John McCain and the GOP should only have to repeat three little words every day to defeat Barrack Obama and any Democrat that supports him: Black Liberation Theology.  Why the GOP, and the media, has left this issue to the wayside is beyond me.  Barrack Obama’s history at Trinity United, the institutionalized face of Black Liberation Theology, should supply Republicans with all the ammunition they need to beat the young Senator and his supporters.  Sen. Obama has conveniently left his long time church in the face of political pressure, but many people still do not even realize how extremely radical Trinity’s views are, and what Barrack Obama has believed in for the past twenty years.

To know Trinity United Church of Christ, to know its former pastor Jeremiah Wright, and to know United States Senator Barrack Obama, one must know Black Liberation Theology.  Wright states specifically on his church’s website that, “The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.”  That statement:

“We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.”

This vision shows one of the major parts of Black Liberation Theology of the need for Blacks to separate themselves from the White Community.  In the preface to Wright’s book, A Black Theology of Liberation, he wrote, “There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness.”  Dr. James Cone, a central architect of Black theology, writes of a need for a “complete emancipation of black people from white oppression by whatever means black people deem necessary,” believing that, “All white men are responsible for white oppression. . . .”  But Cone is quick to point out that Black racism is a “device of white liberals,” and “a myth created by whites to ease their guilt feelings.”

Wright’s approach of affirming this separation is by focusing specifically on a connection to Africa.  Wright would have his parish believe that separation from Whites would solve the problems of the Blacks in America, so they should support areas, such as Africa, that are dominated by all Black communities.  Africa should also be a source of identity as the ancestral home of Blacks before White people enslaved them and invented racism.  Though Wright, Cone, Obama, and all of their supporters live in America, the United States is guilty of racial injustice, and according to Wright, is trying to exterminate Black people.  So, love for America and her traditional principles doesn’t seem to be an option. 

Anyone who has ever read a history book would know that slavery existed in Africa long before any White man stepped foot there, and the continuing slave trade that led to slavery in America was supported by native Africans.  William Duiker and Jackson Spielvogel mention in their text, The Essential World History, that, “In a letter to the king of Portugal in 1526, King Affonso of Congo (Bakongo) complained that ‘so great, Sire, is the corruption and licentiousness that our country is being completely depopulated.’  As a general rule, however, local monarchs viewed the slave trade as a source of income, and many launched forays against defenseless villages in search of unsuspecting victims.”

Black theology hinges on the Biblical verse:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18-19)  

Cone says that Jesus, who is Black, starts a mission that “is essentially one of liberation.”  Cone wrote that, “Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man ‘the devil.’  The white structure of this American society, personified in every racist, must be at least part of what the New Testament meant by demonic forces...Racism is that bondage in which whites are free to beat, rape, or kill blacks. About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death.”

Another central tenant of Black Liberation Theology is the Marxist element.  According to Cone, “The black church cannot remain silent regarding socialism, because such silence will be interpreted by our Third World brothers and sisters as support for the capitalistic system, which exploits the poor all over this earth." He adds that, "We cannot continue to speak against racism without any reference to a radical change in the economic order. I do not think that racism can be eliminated as long as capitalism remains intact.”

Part of Wright’s vision is, “A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.”

Anthony B. Bradley provides and in-depth look at the “Marxist Victimology” imbedded in Black Liberation Theology.  “Black Liberation Theology, originally intended to help the black community, may have actually hurt many blacks by promoting racial tension, victimology, and Marxism which ultimately leads to more oppression.”

One need not look far to see the elements of Black Liberation Theology in the Obama campaign.  Of course Obama has veiled his radical beliefs from the general public.  Of course, who would support a racist Marxist to lead the nation of equality and freedom?

Soon the Supreme Court will make a ruling on the gun ban imposed on our nation’s capital.  If the Court wishes to redeem itself, and prove that the Constitution still exists in this country, it will rule to lift the ridiculous and unconstitutional ban on our fellow citizens.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Emphasis added)

While some argue that the Second Amendment refers only to the rights of the government militias to bear arms, as Chief Justice John Roberts points out, "If it was limited to state militias, why would (the drafters) say 'the right of the people?' In other words, why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms'?"

At least we know there’s one judge who actually cares about the original intent of the Constitution, and follows Thomas Jefferson’s advice of “instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

The intent of giving every free American the right to bear arms can be seen in numerous writings and speeches given by the Founding Fathers:

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

"A free people ought...to be armed...." – George Washington

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams

"The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." – Patrick Henry

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." – Thomas Paine

"...to disarm the people ? that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason

These, and many other quotes of reference, clearly show that every American has the right to own firearms. 

