Who Should be Taken Seriously?

A group of former Navy Seals has produced a video highly critical of the president for the shameless way he has taken credit for the killing of bin Laden. Much as like the "Swift Boaters" of 2004, the Press has criticized the Seals' efforts. Obama's response was that he doesn't take them seriously.

The truth of the matter is, Obama doesn't take anybody seriously. Neither does he take the Constitution or the rule of law seriously. He is bound and determined, as all liberals are, to force his agenda on everybody whether they want it or not. He seems to have forgotten, along with all the other American history he has forgotten, that the battle cry of the Revolution was "No taxation without representation."

He has decided that he will force Obamacare down our throats even though two-thirds of the country want it repealed. A percentage that high means even Democrats are against it. The House has already voted to overturn it, and a federal judge ordered it's implementation halted, but Obama has defied the court, the House, and the will of the people to begin installing the system. When the Catholic Church objected to having to pay for Obama's insurance plan that mandates covering abortions, he basically thumbed his nose at them and said they had to comply. Oh, I forgot, Kathleen Sibelius said that, Obama's nose is clean.

Actually it's not. Obama promised before the Affordable Health Care Act (a terrible misnomer) was passed that it wouldn't cover abortions. He lied. He also said it wouldn't raise taxes, but thanks to the conservative betrayal of Chief Justice Roberts, the only way the unconstitutional mandate in Obamacare is constitutional, is if it is a tax. There are in fact 18 taxes that will be hitting us in the next year if Obamacare is fully implemented. But no sooner had Roberts released his decision upholding the act, than Obama contradicted him and said it was not a tax. In that case, it's unconstitutional, but Obama doesn't take that seriously.

Obama doesn't take marriage seriously. Even though several states as well as Congress have passed laws defining marriage as one man and one woman, the president has by dictatorial decree abolished the Defense of Marriage Act. He even called it "unconstitutional," as if he alone knows more than the US Supreme Court and all of Congress. This is an arrogance that is tyrannical.

He doesn't take welfare reform seriously. He again, single-handedly by decree, overturned the bi-partisan Welfare Reform Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, basically undoing everything that had been set up to help welfare recipients find work. Then he lied in an interview and said he hadn't done it. All of this with Bill Clinton scheduled to give a keynote speech at the Democratic Convention. It would be interesting to know what Clinton really thinks about that.

Obama doesn't take the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry seriously either. With a scandal brewing that is bigger than Watergate ever thought of becoming, Obama claims executive privilege to protect Eric Holder and probably himself as well, and files lawsuits against States that take any action to protect themselves from the invasion of illegal aliens.

The Press was all over Nixon for Watergate, and all over Reagan for Guns for Hostages, even though nothing was found to implicate Reagan. Where are they now? An agent is dead, other people have been killed along the border as well, the scandal involved probably goes all the wait to POTUS, but the MSM doesn't take any of it seriously. The sold-their-souls-to-Democrat-leftism MSM doesn't care unless it is a gaffe by a Republican.

Remember Dan Quayle misspelling "potato?" (He was actually set up. He was handed a card with the word spelled "potatoe," so that when he corrected the child's spelling he actually read the error provided him.) There was no end of the criticism for the "child" Quayle who couldn't spell potato. Guess what word Obama misspelled this week? In a stump speech given in Ohio, he verbally spelled the state, "Oiho." Hear anything about that on the news?

Now Todd Akin, running for the Missouri Senate seat held by radical leftist Claire McCaskill, has blundered making some non-sensical statement about rape. You would think he had raped somebody himself the way the media has jumped all over it. Leaders of his own party along with Sean Hannity have all asked him to drop out of the race, and the media is having a field day with it. Where's the criticism from the left over Biden's hateful, racist remarks?

There is something else the MSM seems to have forgotten. Back in 2008, McCain campaigned saying that he was the guy that would get bin-Laden. At a stop somewhere Obama came back with the comment that it wasn't that important that they actually get bin-Laden as long as they could keep al Qaeda in check. But when the Seal Team finally got bin-Laden it was another story. Then megalomaniac Obama was quick to let everyone know he had authorized it, he had directed it, he had practically pulled the trigger.

I would say that we shouldn't take Obama seriously, except that we had better. His Saul Alinsky Marxist tactics are closer to Hitler's Nazi agenda than anything we've seen in this country. He is step by step dismantling the Constitution, taking over the economy, and mandating our lifestyle. He is assuming powers not granted nor ever intended by the Founders of our country. If he is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him from grabbing more and taking more of our freedoms away. Obama needs to be taken so seriously that the country rallies to Romney/Ryan and votes him out by a landslide so overwhelming that the Democrats won't be able to try and steal the election with hanging chads and endless recounts.

Once he's gone we won't have to worry about taking him seriously anymore, but the challenge is before us. This is going to be the most critical election in our history, and we must work harder than ever before to vote in the Republican candidate.

The Triumphant Savior

Perhaps sensing he is losing his "messiahship" after failing to host the Annual Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House the last three years, this week Obama finally held one. It would have been enough to know that he had hosted the event instead of criticizing it as he has done in the past, but apparently feeling the need to sound spiritual, or even presidential, he decided to teach the clergy something about Christ. Something he apparently knows very little about.

I find it interesting how many on the Left, those who are against the Bible being taught in public schools, against Christian prayers being offered in the public square, who don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, the creation, the flood, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth or the resurrection, find it necessary to try to instruct those who do what Christianity is all about, especially when an election year comes around.

Bill Clinton was notorious for quoting Scripture whenever it served his purpose, usually to deflect attention away from his dalliances. To be fair Obama should be commended for finally holding the event, but he would have done well to limit his comments to some introductory remarks and let the clergymen present lecture him about Christ and the meaning of the resurrection. His speech exposed a very serious lack of understanding of not only the resurrection, but of Christ.

"For like us, Jesus knew doubt," Obama said. "Like us, Jesus knew fear." To say that Christ had doubts and fear suggests that Obama got his theological training from Martin Scorsesi's "The Last Temptation of Christ." Jesus was not just "a Son of God," as Obama also said, He was the only begotten Son of God. He was God come in the flesh. He is eternal God from eternity past before the creation and always will be eternal God. Jesus was the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).

The cross was not an accident or a failure, it was the plan of God from before Genesis 1:1. Christ knew before He created the universe that His plan was the cross, that His purpose was the redemption of man. He had no doubts and He had no fear. By attributing these human frailties to Christ, Obama has demeaned His deity and brought Him down to the level of weak and sinful man.

Obama went on to say, "And yet, in the end, he confronted his fear with words of humble surrender, saying, 'If it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.'"

