On Friday, October 9th, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama.

Maybe it was consolation for helping make his hometown city a stunning first round loser in the 2016 Olympics bid.

As with many things associated with Obama, this one was a head-scratcher.

There are still anti-war demonstrators in front of the White House, even though George W. Bush is long gone. And with good reason too, as Obama has launched missile strikes and bombing missions in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia while still maintaining a force in Iraq. As I stated prior to Obama’s election, he is not going to bring about peace but actually perpetuate war. And Al-Qaeda hasn’t exactly offered any olive branches to the U.S. since Obama became president.

To his credit, Obama himself recognized his lack of credentials in the peace-making department. “Let me be clear,” he said. “I do not view it as recognition of my own accomplishments.”

Well, that’s an understatement.

The Nobel Peace Prize committee members apparently anticipated the collective “Huh?” heard across the nation because they pre-emptively defended the award by saying the award was to encourage, not to reward. So they contend that the award was not for Obama’s accomplishments but to encourage support for his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen its role in combating climate change.

Logic must not be necessary in this award because that makes as much sense as saying Major League Baseball will give the National League MVP award to me, not because of any accomplishments but “to encourage support” for my pledges to hit lots of home runs and have a high batting average. Or giving a Best Actor award to my co-worker to encourage support for his goals to be an outstanding actor. Awards, by definition, are always given to reward, not to encourage. (You could, by the way, give a Best Actor award to Obama, but I digress.)

The Nobel committee also cited the change in global mood brought by Obama’s calls for peace and cooperation. But that too doesn’t jive with reality. The global mood is that despite Obama reaching out to North Korea, the North Koreans are still launching missiles as recently as one business day after Obama won the Nobel, and despite Obama reaching out to Iran, many Iranians are actually upset with Obama for reaching out to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The shocking, irrational and insane Nobel announcement caused gasps and cries of “too much, too soon” so the Nobel committee folks today made a rare public defense of their selection, backtracking on their previous statements of giving the award to encourage and now saying they gave the award to reward.

“We simply disagree … He got the prize for what he has done,” committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland told The Associated Press by telephone from Strasbourg, France. “Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year. Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?”

Let’s see. The nomination deadline was only 12 days after he took office. Not only did Obama have no peace-furthering accomplishments in those first 12 days in office (even by his own admission), but also, anyone who watched Obama’s presidential election race against Sen. John McCain “in the previous year” knows that there was nothing peaceful in that either. In fact, it was one of the most heated, contentious elections in recent history.

Ultimately, the decision to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama finally reveals the award for what it really is. Underneath all the Nobel jury’s comments in defense of Obama are backhanded jabs at the Bush administration. The award is more of a political statement than an honest and independent gesture. Sure, many awards are political (Oscars, anyone?) but that doesn’t make it right. It is sad to see the prestigious award get hijacked so it can be reduced to a mere marketing promotion for left-wingers.

Just one month into his presidency, President Obama has put the United States on the fast track to socialism with his plan to purchase minority stakes in many of the country’s major financial institutions, including Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase. Some of the involved institutions were reportedly strong-armed into this action.

Of course, the swooning media refuses to call it socialism, partly because they are in bed with Obama and partly because they don’t want Americans to start criticizing the Golden Boy. So the media argues that this isn’t truly bank nationalization because the government doesn’t own common stock, thus the government doesn’t have voting rights.

You don’t need to be a veteran cynic to know that the government doesn’t need to own common stock in order to have significant influence in how banks are run. Furthermore, the government can later convert its preferred shares into common equity to make the nationalization more “official”.

Think of it this way: the government owning common stock in banks is bank nationalization, the equivalent to saying 2+2=4. But the government owning $250 billion in preferred stock is also bank nationalization. It may not be saying 2+2=4, but it’s saying 3+1=4. It’s still bank nationalization any way you add it up.

