During his campaign, Obama promised hope and change.  He's already done what he can to reduce our hope by telling us it may take a while before we can see improvement.  Actually, though, hope is hard to gauge.

So, what about change?  Has he brought us that?  Maybe he has brought some change, though some wonder if it's the right kind of change, but mostly there is no real change.  And that's not a good thing.

Read more.

The election is over and the people have spoken; the Republican party is out of touch.  For the second straight national election, Republicans have been handed defeat and a message.  After the last election, they did not get the message, obviously, but will they get it now?  Where does the party go from here?

There has been much speculation since Tuesday night that there was a division within the McCain/Palin camp as to who was to blame for the loss.  It's clear that before he picked Palin, there was very little energy in the Republican campaign.  Palin, for whatever shortfalls she may have had, got the conservative base interested in the election.  She did not support amnesty, did not favor limiting free speech, and did not work to alienate conservatives just to win a few moderates.  The election was as close as it was because of her.

Clearly, the Republican Party must move backward to go forward.  They need to go all the way back to the Reagan era and collect themselves.  They must eagerly embrace conservative values, fiscally and socially, and put candidates up for election who embody these values.  They must remove from office and leadership those individuals who are the furthest from these values.  No more "Log Cabin" Republicans.  No more pork spending Republicans.  No pro-illegal Republicans.  No pro-choice Republicans.  We must be the true conservative party, or it is time to start a new one.

There are many faces on the horizon who can do just that.  Sarah Palin and Bobby Jindal are just a couple that come to mind.  The Party must begin to promote and recognize them.  They must parade them out and give them serious face time.  They must tout their records and accomplishments.  There are others, too, that must be given the spotlight.  These individuals can show the American people that the Party has heard their message, loud and clear.

Finally, they must cast off those who do not fit this mold.  Those in congress who have helped the Left grow government to unimaginable size, those who feed at the pork trough must be left to fend for themselves.  The Party must put up REAL conservatives to battle against them and fund them.  They must invest in the defeat of these closet liberals and let the new crop know that those kinds of actions and votes will not be supported.

If the Republican Party will follow this direction, the country will respond, seeing that the message has been received.  If, though, they feel the need to trot out more middle of the road, big spending fat cats, I can't blame them for voting Democrat.  At least the Democrats let you just who they are.

So, what could be the worst thing that could happen if Obama were to win on Nov. 4?  Would it really mean the end of our nation?  Our world?  Would any of us really feel a difference?

I'd like to make a few predictions as to what to expect should the Obamessiah win.

First, socialism would finally finish off capitalism.  Obama, with the help of Pelosi and Reid, would begin an immediate shift in policy.  They would pass tax increases, which might eventually reach all the way down to those earning $40,000 to $50,000 (for starters).  While they would begin by taxing the "rich", to pay for the giveaways they desire, that would be a very fluid definition.  Things such as expanded higher education funding, nationalized healthcare and expanded tax credits for the poor would not stop at the very top.  As taxes go up, revenue goes down.  That's common economics.  Would they decide they couldn't afford everything they want to do?  No, they would just increase taxes on the way down until they can get what they want.  That is larger government and larger government control.  The by product will be to drive small businesses out of business and drive larger businesses out of the country.

Second, they will institute a national healthcare system that will eliminate the current model of private insurance companies.  They will regulate the costs and payments.  This will drive more and more doctors and nurses out of the field, as they will no longer be able to afford to pay their loans and it will no longer be desirable to be a doctor.  It just won't make sense.  Companies will end their offering of insurance, pushing employees to the federal policy.  To afford healthcare, just as in places like Canada and England, the government will have to make determinations on who should be eligible for care, using the "quality of life" criteria.  That means many won't get care because they just can't justify the cost for their lives.