To those afraid that mass shootings will break out all over D.C. once the ban is lifted, even more so than now, the majority of evidence suggests that the mere presence of guns among the law abiding population does not lead to more violence.

A comprehensive study conducted by Wright, Rossi, and Daly, Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime and Violence in the United States, concluded that, “There is no compelling evidence that the private ownership of firearms among the general population is, in itself, an important cause of criminal violence.”

Robert A. Levy revealed that:

“Before the District banned handguns in 1976, the murder rate had been declining. But soon afterward, the rate climbed to the highest of all large U.S. cities. It also rose relative to nearby Maryland and Virginia as well as relative to other cities with more than 500,000 people. During the 31-year life of the ban, with the exception of a few years during which the city's murder rate ranked second or third, there have been more killings per capita in Washington, D.C. than in any other major city.”

Levy went on to say that, “In 12 of the years between 1980 and 1997, including all nine years from 1989 through 1997, the violent crime rate in D.C. exceeded 2,000 per 100,000, reaching a high of 2,922 in 1993, versus 1,481 in 1976 — a 97 percent increase in violent crime, 17 years after citizens were forbidden from defending themselves with firearms. Moreover, the murder rate climbed as high as 81 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1991 — triple the pre-ban levels. As of 2005, the last year for which I have data, the murder rate is still 32 percent above the 1976 level.”

Amazingly, when D.C. residents were denied their Constitutional rights, crime grew worse.  Maybe the Framers actually knew what they were talking about after all.

That the gun ban in D.C. has stood up this long, or that it was ever enacted, presents yet another case of how America has strayed from its Constitutional roots, and lost sight of the traditions that made this country great.  Perhaps one day the Constitution will actually govern America once again.

If our government decided to fingerprint, retina scan, and imbed computer chips into every person in the country, while being able to track all of our purchases and whereabouts, could we still call ourselves the land of the free?  In an effort to “fix” the sub-prime housing debacle, some of the provisions and recently approved amendments to the “Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008” (H.R. 3221) have raised issues of personal privacy.  One amendment would create a national fingerprint registry for “loan originators,” while another would give the government information on all credit card and Internet purchases.  How this fixes the basic problems that people won’t read their loan contracts, or take the time to investigate and understand them, defies reason.

While even the creation of federal fingerprint registries for national security reasons causes debate and controversy, the idea of creating one for an economic concern has been met with virtually no debate in Congress.  In a manager’s amendment to the bill proposed by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) and ranking member Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), any “loan originator” must furnish the newly created Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry with “fingerprints for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any government agency or entity authorized to receive such information,” for background checks.  A “loan originator” is defined as anyone who "takes a residential loan application; and offers or negotiates terms of a residential mortgage loan for compensation or gain," including some real estate agents.

The very thin and inadequately discussed purpose of this registry is to make sure ex-convicts, who might engage in predatory lending practices, aren’t employed to negotiate loans.  But, no information has even been made available to the public to suggest that large numbers of ex-cons were involved, or much less the root cause of, the mortgage crisis.  Creating a national fingerprint registry, which probably will not have adequate security measures protecting it, will hardly make a dent in the mortgage problem.

In another Senate amendment, Congress would require “information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions.”  Former U.S. House Majority Leader, and FreedomWorks Chairman, Dick Armey commented that: "This is a provision with astonishing reach, and it was slipped into the bill just this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction in America, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay's PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout that are used by many small online businesses. The privacy implications for America's small businesses are breathtaking."

"Privacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and small business organizations like the NFIB sharply criticized this idea when it first appeared earlier this year. What is the federal government's purpose with this kind of detailed data? How will this database be secured, and who will have access?”

“This bill reduces privacy across America's payment processing systems and treats every American small business or eBay power seller like a criminal on parole by requiring an unprecedented level of reporting to the federal government.”

The bill also creates a new “Housing Trust Fund and Capital Magnet Fund” used for the construction of affordable rental housing.  I wonder if these trust funds will be as secure as the Social Security trust fund, which does not even exist.

Angry Renters across the country have been wondering why the government is rushing to bail out reckless home borrowers when renters comprise 32% of homeowners, while foreclosures are less than 2% of the national market.

