to be as innocuous as possible, positioning herself to be able to run as a centrist in the fall.  Her fabled health care initiative fifteen years ago was a colossal flop even though that was ALL she had to do (except keep the social calendar).  It was ill-thought out, she delegated to incompetent people, and there was never any financial underpinnings to make it possible.  I haven't heard one refinement to it which would make it any more doable now than then.  A president has dozens of demands on his (or her) time and attention, not just one pet issue.  One comes away with the distinct impression she is not up to the job and that she has insufficient experience no matter what the black and white night shift ads may imply.

On the other hand, whether you think he is a political messiah or a windbag of hot air, Barack Obama has united some pretty diverse elements of the Democratic party in record time without appearing to break a sweat.  From the Teamsters to Ministers and from Southern White Men to egghead college professors and from uneducated to highly educated and from people of most ethnicities (with his weakness among Hispanic voters noted), Obama has been a phenomenon.  This IS an accomplishment that Hillary has been singularly been unable to do her whole life. She is a polarizing figure, someone either loved or hated.  Making oneself likable in this day and age is an accomplishment, and one must heap praise on Obama for his adroitness in doing so.

During this campaign, ask the hard questions.  When people say what they have done, check it out.  You can check out Hillary's record, Obama's record, Mc Cain's record. Don't take their word for it.  Unless of course, you love to swallow hot air both red and blue.

Monday, February 18, 2008


It is silly that Barack Obama is being criticized for using some words given to him by a friend. Plagiarism is using something that is not yours WITHOUT permission.

Hillary has taken a page out of Harry Byrd's Book and Arlen Spector's Book with her wild Pork Barrel Spending (one of the worst if not THE worst in the Senate). Hillary has coopted all of the back-room politics, smoke-filled rooms, and the politics of personal destruction from the worst political hacks of all time.  She should  credit them for this. Instead, she tries to play Miss Innocent. We will see whose plagiarism the public really cares about.

Monday, February 11, 2008


It seems that many have come to the conclusion that John McCain has the GOP Nomination in his pocket.  However, despite continued strong showings in some primaries by Mike Huckabee, he hasn't  been getting delegates in the winner take all primaries.  If the GOP rules were the same as the Democrat rules, it would be a whole different story.  Now, since Mitt Romney hasn't given him the delegates he won, he would have to do miraculously well in the remaining primaries.  Since there is a mathematical possibility of Huckabee winning and he hasn't conceded, I am offering these comparisons.  There is a large contingent of conservatives still very wary of John McCain, and people who have principles usually are slow to compromise. These comparisons may be helpful in terms of urging platform planks and evaluating those running for Senate and House seats as well.   We will do the same comparison  between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama before the Texas and Ohio primaries.  Both sets of candidates really are quite different in many ways, so here goes...

No one is against allowing hard-working people from around the world to come to America in an orderly way. Many have a problem with one nation actively trying to avoid their own responsibilities by helping people around their borders into the United States and then insisting they get the same benefits as natural born citizens. McCain sponsored a bill essentially granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. He is seen as soft on the border fence and prosecution. Huckabee wants the fence and opposed the amnesty bill.  His views on illegal immigration seem to have changed for the better, given his religiously driven support for the children of illegals in Arkansas.  If people are changing positions, encourage it if they are changing in the right direction. 

Many want a stimulus package that gives some cash to most Americans. The House bill was passed. The Senate wanted to greatly increase the package as well as include some large political favors in the process. McCain wrote in support of the pork-laden bill that the Senate came up with, but did not vote on it.  Huckabee wants the $150 billion invested in widening I-95 on the east coast, giving jobs and a permanent benefit for the money spent.

Most Presidents have expressed their faith – some in general, inspirational terms such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, others more overtly such as Jimmy Carter. On March 4, 1881, James Garfield detailed the dangers of Mormonism in his inaugural address.  Could you imagine such a speech today on Islam, for instance, where the issues are different, but just as real as the issues were in his day? McCain goes to a Southern Baptist Church, but even his friends are alarmed at his vile temper and language.  He has been well noted for his discomfort with religious conservatives and born-again Christians.  The feeling is mutual. Huckabee wears his faith on his sleeve and freely admits that his faith drives his decisions. He makes some people nervous preaching on the campaign trail, but has a take-it-or-leave-it attitude about it.

