Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live. However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.

Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.

David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?

Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.

By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.

Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.

To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.

According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."

Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."

The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.

Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."

Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."

Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?

Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?

Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.

Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.

Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.

According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?

The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.

According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.

If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.

For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?

Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.

There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.

John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.

Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."

Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.

In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".

In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.

Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."

In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.

Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.

Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?

If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.

In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.

by Frederick Meekins

Senator Barack Obama has captured the world's attention unlike almost any other political figure of the era in which we live. However, despite all the theatrics surrounding the candidate and the almost messianic adoration displayed on the part of his followers, very few can possibly tell you what he actually believes other than in "change", which, though sounding like everything you ever dreamed of, can actually consist of the stuff of nightmares.

Discerning Americans caught an early glimpse of what was beneath the facade of intoxicating rhetoric when it became more widely disseminated what Obama's spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright actually believed and what Obama had to have soaked up philosophically during the formative years of his early adulthood. Devoted acolytes will respond that his holiness has distanced himself from such racialism.

David Duke made similar claims during the early to mid 90's until falling back into similar patterns of extremist thought. So if few believed Duke back then, why should we extend the benefit of the doubt to Obama now since a leopard seldom changes its spots?

Before the Jeremiah Wright incident, many White Christians felt considerable guilt over the constant harangue invoked by the more liberal among the clergy about 11 o'clock Sunday morning being the most segregated hour of the week. However, with the exposure of the disease of Black liberation theology eating away at the heart of many Black churches, it has turned out that any sincere Christian irrespective of their ethnic background ought to be cautious about entering these "synagogues of Satan" as Scripture itself calls such hovels of doctrinal compromise.

By more closely examining what liberation theologians actually expound and what is mediated to the broader public by politicians such as Barack Obama, one realizes that the threat posed by this pseudo-messiah and false prophet goes much deeper than the lamentable historical animosities between the races. And even though this animosity against what this great country was built upon goes much deeper than race and ethnicity, it is the jumping off point into the radical circles in which Obama is being heralded as an almost messianic figure.

Many Americans of goodwill no doubt think Jeremiah Wright and his warped theology are a rare aberration on the American religious radar screen. His kind of outlook is actually more widespread than one might actually think.

To many of the influential in Black ecclesiastical circles, the problem was not so much with what Jeremiah Wright said but rather that Whitey found out a bit about what was being planned for him among those whose ultimate loyalty is not to the God of the universe and His revealed word but instead to race as a manifestation of the COMMUNITY. Most American Christians steeped in commonsense and the truths of the Bible would consider the things espoused by Jeremiah Wright beyond the bounds of propriety; however, the assessment of liberals is considerably different.

According to an article in the 5/5/08 edition of The Nation titled "The Liberation Of Reverend Wright" by Eudora Smith, Wright's elocutionary peeks such as "God damn America" represent the "rhetorical traditions [that] meld biblical allegory with contemporary political concerns and whose sanctuaries provide a rare space where a collective black racial consciousness can be expressed uncensored by others." I don't remember Italians being referred to as long-nosed garlic eaters as part of the Biblical literary heritage. Eudora Smith continues, "It may surprise many in white America...that there are a lot of Jeremiah Wrights out there..."

Perhaps even more frightening than that there is a kook like Jeremiah Wright espousing the kinds of things that he does is that there are so many that believe as he does or look to him as an honorable man of God. Many simply excuse Wrights preaching, according to an MSNBC.com article titled "NYT: Black Churches In NC Torn Over Wright" as "a prophetic style that combines spiritual guidance with often harsh social criticism that has its roots in Old Testament prophets."

The reflections of a number of Wright's supporters are documented in a 5/11/08 Baltimore Sun article titled "Black Preachers Agree To Disagree." However, from the article, the disagreement is not so much with Wright's message but that the world found out about it before their pony Obama won the horse race and it would have been to late for America to do anything about it until the next election.

Rev. Johnny Golden of New Unity Ministries told the Baltimore Sun, "We see a lot of what he is saying and we understand it, but his comments have wounded the opportunity of Mr. Obama to make gains and opportunity for America to embrace his ideals."

Rev. Marshall Prentice of Zion Baptist Church went even further in his support for Wright when he told the Baltimore Sun, "To attack any pastor for what he says from the pulpit is an attack on all pastors. Whatever we say on a given Sunday, we truly believe is given to us by inspiration of God."