Though Congress feels the need to do something about the mortgage crisis, bailing out lenders, bailing out borrowers, and encroaching on the nation’s privacy are all terrible ideas.  Influences by the government, and especially the Federal Reserve, on the economy have not helped us, and have no place in a free market.

Not only has the FED further decreased the value of the dollar with its bailout scheme of banks and lenders, but government provisions to “protect” and help borrowers seem to only further erode personal responsibility, and freedom.  In all aspects of life, especially where finances are concerned, Americans need to take responsibility for their decisions.  Perpetuating further slavery to the government is not the answer, to any problem, ever.

When Ron Paul spoke of freedom and a government bound by the Constitution during the Presidential campaign, he was largely written off as a crank, completely out of touch with reality, who would never become the President.  And so, the media barely covered his campaign, which did not end until last week, long after John McCain had been declared the presumptive Republican nominee.  But the Texas Congressman has announced a new campaign, the Campaign for Liberty, which may prove to be a potent force in the future political arena.   

Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty will mainly focus on supporting libertarian-minded candidates sympathetic with Paul’s politics in elections across the country.  The campaign will also seek to hold various events, and initiate programs to educate the American people about Ron Paul’s message and “The Revolution.”  Paul’s recent book The Revolution: A Manifesto provides the basic platform for the campaign focusing on a non-interventionist foreign policy, constitutional principles, a completely free market economy, limited role and size of government, and a sound monetary policy.

Paul, the oldest of the Republican candidates, seemed to have the greatest support among young people throughout the campaign.  Paul also raised the most money out of all the Republican candidates in the fourth quarter last year, and broke the record for online donations, raising over $6 million in one day.  He consistently noted that his message of freedom was creating a coalition of supporters that crossed the boundaries of political parties, race, and social class.  Unfortunately, what seemed to be a swelling of support did not transfer to votes during the primaries.

The stickiest issue for Paul during the Republican primaries was his stance on Iraq and foreign policy.  Paul was the lone Republican who believed America should pull its troops out of Iraq due to his belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and his view that the U.S. military was overstretched (operating in 130 countries), and overspending at a rate which would cause the dollar to hyperinflate and become worthless.  It’s noteworthy to mention that not all libertarians agree with Paul’s views toward foreign policy.

Paul is quick to mention in his book, that while many have labeled him an isolationist, “The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seeking change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.  The real isolationists are those who isolate their country in the court of world opinion by pursuing needless belligerence and war that have nothing to do with legitimate national security concerns.” 

Paul notes that current President Bush seemed to feel the same way when running for president in 2000.  “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, ‘This is the way it’s got to be.’…I think one way for us to end up being viewed as ‘the ugly American’ is for us to go around the world saying, ‘We do it this way; so should you,’” said Bush in a debate with Al Gore.  And on nation building in Somalia, Bush said, “And so I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called ‘nation building.’  I think what we need to do is to convince the people who live in the lands [themselves] to build the nations.  Maybe I’m missing something here—we’re going to have kind of a ‘nation-building corps’ from America?”

The Congressman’s domestic policies are much more approachable to the average conservative.  The basic message is freedom for the American people, and actually following our own laws.  The government has its hands in every sector of society whether it’s education, business, healthcare, or your own wallet.  Eliminating the government from these areas, which the government wasn’t involved in for most of America’s history, would not only give freedom back to the people in taking care of themselves and living their lives, but cut unnecessary government regulations, taxes, and spending, while allowing the free market to actually work.

Paul cites numerous examples on how basic constitutional principles have been completely ignored or “reinterpreted” in recent years, creating an extremely bloated, powerful, and unconstitutional federal government, which is exactly the opposite of the Framers’ intentions.  Paul quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying, “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” 

He then shows how some in Congress today feel about the Constitution.  In discussing the power to declare war prior to Iraq, which rests with Congress and not the President, “The chairman of the International Relations Committee (Henry John Hyde) responded by saying, ‘There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time.  Declaration of war is one of them.  There are things no longer relevant to a modern society.  We are saying to the president, use your judgment.  [What you have proposed is] inappropriate, anachronistic; it isn’t done any more.’  What a relief that we have people in our government who will keep us posted on which constitutional provisions they have decided are no longer ‘relevant’!”

While some of Congressman Paul’s views are controversial, many make complete sense.  America was not set up to be an empire with a strong central government that interferes in every aspect of people’s lives.  America is supposed to be a republic, where the people are powerful and free, and rely on themselves and their local and state legislatures for common matters when necessary. 