Pro-life issues are broad – there is the basic issue of abortion, of course. While many misunderstand Roe v. Wade – overturning it would simply return the authority to the states, but an amendment to the constitution would be needed to restrict or eliminate the practice.  An overturn would not ban abortion, it would simply not force states who want to ban it to have to allow it.  Many cite the portion of the 1973 ruling that left the door open for reexamination as science progressed.  Most pro-choice people do NOT want that debate.  It is clear who would win in an objective evaluation. There are also issues of parental notification on abortion (required for taking an aspirin, but not for  life-changing surgery),  so-called partial birth abortion, the RU-486 pill, and of course, embryonic stem cell research which requires the destruction of human embryos. McCain claims to be pro-life, and has generally voted that way.  However, he is against overturning Roe v. Wade and would likely appoint judges also so inclined. In a debate for the 2000 Presidential election with George Bush on the Larry King show, February 15, 2000, he advocated exemptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, His seeming lack of strong religious conviction likely explains his support for embryonic stem cell research which is anathema to Christians. Republicans for Choice has endorsed him, so I believe they sense what I for real sense – the status quo will remain while McCain is personally opposed to abortion (who isn’t?).  Huckabee is enthusiastically pro-life and all the feeder issues to pro-life and is consistent about it.  He is favorable to an amendment to really solve the issue nationally.

Specifics may vary, but both candidates are strong in terms of veteran’s affairs.

John McCain is opposed by home-schoolers,  Huckabee believes in home-schooling with more testing and regulation than some would like and has support from the National Education Association.  Home-schoolers have found their biggest ally in Ron Paul. Educational alternatives are a key issue with teachers' unions opposing school choice. Both McCain and Huckabee voted against funding requests in 1999 for the National Endowments for the Arts, which frequently has funded anti-Christian and morally challenged “art”.

Specifics may vary, but both candidates are strong in terms of reforming health care without making it a universal government or single-payer system. Mc Cain wants to expand insurance to currently uninsured children and institute refundable tax credits for $2,500. He is an avid advocate of patients’ rights.  Huckabee is very strong on prevention, and wants to preempt health conditions that cost so much to treat later.  He also advocates portable health records that you own, not your doctor. He also favors reduced costs for those who avoid tobacco, alcohol, and obesity.

McCain seems fluid here – he voted against the Bush tax cuts, but now says he would extend them. Huckabee supports a consumption tax he calls “The Fair Tax”.  Those who have saved and seniors do not see it as fair at all, as they will have some double taxation.  Radical proposals such as this hardly ever get through Congress.

Both are married, McCain to Cindy with an adopted daughter from Mother Theresa’s orphanage; Huckabee to Janet who had spinal cancer and needed his strong support. McCain is opposed to the federal marriage amendment, meant to blunt the radical homosexual agenda. Huckabee is for it.  When Romney was in, he was strangely the choice of conservative homosexuals.

McCain fought Bush and Rumsfeld over Iraq policy, but did support the surge.  He seems solid there. Huckabee angered many including Condi Rice for his “bunker mentality” statements.  He is less knowledgeable on foreign affairs, but is seen as one who would not make radical changes in the war effort. McCain is almost universally considered to be the more experienced in terms of foreign policy. Huckabee as a governor, like Romney, would naturally not have the same experience as a Senator in that arena. Governors have had mixed success as President, just as Senators have. Reagan had been governor of California, and was extraordinarily successful against the former Soviet block. Carter had been governor of Georgia, and was disastrous in Iran but the hero in Camp David. McCain believes AIDS money sent to Africa will be lost to corruption. He wants reforms in the UN as a condition of future funding. Both McCain and Huckabee have been stalwart supporters of Israel.  There was a recent flap in The Jewish Press concerning McCain and the current situation, which seems to have been rectified.  He is considered less  “striped pants” than the current State Department, which tends, like Bush, to walk the fence. Huckabee, unlike McCain, is opposed to the Law of the Sea Treaty which would give other nations much control over our traditional sea rights and is seen as a dangerous concession to globalism by many.