Oh really? There is a cultic movement known as Christian Identity that is essentially a religious form of Nazism; if someone claims to be a pastor within that pernicious sect and disseminates their poison from behind a pulpit, by the standard advocated in the previous quote, are we as mere laymen permitted to speak out against such error?

Protestantism broke with Roman Catholicism largely in part over the realization that clergy are not infallible and that there must be an objective standard that exists above the mere opinions of man even if we as finite individuals do not yet understand the entirety of the divine plumline. However, leftist denominations such as the United Church of Christ of which Wright is a part hold that Scripture is no more a definitive rule of faith and practice than any other piece of religious literature. So when clergy speak to matters beyond and that even blatantly contradict revelation’s scope, why should the Christian in the pew have to defer to someone just because they wear a clerical collar?

Such nonsense may be rife within denominations dominated by African American religionists. Yet as a group largely Protestant in orientation, one ought to expect rigorous pastors and theologians to protect Evangelicalism against such doctrinal toxins as expounded by the likes of Jeremiah Wright. However, the same spirit of relativism and timidity infecting the rest of our culture now paralyzes some of Evangelicalism’s foremost institutions simply because the heretic making the claims happens to be an ethnic minority.

Christianity Today was initially founded as a conservative alternative to more liberal religious periodicals such as Christian Century and Sojourners. If that is the case, its founder Carl Henry must be rolling over in his grave.

Eager to achieve the appellation of “relevant” as did the Social Gospel and Death of God movements from previous generations, insecure Evangelicals are quick to latch onto any intellectual fad that comes along (especially if it happens to be anti-American as of late). And since all things Obama are all the rage, the editors of Christianity Today can’t help but get on the bandwagon by posting sympathetic viewpoints.

According to the article titled “Jeremiah Wright, Evangelicals’ Brother In Christ”, the disputed pastor is no worse than John Hagee and ought to be accepted as one of our own. But what exactly does Jeremiah Wright believe? Shouldn’t we examine this before we extend him unreservedly the hand of fellowship?

The theology espoused by Jeremiah Wright is known as “Black liberation theology”. However, there is more to this than Black people wanting to go to church predominately with other Black people. Even those who painstakingly go out of their way to avoid making distinctions between right and wrong are forced to admit there was something profoundly incorrect going on at Wright’s church.

According to the 5/12/08 edition of Newsweek, Oprah Winfrey use to be a member of Wright’s church not so much out of theological conviction but rather because she simply wanted to go to a Black church. Before we return to the primary thrust of this analysis, that admission is of such significance that it needs to be examined a bit further as it expresses a mindset relevant to this essay.

If a Black person wants to make being around other Black people their highest priority even above fidelity to God Himself, liberals and multiculturalists don’t have a problem with it. However, if White folks are reluctant to go back to Black churches not so much because of anything against Black people per say but because what rational White person is going to want to sit week after week hearing sermons that do not exposit the Word of God for our daily lives but rather how wretched White people. And furthermore quite frankly, in many Black churches, the congregation can’t simply sing in the pews but must also jump over them and roll around in the aisles.

For refusing to patronize such ecclesiastical confusion, we get lengthy lectures how we are all one big human family. But even in families, don’t siblings enjoy different ways of relating to their father? One might enjoy going with him to the duck pond while the other prefers taking him to car shows; does there really need to be all that much hand-ringing about these things being enjoyed separately?

Since Oprah Winfrey ultimately worships Oprah Winfrey (a claim backed by her embrace of Eckart Tolle), Oprah realized her own deification among the masses of ignorant feminists with too much money would be at stake if she bent her knee to a false god other than herself. So she parted.

There is more to Black liberation theology than looking to Christ to free individuals from their sins. In fact, a traditional Jesus plays a very small role in this worldview and the individual is valued even less as one is only important as part of the larger group or COMMUNITY.

John 3:16 tells us, “For God so loved the world, that He gave us His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” However, to Black liberationists, this most fundamental of Gospel Scriptures contains nothing but error.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled "Christians Copy Christ Killers Says Obama's Pastor's Magazine", Jesus doesn't really love the little children, not the Red, nor the Yellow, and the White ones especially aren't really so precious in His site after all. According to theologians subscribing to this school of thought such as Jeremiah Wright and James Cone, Jesus came only for Black people.