Though it is unlikely that Paul will ever become President, or a majority of men and women like him will sit in Congress anytime soon, perhaps the Campaign for Liberty will begin to make inroads into mainstream political thought.  Glenn Reynolds, Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee, points out that, “Socialist candidate Eugene Debs, after all, never got elected President either, but within a few decades much of his platform was adopted by the Democratic Party” adding, “May Paul enjoy similar influence on the future of national politics.”  The revolution continues.

The extremely long campaign cycle in the run-up to this year’s Presidential election has brought out many issues Americans should be concerned about, and one issue that continues to haunt America is racism.  Many Americans were shocked by the rhetoric of Sen. Barrack Obama’s racist spiritual mentors, Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Fr. Michael Pfleger, which highlighted Black racism against Whites, a topic often neglected by the popular media.  But how widespread are the beliefs held by the members of Barrack Obama’s former church among Black Americans, and, knowing the terrible injustices caused by a racist mindset, how can people think that buying into racism against Whites will in any way help to get beyond the deep divisions in this country?

There has never been any doubt that the institution of slavery is the ugliest stain on this country’s history.  The Founding Fathers, and every President since, knew the great injustice of slavery and spoke out against it, even those who owned slaves.  But harsh stipulations against slavery would have never allowed the original colonies to unite and gain independence from Britain.  And while numerous measures were taken by the government to curb the practice and growth of slavery, it took a horrific civil war to break those unjust bonds, and a social “war” in the form of the Civil Rights Movement for Blacks to gain legal equality.

Despite equality under the law, many Black Americans still feel they are treated unjustly in America, and racial animosity is as strong as ever between Blacks and Whites.  You hear many Whites saying that slavery was abolished and Blacks should get over it and stop complaining since they get all kinds of preferential treatment now such as Affirmative Action, and you hear many Blacks saying that the government and White people owe them something for their ancestors being enslaved and that the system is designed to keep them oppressed.

According to former North Carolina State University Professor Kamau Kambon, the solution to equality among Blacks and Whites is to exterminate all the White people.  This is a view supported by the New Black Panther Party.

The solution for equality according to Rev. Wright is adherence to Black Liberation Theology, which says that Blacks must kill any God who doesn’t give them victory over the White oppressor.  The solution to equality according to Fr. Pfleger is for America to “pay” for “raping people of color,” and for Whites to “give up the benefits…throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund,” and essentially monetarily pay Blacks for the slavery their ancestors experienced under the ancestors of White people.  Pfleger’s good friend Louis Farrakhan believes that White people owe Blacks “the whole damn country.”

The whole idea of “reparations,” besides being completely unjust, has serious flaws.  No one can be held responsible for the actions of another person that took place hundreds of years ago, no matter how deep the wounds of those actions were.  That would be like the police arresting a criminal and their children every time a crime took place.  If White Americans have to pay for the injustice of slavery, what about those that don’t have slave owning ancestors?  My father is a first generation American.  Both of his parents came to America in the 1920’s.  Should he have to pay reparations? 

What about the Africans who sold Blacks into slavery?  Why aren’t Black Americans demanding that Africans pay them for the hardships of their ancestors, or demanding that African governments apologize for their people selling their ancestors into slavery?  The blame for slavery rests on both sides of the Atlantic.

Justice cannot be achieved through injustice.  The slavery that took place in America was wrong, and many people suffered, but the ones perpetuating that suffering have long since passed away.  Teaching that White Americans are all racist and owe Blacks some sort of compensation for injustice and suffering that they themselves have never experienced, only perpetuates a victim mentality and a lack of personal responsibility. 

No matter what city, no matter what circumstances, no matter what color your skin is, every man and woman in America has the opportunity to make a better life for themselves.  For many, doing so is harder than it is for others.  Some may even have to go through hell just to get a little ahead, but the opportunity for greatness is there.  Americans of every race and creed cannot expect to lead fulfilling lives by blaming others for their problems. 

The American government is meant to protect our lives, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not guarantee happiness and serve up a desirable life on a silver platter.  Everything gained in America has been fought for, not least of which is the freedom many take for granted.  Our fighting spirit and tremendous determination was once part of the American Exceptionalism that made this country, and its people, great.

