When I was a little girl, I believed that a preacher had a special pipeline to God. After all, after we put our offerings in the collection plate at church, who else was going to hand those offerings personally to God? I was a little put out when I learned later that actual people, human beings, counted the offering, put it in the bank, and wrote checks just like the ones Mother wrote at the grocery store.

However, I never lost the sense that an ordained minister must be something special. I still feel that way. I know that my pastor is human. I know he is fallible. I know that he is a sinner just as I am. Nevertheless I think he is special, called by God for work that many people could not do, and compelled by God to be a spokesman for heavenly truth. I listen to my pastor intently, because I expect him to enlighten me about God’s truth in ways I have not discovered by myself. My experience with most pastors confirms my expectations. I grow as a Christian by listening to my pastor and applying his messages in my life. I find confirmation in the Bible of the truths my pastor teaches, and I understand the Bible better because of my pastor’s messages.

My personal life is different, because of what I learn from my pastors. I listen to pastors and use what I learn to help me make decisions. When I am challenged on a moral or ethical question, the process of making a decision includes consideration of many things I learned by listening to my pastor. When I am embroiled in family issues and career challenges, my approach to the solutions is informed by things I learned from sermons. Even when I think about who should be president, I consider issues my pastor has brought up in sermons. I truly believe that a pastor has a calling to speak out on many issues and help us understand the relevant biblical teachings.

I do not believe that my pastor ought to endorse a candidate for president.

First, I do not believe that any pastor has received a message from God that one candidate or another is God’s choice. I am certain that every pastor has his own idea about that, but I don’t believe that God is dispensing a message for pastors to give on that subject. If he were, then every pastor would get the same message. That isn’t happening.

Second, I believe that pastors have personal political agendas just like me. I believe that they desire government to have particular qualities, just like any other citizen, and among the set of all pastors, there are many, many agendas.

Above all, I believe that every candidate is flawed. I have yet to see the candidate with no skeletons in the closet. Every candidate, like all other human beings, has made unwise choices. Every candidate has made really bad decisions. Every candidate has spoken and misspoken and tripped over his tongue and tripped over his desire not to offend and wallowed in an attempt not to say exactly the truth. Every candidate is a sinful person who wants to be president for some ignoble reasons along with the noble sense of calling to serve the people. My pastor will not be able to select a candidate that anyone will believe is perfect in God's eyes.

Therefore, I don’t want my pastor endorsing any candidate. I will sit quiet while my pastor says that he believes our nation should do more for the poor, even though I believe that my church helps the poor in more powerful ways than the government does. I will sit quiet while my pastor says that he believes all wars are evil, no matter how noble it might be to attack on behalf of enslaved people. I will sit quiet while my pastor berates an economic system that does not penalize the people in high places who make the decisions which cause ordinary people to lose their jobs. These issues are fair game, and the pastor’s insights as a man of God are valuable to me. However, my pastor, beloved as he is, cannot possibly know the right man for me to vote for. I don’t expect him to know, and I refuse to believe that he knows. I will not sit still in my church and listen while my pastor endorses any political candidate.

It isn’t about church and state, either. It is about the calling of the pastor. Even the apostle Paul did not try to tell people who ought to be in charge politically. He told people to pray for the Roman emperor, and so far, none of our candidates could possibly be as heartless and disconnected from the needs of the people as any Roman emperor. I believe that my pastor has the obligation to teach me God’s truth and help me make personal decisions with character, integrity and wisdom from God. I do not believe that he knows who ought to be president with any greater authority than I do. I don’t ask him who to marry or what job to apply for or which bank to use. I absolutely will not ask him who I should vote for in the presidential election.

 When I was growing up in southeast Missouri, real scoundrels were often characterized as being “lower than a snake’s belly.” That was the phrase that came to mind when I heard that Obama cancelled his visit with wounded soldiers in Germany. What made the description so apt is the reason for his cancellation.