McCain voted against oil drilling in ANWR.  He also has bought wholesale the current man-made global warming hypothesis which is undergoing increasing skepticism by scientists. Huckabee is for expanding nuclear power and voluntary partnerships to reduce greenhouse gases. He says he doesn’t know whether the global warming scare  is overblown, but thinks it makes sense to proceed as though it were real.  He believes in energy independence, and the Alaska media note his support for drilling in ANWR has been much more longstanding that ex-candidate Romney’s has been.

McCain is pilloried by Louisiana’s sugar producers and flip-flopped on Ethanol in Iowa, which he lost,  while Huckabee is considered a friend to farmers, very knowledgeable on the intricacies of subsidies.

McCain voted against more funds for FEMA.  He lost Louisiana. Huckabee wants to reform it. No one believes FEMA is OK the way it is.

Both candidates support the Second Amendment rights but they are perceived VERY differently by people in the debate. McCain supports locking laws – requiring firearms to be locked away.  Since firearms are used 7,000 times a day in self-defense (dozens of times more than in killing), forcing them to be locked up would result in many more deaths. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for almost five full minutes to remove a trigger lock at a press conference last year. In an emergency, he would have been dead. Huckabee is the first in his office to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. His unabashed support for guns is different from many. While a hunter, he does not use that  argument. He argues that an armed populace is necessary to maintain freedom, and that it was given as a right so the citizenry could protect itself from a government gone bad.

Many Americans have become used to judges legislating from the bench, but it is not in accordance with our constitution. Recent court appointments have been for “strict constructionists” who are content to interpret the laws, not write them. McCain has expressed admiration for Justice Roberts and some reservations about Alito. What is disquieting is that neither justice would be supportive of the anti-free speech remises in McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform. Would McCain as President appoint judges who would declare his marquis legislation unconstitutional?  I doubt it. Huckabee is pledged to appoint more strict constructionist judges.  His selection of judges in Arkansas was generally considered much better than Romney’s.  There have been allegations that he pressured judges to rule in favor of business over injured plaintiffs.  This would be repugnant for any legitimately injured person. However, many of these types of cases are egregious and involve corruption, so some case-by-case research would be needed. Huckabee has engendered some severe criticism for some ill-conceived pardons.

And the beat goes on...   Where is a strong candidate with the freshness of Barack Obama without the stale political positions??


Saturday, February 02, 2008


What a political season! What a difference a month makes. I have looked over the field, and to be honest, I feel I have to pick the lesser of evils, but I earnestly am hoping that someone on a white horse will gallop into the race and grab my heart so we can live happily ever after. Keep in mind that it is critical to support the right people in congress as well – the President does not have unlimited power and can rarely do all that is promised. We need to also know that the President appoints Supreme Court justices – this makes a huge difference in many ways and must be considered. My Takes...

John McCain - 72 years old, but hey, another President not long ago was a senior citizen and one of our best. The word is that McCain intends only a single term, so the VP selection would be more critical than normally. McCain is an enigma - he fought against Bush during the war, probably resulting in it continuing longer than it needed to. He supported the surge, which was a no-brainer that proved successful. He claims a pro-life mantle, but has been a clone of Governor Arnold on the left coast in terms of embryonic stem cell research which is unnecessary and which harvests human embryos. Science has better options. His moderation on this issue during the primaries, like any candidate's morphing to gain votes, must be taken with a grain of salt. He claims fiscal responsibility, but was one of only two Republicans who voted against the Bush tax cuts that have certainly softened our landing toward a recession and provided an employment rate about half that of Europe's. McCain-Feingold was a self-serving law if there ever was one. McCain is a darling of the mainstream media, and he knew that this would help him in a Presidential Race. Foxy guy. This has proven true. When is the last time you knew a front-runner who couldn't raise money? McCain is idolized in the press, never criticized, while others have to pay millions to say anything and they are demonized in the press. This was an assault on the first amendment. How can we vote into office to defend the constitution of the United States someone who doesn't believe wholeheartedly in the first amendment himself??? The McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill is another harbinger of his proclivity to "work with the democrats" with the end result sponsoring legislation that has 95% of the footprints of the liberals and only 5% of the footprints of the conservatives. I am personally convinced that McCain would unduly bow to the Democrats in terms of Supreme Court nominations, which troubles me. I am 100% for reasonable legal immigration, but want it fairly distributed. Christians persecuted in Pakistan have to wait 6 to 10 years - Mexican criminals, the time it takes to get a coyote to get them over the border. Our infrastructure is being strained, our future uncertain if we allow any one country to monopolize the immigration system, particularly with the bent to make our nation bi-cultural with two official language and unreleased loyalties to Mexico. McCain has Juan Hernandez, a foreign advisor with ties to Vicente Fox in the cadre of his confidantes. Not reassuring. McCain was an Episcopal, but now attends a Southern Baptist church, but has the temper of Harry Truman and LBJ. The F-word is reputed to be a staple in his vocabulary, and even a close friend in the Senate says he doesn't have the temperament to be President. Many Christians including myself have an innate distrust of the man - he simply doesn't seem to add up to the sum of his parts.