The financial markets know how to add. They also know how to subtract. They see Obama’s socialist math and are plummeting in response, appropriate since capitalism and socialism are in stark opposition to each other. It’s telling that the markets are responding so negatively to Obama’s plans, falling to its lowest close since 1997. Bank stocks themselves are getting rocked. Citigroup sank to an 18-year-low at $1.95 a share while Bank of America plunged to a 25-year-low at $3.79.

Then there’s Obama’s recent mortgage bailout plan, where homeowners whose mortgages are worth more than their home’s value can get financial relief. If you think about it, this is also a veiled form of wealth redistribution. Taxpayers who are dutifully and responsibly paying their mortgages are helping subsidize the mortgages of those struggling to pay. Recall that on the presidential campaign trail, Obama met the infamous Joe the Plumber and told him that wealth redistribution was a good thing. Wealth redistribution is a central tenet of socialism. And sure enough, just one month into his presidency, Obama has already made that a reality.

What’s more, in his Congressional address last night, despite the massive spending to bail out everybody and their brother, Obama continued to promote his health care reform plan, which (you guessed it) is health care nationalization.

Of course, you won’t hear the media mention either of these two programs as socialist for the same reasons you aren’t hearing the media describe the bank nationalization program as socialist. Instead, you’ll hear “bank capital purchase program.”

On the presidential campaign trail last year, conservatives, from John McCain right down to little old me, warned that Obama was a socialist. Liberals downplayed those warnings as alarmist and assured the public he not only isn’t a socialist but that he also isn’t even a liberal; in fact, they argued that Obama was a centrist.

As Jesus warned, a tree will reveal itself by its fruit. And Obama has quickly revealed his true colors. And he’s taking all his fruit and transporting it in the Socialism Express. All aboard!

This is probably b/c I like peace in my life. To paraphrase a bumper sticker, “Know Obama-supporting Christians? No peace. No Obama-supporting Christians? Know peace.”

Recently, I got some insight into an Obama Christian. It happened at the end of an email exchange that started when Scarlett (not her real name) forwarded a joke about the joy of Bush no longer being in office to her distribution list. Somehow, my wife is on her list and has already received several emails in the past from Scarlett that gushed about Obama.

Upon receiving this email forward, we sent a short, two-sentence reply to Scarlett:

Do you think it is biblical to celebrate the end of a staunchly pro-life administration and to celebrate the start of arguably the most liberal, anti-Christian President in the history of America? Please take me off your mailing list.

This was the long reply from Scarlett:

YES, i will take u off mailing list but i must state this.

thank u for writing so powerfully and telling me how racial and the prejudiced view you all hold against God’s elected president Obama, and that also, after so many prayers were offered by CHRISTIANS, did your GOd hear the prayers or he did not listen to you all? AND IF HE has answered the prayer or chosen to give you what he thinks is right at this time… u are agaisnt GOD? and even pastor who also accepted and who rejoiced and prayed accordingly! i am not surprised. yes, we have every reason to celebrate the GOd given victory to president obama. many christian pastors and organizations all over the world along with others are rejocing the event and u are hating it so much…doesnt that tell so much about you all?

in addition to hypocrcy about prolife, the past admini. left a mess, jobless situation and many more things..yes, we still believe that GOd brings one down and raises another up so, this is not the GOd of the bible u serve! so it seems that u have idols of “prolife and children” that u are serving. taking few verses of the bible and making it a mandate for others. i feel sorry for folks like you.

yes, i will take you off my mailing list, but i must say this. since u are so strong about this point. and did not take it as a joke but now that u are taking it seriously i must respond. it seems in this part of the hemisphere, like my senior pastor’s wife from kenya, wrote to me on obama victory that (scarlett), “in this part of the world, sadly, being a republican, prolife, christian and caucasian are one in the same thing’.