“Q: If a man lost his [erectness] after putting on a condom and before intercourse, what could the couple do?  A: Continue stimulating one another, relax and enjoy the fun, wait a while and start playing again using the condom as part of the play.  Emphasize that this will probably happen to most males at some point in their lives.”  Thus reads a sex-ed textbook that your thirteen year old child may be learning from in school.

The book “Be Proud! Be Responsible!” presents 13-19 year old students with this wisdom, plus many other “valuable lessons” for today’s youth on how to make using a condom fun during sexual intercourse.  Here are a few more fun ideas:

“Use condoms as a method of foreplay…Use different colors and types/textures (some have ribs on them)…Think up a sexual fantasy using condoms…Tell your partner how using a condom can make a man last longer…Act sexy/sensual when putting condoms on…Have a sense of humor—be silly—Make jokes…Hide them on your body and ask your partner to find it…Wrap them as a present and give them to your partner before a romantic dinner…tease each other manually while putting on the condom…have fun putting them on your partner—pretend you are different people or in different situations.”

And yes, just to reiterate, thirteen year old children are learning this in school. 

According to a report by The Administration for Children and Families last year, the teaching of abstinence has disappeared almost completely from sexual education.  Instead of teaching kids that they should not have sex until they are married, or at least in a loving adult relationship, the focus of sex-ed has shifted more towards just making sure they don’t get diseases or get pregnant. 

Since every kid is going to have sex anyway, we might as well teach them how to get the most pleasure out of it, without any inconvenient side effects, right?

Such a mindset did not always exist in America.  At one time, schools and parents taught personal responsibility and moral values.  Children were taught that sex was an act of love, by adults, who were married.  Teenage pregnancies used to actually be looked down upon.  And, sexual references weren’t around every corner, on every channel, and in virtually every advertisement from coast to coast.

ParentsForTruth is on a campaign to reinstate abstinence based sexual education, and expose the filth being taught to our nation’s children in schools today.  Unfortunately, parents have faced greater difficulty in recent years influencing how public schools use their tax dollars in teaching their children, especially concerning issues of sex. 

Public school initiatives teaching pro-homosexual content have in some cases received favorable rulings in federal court despite the protests of concerned parents.  Course materials for a proposed program in Montgomery County, MD described as a "myth" the belief that "homosexuality is a sin" and characterized certain Christian religions as "intolerant and Biblically misguided" because they are "opposed to homosexuality."

If you happen to think that liberal attitudes towards sex in our public schools aren’t negatively affecting our children, think again.  Not only have such courses discouraged the development of moral behavior, the potent sexual atmosphere has caused some kids to end up criminals.

In states across America, teenagers are being charged with child pornography for sending naked pictures of each other around via cell phone cameras.  The Associated Press recently reported on several cases in which school administrators confiscated cell phones containing pornographic images, giving some teenagers disgraceful criminal records.

Similar pictures have popped up across the Internet with teens sending nude pictures to their boyfriends and girlfriends.  This growing trend of sending around racy photos includes teen celebrities Vanessa Hudgens of the popular “High School Musical,” and “Hannah Montana” star, Miley Cyrus.

America’s public schools are supposed to teach kids to become responsible, educated, contributing citizens of society.  Teaching responsible behavior does not include education on how to perform sexually deviant acts, much less encouragement to do so. 

This is a dangerous time for children in this country.  Progressives are increasingly winning battles in the Culture War for the hearts and minds of the people.  Every parent should take an extremely close look at exactly what their children have been learning in school, and take action to preserve innocence, and morality.

Oh boy, another record high gas price!  Surely Congress chastising oil executives last month should have brought the prices down by now, right?  Maybe Congress is banking on scaring OPEC countries into pumping more oil with their ridiculous scheme to sue OPEC over unfair practices.  Whatever this Congress has planned at the moment for lowering fuel costs, the American public can rest assured that their plans won’t work, we will continue our dependence on unfriendly regimes, and our wallets will bleed dry at the pump.

I’m no sympathizer of Big Oil, but these guys are not America’s problem.  Congress has been feeding the American people the same bologna sandwich for the past thirty years about cutting our dependence on foreign oil.  I can only explain why we haven’t cut this dependence with a combination of two problems: 1) inept leadership; 2) pandering to special interests.  Luckily both of these problems can be fixed.

The Democratic “leadership” is now faced with scores of people screaming for them to allow oil companies to take the most prudent path, drill here and drill now.  Here’s where the inept part comes in.