Third, Obama, Pelosi and Reid will try to codify abortion into the Constitution.  They realize that at this point it is on shaky ground, at best.  There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution and it would only take a plurality of Justices to overturn it, especially if the people will it.  They will also fight to overturn the ban on partial-birth abortions and to remove protections for the just born who might require a little help to make it.  They would use their national healthcare and the "quality of life" argument to end the lives of thousands of pre-mature or failed abortion babies.  Their assult on the unborn would escalate.  Eugenics would make a strong comeback.  Also, expect to pay for embryonic stem cell research, even though it has never produced any medical advances, as adult stem cell research has.

Fourth, hate crime laws would become stronger and stronger, making the Bible a book of "hate speech."  You need only look at your local college campus to see what hate speech codes bring about.  You can look at Canada, where pastors are sued and convicted of hate speech if they choose to preach from certain passages.  The First Amendment will take it's most brutal assault since McCain-Feingold.  It will erode until we don't recognize it at all.

Fifth, over time, Obama will appoint judges who will ensure that "gay marriage" becomes the next "right" found in the Constitution.  Even states who have passed amendments to their constitutions will find those laws ruled unconstitutional.  States will be forced to accept these unions, paying for healthcare and granting tax breaks to those their people do no desire to do so to.  Minister's who refuse to "marry" such couples will be brought to task under the previously mentioned hate crime laws.

Sixth, gun control laws will be stricter and stricter.  The appointment of activist judges will make this easier over time.  As time goes on, our Second Amendment rights will go the way of our First Amendment rights.  The Bill of Rights will become less and less relevant.  You could expect mini Waco's in your neighborhood.  It might even be your home, next.

Seventh, expect terrorist activity worldwide to explode.  With the appeasement attitudes that Obama holds, terrorists will be emboldened.  They will attack innocent people the world over.  They will attack our interests and those of our allies.  They will use that same attitude to force "tolerance" within our own country, aided by the hate speech laws, to force people here to accept their activity and laws.  In countries around the world, Muslim communities are being allowed to enact Sharia laws and override local courts where they contradict.  As they expand their communities, so will their influence.

Eighth, expect more and more energy policies to be "green" friendly.  Taxes on petroleum, coal and other forms of "dirty" energy to be used to extinguish them.  We will pay more at the pump and more on our utilities as they are taxed more to "punish" us for not being green.  The farce that is global warming will become the only accepted science, just like Darwinism is the only science allowed in the classroom.  Anyone who questions global warming will be labeled a quack and removed from the public square.  We will be forced to pay for research and technology which support this bad science.

Finally, expect our sovereignty to be sold out to the U.N.  Our role on the global scene will gradually fade and we will not be a major player.  We will see the U.N. garner a larger role and we will be forced to agree, fund and implement whatever they desire.  We will shrink on the world stage until we are no longer relevant.  With our economy shrinking due to overburdening taxation, it won't bother the rest of the world.  Those who have hated us for our freedoms and prosperity will gladly write our eulogy and will be glad to ridicule us and claim that they "American Experiment" did not work.

So, how dangerous will it be to elect Obama?  Not so bad; if you hate America, that is.

***This article has been reposted at Ideally Conservative , a new blog by JayPeriod.***

In the recent weeks, John McCain and Sarah Palin have been trying to expose the link between Sen. Obama and ACORN and Ayers.  This is something they should have been doing all along.  They also need to continue to push on his associations with Rev. Wright and Tony Rezko.  People need to be made aware of these.

The problem and where they have failed is they are allowing the Illinois Senator to escape the fray without a hitch.  Why?  They are allowing him to make his case that it's not important and that he is not responsible for their actions.  Obama is able to deflect every accusation and make the Republican ticket seem bitter, angry and as though they are grasping at the wind.  They are allowing him to turn the tables.

What do they need to do?  They need to show the American public why these associations matter and why they make Obama a very, very dangerous pick.  They need to point out that it's not just one association or chance meeting, but a pattern of connections.  They need to show that this man has picked to maintain relationships with people who have horrible backgrounds.  They need to show that these associations continue for long terms.  They need to show that Obama has the worst judge of character, at best, of any one who has ever run for the Presidency.