Mike Huckabee grabbed my attention in the beginning. A Southern Baptist belongs to a broad group of people who have historically stood for the Bible in theory if not in practice. The toleration of slavery and its heritage for so long is anathema to African Americans. While repudiated a few years ago, the divide has not been fully bridged. The same is true to probably as great a degree in the historically Black and historically White Pentecostal denominations. Huckabee was a mega-church pastor who had been a staffer with James Robison. He entertained some by his impersonations - Billy Graham was a favorite. He was a stalwart for Biblical inerrancy and the Biblical account of creation, showing backbone where so many compromise, and though some thought him soft on theological liberalism in his denomination, he admirably pressured the all white Immanuel Baptist Church to accept blacks in the 1980's. He became governor in 1996, and proclaimed 1997 as a year for racial reconciliation by saying "Let every one of us make it our priority to bring reconciliation, not so much that we can force it or legislate it, because we cannot, but that we begin in each of our own lives to purpose in our hearts that we will not harbor anger, hostility, prejudice, bigotry and racism toward any person." I believe this is a genuine sentiment, not a political expediency. As governor he had a controversial record on taxes, immigration and campaign gifts, but in 1998 was rated second only to John Ashcroft by the Christian coalition. He is likely to make good appointments to the Supreme Court. He opposed John McCain's immigration bill, but angered some by being loose (or compassionate depending on how you look at it) with those here illegally. He believed his attitude toward the alien to be Biblical, and that view is worthy of consideration. He built a surplus, and was moderate on taxes, I reject the criticism of the CATO institute, as governing a state requires significant compromise, also true of Romney who was a Republican governor of a democratic state. Many like his down-home style, but have been disappointed in his campaign rhetoric and in his side preaching ventures which have given opportunity to his critics. On paper, he should be the man. For many Christians, the jury is still out. Mike's "Fair Tax" seems anything but.  It would tax those who saved (often older responsible Americans) 30% on their purchases, INCLUDING HEALTH  CARE!  That is double taxation and not fair. Those with high itemized deductions who contribute a lot to church and/or charity, those who have invested in homes which is universally considered a positive, and those who live in  high tax states would be treated the same as Uncle Scrooge's living in low tax states.  While no one really likes the IRS, there have been tweaks made over the years to accommodate differences and make it fairer.  Mike's proposals would be catastrophic for small businessmen like myself. The rich can buy their Mercedes in Germany and ship it here, getting a free European luxury vacation with the money they "save".  They also have more financial vehicles at their disposal, and will invent more if the need arises to get around ANY tax system. I am always amazed by Republicans AND Democrats who think they can outsmart the rich. The Dems always promote taxing the oil companies and big corporations - that is silly - they just pass those taxes on in the form of higher prices so these proposals really just raise taxes on the little guy. Mike's tax proposal is hostile to Christians, and while it would never pass in Congress, the truth is that it has not been well thought out. I would prefer one who thinks on more levels in this area. Mike is not off my list due to his strengths, but I am still looking.