Obama followed the tack often taken by unbelievers and liberal theologians of taking a verse from the Bible and then misinterpreting or misapplying it. In this case he quotes from Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42) and completely misses the point. Christ didn't confront fear in the Garden. He confronted the sins of the entire world knowing that the burden He bore would in a little while cause the Father to turn His back on the Son for three hours while He hung on the cross. It would be the only time in history or eternity that God the Son would be separated from God the Father and the Holy Spirit. It was a burden so great, a weight so heavy, that no anguish we could ever suffer could even begin to compare with the agony Jesus went through in the Garden as He prepared for the crucifixion.

There was more to His suffering than just the beating, the scourging, and the nailing to the cross. What caused Him to say, "let this cup pass from me," was not the physical pain, it was the total separation from God. It suggests to us that the horror of hell is not just the fire, as bad as that will be, but the absolute dread of being separated from God for all eternity. Christ did not confront His fear in the Garden. He confronted the forces of sin and darkness, and in the greatest example of humility, surrendered His will to the plan He well knew and had come purposely to carry out.

Obama continued. " So it is only because Jesus conquered his own anguish, conquered his fear, that we're able to celebrate the resurrection." No, Jesus didn't conquer anguish or fear. The reason we celebrate the resurrection is because Christ rose bodily by His own power from the tomb. Christians celebrate what no other religion in the world celebrates; a living Savior who conquered death (I Cor. 15:3, 4; 54-57). And because He conquered death, He has the power to give eternal life to all who repent of their sins and put their faith in Him alone for salvation.

The next statement Obama made is just strange enough to make one wonder whether he really believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ at all. He said, "It's only because he endured unimaginable pain that wracked his body and bore the sins of the world that he burdened -- that burdened his soul that we are able to proclaim he is risen." "Bore the sins of the world" is correct, but the reason we proclaim He is risen is not because He suffered. Yes, He suffered in our place, the Just for the unjust (I Peter 3:18), to pay the penalty for our sins, a debt that we could never pay. But we proclaim He is risen for one reason; He is risen as He said (Matt. 28:6).

Obama finished by saying, "We all have experiences that shake our faith. There are times where we have questions for God's plan relative to us. But that's precisely when we should remember Christ's own doubts and eventually his own triumph." It is true that we will go through testing times, and probably more often than not we will be tempted to complain or to question God. The answer is not to remember Christ's doubts. There are none to remember.

Neither is it to remember His eventual triumph. Christ didn't go through testings and trials or through doubts and fears, He didn't experiment with different methods or occupations, or endure through failures to finally emerge triumphant. His life, His death, and His resurrection were all a triumph from beginning to end.

In the beginning Christ triumphantly created the heavens and the earth (Col. 1:16, 17). When Adam sinned Christ triumphantly declared there would be a Savior (Genesis 3:15). When Jesus was born angels triumphantly announced His birth (Luke 2:9-14). When the Pharisees questioned Him, Jesus triumphantly declared His deity (John 8:58). When the soldiers came to take Him in the Garden, Jesus triumphantly declared, "I am He," and the force of His words knocked the soldiers to the ground (John 18:3-6). When the debt of sin had been paid, Christ on the cross triumphantly declared, "It is finished," and triumphantly yielded up His spirit (John 19:30). They didn't take His life, He gave it up when He was ready (John 10:17, 18). Then He rose triumphant from the grave even as He said He would (Matt. 28:6, Luke 24:6). He ascended back to heaven in triumph (Acts 1:9). When He comes again He will come triumphantly as a conquering Hero (Rev 19:16).

To be sure, I prefer the triumphant Savior of the Bible to the doubting, fearful Jesus of Obama theology. It does illustrate, however, how far our nation has come from its roots. Our Founding Fathers honored the Word of God and gloriously declared the truths of Jesus Christ. Our current Koran loving president is barely able to articulate anything coherent about Him. It also points out the desperate need of our country for the Savior, and the great need of our prayers for our leaders. As we pray for the salvation of lost souls in our Resurrection Sunday services, let us not forget to pray for the Obama family, our Senators and Representatives, Supreme Court Justices, and all elected officials. There is only one Triumphant Savior, Jesus Christ, and they all need to know Him.

Learning From Lincoln

In the deep south primaries last week Newt Gingrich needed to score a knock-out blow to see his campaign surge a third time to the top of the Republican leader board. His second place finishes in both Mississippi and Alabama, while admirable considering his lack of funds, were not enough and he has reached his "ebb tide." He is promising to continue on with a stated purpose of drawing enough votes away from Mitt Romney to prevent him from winning the required 1144 delegates prior to the August Republican convention. That is probably going to be more self-serving than it is helpful.

Ron Paul had some impressive second place finishes early in the campaign, but he has also played out. He isn't quitting, however, even though he is largely ignored as a serious candidate by everyone else. His supporters haven't given up either, but one has to wonder what their purpose is after the Missouri caucuses last Saturday. Ron Paul supporters were so rowdy that in one location some of them were arrested, and in many meetings they shouted down speakers and made such a disturbance that an intelligent discussion of the issues wasn't possible. Conservatives and Tea-Partiers were disgusted that they were unable to get their proposals into the debate. One has to wonder if the Ron Paul campaign has taken to implementing Occupy Wall Street strategies. So much for their conservative credentials.

That leaves Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney as the only two credible candidates left in the race. Santorum's victories in Mississippi and Alabama gave him momentum heading into the Illinois primary this week, but his hopes for a dash to the front were ended by a decisive Romney win. It is worth pointing out that between Santorum and Gingrich they beat Romney by more than a 2-1 margin in the southern states, but exit polls showed that Gingrich's supporters were evenly divided between Romney and Santorum as an alternate candidate, which does not bode well for Santorum. Romney's win in Illinois clearly puts him in the driver's seat.

In the meantime, at a fundraiser in Chicago last week, Obama mocked the Republican candidates. "Welcome to the Land of Lincoln," he said. "Maybe some of Lincoln will rub off on them while they are here." Actually, I'd be happy if some of Lincoln rubbed off on Obama.

Some of Lincoln like honesty. Lincoln was known as a man of his word, a man so honest that he would walk miles to return a borrowed nickel. Even his political enemies acknowledged his truthfulness. Obama promised to give us the most transparent administration in history, but it has been so un-transparent that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee gave it only a C- grade, and that only because small government agencies have been cooperative. Major cabinet level departments, Interior, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) were given failing grades. The Department of Justice has delayed turning over documents time and again in the investigation into the Fast and Furious debacle.