Cone is quoted as saying in the WorldNetDaily article, "The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self determination by picturing God as the God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God's experience, or God is a God of racism."

Thus, one is a racist if one DOES NOT show preferential treatment towards Black people. It must be noted that this is not the only kind of double standard advocated by those in Jeremiah Wright's circles.

In orthodox Christian theology, since all races and ethnic groups are equal ontologically or biologically even if the ways certain cultures manifest themselves are better than others, particular standards and expectations can be applied to individuals irrespective of their background. However, if one follows the thought of Jeremiah Wright to its logical conclusion, then Black folks should not have to adhere to so-called "White man's law".

In his remarks before a 2008 NAACP anniversary dinner, Jeremiah Wright contended that European-American children are "left-brained" in that they are logical and analytical whereas African-American children are "right-brained" making them creative and intuitive. On the surface, such theorizing does not really sound like all that big of a deal as often different ethnic groups tend to excel at specific things. But one must ask the question what will this alleged bit of scholarship be invoked to justify in terms of public policy.

Wright quips in his NAACP remarks, "When they [public schools] were desegregated in Philadelphia, several of the white teachers in my school freaked out. Why? Because black kids wouldn't stay in their place. Over there behind the desk, black kids climbed up all on them."

In other words, since their brains process information differently, it is unacceptable to expect Black people to abide by the same set of expectations White folks are expected to adhere to. Why, how dare you expect order in the hallways of America's inner city public schools!!! You're a racist if you expect Black children to sit there and conduct themselves in a disciplined and studious manner.

Think I am exaggerating? Both the American Enterprise and Washington Post Magazines have run stories in the past where White teachers were categorized as racist for not having a big smile plastered across their faces about minority children labeled as learning disabled rampaging as they wished in the classrooms of these respective teachers.

Where does this line of reasoning end? If it is discovered that Blacks have a more difficult time curtailing the compulsions driving one towards reproduction, does that mean we are just suppose to keep handing out the welfare checks and Food Stamps without nary a word of rebuke about the moral decay gripping our nation where the unmarried don’t simply have one child outside of marriage and learn from their mistake but irresponsibly continue having one child after the other without a trip to the altar?

If it is proved that the “Black brain” has a greater propensity towards violence, does that mean we may not condemn the warlike conditions plaguing our city streets? If one takes Black liberation theology to its logical conclusion, even if Jeremiah Wright won’t admit to it publicly, according to this warped worldview it might not even be wrong to put a bullet in Whitey’s head and take his property; some might even call it an act of love or (as Jeremiah Wright said in his NAACP remarks) “just different”.

In the history of Communism, Marx is remembered as the thinker providing much of that philosophy’s theoretical basis whereas Lenin was the politician who implemented these doctrines into an actual political situation with slight adaptations. Likewise, Jeremiah Wright contributes significantly to the ideological foundation that Barack Obama would build upon whether the candidate is willing to admit to it or not.

by Frederick Meekins

Now that Senator Barack Obama has wrapped up the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, it's time for him to answer some questions about where he stands on the issues that are important to the American people. Here are my questions for the senator:

First, you have made withdrawing US troops from Iraq the top priority of your campaign saying that you want all "combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." Are you still committed to this deadline for removing troops from Iraq regardless of the military situation on the ground? Are you going to ignore our own military commanders including Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has said your position could take "gains we have achieved and struggled to achieve and turn them around overnight"? What are you going to do once our military forces have been withdrawn from Iraq should Iran and Al-Qaeda decide to take action to overthrow the Iraqi government by force? Do you not believe that US troop withdrawal will be seen as a huge victory for these two entities who have stated on more than one occasion that they see Iraq as the pivotal battleground against democracy and Western values? You have said that you would move US military units to other countries in the region so that they could quickly "re-deploy" to Iraq if necessary. Where, exactly, are you going to relocate our military? Are you willing to pay twice in American blood and treasure for military victories that we have already achieved? As Commander-in-Chief, these are difficult decisions that you will have to make. What is there in your background which suggests that you have the experience to make the military decisions necessary to safeguard America's interests in the Middle East and the rest of the world? You have promised that once you are elected you will reduce our military strength, you will cut spending on missile defense, and you will cut funding for future weapons systems. Do you believe this a wise course of action during a time of war and increased terrorist threats to America?