The main argument against utilizing our own natural resources in a comprehensive energy plan for our country has been that drilling for more oil will hurt the world environment and contribute to global warming, so we should concentrate on alternative fuels like solar, wind, and biofuels.  This argument is completely flawed for several reasons.

First of all, advanced technology allows for drilling with more precision and the ability to make less of an impact on the environment.  The caribou in Alaska have been doing just fine. 

Second, when was the last time you saw a wind powered car?  Or even a solar powered car?  These options just aren’t economically feasible for the American consumer.  Plus, government subsidies for farmers to produce corn for ethanol instead of food have recently been blamed for worldwide increases in food prices and food shortages.

Third, despite Al Gore’s movie, the theory of global warming is not sound or trustworthy enough to design our country’s energy policy around, especially when over 31,000 American scientists have rejected global warming as nonsense.  If Congress wants to use a scientific theory to develop a policy that affects over 300 million people, that theory should have unanimous consensus.  The Democrats have never shown that they are beings of logic though.  Logic would dictate that the welfare of human life would take precedence over the lives of caribou, but then again, this is a political party that advocates murdering babies.

Fourth, if Congress really cared about clean energy, why not invest in clean nuclear energy, or clean coal plants, or even natural gas?  America has some of the largest coal deposits and natural gas reserves in the world.  Combining these resources with the huge amount of oil deposits we have sitting unused, and Congress might be able to put together an effective, cost efficient, domestically centered energy plan that could buy us enough time for someone to invent wind powered cars.

Yet despite these flaws, and others, Congress wants to steal money from oil companies to invest in alternative fuels that will not help us, and engage in hypocritical debate about OPEC not producing enough oil.  While Congress is “bitching” about OPEC, as Neil Cavuto put it, the abundance of natural resources that belong to the American people go unused.

Our government’s highest priority is to protect the American people, especially from foreign influence.  Such is the reason George Washington warned our leaders to be prudent in dealing with foreign nations.  Machiavelli makes it clear that going to war with foreign arms will cause the enslavement and ruin of a prince to the foreigners.  Well America is at war, both literally in Iraq and Afghanistan and figuratively with OPEC, and we are excessively relying on foreign product, while slowly moving closer to slavery.

Congress has a history of failing to protect the American people from foreign influences (cultural subversion by the Soviets during the Cold War still seen today; porous borders and mass illegal immigration, etc.) and seems proud to continue in that failure today. 

I’m always amazed that despite such failures by our government, large numbers of Americans are content to give the government more and more control over our lives and trust these people to take care of us.  Hence, Barrack Obama.  Personal responsibility is not a quality that will ever be outdated. 

America can’t rely on unsavory foreign regimes for energy security, and the American people can’t rely on a disingenuous domestic regime for personal prosperity.  Self-reliance here, self-reliance now.  

Barrack Hussein Obama has just made history as the first bi-racial presidential candidate of a major political party in America.  Unfortunately it is not the color of one’s skin that matters, but the content of their character, and the nature of Obama’s character is such that any American who supports this man as the leader of our country should be ashamed of themselves.

Obama may be a master orator, capable of rallying large crowds of young people around a message of “change,” but no amount of moving speeches can cover up Obama’s history of racist and anti-American actions and associations.  Obama attacks anyone who points out this history as practicing “divisive politics,” but the President of the United States should be the best among men both in actions, and in personal integrity.  Out of the many flaws in Obama’s character that emerged throughout the long primary process, I will highlight a few, which should make any American cringe at the thought of living under Obama’s leadership.

I couldn’t believe anyone could support Obama after news about his church came out.  I guess now we should call it his former church, after his politically expedient divorce from a place that horrified most Americans, even though, early in the campaign, Obama said publicly that he didn’t think his church was controversial.  I guess after noting his personal views on white Americans, we can understand why he didn’t see the controversy. 

After twenty years of sermons from Rev. Wright, and after twenty years of close personal ties to Wright and men like him, including Fr. Pfleger, anyone who thinks Obama has no belief in the racist Black Liberation Theology must also believe in the Easter Bunny (sorry kids).  This is a theology which says that Blacks must kill a God that doesn’t give them victory over their white oppressors.  This theology was spewed from the pulpit by an anti-white, anti-American, and anti-Israeli supporter of Hamas (Wright) who thinks that any black preacher who doesn’t support this theology is a traitor to the black race.  How can anyone vote for a man who subscribes to such a hateful perversion of Christianity?

Not only are Obama’s anti-American religious views extremely troubling, his anti-American political connections should also worry voters. 