Obama himself has lied about his healthcare plan, abortion, gay rights, oil and natural gas drilling, the state of the economy; just about every time he opens his mouth.

Some of Lincoln like a knowledge of American history, the Christian influence of our Founding Fathers, and love of country. Lincoln knew well America's history and its founding documents, and was well able to articulate his mandate from the Constitution to preserve the Union. He also acknowledged the Christian God in every facet of American life, quoted Scripture frequently, and called America to days of prayer and Thanksgiving for God's aid and blessings.

Obama's ignorance of our history and hatred for our country was never more apparent than during his several apology tours and his denial of our Christian heritage. He has refused to participate in days of prayer and has insisted that Christian symbols be covered up when he speaks, but has been quick to honor Ramadan and quote the Koran. His suggestion that Muslims had anything at all to do with building America was so far off the wall he should have been laughed back into the first grade.

Some of Lincoln like respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. I know, I know. Lincoln is often accused of trashing the Constitution because he denied constitutional rights to several subversive citizens like Clement Vallandigham during the Civil War, and of laying the foundation for the big government we have today. The truth is, the Constitution allows for the suspension of Habeus Corpus during times of national crisis. I can't think of a greater national crisis than a civil war, and I hardly believe Lincoln had any idea how big and corrupt the government would become by his saving of the Union.

Obama, on the other hand, last Friday signed an executive order giving the president control over the entire US economy and all its resources in times of emergency. He has set himself up to become a dictator if he can get away with it, something neither the Founders nor Lincoln ever envisioned.

Some of Lincoln like a belief in the equality of all men. Lincoln believed that when the Declaration of Independence said "all men are created equal," it meant black as well as white. He saw slavery as a crime and a blight, and used the opportunity of the Civil War that the South brought on itself to end slavery. Then "with malice toward none, with charity for all," he set about to reunite the nation.

Obama has used class warfare and racism to divide the country as it hasn't been divided since the Civil War. Yes, there is a lot that the Republican candidates could learn from Lincoln; things like civility in public debate and working toward a common goal for the good of the country (no matter who wins the nomination). There is a lot more the current usurper of the office of the presidency could learn. It's a shame that he won't. It will be a bigger shame if America doesn't turn him out in November.

I'm Sorry

Two of the most important words in relationships are the simple words, "I'm sorry." The ability of one to be humble and apologize, even if one doesn't think he or she is wrong, has probably saved more marriages and friendships than could ever be counted.

International politics, however, is another story. Apologizing to recalcitrant nations, especially those with islamic foundations who hate you for no other reason than that you're alive, is not a particularly effective strategy. As Captain Nathan Brittles (John Wayne) in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon would say, "Never apologize, Mr. Pennell. It's a sign of weakness."

Still, the "anointed one" in the White House seems to think it's a good policy, and you can't be a "messiah" without being omniscient. The WHO (White House Occupant, like the OWS [Occupy Wall Street] that he supports) told us he would persuade the Iranians to be our friends through diplomacy. His plan of persuasion has been to apologize to the Muslim world for all of America's sins, but since that plan hasn't brought Iran (or anybody else for that matter) to the table yet, I thought I'd help him with a few more American sins that he can apologize for.

I'm sorry ...

That the Pilgrims came to America seeking religious freedom and built a nation out of a wilderness, then opened their arms to allow the rest of the world to come join them.

That the Pilgrims, in the manner of friendly neighbors, invited the Indians to join them for a day of Thanksgiving to Almighty God for His mercy and sustenance.

That when the settlers met the illiterate Indian tribes they created written languages and then taught the Indians how to read and write.

That Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document on freedom that the world has ever seen.

That American Patriots stood up to the British Crown and won independence from tyranny, setting the stage for independence movements to follow throughout the European colonial world.

That the Protestant Christian Founders of our Republic added the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom which allowed Irish and Eastern European Catholics to immigrate to America in great numbers in the late 19th century, and which allows Muslims and other religions, denominations, and cults to practice freely in America to this day.

That nearly 400,000 Americans gave their lives in a Civil War to preserve a Union and guarantee that the proposition "all men are created equal" included black men, and that as a result a black man is president of the United States today.

That American involvement in the Spanish American War freed the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba from Spanish tyranny.

That American intervention in the Great War prevented a German dominated Europe and ended the mindless bloodshed on the "Western Front."

That when America was drawn into World War 2 by a devastating surprise attack at Pearl Harbor, America fought back and defeated not only the Japanese Empire that had slaughtered and enslaved half a billion people in the western Pacific, but the Nazis who had overrun Europe and murdered tens of millions more.

That American resolve to stop communist aggression in Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua and other places brought an end to the Cold War and the collapse of the godless, murderous Soviet Empire and paved the way for Democratic governments to arise all around the world.

That America's need for oil has given oil-rich Middle Eastern Muslim nations wealth they could never have achieved on their own and without the help of American oil companies finding the oil and building the facilities to extract and refine it in the first place.

That a benevolent American government gives billions of dollars in foreign aid every year to 160 nations around the world, including Muslim nations.

That American forces ridded the world of Saddam Hussein who was an enemy to even his own people, not to mention to his Muslim neighbor nations, and after rebuilding the nation with a democratic government brought all our forces home, leaving an independent Iraq.

That American forces drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan and rebuilt the country to include women's rights, and schools which allow girls to learn to read and write for the first time.

That American retaliation for 9/11 has virtually destroyed Al-qaeda and rid the world of Osama bin-Laden, whose terrorist organization has killed tens of thousands more Muslims than it has Americans.

That American inventors have created steel plows, electric light bulbs, telegraphs, telephones, wireless radios, combustible engines, tractors, vehicles, airplanes, rockets, anesthetics, penicillin, polio and small pox vaccinations, refrigerators, washing machines, televisions, computers, the internet, and you name it, all of which have revolutionized the world's ability to produce and distribute product, and make life better, not just for Americans, but for people everywhere.

That American charitable organizations such as the Peace Corps have dug wells and taught millions of people around the world how to farm and survive in harsh environments.

That independent and private American mission groups through the voluntary giving of average Americans have built churches, schools, hospitals, and medical clinics serving millions more.

That American grain feeds most of the world and that it is American organizations leading the effort to fight poverty and starvation world wide.

That an American aircraft carrier was the first on the scene to provide fresh water, food and medicine to the refugees of the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people in 2005, and that in spite of criticisms from the Muslim world that America didn't do enough, the United States gave hundreds of millions of dollars in aid while Muslim Saudi Arabia gave a paltry ten million, and most other Muslim nations gave nothing.

That Americans are so arrogant as to believe that a peaceful, free world is a better place than one scarred by war, terrorism, enslavement and tyranny.