On the website of the Drudge Report, the links to articles on this subject were quaintly displayed next to each other. The link for one article read “Obama Campaign: Pentagon Nixes Troop Visit …” Immediately below it was a link which read “Pentagon: Obama Campaign Nixes Troop Visit…”

Obama’s reason for not visiting the troops turns out to be very simple. The Pentagon told him that he, his Senatorial staff, and his secret service detail were welcome. They also told him that his campaign staff and his press entourage were not welcome. B. Hussein Obama was offered a chance to visit with the troops and honor their service, but he was forbidden to make a publicity stunt out of it. No photographs of a wayward tear on his cheek at the sight of a wounded soldier. No video of his heartfelt reminder to a paralyzed Marine that “this is our moment.” No carefully orchestrated handshakes and hugs for the public to admire. Obama could have spent two quiet, respectful hours with people who have paid the price for his freedom to berate America in front of a crowd of Germans. He could have met a number of patients and said in the hearing of no one but the patients, “Thank you for your service.” Nobody stood in the way of his opportunity to honor our troops.

If one single event displays the ego and immaturity of B. Hussein Obama, this is it. I thought his speech to the German people showed everyone that he has no respect for the country he aspires to lead, and I thought it showed all of us his complete lack of qualifications, not to mention his unreadiness, to be our president. I thought that hanging a banner at the Western Wall in Jerusalem with his name in Hebrew letters was a completely adolescent stunt. He even allowed his prayer at the Wall to be publicized, and lo and behold, it is all about him. I thought we didn’t need any more evidence that this is not the man we should elect as our president. But then he amazed us all with yet one more messianic moment in which he demonstrated the he himself is more important than anybody, even more important than the warriors who are wounded in defense of our freedoms.

B. Hussein’s unwillingness to honor our troops without an audience demonstrates dramatically that he lacks the character, the maturity, or even the intelligence required to be President of the United States of America.

President Bush yesterday announced that the presidential directive that has impeded oil exploration and development offshore and in ANWR is no more. He has taken action that clears the way for Congress to do the same. I am very grateful, and I know that many readers are equally grateful.

In response to this move, Nancy Pelosi has predictably stated that it means nothing. She complains that it will not do anything to lower gas prices today. What she failed to announce in her great wisdom is anything that actually will lower gas prices today. Why did she not declare the real solution that will reduce the price of gasoline in an instant? Because nothing any of us can do will have that effect.

President Bush’s announcement appeared to have a temporary, but noticeable, effect on the futures price of crude oil, which dropped about $8 at the time of his announcement. That fact suggests that if Congress acts to remove the remaining barriers to domestic exploration and production, crude oil futures prices might drop a bit more. Think what those prices might do if more domestic oil actually hits the market.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and a lot of other socialists preach continually that increased domestic production is a long way off, and they preach loudly that this action will not reduce gasoline prices right away. When asked what will have a better impact, they inevitably say that the solution is the development of alternative energy sources. When they make these pronouncements, they imply the “development of alternative energy sources” equals “lower gasoline prices at the pump.” This is real poppycock, or maybe even a more aromatic substance than that.

Research in alternative energy sources is likely ten years from achieving any of the goals for which it is hyped. Even T. Boone Pickens who has all the money anybody could want says that his program of research and development of alternative energy sources will take about ten years. Moreover, there is no guarantee that all the research and development anybody, including T. Boone, has in mind will produce anything that even remotely provides the efficiency of energy production from petroleum. Maybe it will, and maybe it won’t. We can hope, but nobody can promise. Hmm. It will also take about ten years to bring domestic production from new fields online. When domestic crude enters the pipelines, we will have a source of energy that actually works. It is efficient. It is reliable. We don’t have to devise new technology along with the new sources. Therefore, if we start all the options at the same time, it is highly probable that ten years from now, the USA could be energy independent using petroleum. In addition, a great deal more will be known about alternative sources, which will put us far along the road to energy independence when the petroleum reserves are depleted.

We must push Congress to remove the remaining barriers to oil exploration and production offshore, in ANWR, in the shale reserves – everywhere. The USA must not be held hostage to environmental paranoia. Oil production today is vastly different from oil production during the West Texas Black Gold rush days. A new well is not permitted to “gush” these days. And a productive well has a footprint that doesn’t bother either caribou or dolphins. There is no reason the choke American productivity and limit the freedom of American life over the false notion that producing oil is bad for the world.

Congress has some really strange ideas. Or maybe they have changed since yesterday. Last I knew, they were all traveling back and forth in airplanes between Washington, DC and their home states. They are all driving cars, or riding in cars driven by others. They have heat and light and air conditioning in their homes. To my knowledge, none of them is riding a bike to work and using window ventilation coupled with funeral parlor fans for personal cooling during the DC summers. Members of Congress happily use all the oil products they think they need. It is time for them to get real and get out of the way of domestic oil production.