If they cannot, or will not, make this case, they will continue to be viewed as negative and desparate.  The American people will not make the connection that this man will make horrible choices for such positions as judges and cabinet posts.  They will not see how dangerous this man truly is.

It seems that every day we hear about a new "association" of Sen. Obama's.  Whether it's a radical, hate filled pastor and mentor of twenty years, or a buddy-buddy, homegrown terrorist, or a radical perpetrator of voter fraud, this guy just has too many skeletons in his closet.  Yet, he seems to brush each one off as if none of it matters.

Each time he is confronted with a new problem association, he just claims that it doesn't matter and we should just move on.  He claims that he had no knowledge of their radical behavior and we can't blame him for the flaws of those around him.  He wants us to shurg off the faults of his associates since they are not his faults.  And, the MSM is buying it hook, line and sinker.

The problem is, character matters.  It does matter who he hangs out with.  It does matter the character of those he chooses to associate with.  It does matter, because it shows, at the very least, a very, very poor judge of character.  And, he wants us to trust him to appoint a few judges to the Supreme Court.

I hope the American people will wake up and smell the foul Chicago machine stench.  I hope they will realize, if this guy can hang around a pastor for twenty years, listening to his sermons, calling him a mentor, and not realize this guy hates American more than Osama bin Laden, he is either too dumb to inhabit the White House, or he is too crooked.  I hope they realize that if he will associate with a group like ACORN, who so disdain America that they are willing to trash our most cherished right, that of voting, and not notice their illegal acts, he is either too blind to be trusted with the power that comes with the Presidency or he is too evil.

I hope McCain, Palin, FoxNews and others will continue to press the "association" issue, otherwise, we may be headed down a road that we, as a country, do not want to go.  And, the world will pay the price along with us.

Ever since the failure of the bailout of the rich yesterday, both sides are pointing fingers at the other for not getting enough of their members "on board."  The Left is blaming the Right for failing to get their members in line and the Right is blaming the Left for not even getting all their members in line.  In all this, one group has been left out of the process, and they are the most important.

Voters.  The People.

Across America, anywhere from 70 to 80% of people are against this plan.  They made their voices known, shutting down the switchboard and email servers at the Capitol.  They don't want it, but does it really matter?

All we keep hearing about is looking for solutions that will get more Representatives to vote for this bailout.  Republicans are asked what they can do to get a few more members to get on board.  Democrats are figuring they can get a few more of theirs on board to override any no votes from Republicans.  There is no discussion on what can be done to convince the American people to approve.

This is what is wrong with our system and country at this point in time.  Government has ceased to be by, for and of the people.  It is now by, for and of the politicians, special interest groups and the elite.  This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned, but what they fought against.  Surely if they were here, tea would be on its way to a harbor somewhere.

As they regroup in Washington, it is time for us here in America to regroup.  We need to let them know that we are in charge and they work for us.  We need to let them know that they are not better than us, thinking they know better than we do.  They need to know they will not get away with stealing from us.  They must be held accountable.

Keep up the pressure!

Recently I had a discussion with some college students about the coming election.  They couldn't believe I could support McCain/Palin.  They couldn't believe I didn't think we need change in America.  They just kept using that word change, as if it was some magical word.

I reminded them that change is not always good.  Changing for the sake of change can get you in more trouble than not changing, sometimes.  In 1917, the Russians got change.  Looking at history, that's change they could have done without.

They were amazed that I would use that example of change.  I didn't find it so far-fetched.  It's the same kind of change the Comrade Obama is calling for.  As you listen to his speeches about the wealthy and their need to pay their fair share and his talk of tax cuts for the poorest workers, most of which pay zero taxes to begin with, and his class-warfare branded speeches, it isn't really that far-fetched to make the connection.