That Americans respect women and give them equal opportunities to achieve and be successful in whatever endeavor they choose rather than treating them like chattel or second class citizens unworthy of education and freedom the way Muslims do.

That the goodness of Christian America is such an offense to selfish, greedy, evil nations who take our foreign aid and hate us at the same time. Oh, I forgot, we're not Christian anymore, and maybe never have been according to the WHO.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry.

Religious Persecution in America

When candidate Obama was asked by Pastor Rick Warren when he thought life began he smugly tried to diffuse the question by saying that the answer was "above his pay grade." He gave no one on the pro-life side any comfort. Instead he showed himself to be mealy-mouthed and unwilling to publicly take a position on one of the primary issues of our day.

Everyone paying attention knew that it was a dodge. His pro-abortion voting record, to include killing babies that survive botched abortions, proved that he had already decided about life regardless of his pay grade. It should have been a wake up call to everyone else.

Obama's promise that his health care plan would not cover abortions was likewise unconvincing. Neither did it help to ease conservative fears when Queen Pelosi rushed the bill through for a vote insisting that it had to be passed before it could be read. Conservative fears were realized, as we all knew they would be. Not only will obamacare cover abortions, we now know it requires health insurance providers, including religious organizations that provide health care to their employees, to include free contraceptives and abortifacients such as the "morning after" pill.

When Catholic church leaders began to object, Queen Pelosi complained that they had too much conscience. When the Catholics said it violated church teaching, Health and Human Services appointed dictator Sibelius gave them one year to get their act together and comply. When the Church said they would refuse, Obama came up with a semantic compromise that compromises nothing in obamacare.

The first objections to obamacare were that the government had no power to mandate compliance to anything. This is a government of the people, not the other way around. But this debate has grown beyond health care. It is now an issue of religious freedom. Dictating to a church what it must do is a violation of the First Amendment. It makes no difference how the left defends it, this is religious persecution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The Founders guaranteed the freedom of religion first because they knew there could be no other rights without it. If you're not free to worship or practice your religion without government interference you're not free to speak, or to assemble, or to redress Congress. The denial of this first and most basic of all our rights is what the left is trying to do, all the while denying that it's what they're up to.

Who do these people think they are that they can overthrow the Constitution to impose their atheist, socialist agenda on the people? Pelosi calls herself a devout Catholic, but criticizes Catholics for having a conscience. Isn't that part of what religion is about? Having a conscience directed by God to tell you what is right and wrong? I'd hate to be standing in her shoes at the judgment trying to explain to the Almighty why she had no conscience.

Sibelius, a failed Kansas governor, is a bureaucrat who believes her appointment gives her the right to impose her anti-Christian personal agenda on the country without regard to the Constitution. Her actions are illegal.

But then, they're only following the lead of their messiah who sits in the White House. Obama is the first anti-American president we've ever had. He is also the worst president we've ever had. Every policy he's rammed through Congress, with the help of mindless Democrat lackeys hoping to feed their greed at the government trough, has been a usurpation of constitutional powers designed to overthrow the country our forefathers built for us.

This is the most dangerous administration America has ever had, and the coming election will be the most critical event in our nation's history. If Obama is re-elected we will cease to be a free people, and the first freedom we will lose will be the one already under attack, the freedom of religion.

Before Baptists and Protestants shy away from this battle, we should consider that this health care mandate is not just a Catholic issue. If Obama can tell the largest denomination in America how they will run their health insurance, it won't be long until he will tell them what they can believe or teach. (He's already restricting what military chaplains can say.) And if he gets away with that, it won't be long until he dictates what every other denomination can believe or teach as well.

This is the destruction from within that Benjamin Franklin so perceptively warned us about. If we the people don't send Obama home we will no longer be a free nation with a government of the people. Instead we will follow the yellow brick road paved with broken promises to third-world socialist poverty and government controlled religion.

MN, MO, CO Vote

I had been thinking about what I wrote yesterday on an American Antichrist all weekend. After the way things went in Florida and Nevada it was looking like Romney was about to run away with the field. My son had a basketball game last night, and I hurried to get the e-mail out before the game. Then when we got home and saw the results of the caucuses coming in I thought I should have waited to send the e-mail.

Last month I wrote the following about Rick Santorum: Rick Santorum probably has the best and most consistent positions on all conservative issues with the exception maybe of the Second Amendment, but he's not been a very good debater overall, and rather than concentrate on the issues, he more than any of the other candidates went out of his way Thursday night to attack Romney and Gingrich, which made him look petty and small, and I don't think helped his chances at all.

Gingrich and Romney got fired up Thursday and spoke with passion. Santorum didn't exude that same level of fire. He looked like he was trying to get fired up but his answers didn't carry the same weight of persuasion or spontaneity that the others' did, and I'm afraid that if he gets the nomination, his debates with Obama would lack the strength or eloquence to compete. Plus, since he lost his last race for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that would probably be used against him. I don't think he's a winning proposition.

When Gingrich first announced he was running I wasn't that enthused about him. His baggage and all that. But once he started speaking it became very clear that he was saying what we all have wanted to hear someone say since Ronald Reagan. I liked Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum, but neither of them seemed to have the presence or the fire to make them presidential. Gingrich soared.

Then came Iowa and the Romney attacks. Gingrich weathered the storm and won an astounding victory in South Carolina. He was on message. Then came Florida. He tried to match Romney's political machine blow for blow with the personal insults and negative messages. It didn't work, and he didn't seem to get the message. He continued to battle with Romney in a fight he couldn't win, and which only highlighted the negative aspects of his short tempered personality, playing right into Romney's hands. His South Carolina rise suddenly slid off the cliff.

In the meantime, Rick Santorum has gotten his message on track. His debating skills have improved, and he's spent more time on the issues, and less time comparing himself with Romney and Gingrich. I read that over the weekend Romney had launched a negative campaign attack ad against Santorum in Minnesota. Santorum apparently didn't respond or let it bother him. And looked what happened. A three state sweep yesterday, and by big margins. This will no doubt strengthen his confidence as the campaign continues. I was thinking I may have been writing Santorum off too soon.

I still think Gingrich would be the best debater, but if Santorum continues to surge he would be the better choice overall. His strong family values is something the country needs in a president, and his family would be much preferable to Gingrich's situation. It remains to be seen what's going to happen, and I'm not making any predictions, but either one, Gingrich or Santorum would be better than Romney, and if Santorum continues to improve his debating skills he may be the dark horse candidate that runs away with it.

Could an American President be the Antichrist?