when u talk about pro life, you dont think of millions of innocent people that bush admin. administered in killing in last few years? or  that is ok with you? what is the difference between you and those terrorists who kill also? i dont see Christlikeness in your stand like this just like u may not see my stand for women and theri rights because u dont KNOW what it feels like to LIVE IN POVERTY, i come from a country that is densely popoulated and many sleep on the streets coz there is no place, no food and no luxuries that u deserve here. because you have not gone thru pain, you dont understand but u are so dogmatic, the messgae of Christ is in the head but not in hearts…u cannot feel the pain. YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RAPED DO YOU? I DO! AND I KNOW MY FRIEND WHO FACED GANG RAPING KNOWS, SO DONT TALK ABOUT PROLIFE FROM ONE SIDE… u want many to live in streets and feel good about you being rich and heping? but never wanting others to make choices? what is better to think of the already born and living or prevent something that is not yet born? and i can also give you many scripture ref to that but i dont want to argue. i must state that i know u will also not call me a Christian after this but i dont really mind cos, u are not my authority, only GOD knows each heart so no one has the right to judge.

just because many like you would like to give birth to many kids DOES NOT MEAN that everyone has to follow you! Thank GOD,he gives every woman a choice. i DONT SEE IT IN THE BIBLE GOD being ONeSIDELY PROLIFE AS YOU MAKE HIM OUT TO BE…YOU USE THE WORDS TO SUIT YOUR AGENDAS BUT NO WHERE THE SIN OF ADULTERY AND POOR UNWED GIRLS LIVEs are dealth with.. ARE AT STAKE…NO, I DONT SEE YOU DEALING harshly WITH THE GIRLS’ LIVES, OTHER THAN GIVING THEM BABIES TO LOOK AFTER OR FIND AN EASY WAY TO GIVE THEM FOR ADOPTION SO THEY GO AND HVAE MORE ILLEGITIMATE BABIES (BIBLE CALLS illegitimate and legitimate) but u dont deal with the real heart issue.

i am glad thru this election GOD has shown the real deep hatred you all have, either they call themselves republicans, or christians and that also in the name of CHRIST!

just like you like to stand up for one thing, i stand up for other and i also wont have anyone say nonsense about obama and what GOD can do thru him. so, yes, in addition to taking off mailing list, DO YOU ALSO WANT TO TAKE US OFF THE (CHURCH SUNDAY SCHOOL) LIST? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US OFF THE CHURCH? DO let me know. i know my family and i stand up for what is right not just one sided view that you in this part of the world hold. i know world rejoices but u are all at the loss cos your agedas are confronted, u arenot able to play the ‘big person’ role to others coz with choices peple make they will be able to live on their own…. face it, you like it or not, HE IS the president, and bible says TO PRAY AND HONOR YOUR GOV LEADERS…NOW ITS UPTO YOU TO OBEY THE BIBLE.

Jesus knows me this i love…continuing to cling to the OLD Rugged Cross of Christ, my Lord and my God!

Whew. There are Joe Biden speeches that aren’t as long as this.

The nice thing about this long email is that it gives some insight into Obama Christians. Granted, there are some Obama Christians who won’t exhibit all of the following characteristics I’ve gleaned from Scarlett’s response here, but they will certainly share some, if not most, of these attributes. They are:

1. Obama Christians have liberal leanings, if not an entirely liberal worldview.
   Scarlett made it clear that pro-life has no currency in her worldview; in fact, she actually sounded pro-choice. Jobs, poverty and government intervention in both are more important in her worldview than saving the unborn, which is consistent with liberals. Makes sense because indeed, one cannot possibly vigorously support Obama and be a social conservative. It would be like a Jew vigorously supporting a Nazi…or Kanye West being humble…such opposites just can’t happen.
2. Obama Christians tend to have “black marker theology”.
   A “black marker theology” is one where acceptable beliefs are picked-and-chosen while beliefs that don’t fit are figuratively blacked out of the Bible with a marker. For example, Scarlett repeated her belief that all Christians should honor and support Obama as God’s appointed leader for America. Unfortunately, this belief uses a black marker to wipe out the parts of the Bible where believers were praised for not honoring and supporting God’s appointed leaders, such as Peter and John not honoring or supporting the Sanhedrin (John 4) …or Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego not honoring or supporting King Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 3) …or Moses and the Israelites not honoring or supporting Pharaoh (Ex 3:7-10) …and other examples.
   As another example, Scarlett states that she doesn’t “see it in the Bible God being onesidedly prolife.” Well, when she blacks out the pro-life passages of the Bible, it’s no wonder she doesn’t see it in her Bible.
   Furthermore, Scarlett argues that Obama’s election must be proof that the Lord is pleased with Obama and has granted him favor. In order to hold this view, Scarlett must black out all the biblical passages where the Lord allowed evil kings and rulers to rise up in order to judge His people.
3. Obama Christians are prone to angry, hate-filled attacks.
   This is another liberal characteristic, BTW, as seen in the reactions by those opposed to Proposition 8 backers (violent assaults, physical attacks, job losses, and even listing your address if you supported Proposition 8 so people can find you to harass you). Notice Scarlett’s frequent ad hominem attacks and childish name-calling in response to our simple two-sentence email. Scarlett refers to her heart more than once, and while I agree that I can’t judge her heart, I can certainly judge the overflow of her heart…which is what she says out of her mouth (Matt 12:33-36). And what she said to us doesn’t look pretty.
4. Obama Christians have hypocritical tendencies.
   Hypocrisy runs amok in this email as, in the midst of all the hate she spews in her email, she scolds us for being hateful (”i am glad thru this election GOD has shown the real deep hatred you all have”). Later, she hypocritically yells at us: “NOW ITS UPTO YOU TO OBEY THE BIBLE” although she herself does not.
5. Obama Christians have made Obama a god in their lives.
   This is actually not very different from non-believers who love Obama. The only difference is that Christians are specifically not supposed to put any human on a pedestal as a savior of sorts. Scarlett made the interesting statement that “[I] also wont (sic) have anyone say nonsense about obama and what GOD can do thru him.” Yes, Obama can do no wrong (i.e., sinless), and must never be criticized (the Obama version of the Fourth Commandment). Obama may not be God (big ‘G’) in their lives but he is a god (little ‘g’).

I could shoot down every single point Scarlett makes but that’s not important. Having the last word is not important. What’s important is examining the anatomy of an Obama Christian. It gives me no great joy to sound the alarm about “Obama Christians”. I grieve over the spiritual damage that is unwittingly occurring to these people, and it is my hope and prayer that this post will help at least some of them to realize the truth of what is occurring.

According to Barna, 88% of evangelicals voted for McCain while 11% chose Obama. Note that this “evangelical” description is Barna’s own classification, based on respondents’ answers to nine theological questions, not based on the respondents’ own classifications. Among self-described evangelicals, the numbers drop to 61% voting for McCain compared to 38% for Obama.

People tell me ‘88% is pretty overwhelming, isn’t it?’ However, I don’t look at the 88%. Rather, I look at the 11%. What stands out to me is how anyone who professes to be an evangelical Christian can vote for the most liberal and morally reprehensible politician in history.

The Democratic Party is prima facie at odds against biblical Christianity. One of the Democratic Party’s platforms is choice, which states “The Democratic Party unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

Some evangelicals argue that abortion should not be a litmus test for a political candidate. I couldn’t disagree more. Already, about 3,600 unborn babies die every day due to abortion. There is no other issue that is more unjust (an ailing economy, the Iraq war, health care, improving education, etc) than 3,600 lives murdered every single day without any chance for due process.

Not only is abortion unjust and unfathomably high (more unborn babies die annually than deaths caused by all forms of cancer and heart disease combined), it is also a sin. Additionally, since the victim dies due to this sin, it is also a mortal sin.

The Bible equates the unborn as children. In Luke 1:41, 44, the word ‘baby’ (brephos) is used in reference to the unborn child in Elizabeth’s womb: ‘When the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.’ Compare this with Luke 2:12, 16 where the infant Jesus is called a baby (brephos): “‘And this will be a sign for you, you will find a baby wrapped in clothes, and lying in a manger.’ And they came in haste and found their way to Mary and Joseph , and the baby as he lay in the manger.”