Our Congress looks more and more like a socialist government. In the world of socialism, the “people” are all treated alike. They all get food, healthcare and gasoline at the expense of the government, if they get it at all. Each one of the “people” gets in line for his “fair share” of whatever there is – bread, medicine, gasoline. However, outside the class of all “people” is the class of “government leaders.” That class is special. It gets in line for nothing and has all the possessions and privileges that are simply not available to the “people” because there isn’t enough to go around. It is time for us to tell the class of “government leaders” (read that “Members of Congress) to back away from the trough.

Members of Congress need and use the energy output of petroleum products. The rest of the country wants the same privilege. Tell your congressman to remove the barriers to domestic oil exploration and production now.

Barack Hussein Obama is the candidate of hope and change. It appears that we do not need to hope for change in the future. We already have change. Obama is delivering exactly what he promises. What a candidate!

Just look at all the change he has delivered already.

When we first heard a word from the New Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama, he went on record with a commitment to end the war in Iraq. He led us to believe that if he were elected, before he even sat down in the Oval Office, he would get the troops out. No discussion. No alternatives. No kidding.

Now we hear a different story. Something about assessing the situation and adjusting the withdrawal to the realities. What a man! He can change his mind and change his words, and he tells us that this is not a change of message. A real wizard of change is Barack Hussein Obama.

On the subject of NAFTA, we have been hearing Obama lambast the whole idea for months, threatening to confront our trading partners with a demand for new terms if he were elected. When he needed to confront and defeat Hillary Clinton, who, understandably, supported NAFTA, he was aggressive and critical of the whole idea, saying, "I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced."

But now, Obama, the candidate who promises change we can believe in, has changed his position and declared, “I’ve always been a proponent of free trade.” The candidate of change has demonstrated his skill. We can undoubtedly hope now to see even more change as the pace of the campaign escalates.

We should not have been so surprised. Obama has actually been showing us how to change since the beginning of his campaign. We all remember that when he was still trying to help us know how to spell his name (including directions that his middle name, Hussein, is not to be mentioned), and when he was worried that we would all think he was an Islamic fascist, he made a big point of telling us about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his mentor. The Rev. Wright had supposedly led him to a Christian conversion, officiated at his wedding, baptized his children and counseled him in personal growth. The Rev. Wright was important in his life, and we all waited eagerly to learn more about Obama’s formative years under the tutelage of the Rev. Wright.

However, the candidate who promises change we can believe in made a believer of us for sure. When we found out that the Rev. Wright teaches his church to curse America and hate anybody who isn’t black, we saw Candidate Obama change in a flash. We saw him change the Rev. Wright from a beloved mentor to a casual acquaintance to Jeremiah Who? In the twinkling of an eye the reverend went from a national icon to a has-been. This is change we can all believe in.

Of course, we should have been prepared. Isn’t Barack Hussein Obama the candidate who told us about being reared by his grandmother only to change her value as a human being to zero by calling her a “typical white person?” Barack Obama is the candidate of change, all right.

We need to pay more attention to Obama’s changes. It would appear that absolutely nothing is too important to change. His admiration for his grandmother, his respect for his pastor, his deeply-held concern that free trade harms American workers, and now his commitment to bring the troops home from Iraq – all these ideas were subject to change.

It makes a confused voter wonder. If Barack Hussein Obama were actually elected president, unthinkable though it is, what other wonderful changes could we hope for?

There are two candidates for president of the United States, and one of them will be inaugurated in January, 2009. The primaries for this election lasted longer than any I can remember, and now the election season will also be the longest I can remember. Both candidates have been clearly chosen even though the party conventions are still two months away. In November, voters will select either John McCain or Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States. I will vote for John McCain.

One reason I support McCain is his position on the war in Iraq. John McCain is committed to victory in the war on terrorism, and one part of that victory is the emergence of Iraq as a republic where free people engage in free enterprise and elect their own political leaders. Military victory against the enemy government was only the first step toward the real victory. After five years of struggle, the free nation of Iraq is still maturing. Iraq does not want to be anybody’s pawn, but if left alone, it would be overwhelmed by terrorist partisans who will use its religion, its treasure and its freedom to destroy everything the citizens have worked and prayed for. McCain has pledged his continuing support until the real victory is won and the people of Iraq enjoy the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness just as we do.