There is a new book out, "Once Upon a Secret: My Affair With President John F. Kennedy and its Aftermath," by Mimi Alford, who claims to have had an affair with JFK in the White House in 1962. Alford was a 19 year old intern who was "overpowered" by the attention of Kennedy. The claim seems to be creditable as she was mentioned years ago in a biography of Kennedy, "An Unfinished Life," and identified by name in the New York Daily News.

It's hardly a new revelation that Kennedy was a womanizer, but after the Clinton presidency many comparisons were made between the two, and as our society becomes more acceptable of adultery as a common practice, Clinton defenders often wonder why such a big deal was made about Monica Lewinski. After all, Kennedy did the same thing.

The difference is that Kennedy, in spite of his dalliances, had a vision for America and led the country during a critical time of the Cold War. Clinton was just a playboy out for a good time. Kennedy was presidential, Clinton was an embarrassment.

The same can be said for comparisons between Kennedy and Barack Obama. Kennedy was unabashedly pro-America, and his challenge to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60's decade energized Americans and turned the tide of the space race. Although he made mistakes, the Bay of Pigs for example, he made Americans feel proud and willing to face challenges. He also cut taxes for the rich! Obama spent most of his first year in office apologizing for America, and has turned us into the laughing stock of the world. And he's raising taxes.

In another vein, it is interesting to note that nearly every president since Kennedy has been suspected by some theologians or religious groups of being the coming Antichrist. Nowadays it is often forgotten that the question about Kennedy when he was elected was his Catholic faith. America until the late 19th century was primarily Protestant and until Kennedy had never had a Catholic president. People worried that the Pope was going to be the power behind the White House. When Kennedy was assassinated many of the same people began to wonder whether he would be the fulfillment of Revelation 13:3 and come back to life after his deadly head wound to become the Antichrist.

Jimmy Carter was accused famously of being the "Second Adam," or Antichrist, by the phony self-proclaimed crusading "witch," John Todd. George H.W. Bush was suspected because he was a "one-worlder," and Bill Clinton because he was so morally wicked. Since Obama was elected people have been asking me if I think he's the Antichrist.

My answer is "No" to them all. Kennedy is not going to rise from the dead. Carter and Bush are too old, and Clinton is not taken seriously as a world leader by anyone but far leftists. Obama doesn't fit the bill because he's much more supportive of Islam than Christianity, and now that's he's taken on the Catholic Church with his health care plan he doesn't have the support of the religious organization that would help put him in place.

The Antichrist is apparently going to rise out of Europe with a world wide false "Christian" church organization to support him and his claim to be the returning Messiah. Based on America's ties with Europe through NATO I suppose it could be possible he could be an American. If that's so, I personally think that if there is any candidate that could fit the bill it would be Mitt Romney. He belongs to the largest "Christian" cult in the world, he's personable and presidential in his demeanor, but he's slick and not above destroying his political enemies. I don't think, however, that he's the Antichrist, and based on 2 Thessalonians 2:7-10, I don't think anybody will know until after the Rapture takes place.

Now it's beginning to look as if Romney could very well be the Republican candidate in November. Newt Gingrich has imploded trying to match attacks ads with Romney and is only hurting himself. He should have left well enough alone and stayed on message. If he'd give the speech he gave after the primary in Florida every where he goes I think he would get the people on his side. As it is he's floundering. There's still a long way to go and it remains to be seen whether or not he can recover, but at the moment he's not looking good, and now that he's sliding, Romney has taken to attacking Santorum. It's a shame because it makes all of them look bad and I'm afraid it's threatening our prospects of throwing out the bum in the White House now.

Having said all that, the most important thing this November is going to be getting rid of Obama. That means everybody needs to vote for whomever the Republican candidate is, regardless of your personal convictions or feelings about him. An Obama second term will be, as Benjamin Franklin warned, the overthrow of our nation from within.

State of the Union

I sat through the entire boring State of the Union Address and found it to be just about what I expected. There was nothing new, just more of the same big government blather, but with one difference. Three years ago there was all the excitement about Hope and Change. Tonight there was no mention of it, and nothing hopeful about the speech.

But before I get into that, let me share something from The O'Reilly Factor, which I watched just before the speech. O'Reilley was interviewing Bob Bechel. Bechel, as you may know, was the campaign manager for the biggest loser in presidential history, Walter Mondale. He had his head in the sand in 1984, and he's still got it there. He first claimed that Obama had created 4 million jobs, a figure even the president isn't claiming, but when he was asked if he had any fear about the 16 trillion dollar debt and leaving the burden to generations to come, his answer showed just how out of touch liberals are. He said it was nothing to worry about, that the dollar would never be devalued, and then asked, "Has the deficit affected you?"

Bechel, of course, makes well over a million a year, so he could be taxed at 30 or 40% and not even feel it. O'Reilly put him in his place then and said, "That's fine for you. What about the poor people who have no jobs, can't afford the high gasoline prices, and are struggling to survive?" Bechel doesn't see these people's needs and doesn't care. He's a left wing, self-centered, self-serving mongrel who only cares about what benefits him right now. My guess is he typifies most liberals. And they call the 80's the Decade of Greed. Nobody is more out of touch than these people, and the president's speech only serves to prove that true.

Obama began and ended his State of the Union praising our troops, their sacrifice and their ability to work together, and used it as a bully pulpit to encourage the country. "Imagine what we could accomplish if we work together," he said. Of course, he made sure we knew he had brought the troops home from Iraq and was starting a draw down in Afghanistan. He hyped the killing of bin-Laden as an example of his astute foreign policy, just as I said he would. He went through some of the details of the mission and said the flag that Seal Team 6 had carried on the mission and had each autographed for the president was his most cherished possession.

He claimed that America is again respected around the world. I'd like to hear Donald Trump's response to that. He just said a few days ago that Obama has made us the laughing stock of the world.

The theme of his speech was fairness; fair shot, fair play, and shared responsibility. Class warfare was the goal as he repeated again that it's not fair for the top 2% to be paying a lower tax rate than everybody else. He used Warren Buffet's claim that he paid less taxes than his secretary as his cause celebre.

Buffet, of course, just like Mitt Romney, makes most of his money from investments. Investments are taxed at 15%, lower than normal income tax, because investments are what provide capital for corporations to hire more workers, and there is a certain amount of risk involved for the investor. If you raise the investment earnings tax, you wind up with less investments, and companies with less capital and fewer job openings to hire people to produce their products. Of course, reality is the inconvenient fact that liberals choose to ignore.