Furthermore, God knows the unborn personally. Ps 139:13-16, Isa 49:1 and Jer 1:5 all make this clear.

What makes this Christians-voting-for-Obama phenomenon astounding is just how pro-abortion Obama really is. Robert George not only wrote an excellent piece articulating how Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever but also, as a bonus, used slavery to clearly explain how the pro-choice argument, by default, is utterly defective.

Of course, there is also the homosexual “rights” agenda that Obama supports, but that’s for another column.

George wonders how people of faith can vote for Obama. I’ll go a step further. I’ll say that if a self-professed Christian voted for Obama, I would severely question whether you are a Christian at all.

I realize that’s a bold statement in today’s “who are you to judge” world (which tangentially is what I believe people say in order to avoid being held accountable for their sin). Ultimately, I’m not making that judgment. After all, I can’t profess to intimately know the person’s heart; only the Lord does. But while I won’t make a judgment on a person’s faith, I’ll certainly question that person’s faith, or at the very least, the maturity of it.

What’s more, I would also add that anyone who professes to be an evangelical but voted for Obama should not be in any position of leadership at their local church (Sunday school teacher, class leadership team, deacon, elder, pastor, etc). Since such people are neither able to think biblically nor pragmatically on the simple issue of Obama’s worthiness for presidency, I would argue that they should not be granted the privilege of leading anyone at church. Would I recommend churches going so far as asking their leaders to reveal whom they voted for, with the intention of dismissing Obama supporters? Two words for you: why not? Spiritually immature believers (if they are believers at all) should not be in positions of leadership.

When I asked one of my analytical brothers in Christ about whether Christians can justify voting for Obama, he agreed that he doesn’t know how anyone can reconcile being a Christian and being a Democrat. Those identities are in direct conflict with each other. My friend’s implication echoed my own: if you voted for a Democrat, you must not really be a Christian. Let’s be clear: it’s one thing to not be a diehard Republican, which I am technically not. But it’s quite another to vote for a Democrat…especially this particular Democrat, who is more extreme than Kerry and Gore before him.

Young evangelicals, in particular, seem to be especially supportive of Obama. This seems to be a culmination of many factors, including a liberal worldview developed thanks to an aggressively secular public education and also in private education. Unless parents raise their children with intentionality to provide them with a biblical worldview, we will see that the trend of evangelicals voting for Obama and Democrats in general is not an aberration but a trend.

We also have seen that many black churches have sold out their faith in order to elect an African-American as president. From coast to coast, black churches prayed for and celebrated Obama’s win. To these churches, their race is more important than their Savior. This election is a spiritual indictment on those churches.

If there is anything positive to come out of this evangelical voter analysis, it’s that it gives the church universal a wake-up call. It’s time for the church to examine itself and see where it is helping to mass-produce shallow or fake Christians and return to biblical Christianity. My fear is that the church is simply going to hit the snooze button.

So said Chicago Bears head coach and alleged Christian Lovie Smith. He had more to say:

“It’s hard to really put it into words,” Smith said. “When you grow up, you always hear you can be anything that you want to be. But you need a visual sometimes to see that. And now we have it. The most powerful man, period, is black. Young kids coming up today, now they really do know that you can be anything you want to be. You think about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., his dream as he talked about it of someday seeing someone like Barack in this position. When you have a first like that, it’s just big. You don’t know exactly how to act because you never have been in that situation. … To say you have a black man who’s the president of the United States, talk about the land of opportunity. All those things go through your mind.”

Can you figure out what Smith’s recurring theme was?

Indeed, the first black president was the dominant theme throughout the nation. Even some family members admitted that it’s nice to see blacks have this day come. While a few mentioned rejoicing because of the generic word “change”, the overwhelming majority rejoiced strictly because Obama is black.