Lenin incited the Russians in 1917 by bringing the idea of an elite class, those who benefited off the backs of the people.  He realized that class warfare gets to the basest of emotions; fairness and greed.  When we see others with things we want, we feel we are being cheated or they obtained such things through questionable methods.  We want someone to make it fair.  All we need is a great savior to tell us that he can level the playing field.  Enter Comrade Obama.

As we enter the election, we need to look at the change being bandied about.  Do we really want, or need, that kind of change?  Has that kind of change been shown to be successful, historically?

Do we need change?  No, doubt.  We need someone to change the way we do government.  We need someone who will reduce the size of government.  We need someone to look out for our dollars, as individuals not collectively.  I don't believe Comrade Obama has the type of change we need.

I work in a location that has news going on a regular basis.  It is Fox News, at least, so I don't have to listen to the likes of CNN, MSNBC or the networks, fawn over Obama, but when he speaks, even Fox broadcasts it.  The more he speaks, the more I really dislike him and his agenda.

First of all, he speaks with such an arrogance.  As he begins to lay out his agenda and ideas, his voices screams that he knows better than everyone in America.  I really believe he thinks this way, too.  He knows more than us on health care, the military, international affairs, etc.  He goes on and on and on with his babble and even when he's wrong, as with the surge, he thinks he's better than us.  I just really can't listen to him anymore!

Second, the way he treats our allies makes me wonder who's interest he has at heart.  He speaks with such hatred and angst with regard to Iraqi President al-Maliki, but feels that what is best for our country is to sit down over a cup of tea with Ahmadinejad, Hamas and Hezbollah.  If I were al-Maliki, if Obama became President, I wouldn't give the man the time of day.  Does Obama realize that Iraq is now an ally?

Third, he is just so out of touch with reality and capitalism, that I just want to bash my head against the wall when he speaks.  Bigger government and more taxes.  I think he really thinks those things made America what it is today.  He wants more government involvement in our lives from education to health care.  Of course, to pay for that government intrusion, he'll need to tax all the evil people with money, but actually only those rich people who have worked for their money, not like the Democrat rich who got it the "old fashioned way" by inheriting it.  I just can't listen to him anymore!

Finally, his history is so far from reality, I can't believe him in anything.  He keeps talking about our military being stretched so thin and our deficits being so large.  He believes President Bush has decimated our military and spent like a drunken sailor.  I think he forgets that it was a Republican controlled Congress, before they went wild, that kept Clinton's spending under control and forced him to cut the size of government.  It was also Clinton who cut the military so drastically that Russia now feels confident that they can push us around.  Reagan would have never let them get away with it, and they wouldn't have tried.  Clinton cut the military so much that we can barely fight in two small republics in the Middle East.  If the Democrat controlled Congress would cut earmarks and worthless programs, as well as stop the flow of money south of the border from illegals, we'd have plenty of money.

Eight weeks.  That's how much longer we have to listen to him.  Surely, in that amount of time, the American people will come to their sense and tell him soundily, "We just can't listen to you anymore!"

Since the beginning of his campaign, Sen. Obama (D-Soros) has stressed two things to the leftist base that he will change and make better; removing our troops from Iraq and helping the economy improve.  He has staked his entire claim to the White House on his ability to do what the American (read: far left) want.  As long as the economy remains sluggish and troops are in Iraq without a time table for withdrawl, he feels he can make promises on those two items and win the election.

That's where the bad news begins.  With negotiations underway between the U.S. government and the Iraqi government, it appears that a time table and withdrawl date may be set within the next few weeks.  We are making promises to the Iraqi government to pull troops out of major cities by next June, with our troops remaining out of sight for a year or so to provide back-up when, or if, needed.  It seems the sticking point is now the exact time our troops will leave the country, whether it's 2011 or 2010.  That's not surprising or a real issue, considering we are still in Germany, 64 years after the end of the war.

Now, in the last few days, there have been a few indicators that the economy may be on an upswing, however fragile it may be.  July home sales rose for the first time in a while.  Also, it seems the GDP is on the rise.  Both of these, coupled with lower gas prices over the last few weeks, could signal an end to the uneasy (read: not in recession) economy.  Some may counter with the idea that those homes sold because of lower prices, but that's what drives a supply/demand economy.  It's called a correction.