On the economy he said we had to gain control of our own energy, and touted solar energy, (which he has authorized billions in loans too, but which have completely failed, which he completely failed to mention), and natural gas as a source of clean energy, but said nothing about the Keystone pipeline that he just canceled. He talked about bringing jobs back from overseas and the tax breaks he would give companies who moved their manufacturing plants back home, but said nothing of the overburden of taxes and regulations, and the belligerence of unions that forced them to leave in the first place.

He spoke of the home mortgage crisis and how there needs to be more regulations to keep large banks in line so this never happens again, but said nothing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which he bailed out, or of the Dodd/Frank bill that caused the mess in the first place. Then he ordered the Attorney-General, Eric Holder, to investigate the crisis. Yeah, I can just see a whole lot getting done with that investigation.

He explained that in the six months before he took office 4 million jobs were lost (still blaming Bush), and 4 million more were lost in his first six months in office (due to Bush), but that since 2010 3 million new jobs had been created. It was, he said, the most jobs created in a two year period since 1999. He said nothing about the unemployment rate being at 8.6%, or the fact that there are still 1.5 or 2 million more people out of work than when he started. He did say that he had agreed to cut the debt by 2 trillion dollars over the next six years, but said nothing of the 1.2 trillion he wants to add to the debt in the next year.

He claimed that oil production in the US is at an eight year high, while last year we imported the least foreign oil in the last 16 years. He said his administration had opened up millions of new acres for drilling (those acres on BLM land had already been tested and rejected as non-productive by oil companies) and that he was ordering the opening of 75% of off shore drilling areas to search for more there (even though a judge had ordered him to allow drilling to go on in the Gulf over a year ago, he's just now got around to it).

On education he said that he had raised the standards for the first time in a generation. (I seem to remember Clinton's "Goals 2000" and George W. Bush's "No Child Left Behind" supposedly did something like that around 1998 and 2001.) He wants a system that rewards the best teachers, gets rid of the worst, and allows teachers flexibility to teach, not just cram for the exam. Interesting. That's what we've all wanted for years, but Obama's union friends always threatening to go on strike for more benefits have made it impossible.

He proposed that every State pass laws requiring students to graduate from high school or stay in school at least until they are 18, and then to help subsidize school loans so more kids can go to college. (I think those are issues that are up to the states and none of his business.)

He had a plan to help home owners to save $3,000 by refinancing their homes. I'm not sure, but I think refinancing closing costs are less than that in the private market now and you can probably save a whole lot more than $3,000 without the president's plan. He said there needs to be some regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior in the housing industry and had the chutzpah to declare that his administration had cut more regulations than any other president, and approved fewer regulations than President Bush. In his mind, maybe. The government passed over 3700 regulations restricting businesses just last year alone.

I did agree with one thing he said; he wants to ban insider trading by members of Congress. But then he turned around and chastised Wall Street for getting a free ride and announced there would be "no more bailouts." He conveniently ignored the fact that he's the one who bailed them out amd gave them the free ride.

He got in a hit at the House Speaker, John Boehner, accusing Republicans of holding up the budget bill. Let's see, he overlooked the Super Committee that he appointed to make budget resolutions and came up with nothing, and the fact that he is required by law to submit his own version of the budget by today and failed to do so on time for the third year in a row, and that his late budget proposal last year was rejected by the Senate 99-0.

He stated that our commitment to Israel is iron clad and closer than at anytime in history. If I wasn't so disgusted I'd be laughing. He has been no friend of Netanyahu, and just canceled a military exercise with Israel so as not to provoke the Iranians over the Strait of Hormuz. Now there's how you win friends and influence people; by weakness. He also claimed that his new defense strategy (gutting the military of personnel and using new technology) would make us safer. In a fantasy world maybe.

Near the end of the speech he made the most laughable comments of the evening. First he said, "Tyranny is no match for liberty," which is a corker since he's been the most tyrannical president we've ever had. He said that even though he was a Republican, one of his favorite presidents was Abraham Lincoln, and he quoted Lincoln as having said, "Government should only do for people what they can't do." Yet, Obama, the Food Stamp president, has grown government bigger in his three years than all the other presidents in our history combined.

Obama didn't discuss healthcare or his economic troubles, probably because he can't run on the destructive things he has accomplished, but he did say that anyone saying America is in decline doesn't know what he's talking about. I wonder why he then said we need to trust each other and rebuild our nation together. If we're not in decline, why do we have to rebuild? Well, it sounded good except for one thing; he's the most untrustworthy person in the country.

He called for an amnesty for illegal aliens which is about the worst thing you could do in a recession as deep and as long as this one has been and with unemployment as high as it is. No doubt he's plowing for more voters. While an amnesty would put an even greater strain on social security and medicare, Obama said nothing about fixing the funding problems for those programs.

Obama was elected on the promise to fix the economy. He hasn't done it. Instead we've got unprecedented spending and unemployment has gone up and stayed up for three years. His plan of what Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels calls "trickle down government" isn't working. Big government, as Ronald Reagan said, is not the answer to the problem, it is the problem. The only way to fix it is to privatize the economy, stop punishing corporations and individuals for making a profit, and allow everybody to earn all the wealth they can and use it to create jobs. For all Obama's boasting of creating jobs, most of those are in government which does not create jobs, but only transfers them from the private sector which then has to pay for them as well.

Overall, same ol' same ol' from Ol'bama. No substance, no vision, no plan. The solution to this dismal economy is 1) get big government off the backs of the people who create the jobs, and 2) create a simpler tax code that will get everybody out from under the massive red tape that is a massive waste of time and money.

In other words, throw out Obama and all his leftist minions and get some sort of sanity back in Washington. Vote Republican whoever it is.

Republican Debate

We watched the debate last night and found it to be somewhat lackluster compared to the Fox debate last week. The moderator, CNN's Brian Williams, kept a tight reign on the questions and the answers, often throwing questions to one or two candidates but not letting the others answer. He went back to the old liberal tactic of trying to provoke the candidates to fight each other, and overall I think he did a rather lousy job.

I will say this in Williams' favor. He addressed all the candidates respectfully by their titles; Senator Santorum, Governor Romney, Speaker Gingrich, and Congressman Paul. One of the things that has irritated me is the lack of decorum and proper respect, not only by previous moderators, but by the candidates themselves, calling each other by their first names. This informality might be good in private conversation or among adults of their peer groups, but in front of the nation, with young adults and even teenagers watching, there ought to be a formality that shows respect to the positions in government that they hold. This first name business belittles the respectability of their profession. (I know! There's not a lot of respectability left in their profession.)