Mitt Romney served as a mostly conservative governor of Massachusetts. While pro-choice prior, he has a 100% pro-life record as governor. I have no problems with conversions as long as they go the right way. Al Gore used to be pro-life until he saw the writing on the wall. His conversion went the wrong way. Remember the virulent rejection of pro-life democrats such as Robert B. Casey, the former governor of Pennsylvania? I am all for Mitt's conversion on abortion and it is a dead issue for me. Ironically, the Mormon Church is anti-abortion, so one wonders how doctrinaire Mitt has been concerning the other doctrines of his Church. While no one probably supports everything their own church says hook, line, and sinker, and while most members of most churches differ markedly from each other in terms of many issues, and while a comment on Christ I have heard Mitt say does not seem as off as the official church line, we have to assume that he is not a born-again Christian based upon the errant view by Mormons of Jesus Christ. Many evangelicals have warmed up to cooperating with the Catholic Church despite huge doctrinal differences because of the common ground of opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, the homosexual agenda, and physician-assisted suicide. The same commonalities also exist with Mormonism and also, in areas other than abortion, with Islam (early Islamic theologians allowed abortion up to either day 40 or day 120; the issue of when life begins is still fluid in that faith). Many Christians believe in cooperation to achieve common goals such as the late Moral Majority. Others separate themselves entirely. Mitt proved himself a popular and effective governor against all odds. He parlayed his more apolitical business side, with which there has been no serious argument, to get things done in a Democratic state and put its financial house in much better order. He actually did what Barack Obama is now advocating. The gay marriage situation was beyond his control and serves as an object lesson that it is just as important to vote in a favorable congress as it is a President. Mitt was slow to catch on - perhaps because he has allowed people to criticize him and the fact he is a bit of a conciliatory type of person. His long marriage to one woman and the fact that his children follow him are certainly positives. He is also likely to make good appointments to the Supreme Court. Like many, he considered ways to bring the war to an end - secret timetables agreed to by the US and Iraq are probably in place anyway, so I have no problem with that. He has supported the president more admirably in my opinion than McCain did, and seems to have a temperament well suited to healing our strained relationships with some European countries. If Islamo-Fascism recedes in the months ahead, and the economy becomes even more troubled, Mitt Romney is an attractive candidate. Many of us were disappointed with the free-spending of the Republicans these past years, even though it was less than what the Democrats would have spent if unchecked. A businessman in the White House would be a breath of fresh air. Whether Christians want a man in the White House who is not reconciled to God is the main issue here.

Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. Many admire her tenacity, others view her as vicious in much the same way many viewed Robert Kennedy before his assassination. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama has been viewed as a slap in the face by some, while those leaning towards conspiracy theories think Hillary was behind it to cast Obama as a far-left candidate. After all, many believe Teddy Kennedy is a symbol of what is wrong in America. Hillary brings to the table eight years of White House experience - certainly meeting many world leaders, getting to know them, and in some people's eyes, being co-president in terms of policy decisions. Laura Bush has the same experience, and no one has seriously suggested she run for President based upon that. Hillary has been a NY Senator and has had influence, but has no highlight legislation that I am aware of to show leadership in that arena. Some support her simply because she is a woman, and some likely oppose her for the same reason. Certainly, she has less experience running anything than Romney or Huckabee, and by many accounts has a similar volatile temperament to John McCain's. Many believe sticking with Bill through serial adultery was simply a political calculation, others a weakness. Certainly the Clinton record against terrorism was much in line with Hillary's tolerance of Bill, which would not serve us well. While forgiveness is critical, true repentance must be a part of not punishing wrongdoing. The long-celebrated racial sensitivity has been questioned by the harsh treatment of Barack Obama until the recent love fest, as well as by workers in the White House during the Clinton administration which exposed harsh racial attitudes and statements made by the Clintons. I believe that those is favor of racial justice do not assume that they need to be the caretakers forever, and that when an equally qualified person of another race rises up, they are worthy of support. I do not believe that Hillary Clinton speaks more accurately for minorities than Barack Obama, and neither do an increasing number of minority people. Hillary's position on the war has been a yo-yo highly variable based upon where she was speaking. I do not see any credibility in dealing on the world stage. The positions she has taken would result in a massive tax increase which would depress our economy, and the growth of government at the same time would have the financial challenges during the Bush administration seem like child's play. He social policies on abortion and homosexuality are against the Bible and not out of line with many in the modern-day United Methodist Church, which she has been loyal to from the time she was a Sunday School teacher. Hillary has been open about what she believes. I for one believe she is telling the truth about herself on these domestic issues. I also believe that she would follow her husband in making extremely liberal Supreme Court appointments.