I am proud that he takes this stand. The war against terrorism is more difficult than most wars, because there are no boundaries to define combat zones or even combatants. This war is being fought intensely in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is also being fought around the world at all times. Every time we get on an airplane we are reminded of it. Before the war on terror, I could jump out of my car twenty minutes before takeoff, hustle through the check-in and run down the concourse, through the gate and onto the plane at the last minute before the door closed. If the gate agent knew me, she might not even look at my boarding pass. Those days are over, because everybody who gets on an airplane needs to prove that he or she is not a terrorist. That is just one of the many ways the war on terror touches us even though we are far from any “combat zone.”

John McCain has said that he is committed to fight this war with victory as his goal. He has said what President Bush has also said; namely, that this kind of war could last many, many years. Fighting terrorism is a lot like fighting termites and cockroaches. No matter how many you exterminate, there always seem to be more. The threat is never over. If McCain means what he says, he will stand firm against terrorism and stand firm for the protection of our nation, even if it means that the war is still not over by the time he leaves office.

Obama, on the other hand, is already preparing to cut and run. It seems not to bother him that withdrawing American troops would leave the fledgling democracy of Iraq out in the cold. Obama is so ignorant that he actually believes he can talk with terrorists and persuade them to be nice. Nobody that ignorant should ever be president of the USA.

The day I watched the World Trade Center collapse into a pile of rubble, I was terrified. I had never seen such a thing. My parents had never seen such a thing. The idea that anybody in the world felt entitled to push his political objectives by means of the wanton murder of thousands of innocent people who could not be considered anyone’s enemies was alien to anything I could even imagine. Everybody I encountered that day was as terrified and horrified as I was. On that day, we all knew that somebody wanted us gone, and we felt determined not to let it happen. President Bush stood strong in that time of crisis and promised that we would do what it took to find and destroy the enemy who had done this. He never promised anybody that it would be easy, and he never promised anybody it would be quick. In those days, even Democrats wanted to find and destroy the enemy.

President Bush has never lost his commitment to the war on terror. John McCain is firm in his commitment as well. Terrorists hate George Bush, and if John McCain is elected, they will hate him as well. The terrorists love Obama, and they love the Democrat agenda of withdrawal from Iraq. If we had no other way to know which candidate to pick, that message alone should do it. It does not make sense to elect as president the candidate most beloved by our sworn enemies.

Check what John McCain is saying about the war. Check what Obama is saying. Then double-check which candidate Osama bin Laden wants. Which candidate would Hamas pick? That research should bring you to the conclusion that John McCain is the better choice for president. We have only two choices. The perfect candidate isn’t running, whoever that may be. I will be voting for John McCain.

During the campaigns leading up to an election, candidates spend a lot of time and effort telling voters what they can expect after the election. Right now, John McCain and Barack Obama are busy explaining what they will do if elected. Sometimes they address problems we all agree on and sometimes they try to persuade us that we should recognize a problem they want to solve. At the most basic level, they want us to believe that in any situation they will do the right thing for the country. As voters, this is what most of us want. The trick is to know what the right thing is.

I recently learned two fifty-dollar words for some common-sense ideas. I came across them in an article about ethics.

The first word is teleological. In ethical situations, a teleological thinker will ask, what is the expected outcome of this choice? This person judges whether a decision is right or wrong entirely on the basis of the fallout. To do that requires that the person believe he knows what the fallout will be, which is a different problem. Teleological thinkers usually feel pretty certain that “if A” they can predict “then B.” This is a very common way of approaching ethical choices in political discourse.

The second word is deontological. Given an ethical choice, a deontological thinker will not worry about the outcome, because that person believes that morality is a choice among absolutes. Deontological thinkers believe that murder is wrong. Absolutely, unequivocally wrong. They may dispute the definition of the word murder in order to get around problems with situations such as self-defense and protection of innocent bystanders, but for true deontologists, if the question is the morality of murder, then the answer is that murder is wrong. Political discussions are pretty scornful of the idea of absolutes, especially moral absolutes.