But is race supposed to be the trump card, the only thing that matters?

Is Obama’s victory supposed to “assuage white guilt” or allow whites to pat themselves on the back and declare how progressive they’ve become?

No.

The true assurance that we’ve transcended issues of race is when people become color-blind and look instead to measures of a man’s godliness. For what good is it to celebrate the first black president if that first black president is a baby-holocaust-supporting, traditional-family-ripping, economically-feeble-minded, government-expanding, socialist president with unscrupulous ties to a myriad of shady characters? As Rev. Voddie Baucham, a black pastor, put it: do you think Jews would be proud that Hitler hired the “first Jewish doctor in Nazi history” when that “first Jewish doctor” was doing human experiments on Jewish prisoners?

As I’ve stated before, Martin Luther King Jr. said it perfectly in his famous quote from his “I Have A Dream” speech:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character [emphasis mine].

And indeed, the Associated Press confirmed in an article yesterday that none of the criticisms of Obama’s character mattered to voters. The tragic irony is that millions of people today rejoice because they have judged the 44th president of the United States strictly by “the color of his skin” rather than by “the content of his character”. It’s almost a “reverse racism”; I imagine that a white senator with only 100+ days on the job with no real legislation leadership to speak of, Marxist philosophies and highly liberal policies would have been laughed out of the primaries. But because he’s black and whites want to relieve their guilt…

Even though I’m a minority myself, the most important factor in a president that should cause tears of joy is the person’s godliness. I don’t care if he’s black, white, Asian, hispanic, or North Polian (yes, I made that up). If that God-fearing president also happens to be black (or Filipino or whatever), that’s great but that would just be a footnote in the celebration, not the focal point.

What’s more, you can be certain that the race card will be pulled out often in discussing or criticizing President Obama’s policies and actions. This is the nation coming “full circle”?

The fact that celebrants zero in so prominently on the victor’s race simply emphasizes the irony of race in this election: Obama’s victory didn’t heal racial differences; it only continued them.

I was moved to tears too, although for a different reason.

While one young person declared that Obama’s win made it possible for him to go to college and various media reporters mangled the English language by blubbering about it being a “historical” night , I dwelled on what conservatives should do in this new President Obama landscape.

The first thing we should do is pray for Obama. I realize this is not our first reaction towards Obama, but now that he is going to be our president, it is a scriptural mandate to pray for those in authority (1 Tim 2:1-4). Why are we praying for Obama? Paul states in verse 4 that everyone (which would include Obama) be saved and understand the truth. How should we pray for Obama? Naturally, we should pray that Obama would have a Damascus Road experience that takes him from his false conversion at Trinity Church of Christ to an authentic repentance of his sin and  living solely to glorify his Creator and his Savior while in office. And verses 1-2 state that we should plead for God’s mercy upon Obama and give thanks. And verse 3 says we should pray that we can live in peace and quietness, godliness and dignity, which implies to me that we should pray that Obama would make God-fearing executive decisions so that we can live in peace with our “king”.

That said, if Obama delivers on his many liberal promises, naturally, Dr. Red Eye will ensure it is reported. It is critical that conservatives make all of Obama’s blunders as widely and publicly known as possible, just as liberals did with President George W. Bush’s mistakes, in order to chip away at and erode Obama’s credibility and popularity among the people. The only thing worse than one Obama presidential term is two Obama presidential terms.

Make no mistake, the nation (and in fact, the world) has placed enormous expectations on Obama’s shoulders and he will have equally enormous pressure to live up to them. The Dow dropped over 500 points today, the largest post-election drop in Dow Jones history and an indicator that the market isn’t as impressed with Obama’s victory as the rest of the nation was.

This story isn’t over yet. In fact, it has only just begun.

After a week’s use, I actually could see a slight improvement. I was so excited. Then– SNAP! — the product broke. After closer inspection, I realized the product was cheaply made and was destined to fail quickly. I was suckered.