So, with both of these issues likely to be resolved long before the election, what will Obama have to run on?  What will he tell us he is going to do better than anyone else can do?  If the economy is on an upswing, jobs will be created and incomes will rise.  Homes will sell and foreclosures will decrease.  Our troops will be on their way to being out of harms way, only remaining to provide support until the Iraqis feel confident they can handle any further outbreaks of violence.  What will Obama, in his vast experience, promise to do?

Surely, the only issues he will still have to play on will be health care, trying to destroy the best system in the world, and the deficit, which he can only promise to tax the rich, that never works, to do that.  His only issues, then, will not be issues on which he has any answers.  So, look for them to scramble for damage control as his numbers drop like rocks.

God is not a Republican or Democrat.  That's what we hear, usually from Democrats, when the idea of religion gets infused into politics.  I'm sure that's what we'll be hearing this week as the Democratic Party tries to paint itself and the choice for young evangelicals.

I heard an interview this morning with Relevant Magazine founder, Cameron Strang.  He had been scheduled to open the Democrat Convention in prayer, but as he realized he could be viewed as endorsing one candidate over another, one with polarizing views on abortion, he retreated from the engagement.  In his explanation, he cited that young evangelicals looked at both parties and their positions, and believed that both held positions that were in line with their beliefs.  He specifically mentioned the positions of abortion and war, stating that the Republican's view of war seemed at odds with the pro-life issue.

I'd like to give some clarification for our young evangelicals who might be a bit confused on the issues.

Evangelicals have held to a pro-life position on abortion since before Roe v. Wade in 1972.  The idea that life begins at conception, is valued by God and deserves special protection fits neatly in the Bible and the faith of most Christians, if not all.  On this issue, almost all Democrats struggle to identify themselves with evangelicals.  They have looked at ways to overcome this for the last several election cycles.

This year, many have decided to bring in the war issue into the pro-life argument.  This is really nothing new, as they have tried with the death penalty for years, trying to show some "inconsistency" in the view.  On the surface, one could make the argument that killing innocent people in the midst of war seems a bit out of line with the pro-life position.  On the surface, that could be a strong argument.

As you dig deeper, though, the fallicy becomes clearer.  Unlike most evangelicals, Democrats view the actions of all people as equal morally.  Careful here, I said actions.  All people are created equal, as evangelicals hold to, but not their actions.  Thus, Democrats will view the actions of Saddam Hussein and Mother Theresa as morally equal.  Thus, they would view an attack on Saddam just as they would an attack on Mother Theresa.  To evangelicals, this is just no the case.  Justice must be served, and God does have a history of using governments and war to mete out that justice.

The Bible is repleat with war.  When the children of Israel disobeyed and abandoned God for idols, He sent the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem and carry away into captivity the Israelites.  As time went on, the Babylonians were defeated by the Persians for their disobedience, and so on and so on.

There can be no doubt that innocent people have suffered in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the actions of the Jihadists could not be allowed to continue.  Add to that the fact that Saddam had gassed his own people, condemned them to unjust prisons and rape rooms, and it does not become difficult to see the greater good of war to dispose someone like him.  In fact, we are currently facing similar problems in places like Darfur.  Relying on the "good" of the oppressors will never provide the relief the oppressed will need.  Action may be required.

So, while there are many pro-lifers who feel action to protect the innocent, even at their own risk, may be inevitible, they do not do so without compassion for the innocent.  What happens on the other side of the coin is that there is no action taken on the guilty and the innocent suffer far further.  I'm sure at this point in time, most Iraqis would admit to some suffering and loss, they would admit, though, that it would have been far worse if no action had been taken and would express great thanks for the gift of life and freedom they have been given.

So, as young evangelicals begin to look for politicians to look to, I hope they will not simply look at the surface.  I hope and pray they will dig deep into issues and see which really are more in-line with the foundations of their beliefs.  If they can't, then how deep are their beliefs, if they can't handle a little digging?