One hot topic in politics that touches many people’s lives is abortion. Teleologists approach the question of abortion by asking whether the outcome of an abortion is good. They will ask if it is right to compel a woman to give birth to a baby when the woman does not want the baby. They wonder if a baby should even be born into a family that cannot or will not take care of it. The moral questions associated with conception do not enter into the discussion, because teleologists only concern themselves with the outcome. They won’t judge the wisdom of a person who carelessly or ignorantly or willfully becomes pregnant without a commitment to protect and care for the baby. A teleologist simply says that the decision to abort or not abort the pregnancy should be based entirely on the morality of the outcome. The proponents of “a woman’s right to choose” believe that a woman has a right to evaluate the impact of a birth and make her choice to continue or end the pregnancy on that basis. The position that there is a natural right to choose abortion is based on a teleological approach to the ethical choices associated with abortion.

There is an opposing viewpoint that asserts that from the moment of conception, a baby has the right to life. This point of view asserts that the absolute right to life trumps any evaluation of the outcome of a birth. A deontological thinker disregards the impact of a birth in a family that does not want the child. From the deontological point of view, a woman who is pregnant does not have a right to ask if she wants the baby; the baby’s life absolutely trumps any consideration of the impact of a baby in her life. In fact, because life has absolute priority, the life of the mother may not even be considered. As with teleological thinkers, some deontological thinkers define their terms in order to consider unique situations, but a strictly deontological viewpoint considers that life is an absolute value that transcends the worth of any other consideration.

Looking at the question of abortion this way may help us to imagine how these two distinct approaches to ethical questions will make it difficult for any candidate to assume that he knows the “right” solution to any of our national problems. Most political solutions to problems are quite obviously teleological. They deal with outcomes. Nothing is absolute. Both sides of an issue may be accommodated to some degree, but in a political solution, nobody gets to be completely whole. It is teleology that allows us to make any progress at all in political solutions.

The reason for that is that while there are many people who think of ethical problems as if there were an absolute right answer, there are usually many different perceptions of the absolute right answer. Using the subject of abortion as a sample of this problem, we can all recall more than one point of view on the side of “right to life” and more than one on the side of “a woman’s right to choose.” Some who believe in preserving “life” at all costs recognize that two lives are at risk in some pregnancies; they acknowledge that it is not always possible to save both the mother and the baby, and in their accommodations of this truth, they temporarily allow themselves to think teleologically. In such a case, even the most fervent absolutists will concede that someone must decide whether the outcome is better if the mother survives or if the baby survives. As for those who advocate freedom of choice, most of them recognize that repeated abortion is detrimental to a woman’s health and will advocate for the woman to make a choice about the desired outcome long before conception takes place. They won’t say that it is absolutely wrong for a woman to refuse to plan, but the whole push for sex education in schools grows out of their recognition that there really is a better outcome when conception is prevented than when it is aborted. In the public forum on the topic of abortion, it would be tough to strictly classify the people in the various camps as teleological or deontological, but understanding those terms helps to understand the way adherents participate in the discussion.

To recap, in a discussion of a national problem which must be resolved by government leaders, people picture solutions largely based on their own perception either that there is an absolute right thing to do or that the right thing to do depends on how we get to the right outcome. This is the reason that everyone can agree that a person sick with leukemia “needs” medical treatment, but there is a huge question and disagreement about whether that person has a “right” to medical treatment. Is healthcare a fundamental human right? Any individual will see the answer to that question within a personal frame of reference that decides right and wrong as either a teleological problem or a deontological problem.

There are other pressing questions in the public forum.

On the subject of petroleum:

Why is the price of gasoline rising so fast? Has something evil happened that produced this result or is it the natural consequence of market processes? Should government take some action to prevent gasoline prices from rising so high? Should oil companies be allowed to drill in ANWR? Would drilling in ANWR have a bad outcome for wildlife there? Should the outcomes for wildlife trump the outcomes for people? Is there any absolute right and wrong in the petroleum market?

On the war in Iraq:

Was the US right to invade Iraq? Does it any longer matter whether the US was right to invade Iraq? Was there an absolute moral imperative to invade Iraq? Does the outcome that eliminated Saddam Hussein as a threat to world peace have greater value than the perceptions of some Iraqis that we invaded and occupied their country for no reason? How is Iraq related to worldwide terrorism? Does it matter if Iraq harbored and supported terrorism? Is there a number of military casualties that is one too many? If so, have we passed that number? Does the number of casualties have any bearing on the moral rectitude of our campaign in Iraq? Is our campaign right for Iraq? For the US? For the world?

