Equality Wins!

POSTED BY JHW22

The U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit says NOPE to Prop 8! The court finds it unconstitutional to strip rights away from people because they're gay, despite what the majority of stupid voters say.

What a good news day. Anyone know what Obama has Seal Team Six doing today?

Sorry. Oops.

Rick Perry: "Those who are going to be over 21 on November 12th, I ask for your support."



Boy, that's a lot of "Constitutional Amendment" talk from someone who doesn't know what the 26th Amendment is. And that Election Day in 2012 is November 6th, not the 12th. At least he got the month right. Cream of the crop, these GOP nominees, huh?

Herman Cain? Seriously?

Is this what passes for a serious politician in the eyes of the Tea Party, or whoever is actually donating money to Herman Cain?

At the beginning, he seemed like just another in a long line of wannabe candidates committing silly gaffes like confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution while touting Constitutional tenets. But here we are, further on down the line from his initial foray into the world of American politics for his humble pizza mogul beginnings, and it would seem the more we know about Herman Cain's positions, the more we can categorize them, and him, as troubling to say the least.

White-knuckling the Constitution while agreeing with religious discrimination is disturbing.

Presidential hopeful Herman Cain on Sunday sided with communities that want to ban mosques, saying Americans have a right to oppose the construction of places of Islamic worship.

..."Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state. Islam combines church and state," Cain said Sunday. "They're objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and a set of laws," Cain said of the opponents.

When asked if his beliefs constitute discrimination, Cain disagreed, saying: "I am willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists. That's what I'm saying."

Well, the Constitution doesn't literally guarantee separation, but as we can obviously tell, Cain is by far not a Constitutional scholar. And sure, he's just looking out for terrorists because you know, they're all Muslim. (Please omit Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, Ted Kaczynski, Britian's Robert Cottage and David Jackson, need I go on?)

Still, separation of church and state hasn't been what Cain's advocated in the past.

Repeatedly over the last several years, Cain has spoken out in support of letting local, state and federal government be used to promote Christianity. At a recent Tea Party rally, Cain angrily declared, “It was during the Fifties that the United States Congress voted to add ‘one nation under God’ with liberty and justice for all, because we are a God-fearing Christian nation!”

Well, what is it? Are we a Christian nation or do we believe in religious separation when it comes to politics? And this is after Cain has stated he wouldn't appoint Muslims to his Cabinet posts or federal judgeships should he become President. I suppose he'll need to reread his precious Constitution to refresh his memory on the No Religious Test clause.

Oh, and should we mention Cain thinks it's a good idea to have a Great Wall of Chine type of fence, complete with an alligator-filled moat as a deterrent to border immigration? Or that President Obama isn't a real black man? The more Harman Cain opens his mouth, the more he amazing us with jaw-dropping quips. And the more he reveals himself to be an unserious candidate despite Tea Party support.

Forehead to Desk Moment

Well now we know why Herman Cain is so popular. I thought maybe he offered free pizza for your vote, but no. It's just that he's just as ignorant as Sarah Palin when it comes to the Constitution and misquoting it.

We don’t need to rewrite the Constitution of the United States of America, we need to reread the Constitution and enforce the Constitution. … And I know that there are some people that are not going to do that, so for the benefit of those who are not going to read it because they don’t want us to go by the Constitution, there’s a little section in there that talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

BZZZT! Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Cain. That would be Declaration of Independence you are quoting. But we have a lovely parting gift for you - the complete DVD set of Schoolhouse Rock. Please watch these to prepare for your next Republican Primary debate. I'm sure it'll give you a leg up on your competition.

Eric Cantor is a Douchebag

It has only taken a matter of three months as the majority in the House of Representatives for House Majority "Leader" Eric Cantor to render himself completely irrelevant. His imitation of an adolescent power hungry school hall monitor was on full display today when he stated without hesitation that if the Senate does not act on the HR1 after the House passes the... wait for it... "Prevention of a Government Shutdown Act," the spending cuts in HR1 will become the law of the land.

I actually feel sorry for Cantor, being deprived by his parents as a child the pleasure of the lessons learned from Schoolhouse Rock on how a bill becomes a law. Add to that the fact that he's gotten this far in American politics without the apparent knowledge of how the American system of checks and balances works, and you see before you the de-facto running mate for Michele Bachmann's presidential aspirations. After all, you don't want to look smarter than your top of the ticket running mate (see McCain/Palin '08).

But as a refresher, here's a cartoon made that even 9-year olds supposedly understood.



But it seems Eric Cantor thinks that this is how to treat a bill.



Now you may think me naive to believe that this is not a political ploy by Cantor to try and deflect any blame from the GOP when the government shutdown happens. And it will happen. But I'm going to take Cantor at his word and believe that he is as moronic as he sounds if he thinks that non-action by the Senate of a bill passed by the House by a certain deadline will tacitly make both that bill and the bill it is referencing, passed by only one half of one branch of government and neither signed by the President, the law of the land.