**While this deals with just one aspect of the argument, other issues need to be looked at more deeply, including welfare and social security, among other things.  Many times the "easy" solution is actually the least Scriptural and compassionate.

As the general election is drawing near, look for racism to creep its ugly head more and more into the picture.  We experienced this two years ago in Tennessee.  Many threw around the word racism when white Republican Bob Corker defeated black Democrat Harold Ford, Jr.  Our state was impugned as racist because we wouldn't elect this extremely liberal Democrat.

Sure, there will be people across America (not just in the south) who will not vote for Obama just because he's black.  Hey, there are people who won't vote for a woman, a Catholic, etc.  Prejudice and bigotry exist.  There's no getting around it.  Most Americans, though, have and want nothing to do with that kind of attitude.  Maybe.

As more and more people are polled, though, we are seeing another, softer, form of racism.  How many people are replying that they will vote for Obama because he's black.  If that is their only reason for voting for him, or their main reason, isn't that racism as well?

If we as a country really want to move beyond racism, shouldn't we be addressing it in all its forms?  Yet, we don't hear about this other form in the mainstream media.  We only hear about the form that seems to perpetrate the idea that white America is bad.  Just as the media played up the so-called racism in Tennessee (which had a very clean campaign in this area, I might add), nothing was done or said about the same situation in Maryland where black Republican Michael Steele was defeated by white Democrat Ben Cardin.  There were accusations of racial overtones, yet the mainstream media downplayed it and brushed it under the rug.  Of course, no one accused the citizens of Maryland of being racist for not electing Steele.

Personally, I'm ready to move on from the racism of previous generations.  I wish more people in the mainstream media were as well.  Yet, as we are sure to face this new form of racism, where people will vote for Obama because he's black, we can never move forward.  If we can't look at the issues and who is actually best prepared to lead, this will be a moster we'll face for years to come.

Ever since the 2000 election, we have heard tale after tale, complaint after complaint, stating that the Republican party is systematically disenfranchising voters.  First it was voters in Florida, then in Ohio, among other places.  Every time the Democrats don't win an election their prognosticators tell them they will win, they scream about disenfranchisement of the voters.  I've often wondered how they can tell what it looks like to have voters disenfranchised.

According to my friend, Blue Collar Muse, over at the Tennessee ConserVOLiance, it's because they have been doing it.

While not one claim they have against Republicans has ever been found to be true, they are systematically working across the nation to keep voters from letting their voice be heard.  Whether it's the abortion issue in Tennessee or the gay marriage issue in Massachusetts or homeschooling in California, they work to have voters signatures kept off petitions or take so long verifying them, that the time expires.  Yet, at the same time, in Memphis, they have votes from dead people to elect a member of a known corrupt family.  They use judges to overrule votes of the people and legislatures elected by people.

It's time for the American people to wake up and realize that the Democrats have become elitists and no longer have the good of our nation at heart.  They are only interested in their power and their special causes.  We must rid ourselves of them and restore freedom and democracy in our nation.

Hillary Clinton took the Pennsylvania primary yesterday, as expected.  She won by almost 10 points, as expected.  It's only the Democratic Primary, though, right?  Well, maybe not.

For the past six weeks, we have been hearing how Barack Obama had the nomination locked up.  We heard calls from many for Hillary to call it quits and give him the nomination.  It was basically over.

Today, Hillary is feeling strengthened.  Her victory has given her what she needs to carry forward and the demographics she got in the election will bolster her calls to the Super Delegates to supporter, rather than Obama.  So, that victory may have just been what we need to make sure that neither Obama or Clinton end up in the White House.

You may ask how I can come to that conclusion?  Alright, here goes.

I believe the demographics won by Hillary will cause several Super Delegates to lean her way.  For decades, the Democrats have taken the African-American vote for granted.  Hillary's wooing of white, blue-collar males will be the decision maker for those SDs.  They'll decide they need her more than Obama.  That will be their downfall, though.