All of the candidates had good answers on certain issues, and weren't so dynamic on others. Santorum continued to fall into the trap, or maybe he thinks it's good strategy, of attacking both Romney and Gingrich more than delineating his own positions. Romney went on the attack against Gingrich, who surprisingly was remarkably reserved in his responses. One of the criticisms of Gingrich is that he's a loose cannon and blows up in a heartbeat, but he remained calm through all the attacks against him showing a different side of his personality. What I found interesting was that sometimes one of the candidates would have a real good answer and the others, rather than trying to present a contrasting opinion, would agree with him.

Ron Paul had maybe his best debate (of those that I've seen) on the economy, but at the same time maybe one of his worst on foreign affairs, which highlights what I think of the last debate. He'd be a lousy president, but probably great as the Secretary of the Treasury.

A lot of criticism continues to be made about Romney's tax returns. Romney as well continued to attack Gingrich's role with Freddie Mac, insisting on calling him a lobbyist, and complaining about how much money he made from it. Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac to show his position was as a consultant, not a lobbyist. Furthermore, his advice to Freddie Mac was to refuse the subprime mortgages, and then he opposed the Obama bailout of the institution. I don't think Romney's attacks on that are going to give him any traction, and may hurt him by his insistence on misrepresenting the situation.

The real debate on Freddie Mac ought to be about Barney Frank and the Dodd/Frank bill that forced Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to buy up subprime mortgages and caused the entire housing crisis in the first place. That's something the press has totally ignored, but it is the real issue.

Romney said he would be disclosing his tax returns for the last two years today, which he has done, and they apparently show that he's made over 20 million each of the last two years, and paid around 3 million in taxes each year, a lot less than the 900,000 Gingrich paid for his 3.2 million in income last year. He also claims to have given more to charities (probably Mormon charities) than he paid in taxes. Personally I don't think any of this should be an issue. I don't care how much a person makes as long as he makes it legitimately and legally.

If the liberals insist on making Romney's and Gingrich's finances the focus of debate, they ought to turn it around and expose Obama's purchase of a multi-million dollar house when he was too poor to afford it, and the plot next door he got for free through the twisted dealings of one Tony Rezko who is now serving time in prison. They ought to compare how much they've given to charities with Joe Biden, who revealed with his tax returns in '08 that although he had also made millions, he had given about $300 to charities in one year. Whoopie-do.

There has also been a lot of criticism between the candidates and all over the internet about who is the most conservative of the bunch. It's too bad that Michele Bachman dropped out of the race because she probably was the purest conservative of them all. Unfortunately she was unable to present herself as being tough enough, like a Maggie Thatcher, to be the leader of the free world (although she'd probably be a lot better than the current one). She also spent too much time attacking the other candidates and proclaiming herself to be the only true conservative, and not enough time explaining her positions.

I don't think "who is the most conservative" needs to be an issue anymore in these debates. Romney was a moderate to liberal Republican governor, who continues to move to the right to try and win the Republican base. But he's the Republican establishment choice, as well as the Democrat and liberal media choice, which is probably why he's been unable, after six years of campaigning, to attract the conservative base, even though the ultra conservative author and columnist Ann Coulter has jumped on his band wagon.

Santorum and Gingrich continue to be mauled by Ron Paul supporters (by Ann Coulter as well); Santorum mostly for being anti-Second Amendment, but Gingrich for being a closet Marxist. The attacks on Santorum haven't been as strong as those on Gingrich, mostly because he's been down in the pack except for his surprise victory in Iowa. Gingrich is kind of an anomaly. He is criticized for a number of decisions that appear to be very liberal, and yet when confronted, he usually has some good reasons behind those decisions, or has admitted to having made mistakes, which of course is only human. Then again, he has a record of a very conservative career in politics as a supporter of Reaganomics, four balanced budgets as Speaker of the House, and American exceptionalism among other things.

Ron Paul is a libertarian, which is a conservative out on the far right fringe, a borderline isolationist, and in favor of so little government that it's almost anarchy. Now that's not entirely true, but he is seen as a radical by even most conservatives. We are all in favor of constitutional limited government, but I think laws against illegal drugs and abortion are not inconsistent with the Constitution as Paul seems to think.

The critical issue this year is simply defeating Obama. I think any of these candidates, Romney from the left, Paul from the right, or Gingrich and Santorum from the center, will be better than the current occupant of the White House. In Obama we have a potential dictator who doesn't give a rip what you or I think. With the Republican candidates you have someone who may not agree with you on every position, but who will listen to you and be swayed by the will of the people. That's why no matter who wins the nomination we need to get out and vote. This year, more than ever, is not the year to sit it out if you don't get the candidate of your choice.

It will be interesting to see what Obama says tonight in his State of the Union address. I meant to write a critique of his speech last November, which was pure claptrap, but didn't get it done. I imagine tonight will be more of the same; a declaration of all that he's done for the country (division through class warfare), of a growing economy (4 trillion of debt, he hasn't submitted one budget to Congress on time in three years, and the budget he submitted last year was rejected by the Democrat controlled Senate 99-0), of how he has created 3 million jobs (a figure no documentation can prove, and which belies the fact that there are 1.5 million more people unemployed today than when he started and unemployment is still above 8.5%), and of his great foreign policy, in which he no doubt will take the lion's share of credit for getting bin-Laden.

The reality is nobody in the world takes him seriously. Look at Iran. Obama criticized Bush for not opening a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. He promised to bring about peace and normal relations by talking to the Iranians rather than threatening them with military force. Now Iran is threatening us with military force in the Straits of Hormuz, and Obama still hasn't opened a dialogue with Ahmadinejad. Romney has been the most active in focusing on Obama, but all the Republican candidates need to make him the subject of their criticisms rather than each other.

The Republican Candidates

I haven't written anything since we arrived home last July. My wife was desperately ill and her care took up a lot of time as well as concern. I got out of the routine of writing and I just never got back into it. Yesterday somebody asked me my opinion on the Republican candidates, so I put some thoughts down and then decided to post them on American Flyer to see if it would reignite my writing efforts. My wife has improved considerably in recent months, which is a great relief to my family.

Since I wrote this early yesterday Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, and I had a long discussion with an ardent Ron Paul supporter last evening. One thing I've noticed is that Paul's supporters tend to be almost cultic in their devotion to him, and seem to think he's flawless. I don't. So let me give you my thoughts, and then let me know what you think.
Ron Paul is a weak candidate for several reasons. His approach to Israel is the same as Obama's; return to the 67 borders. He also wants to cut all aid to Israel. There is a video on Youtube showing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu saying that they don't need America telling them what to do, building their nation, or sending troops. Paul takes it from that statement that Israel doesn't need us or any foreign aid from us. The argument is that the US has always tried to control Israel and we should get out.