Here's Cantor in his own words, pissing all over the Constitution.



Is it me, or does it seem that the majority of Republican party is going batshit crazy simultaneously? You really can't make this shit up. If you were to write this scenario as a screenplay, you'd be laughed out of Hollywood for being completely unrealistic... and that's the same industry that produced and released Showgirls.

Can't. Contain. My. Anger.

POSTED BY JHW22

Holy fricken shit!

The Republicans in the House decided to read the Constitution on the House floor today. Great. I have no problems with that. In fact, I often listen to members of Congress act like they have the Constitution memorized yet don't seem to know what's in it. My beef is with the way they are having one member at a time read from it then another member and so on. I don't want them to recite it -- I want them to comprehend it.

But NOW, NOW, Boehner and Cantor ARE GIVING A FUCKING PRESS CONFERENCE!! DURING THE READING. They left the chamber during the reading THEY DEMANDED of the sacred document that they profess to love and respect and protect and they left to GIVE A DAMN PRESS CONFERENCE!!!!

GET YOUR ASSES BACK IN THE DAMN CHAMBER! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL!

Constitutionally Supported?

POSTED BY JHW22

Soooo.... apparently a new House of Representatives rule requires Representatives to provide proof in each proposed bill that the bill is supported by some part of the Constitution. Yep, they insist that each bill have supporting evidence that it's Constitutional. Cool. I guess.

Homework assignment: find the part in the Constitution that says Congress can rename Post Offices. Alright, fine, you don't need to do any homework. The Constitution does say that Congress will "establish Post Offices and post Roads" in Article 1, Section 8 but that one statement barely seems substantial enough to validate the hundreds of renaming bills that are introduced every Congress.

Now, look, I don't have a problem with a post office being named after a fallen member of our armed services or a firefighter who died in the Twin Towers. I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's funny that the Republicans created a new rule just to pander to the teabaggers that will in effect, limit the amount of pandering they can do by naming a building after someone.

On a slight tangent, I keep hearing (like in the ABC link above) that the reading of the Constitution by the new House is a "first." Yet, that seems odd to me and I swear Keith Olbermann said a bit ago that it has been done twice before. I tend to believe Olbermann on this. So, this goes back to my running annoyances and distrusts of the media -- why must they report with such certainty something they likely haven't bothered to fact-check? The talking points from the media can be as nauseating as the talking points from politicians.

Real Americans?

POSTED BY JHW22

There are a thousand things I take issue with when it comes to Sarah Palin. Maybe a million. But what's got me thinking today is this "real Americans" crap she spews as if she somehow gets to define what that means. She never really comes right out and says what she thinks a "real American" is or what her declaration means. Is she defining the term in order to say some people don't belong here or something? I don't get it. I don't get the purpose of this other than to be divisive and arrogant and politicizing.

I hate that we are a country that actually fights over who is more patriotic, spiritual, moral. What? No single party loves the flag or Constitution more than an other (although it could be argued that the self-appointed Constitution defenders are trying to warp and misrepresent it but that's another post).

But it's this subtle thing Palin does that pits her view of what makes someone a "real American" versus the fact that the Constitution defines the true meaning rather well (although I think those who want to repeal the 14th amendment actually have a problem with section four, but again, that's another post). Forget that there are people in this country who are not yet legal citizens who care a great deal about this country and support it, defend it, etc., she is consistently calling into question actual Americans' place in this country.

Aside from her views on what liberty and freedom mean, let's just look at one theme she promotes:

Alaskans do things no other Americans do thus they are "real Americans". I watched her show the other night, it was actually a lot of fun for a Palin-despiser to watch. There were moments that people who know the truth about her could find telling and humorous. I am not sure how many times she contradicted herself right there on TV for the world to see. But the moments that irked me were the moments I may turn into a drinking game. I think I'll take a swig every time she implies that only Alaskans [insert hobby, skill, family value here]. You would think, after watching last week's camping episode, that ONLY Alaskans camp. Only Alaskans camp where bears are wild. Only Alaskans camp in the rain. The only difference between millions of Americans who have done any and/or all of those things is we don't choose to go camping somewhere that requires an air-taxi. But then again, I imagine most "real Alaskans" don't NEED to take an air-taxi to go camping. Looking at that state, reading about it, hell, even watching her show, I get the impression you can get to a camping site just by heading to the outskirts of town.

Apparently, only Alaskans (or maybe it's only Palins) treat camping as a family bonding experience. Apparently, people from other states have never learned the precious arts of pitching a tent, lighting a fire and roasting marshmallows while fishing along the bank of a river. You may want to tell companies like REI that they should pull up and relocate all their stores to Alaska because, according to Palin, that's an Alaska thing.