Today is the day of reckoning after a grueling and historic presidential campaign. And many people are declaring, “I’ve had enough of the past 8 years. It’s time for a change!”

I’ve seen this movie before and the ending isn’t pretty.

According to most major polls, Republican presidential candidate John McCain has made some gains in predicted electoral college numbers in the past final days but still not enough to pull off the victory. Polls still show Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama with a commanding lead in the predicted electoral college count.

Of course, McCain could potentially pull off an upset. After all, exit polls in 2000 had Gore defeating Bush and networks had to make red-faced admissions of error on Florida, which they had previously called for Gore. But this election is likely different in that the race is (if you believe the polls) not that close.

The grim reality is that not only will Obama most likely become the 44th president of the United States but Democrats will also gain enough congressional seats to have a filibuster-proof majority. Imagine what a highly liberal president and a highly liberal Congress will be able to do together, unchecked by the opposition party. It will lead to an unprecedented dark road for this nation. But apparently, that’s what the voters want.

McCain has run one of the worst campaigns in recent memory. His answers during the debate were not sharp. He waited too long to offer a clear rebuttal against constant Obama-Biden claims of being four more years of Bush. He inexplicably refused to raise the issue of the universally radioactive Rev. Jeremiah Wright, choosing instead to pick on obscure associations with William Ayers and Saul Alinsky. He never mentioned other unsavory relationships, like Tony Reszko and Rev. Michael Pfleger. He couldn’t explain how his economic plan was more realistic than Obama’s. He didn’t specify why he called Obama a tax-and-spend liberal even though tax analysis think tanks claimed Obama’s tax plan offered a bigger tax cut to middle class Americans. He didn’t make a bigger stink about ACORN’s fraudulent registrations (many in states allowing in identification-less mail-in ballots). He never criticized Obama’s universal health care plan. He almost completely avoided all discussion of Obama’s immoral stances on moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. He couldn’t differentiate himself from Obama on environmental issues. He didn’t defend Palin with the same enthusiasm that Obama defended Biden. His suspended campaign to help engineer the economic bailout plan backfired when he couldn’t help engineer it and he backpedaled on his vow to skip the second debate until the plan was finalized. And perhaps most stunningly, he couldn’t convincingly articulate why Obama is dangerous and naive in foreign affairs.

Don’t get me wrong. McCain is far from perfect. But I have no doubt in my mind that McCain is easily better for America than Obama, simply because I’ve done my homework on Obama and the results are seriously frightening. But McCain couldn’t sell his story well, forcing frustrated conservative bloggers to try to pick up the slack. While McCain has substance but empty on selling, Obama is empty on substance but fluent in selling. And as any business will tell you, if you’ve got a great salesman, you’ll perform better than the poor salesman with the better product. Don’t let the expert figurative ab-cruncher salesman sell you his product that you’ll discover later to be cheaply made.

Some people today are voting for Obama solely on the basis of his skin color, saying they want to make and see history. They would be wise to heed the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who said (and you can’t escape the irony):

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

The Hunt For Red November is still on, but it’s hanging by a thread. Make sure to vote. Ignore the pundits who say this election is a done deal and try to discourage you from making your voice heard. Indeed, judge the candidates by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. For you can still make history if the man predicted by some to lose in a landslide can pull off the upset.

According to Mission: America, Kevin Jennings has used GLSEN to establish “gay-straight” alliance clubs in high schools across the country, promote homosexuality to children as young as kindergarteners through GLSEN-recommended book lists, sponsor the “Day of Silence” where students say nothing for a day to support their LGBT classmates, and support cross-dressing even among elementary school children. But what GLSEN won’t publicly tell you is that it also supports homosexual pedophilia through the books in thier book lists, according to Mission: America president Linda Harvey.

In addition, others have noted that GLSEN has sponsored conferences that include sexually graphic demonstrations.

It’s possible that Obama is not aware of GLSEN’s pedophilia support since it’s not publicly promoted on their web site. However, Obama must be aware of Jennings’ status as founder of GLSEN and its mission to promote homosexuality among children. This relationship between Obama and Jennings/GLSEN should leave little doubt regarding part of what constitutes Obama’s “education reform.”