On the subject of the economy:

Is it true that the US is on the verge of a recession? Already in a recession? Headed for a disastrous depression? What is a recession? A depression? Should the government rescue homeowners who can’t pay their mortgages? Should the government rescue lenders who made loans to people who can’t pay? Is it good for the citizens if the government takes action to stimulate and manage the economy? Is the outcome good? Is there a morally absolute right thing for the government to do here?

All this conversation about the issues is completely disconnected from the Constitutional considerations. When we consider the Constitution as we consider the moral issues, the discussion becomes even more complex.

I have said all of this in order to say one more thing. People need to have sorted out their own thoughts on these subjects before they begin to evaluate the candidates. People need to know how they themselves approach moral, ethical and Constitutional questions before they try to evaluate the candidates. If a voter has no position on an issue, then the candidates run the conversation. That should not happen. When a candidate speaks, voters should already have a foundation on which to determine if the candidate is proposing solutions that are acceptable within moral, ethical and Constitutional boundaries. The voter must think before asking what the candidate thinks.

I have done this homework, and I will be voting for John McCain. I have concluded that even though I don’t agree with him on all the absolutes, his personal history and public life give me some hope that I will agree with his leadership more often than not. There is no other candidate who meets that standard. I consider that Obama has demonstrated profound emptiness of moral standards. He has repeatedly dropped positions and dumped associations as they became unpopular, not as he made reasoned moral choices. He advocates a completely socialist agenda for his actions if he is elected, an agenda in direct conflict with the concept of government written into our Constitution. I reject Obama completely. I will vote for John McCain. I recommend that you do the same.

In Ontario, the government decrees that cigarettes for sale in stores must be kept out of sight of customers. The product is legal, no one will be arrested if the product is sold, but whoever wants it must request it without needing to see it first. Ostensibly, the real target of the rule is children, because the government does not want children to be lured into smoking by seeing the product. Some people point out that the same government which enforces this oppressive rule runs liquor stores where a wide variety of attractive alcohol products are in plain sight, inviting children to observe adult shoppers and be enticed to want the same. Critics also point out that the government has no objection to magazine displays that include pornographic material easily seen by children. One Reuters reporter said that “advocates say the seemingly draconian measure will eventually work, and is too important to get bogged down by morality.”[1]

Morality is a word seldom spoken with respect in contemporary discourse. It is mentioned with scorn and distaste as something inconvenient and oppressive. The subject of abortion used to be a question of morality, but after abortion was reclassified as a fundamental human right, then we could talk about it endlessly without getting bogged down by morality. That change must surely be documented as a huge forward step for civilization.

Socialist governments seldom permit themselves to be bogged down by mere morality. The socialist government of the Soviet Union regularly arrested people who suffered the mental disease of dissent from the government position and sent them to facilities where they could be re-educated and made well from this disease. The fact that this government did not get bogged down in morality permitted it to avoid any feeling of shame for the fact that many of the “patients” died as a result of the therapy intended to return them to happy, obedient citizenship.

The socialist government of China doesn’t get bogged down by morality, either. Every Chinese family is limited to one legal child, and any other children are illegal. I think it is one of the supremely unfunny comedies of the day. Here is a socialist government telling healthy, productive, loving families that they may have only one legal child, while in our country, the socialists (often hiding behind the name of the Democrat Party) advocate that we permit people who have mental and physical disabilities to have as many children as they would like for the rest of us to support. In fact, our resident socialists are the ones who say that busy professionals should have the right to choose abortion rather than be bogged down with a baby, while people who are unable to support themselves because of mental or physical disability, or even because they don’t want to work, are free to bog down the rest of us with as many babies as they please. Socialists appear to prefer that people who want babies due to the notion that passing puberty is like passing the test to be an adult should have lots of children, while people are equally immature, but already pregnant, should abort healthy ones. Talk about bogged down. I don’t know how the socialists sort out all these policies. To me, they seem like an incredible rat’s nest. I yearn for the light of morality to be shined on this sort of thinking.

This is why I am very disturbed with my choices in this year’s presidential election. Someone told me last week that he could comfortably vote for either candidate, because they are so much alike. I fear that I cannot comfortably voter for either candidate, precisely because they are so much alike.