Secondly, we have heard about your personal relationships with terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn who, as members of the Weathermen in the 1970's, bombed government buildings and attempted assassinations of US Army officers, and continue to say that they have no regrets for their actions and wish they had done more. Additionally, you were a member of the Trinity United Church for more than 20 years and attended many sermons where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright proclaimed the nonsense that America invented the AIDS virus to exterminate black people and that the government introduced crack cocaine into African-American neighborhoods in order to imprison black people. Your "spiritual advisor" (your description) also vehemently stated that we should not say, "God Bless America" but, rather, "God damn America" because ours is an evil nation. Reverend Wright has also praised the race-baiter Louis Farrakhan and the terrorist group Hamas. And, although you have recently resigned your church membership from Trinity United, you have not renounced the black liberation theology advanced by your former pastor. In fact, it was only after Father Michael Pfleger, another who you claim helped shape your moral views, made racist remarks from your church pulpit about the evil of white people and described America as, "the greatest sin against God", that you decided to leave Trinity United. However, you also said, "I'm not denouncing the church and I'm not interested in people who want me to denounce the church", adding, "the church have been suffering from the attention my campaign has focused on them". It sounds like you are leaving the church for political reasons only. Why can you not denounce a church which puts forth racist, anti-American sentiments? Do you or your wife who says she is "proud for the first time in my adult life to be an American" share some of these feelings? We still have not heard about all your dealings with Tony Rezko, a Chicago slumlord who donated $10,000 to your campaign from an alleged crooked kickback scheme and is now on trial. What are we to make of all these troubling relationships you have had for many years with terrorists, racists, and indicted crooks? You have promised a "change" in the political atmosphere but you appear to be just another politician who will associate with anyone who can help advance your career. Where's the change?

Next, you have proposed a "Global Poverty Act" which would give more than $845 billion of US taxpayers' money to other nations over and above the billions that we already give. You have said that, "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to the elimination extreme poverty". I am afraid, Senator Obama, that the American people will be the ones experiencing extreme poverty once you have enacted all of your big government programs. In addition to a government-run health care program (estimated cost of $100 billion), you have also proposed a 10-year, $150 billion program to establish a "green energy sector"; a $60 billion "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" to construct and repair highways, bridges, and other infrastructure; a government sponsored college loan program and federal pre-K nursery school program; more tax dollars for illegal aliens, giving them amnesty and allowing them to have drivers licenses, Medicaid and Social Security benefits; and a $340 billion tax credit benefit. And there's more…lots more. To pay for all of this, you have proposed a $2 trillion tax increase on all individuals (not just the "rich") and an increased corporate tax rate which is already one of the highest in the world at 40%, including federal and state taxes. You are also in favor of raising the capital gains tax rate to 20-25 percent. How is all of this going to help an already struggling American economy? Are you not afraid, Senator Obama, that your big tax-and-spend initiatives will drive the economy straight into a recession?

Also, despite your claims of support for the Second Amendment rights for Americans, you have pledged to "ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons". You have stated that the DC law which prevented citizens from defending themselves was "constitutional" and you refused to join with 55 other senators to support the Supreme Court case opposing the DC gun ban. In 1996 you supported "banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns" in Illinois. In 2004 you voted against the DeMar self-defense bill to protect citizens who use handguns in self-defense in their homes and businesses. The bill was overwhelmingly voted into law despite a veto by the governor. You were one of only 20 state senators to vote against the bill. You have been endorsed by several anti-gun groups including the deceptively-named, American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA). It appears, Senator Obama, that you believe American citizens should not be allowed to defend themselves with firearms. How do you explain your anti-Second Amendment comments and actions?

On the cultural front, there is not a single issue on which you have broken with the positions of left-wing interest groups - from gay marriage, to abortion, to legalized drugs. Although you claim that you oppose gay marriage, in 2004 you said that you opposed the Defense of Marriage Act which was meant to prevent gay marriage from being imposed on the country without the consent of the American people. Shouldn't the people, rather than unelected judges, decide on the definition of marriage? You received a perfect 100% voting rating from NARAL over the past three years and you have stated that you oppose "notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions". You have also said that you support partial birth abortions. If you are elected president will you attempt to overturn the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003? How do you feel about the millions of babies who have been put to death by abortion? Also, you have admitted to using drugs in the past and you say that you favor decriminalizing the use of marijuana. Do you or do you not believe that drug use is harmful to our children? If you believe it is harmful why would you want drugs to be more readily available?