In defending the Obama-Jennings relationship, some liberals like Cody Lyon of “The Daily Kos” have resorted to tired slander tactics, calling Harvey’s article “typically insecure, filth laced and fright filled”, “poisonous diatribe”, “disgusting misleading smears”, “political smokescreen”, “false charges”, “hate filled vitriol”, and “shameful” while calling Harvey herself a “ghoulish figure”.

Of course, Lyon sets up numerous straw men to discount Harvey’s article while spewing more hate in one paragraph than three entire articles on Mission: America’s web site. And naturally, no proof is offered on its charges of “disgusting misleading smears” and “false charges” in hopes that readers will forget to ask.

In typical straw-man denial mode, Lyon offers the Obama equivalent of “William Ayers did despicable things when I was 8 years old” by stating that “there are greater concerns occupying the minds of voters than an LGBT fundraiser at the Obama campaign.”

What the Obama-Jennings connection does offer is another peek into Obama’s associations and what his presidency will offer. Interestingly, Jennings wrote a foreword to a book entitled Queering Elementary Education which William Ayers wrote a glowing blurb for. It all seems to come full circle, doesn’t it?

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. Remember I said it standing here. If you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy. And he’s gonna have to make some really tough — I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”

Biden, infamous for opening mouth and inserting foot, has done it once again. This admission should send shivers up the spine of all Americans, liberal or conservative.

Granted, Biden tried to defend Obama by saying in that same weekend (this time in San Francisco) that when Obama is tested, people will “find out this guy’s got steel in his spine.” And that may be true. But do we really want to find out?

Do we really want to invite a disaster on an international scale, most likely resulting in many deaths? Do we really want people to sacrifice their lives just so we can find out if “this guy” has a backbone?

Also, do we really want to add a historic disaster at a time when Americans are reeling from a staggering economy and are stretched militarily in two wars?

In addition, do we really want to “test the mettle of this guy” on a grand scale? We saw the Russians test Obama’s mettle with the small-scale Russia-Georgia conflict and it was not pretty. Obama started with a tepid response, then gave a slightly firmer follow-up, and then finally a hard stance on his third try that matched the tone of McCain’s first response. That was already a wake-up call about Obama’s leadership ability for those who even just marginally followed that episode. Seems Obama’s mettle has already been tested and found wanting. Is this the “on-the-job training” …on a large scale… that we want Obama to have, which Biden himself has declared not a good idea?

Furthermore, even if Obama shows that he’s not spineless in the midst of a large-scale crisis, it still doesn’t guarantee that Obama will be a good president. After all, George W. Bush was tested within two years of his first term in office, racked up a very high approval rating for his handling of the for11 crisis and yet finishes his second term with a very low approval rating.

Lastly, Biden makes some very odd comments in explaining how Obama would handle a national disaster, including asking supporters to stand by Obama as he makes unpopular decisions:

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you – not financially to help him – we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Biden continues with his eyebrow-raising remarks:

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” he said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued. “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

This has to make you wonder if Biden knows something the rest of America doesn’t. What is he talking about? And why does he seem to already know “four or five scenarios”? Why is he practically begging people to “remember the faith” and stick with Obama as he makes “unpopular” decisions that will make his polling numbers drop like a rock?

It’s enough to make any sane person nervous, if not frightened.

But not surprisingly, the media has pretty much sweeped this under the rug. No big deal. No front page news. As the police like to say, “Move along, people, there’s nothing to see here.”

No, do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Joe Biden has handed McCain an alleged “game-changer” on a silver platter. McCain camp, it’s your move.

Regardless of how McCain’s poorly-run campaign handles this gift, we must let as many people know about this as possible. I don’t know about you but I don’t need an invitation to another grand-scale disaster for this nation. And I certainly don’t need an inexperienced president making unpopular decisions.