As they enter the convention, Obama's supporters will believe they have the nomination sewed up, even though they will not have the required number, either.  They'll be excited and confident.  The convention will end, though, with Hillary anointed to lead the party.  As that happens, Obama's supporters will become angry, believing that their vote never counted, and that the Democratic party has stepped on them.  They'll hate the party.

Now, that doesn't mean they'll run to the polls in November to pull the lever for McCain.  What they will do, though, is stay away from the polls altogether.  Because of the Democratic primary process, they'll believe there is no difference between the two parties.  They just won't vote.

Considering that a vast majority of Obama's support is coming from college students and African-Americans, they already believe that the system is broke and against them.  This year will only serve to support their beliefs.  Therefore, they will not vote in November.

As a firm Conservative, I have greatly enjoyed watching the Democrats hit full self-destruct mode during these primaries.  When Barack needed to surge, he did.  When Hillary has needed to gain momentum, she has.  Maybe this is the "divided America" that John Kerry spoke of.

It's no wonder the Democrats are ready for the primary season to be over.  If this thing goes on much longer, neither one will survive the scrutiny of the process.  I imagine, if it goes on too long, not even their own supporters will vote for them.

In just the past two weeks, we find that one is a bold-faced liar, the other a friend of racists.  Hillary's proclivity to lie should really come as no surprise, though, look at who she's married to.  As time goes on, we are finding out that more and more of Obama's friends are crazy racists.

Hillary's "misspoken" story of her trip to Bosnia, an illegal war started by her husband by the way, has really been found out to be a bold-faced lie.  It is angering many people, least of all the military.  It seems very unreasonable to believe that she would simple forget that there really was no sniper fire.  It seems that what she forgot to take into account is the fact that we live in a very technological age, one where cameras are everywhere.  Did she really think no one would check up on her?

I guess we should give her a pass, though.  She's not used to being under such scrutiny of the media.  For over 20 years, she has had the media in her pocket, on her side.  Now, though, with the media's fascination with Obama, they have to really go after her to ensure his victory.  The tide has turned, so to say.

Yet, with the new media of the internet, even Obama is not immune to scrutiny.  With the number of people out there looking for things, it was only a matter of time before someone found something significant.  Obama now has to deal with the skeletons in his closet.

What started out as just one crazy pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has become more and more crazy racist friends.  It seems that each day, someone new is found to have ties to racists, or his church endorses some other crazy idea.  From Hamas to Farrakhan, his church and friends seem to have as radical ideas as the KKK.

This leads to the question of his selection of those he would have around him during a presidency.  What kind of people could we expect to populate an Obama cabinet?  If he doesn't want to separate himself from these kinds of people during this primary, what leads us to believe he would do so if he won?

Clearly, neither of these candidates is qualified to handle the most important position in world politics.  We cannot accept, nor can we afford, to allow either of these people to occupy the White House.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure the policies of John McCain do any better of a job in qualifying him.

According to an article at WorldNetDaily, reading from his site, Barack Obama would seek to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.  The DMA is supported by about 70% of Americans, as evidenced by the fact that many states have passed amendments to their constitutions setting marriage as between one man and one woman.  These amendments have been passed by voters by a high as 82%.

Read it here.

Yet, to pander to radical, special interest groups, Obama is willing to oppose the will of these millions of Americans.  He has also been willing to alienate traditional Christians by claiming his support for gay rights comes from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.  Interestingly, there is no mention of gays anywhere in this passage, but where it is mentioned, Romans chapter 1, he claims as an "obscure" passage.

As the campaign marches on, Obama is proving more and more that he is nothing more than a radical leftist mouthpiece.  The longer the campaign goes on, we have to ask ourselves; what change does he really want and is that change good?  What he seems to be for is changing America from its current moral and economic force in the world to one that is no different or better than the rest of the world.

Is this really the "change" we want?