You have expressed your intent to name justices to the Supreme Court in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter - judges who have made decisions based more on their personal, political and moral views than on constitutional and legal principles. You said that you want judges who have "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old". You voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts - one of only 17 nay votes (all Democrats) - justifying your opposition by saying that difficult cases should be decided by "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspective on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy". As a lawyer, do you believe that issues should be decided based upon constitutional and statutory language? Or, should a judge make decisions based upon personal feelings? Do you believe that the will of unelected judges supersedes the votes of the American people?

Finally, you have made "hope" and "change" the centerpiece slogans of your campaign, promising fresh national unity and a higher purpose. The national media and young people, especially, love your idealistic rhetoric. But are you the unifier who you claim to be? Your voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate and you were rated the most liberal senator in 2007 by the National Journal, a non-partisan publication. Your policy agenda is more liberal than Hillary Clinton's or Ted Kennedy's or any Democratic nominee since George McGovern. The change that you advocate seems to be nothing more than a reversion to the failed big-government policies of the Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson administrations. If you are truly a unifier, which liberal policies are you willing to compromise for the sake of unity? What bi-partisan legislation are you prepared to support?

So far you have avoided answering any of these questions. The Democratic Party has nominated for President a freshman Senator with barely three years of national experience who most of America still barely knows. You are the least tested and least experienced nominee for the presidency in modern times. Are you prepared to do more than obfuscate, dodge and ignore the tough questions? America needs more than a smooth-talking, politically-correct, empty-suit President. What American voters want to know, Senator Obama, is who are you? Who, really, are you?

He's just going to keep on drifting further and further to the Left. Obama in February:"I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.I think it's important for us to recognize
that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership
generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for
sportsmanship, and for protecting their families.”

Obama now: “I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

If you needed more, here is another reason NOT to vote for this idiot! Even Hillary Clinton is opposed to revoking concealed carry permits.

The presumptive democrat nominee just cannot seem to escape her own duality in policy, personality, and principle as of late!

On Tuesday, the Junior Senator from New York made statements to a crowd in Iowa that amounted to mockery of Barack Obama, in citing his life experience and time spent living abroad during his youth, as the source for his interest in international issues and part of his foreign relations “experience”.

Hillary commented that, “Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face".

While this “smack” was clearly far from the darkest depths of historical election-year low-blows, we DO have to remember the source of this volley!

Harkening back to just last Thursday night, Mrs. Clinton took a great deal of audacity... and “license” - pun intended... in accusing her two closest rivals of “mud slinging” during the Vegas Debate.  Her "mud slinging" charge was in response to their statements which were clearly issue-oriented and not personal in nature.

Ex-Senator Edwards had just brought up the well-documented issues of Iraq, social security, and drivers licenses where she has been unclear, at best, as to which way she actually believes.  In closing out his allotted time, he ended, “She says she will bring change to Washington while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged, that is corrupt."

It was at that time that she leveled the “M-Word” accusation.  She asserted, “I've just been personally attacked again! I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud at least we can hope it's accurate..."  Edwards then offered, “There is nothing personal about this!”

Hillary Clinton has been consistently inconsistent during this run for the White House.  But, now it seems, not only does she want two sets of stands on any given issue – she also wants two sets of rules on any given day!

I PICK ‘EM, YOU CLICK ‘EM

From The Trail:

* Anti-Romney Calls – Does the Cost Point to a Suspect? – National Review

* McCain: It’s OK to Make People Mad – Washington Post

* Obama and Clinton Clash over Scandalous Information – Baltimore Sun

* Kucinich Protests Army Training School - Yahoo

News:

* Without Both Parents, Childrens Abuse Risk Rises – Houston Chronicle

* US Considers Enlisting Pakistani Tribes to Fight Al Qaeda – NY Times

Opinion:

* World Should Give Thanks for America – Orange County Register

* Heritage Foundation – The Rights of Guantanamo – FoxNews