Actually, I believe in context Netanyahu was complaining about Obama telling Israel to give up the West Bank and the Golan Heights, both of which would be a disaster for Israel. We have never tried to control Israel or build their nation, and while Netanyahu told us not to send troops, which we have never offered to do, the Israeli Air Force that controls the Palestinian skies is made up primarily of US F-15s and F-16s. I am quite sure they don't want to give those up.

The primary reason, however, that we need to continue to support Israel, besides the fact that they are our only real ally in the region, is that God promised Abraham four thousand years ago that He would bless those nations that bless Israel, and curse those that curse Israel. As a Christian nation it is in our best interest to continue to support Israel. Paul's idea of basically abandoning them is not only unrealistic, but would remove what little of God's blessing is still on our country. His blindness to Iran's nuclear program and the general agenda of Islam to destroy America (he thinks 9/11 is America's fault) would make him as much of a disaster in foreign policy as Obama. Paul's position on abortion is certainly not pro-life in the strictest sense, and his idea of legalizing illegal drugs are hardly sound domestic policies.

As for securing the border with Mexico he has a good idea, I think, about using the military. He also wants to bring all troops home and stop "conquering" other nations. I don't think the war in Afghanistan and Iraq had anything to do with conquest. They were ill-fought by the civilian leadership in the long run, but the fact that we are bringing our troops home disproves any idea of empire building. I do like Paul's economic ideas of a 0% income tax and cutting a trillion dollars out of the budget. I think he would probably be a good choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

Mitt Romney is dangerous because his conservative credentials tend to grow as necessary to win the nomination, but nobody really knows what he'll do as president. People can change positions when they see the light, but Romney hasn't really explained his changes of position well. There's also the question of his Mormon religion. One of the candidates brought it up last summer and was excoriated for it, and since then it has been ignored, but my guess is Obama would use it, especially the idea that they will all become gods, to try to belittle him, and I think that puts a lot of doubt in conservative minds, especially among evangelicals. Romney has mostly been a good debater until last Monday night. At the Fox News debate Thursday night he had some good moments, but not as good an overall performance as he had been having in the past. Plus, the Democrats gave it away at the debate the week before when the woman moderator made the comment that the Democrats want Romney because they think he'll be the easiest to defeat. Stephanopoulos could hardly contain himself trying to get her to shut up. And then the MSM has already decided he's going to win and are doing their best to make it happen. That's enough reason for me not to vote for him.

Rick Santorum probably has the best and most consistent positions on all conservative issues with the exception maybe of the Second Amendment, but he's not been a very good debater overall, and rather than concentrate on the issues, he more than any of the other candidates went out of his way Thursday night to attack Romney and Gingrich, which made him look petty and small, and I don't think helped his chances at all. Gingrich and Romney got fired up Thursday and spoke with passion. Santorum didn't exude that same level of fire. He looked like he was trying to get fired up but his answers didn't carry the same weight of persuasion or spontaneity that the others' did, and I'm afraid that if he gets the nomination, his debates with Obama would lack the strength or eloquence to compete. Plus, since he lost his last race for the Senate seat in Pennsylvania that would probably be used against him. I don't think he's a winning proposition.

That leaves Newt Gingrich, the man with all the baggage. He has by far been the best debater through most of the debates, although he seemed to drift when the Romney attacks hit him in Iowa and he started retaliating in kind, but this last week he has proven himself again to be the best choice to take on anybody in a head-to-head debate. He does have problems, however, including the amnesty for illegals that have been in the country for 25 years, and his apparent belief in global warming.

Economically, however, and on foreign policy I think he would be very strong. He has a proven track record as Speaker of the House in the 90's. The criticism of his being thrown out as Speaker by his colleagues shows he had made some enemies along the way, and proves that nobody is perfect, but his leadership led to four balanced budgets in a row.

His marriage trouble is another example of his fallibility, but I think he nixed that one Thursday night. He has previously answered that he had hurt people, but that he had converted to Catholicism, made it right with God, and he's now a changed person. That will probably continue to haunt him, but when you consider Clinton's dalliances as governor of Arkansas and while he was in the White House (which led to his impeachment for perjury before a grand jury and before Congress) were swept under the carpet by self-righteous Democrats who wouldn't care less about Gingrich's morality if he were a Democrat, it shouldn't be made an issue anymore. In a nation that has a 50% divorce rate, and as many people living together unmarried as are married, I think we can take the high road of forgiveness and overlook those faults based on what we see of his life and attitudes today. People do make comebacks from bad mistakes, and I think Gingrich has done admirably well in recent years.

Gingrich has also taken on the MSM from the beginning, and his outburst at the first question Thursday night has proven him to be someone who won't be cowed by political correctness or the media's conceit. He's the first one, and the most forceful one to speak what is on the mind of people all over the country. Finally there is someone, more than the others, who is speaking rationally about the way things are and ought to be, and is not bending over cow-towing to moderates, liberals and the press to try to win them over.

By profession, Gingrich is an historian with a Christian view of American history, and not necessarily because he was raised a Christian. He wasn't. He came to his view objectively by a true study of history and has rejected the revisionist view of Deist founders influenced by Rousseau, and accepted the Christian view of a Constitution founded on the New Testament and the Ten Commandments (as stated by James Madison), and American exceptionalism due to the blessings of God on our Christian nation. He is the one man who articulates this position better than the rest, although I'm sure all of the candidates believe the same.

I believe this will be the most crucial election since Ronald Reagan won in 1980, and probably the most critical election in America's history. Obama is setting himself up to be dictator. He already ignores Congress ruling by decree and establishing unconstitutional czars. The only thing keeping him from going too far is the need to be re-elected, but if he wins again there will be nothing stopping him from overthrowing the country almost single handedly. I predicted a long time ago that if he wins a second election, I believe in another four years he'll manufacture some kind of crisis to enable him to declare martial law and hang onto power. But I'm not even sure his purpose is to necessarily hold on to power. Under his skin I think he's an avowed muslim who is only interested in destroying America for the benefit of Islam.

That makes his defeat more urgent than any in our history, and it's why I think Gingrich, even with his baggage, is the best choice. In an open, non-scripted debate, he'll expose Obama for the communist/islamic tool that he is, and make him look like a fool in front of the whole world. That absolutely needs to be done and a policy of American exceptionalism expounded so that the world knows we are still the top dog, and that we will continue to be a Christian nation. If we don't do this, America will land on the "ash-heap of nations," that Ronald Reagan warned us about. More than ever conservatives, Christian and non-Christian, Tea Party or dry, need to vote in this coming election, and I think the man we need is going to be Newt Gingrich.

That's my opinion.