Barack Obama is a fresh new face. I love the fact that a bi-racial man has ascended to become a serious candidate. I have two bi-racial sons, and I believe that God has deposited in men such as these a very special way of looking at the world. I believe Tiger Woods is another such example. The secular press and Hillary Clinton of course have tried to make Barack the African-American Candidate and Tiger into the Black golfer, though Barack is 1/2 black and Tiger 1/4 Black. John Edwards to his credit seemed to be much more even while he was still in the race. I really do not understand why Barack does not stress is multi-heritage more. In fact I suggested it to his campaign. It is not a matter of Black vs. White; it is a matter of Black AND white. He has come to terms with it, and so should our nation so we can move on. Although there have been some lapses, I believe Barack has tried to reach out to many people and I admire that. Many believe he is before his time and is simply too inexperienced. His time in the Senate has been less than four years, and he has been low key, much like Clinton and much unlike John McCain. He was a community organizer and certainly has a stellar educational background. We have had other presidents with limited experience, though all things being equal, one would like to see a longer list of accomplishments.

Barack's views of the issues can be found on his website, just like everyone else's. Unlike his fresh approach to politics and his interesting perspectives, many of his positions are doctrinaire far left wing democrat in a close mold with Ted Kennedy. The ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) gave Ted Kennedy a 100% and Obama's senate partner from Illinois, Dick Durban, a 100% rating. Obama received a 95%. He voted "yes" on the US-Oman Free Trade Agreement, which seems in line with his philosophy, which was the sole difference. For parental notification on abortions, for a constitutional amendment on marriage, for confirmation of Justice Alito, for an amendment to prohibit desecration of the flag and for requiring ID to vote (to prevent fraud), he was "NO" on all counts. On budget and tax issues, he was firmly on liberal ground of higher taxes and larger government. I believe that true independence and a new spirit in government would lead to more diversity in these areas. I believe his record would also indicate extremely liberal Supreme Court appointments.

Barack attends the Trinity United Church of Christ (membership has been hard to confirm), which is 8,000 strong and headed by Dr. Jeremiah Wright. His Dad had roots in Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism, but became an atheist. Barack has rejected those roots. Dr. Wright is firmly in the “social gospel” segment of Christianity, and has had troubling views on homosexuality and Islam. Barack correctly asserts that he doesn't agree with everything his pastor says, but he obviously feels comfortable enough there to stay. Oprah used to go to that church, but hadn't attended for 12 years until the campaign. Her beliefs are far from orthodox, and are likely even further adrift from the UCC, but that is her background. The United Church of Christ was just about the first to endorse homosexuality as OK for leaders, and has generally been contrary to the Bible on many fronts. There are likely some saved people within the UCC who are truly born again, and Barack's cryptic descriptions of his own conversion leave room for that. If Barack had views more in line with Biblical morality and if he were politically independent of the Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party, I would be proud to support him. I believe that despite all the criticism, he would defend this country if another 9/11 came our way, and I suspect if he does not win this time he will be back.

The vast majority of our presidents have not been born again - only a handful. Most have given God lip service. Some outright did not believe Jesus was God, such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. God has preserved us through it all, and we must believe that per Romans 12, our government leaders are servants of God regardless of their faith in him. Israel was much blessed by Gentile kings who did the will of God more than their own Jewish kings. God is sovereign and is able to bless us regardless of the spiritual standing of our leaders. I do wish, of course, that there were a Christian Candidate who was able to appeal across the Board. In Iowa, it seemed Mike Huckabee was that person, but now even Christians aren't really sure about him based upon exit polls. By definition, that may not be possible, because the more someone is like Jesus, the more the world will hate them. Perhaps that candidate will emerge or perhaps someone running will have a true conversion experience.

I do pray that you will have the wisdom of God to support the candidate from the choices we have who would best lead us in the direction God has for us. Do not make decisions based upon the flesh, but based upon the Spirit.