The cigarette situation in Ontario is a microcosm of socialist government we would all do well to study. The Constitution of the USA includes a Bill of Rights in which it is clearly stated that all powers not specifically ceded to the federal government in the Constitution remain with the states and the people. That concept is implicit in the original document, but many people felt that unless it was spelled out, power-hungry politicians would use the federal government as an excuse to oppress and rob the citizens. They thought that this amendment would mean that the federal government could not act outside the powers granted in the Constitution without another amendment that defined and limited that power.

Those who wisely foresaw the necessity of this amendment would be appalled to see how much power the citizens and the states have now ceded to the federal government without benefit of any Constitutional amendment. I’ll share just one example of this problem.

Every car is now manufactured with seat belts. Every state today has a law requiring that at least the driver must wear a seat belt. This is not a federal law; it is a state law. The federal government has no right to pass laws regulating traffic. Only states can do that. How is it that every state now has such a law?

It all started with the idea that it wasn’t fair for some states to receive less money from the government than others. It just wasn’t fair. Revenue had to be shared. A ground-breaking law was passed that pulled money from every state according to a formula that reflected its ability to pay, and all states received “equal” benefits back. It meant that states which could not afford their share of the costs for a federal highway could have that highway anyhow. All the states would contribute to a big pot of money. States with more money than they “needed” would receive less of it back, and states with less would get more of it so they could have their “fair share” of federal highways and other things. I am starting to hate the word “fair,” because every time I hear it, I know that somebody is figuring out a way to take what I have and give it to someone else.

After revenue-sharing was invented and deployed nationwide, it seemed good to some socialists in Congress to worry about the safety of drivers on the highways. They knew that they didn’t have the right to worry about state highways, city streets and back roads with no identity, but that didn’t stop them. They concluded that if everyone wore seat belts, then highway accident fatalities would be vastly reduced. Many states felt that personal safety was a personal matter, and many states felt that citizens had a right to decide for themselves if they wanted to use seat belts. The socialists in Congress resented this individual freedom to take a risk. They wanted every state to require every car to have seat belts and to require every person to use them. They did not believe that anyone had a right to accept this kind of personal risk. They remembered that every federal highway was paid for by funds in the revenue-sharing program. The federal government was paying for those highways, and they saw a way to enforce the behavior they desired by manipulating those funds which were supposed to be shared in a “fair” manner.

Only a confirmed conservative would believe that the strategy they came up with was unfair. After all, weren’t these seat belt advocates completely devoted to protecting all citizens, even if the citizens didn’t ask them to? The strategy was that Congress passed a bill that prohibited the distribution of highway funds to states without seat belt laws. In other words, they were going to go ahead and take money from all the states, but they were not going to give money back to states without a seat belt law. It is no surprise to anyone that the states lined up, saluted and passed seat belt laws.

This same strategy has been used over and over again. Money which never should have left the states is vacuumed up and dumped in the wastebin of Congress. There, the representatives and senators mull over all the ways they can exert power over states and citizens without any amendment to the Constitution, and without getting bogged down in morality, too, I might add. They exert the power by withholding money until they get what they want.

This strategy would not work if people had rejected the concept of revenue-sharing in the first place. That idea was sold as an act of “fairness.” It’s not fair that some states are rich and some are poor. We hear the same thing in the education arena. It’s not fair that some school districts are rich and some are poor. In the name of “fairness” the states and the citizens have been robbed time and time again. In the name of “fairness” our country is burdened with taxes on taxes, and our citizens are defrauded of their rights to liberty and personal freedom.

The two candidates for president in the election of 2008 are much too alike for me to be able to choose between them on the basis of their positions on the Constitution. They both speak the socialist Robin Hood mantra – steal from the rich to care for the poor. Both of them pose a danger to our country in my opinion. I must choose on some other basis.

Therefore, I will choose to vote for McCain. I want him to change, and I hope that wise leaders in the Republican Party will help him do that. I respect his personal history as a POW. Surviving that experience with a will to continue serving his country tells me a lot about the man. Not his politics, just the man. Since I can’t vote for the candidate who is consistent with my politics, I will vote for the candidate I respect. I'm actually looking for someone who has personal experience in the bog of morality. In that regard, I don’t know what to think of Obama. He hasn’t done anything yet. I can’t even guess if he has any character or personal strength. I do know that he disdains the Constitution.

I will vote for McCain. I hope that enough of us do that to elect him. Then I hope that McCain will see that his constituents want him to preserve and protect the Constitution. I don’t know anything else to hope for.