A recent report published by America’s Survival, Inc., highlights numerous connections between Barrack Obama and Communist supporters and organizations including Alice Palmer, Dr. Quentin Young, William Ayers, Bernardine Bohrn, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Democratic Socialists of America.

Obama shook off his relationship with Weathermen terrorist Ayers during the campaign, but Ayers clearly played a role in starting Obama’s political career.

Bohrn, also a terrorist of the Weathermen group, worked for the same law firm, Sidley & Austin, that Obama and his wife worked for.

Obama also has ties to the radical leftist group Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn).  This anti-Capitalist organization uses fear tactics and violence to push its socialist agenda.  Obama used to train Acorn’s leaders.  He also funneled money to Acorn while serving on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.  Not surprisingly, Acorn has endorsed Obama for President.

Also, Obama’s official campaign blogger, Sam Graham-Felsen, is a self proclaimed Marxist and supporter of Soviet Communism.  Having such a person frequently reporting on Obama’s website cannot be overlooked.

It’s no wonder Obama is willing to meet unconditionally with America’s enemies when he subscribes to the political ideology of our old arch nemesis, the Soviet Union.  Maybe he wants some advice on how to be a totalitarian leader himself. 

Since when did Communist ideals represent any vision of American character and government?  Is this the change we are to believe in?  Changing from a free, Capitalist, God loving society into a Communist state, where the people are slaves to the government and even more racially divided by a warped form of Christianity?

American citizens may not be happy with certain government policies and situations in our country right now, but the dangerous and destructive change of Barrack Hussein Obama is not the answer, and never will be.

            Public schools in Portland, Oregon have recently adopted a new curriculum for eighth-graders which delves into the history of racism in Oregon.   The goals and purposes of this program are to better understand Oregon’s racial past, examine biases, and provide a healing opportunity.  Excuse me, but why do twelve and thirteen year olds need healing opportunities for discrimination they’ve never experienced that happened in 1886?

            According to Keisha Edwards, co-author of Beyond the Oregon Trail: Oregon’s Untold History, “A lot of multicultural curriculum has dealt with celebrating differences.  We had the element of going beyond celebrating differences, past that to the place where the rub is -- the racism, sexism, classism, homophobia. Oregon Uniting was willing to go that extra step to push people to examine the biases that affect them and provide a healing opportunity."  

            Oregon Uniting, developers of the curriculum, merged with The Understanding Racism Foundation in 2004, a group which believes that, “the root cause of racial discrimination in the United States is the conduct of white people.”          

            While the program harps upon the evils of Manifest Destiny, and the treatment of minorities by white people, supposedly, “everyone leaves with their dignity in tact,” according to co-author Shauna Adams.  Hard to believe coming from a group that believes white people are the cause of all racism.

            This curriculum is not a history lesson for the good of education, but one meant to emphasize racism and cause further divisions among the public.  Every child, I hope, still learns about the terrible history of slavery in our country based upon racial superiority.  Oregon seems to think that focusing special attention on just how terrible that time was will somehow bring the youth together.  In truth, it serves only to divide children and create racial tension as they turn into adults.

            Another program highlighting the racism of white people is up and running again at the University of Delaware.  A mandatory residence hall program, terminated last year when news broke that the program required students to acknowledge that all white people are racists and that it would offer treatment for any incorrect attitudes regarding class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality they might hold upon entering the school, has now been revived at the university.

            Training documents stated: "A RACIST: A racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality. By this definition, people of color cannot be racists, because as peoples within the U.S. system, they do not have the power to back up their prejudices, hostilities, or acts of discrimination"  

The program also stated that the term "reverse racism" was “created and used by white people to deny their white privilege.  Those in denial use the term reverse racism to refer to hostile behavior by people of color toward whites, and to affirmative action policies, which allegedly give ‘preferential treatment’ to people of color over whites.  In the U.S., there is no such thing as “reverse racism.”

Really?  I guess that’s good news for Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Another reverend, who some would call controversial, happens to disagree.  Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, radio host, columnist, and founder of BOND, has focused extensively on the “reverse racism” in this country.  Rev. Peterson also happens to be a leader in the Black Community.

If educators really care about getting beyond racial divisions they should focus on teaching the harmonious ideals that used to be embedded in our culture: virtue, morality, honor, personal responsibility, and Natural Law.  Without such ideals, the American identity can never flourish, and the people will never be united.