And don't get her started on New Yorkers. Boy, those New York elite don't know the first thing about family bonding or camping or cold weather. They are too wealthy, all of those New Yorkers, to know what it means to hunt for your food. Then again, neither does Palin -- there is a Super Target in Wasilla after all.

At the root of all this is a question I ask myself over and over. Shouldn't a "real American" value all of the states? Shouldn't there be more pride in America as a whole rather than pitting one state against another? Shouldn't we cherish what a vast and amazing country we live in? We have so much history and shared experiences. We also have so many opportunities to learn new things, share unfamiliar traditions, celebrate people's experiences that are different from ours.

Perhaps my view comes from the fact that I, like many Americans, have lived in more than one state. I have lived on the east coast, the west coast and the southwest. My experiences of this country have been formed in red states and blue states and purple states. I have known hunters and tree huggers, atheists and Christians, Hungarians and Brazilians, liberals and conservatives. My view of "real America" is one of many. You know, e pluribus unum. I believe in that.

As beautiful as Alaska is. As much as I think it has a lot to offer those of us who have never gone there, I think Palin is doing her home state a disservice. By pitting states against one another, she is insulting the precious things other states have to offer. While doing that, she also caricatures Alaskans based on her image (which by watching her show you can see is a false image at that). And in the meantime, she is dividing all Americans among some imaginary line that only she defines. Her dog whistles of creating others out of fellow Americans is one of her platforms. And as she continues down the path of wanting to play a significant role in this country, I hope more Americans get tired of her loyalty to one state at the disrespect of the others.

Sarah Palin has this idea that Alaskans are misunderstood or under-appreciated and she thinks she is on some mission to change that. But if she wants to be President of the United States, she needs to find some ounce of genuine curiosity in her and go on a LISTENING tour of all the states. She needs to stop trying to compare others as worse than Alaska or just like Alaska and start seeing other states, other Americans as valuable and real. But she won't. She will continue on book tours and self-promotion tours and anti-Obama tours and raising money tours. She wants to judge Americans as real or not real. But all she's doing is making a real problem.

Dedicated to Mr. Anonymous

Posted by JHW22

Since our loyal watcher, Mr. Anonymous, seems to enjoy the topic of hypocrisy, this post is for him.

I was watching Rachel Maddow interview Joe "Constitution Ninja" Miller regarding the very Constitution he so ardently defends and protects and seems to know better than anyone else (because he's a lawyer or because he's a Conservative -- I'm not sure which is more qualifying these days).

MADDOW: Do you think there should be a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?

MILLER: That’s up to the people. You’ve got a three-quarters vote, ratified, I’d vote for it.

MADDOW: You would vote for it?

MILLER: Yeah, I would. But it would require an amendment to the Constitution.

Now, I am no Constitutional scholar, attorney, or Conservative (who appear to be the only people who are allowed to comment on the Constitution these days) but I am pretty sure there is some inherent hypocrisy when Joe "Amendments are Bull Crap" Miller thinks stuff like this:

He called the idea of a living, changing Constitution “bullcrap,” and said he would support an amendment for term limits as well as an amendment repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for the direct election of senators by the public rather than by state legislatures.

I am hoping Mr. Anonymous checks in and explains this contradiction in beliefs that it is okay to change the Constitution for some but not for others. You'd think that a staunch defender of the original writing of the Constitution, like Joe "Written in Cement" Miller would NOT want to alter it to limit the rights of some considering the original said something about securing "Blessings of Liberty" (but what's the significance of a preamble anyway, right?) Apparently, Joe "Except for You" Miller thinks it's okay to restrict the rights of teh gays via an amendment but I guess all the other amendments, written post-Founders, should be stripped or something?

I will be a catalyst to move those in Congress to make the tough, principled decisions needed to bring Washington back to the limited role anticipated by our Founders. We must act now.

I can totally see how banning marriage for 10%+ of the public is bringing back a limited role of government. It makes total sense -- in someone's alternate interpretation of the supposed document that is not living or open to anyone's interpretation but his.

I tend to agree with the man who wrote the Alaska State Constitution, Vic Fisher, when he said:

I would think a Yale Law School graduate would understand that a Constitution is a framework -- a foundation for the future.

In some ways, Joe "Keeping it Real" Miller thinks that the document is living and is adaptable depending on the mood of the country. In other ways he thinks it's meant to be stuck in the day when not everyone had a say in how that document could be adapted. Therein lies the hypocrisy. I do hope Mr. Anonymous will shed some light on this issue. I hope he uses original thought, however. I'd hate to read the same talking points I could find by a simple Google search.

Happy Constitution Day

Click on image to read transcript.

Go. Read. Familiarize yourself with the Constitution and its amendments again... as opposed to those who say they want to defend it conditionally... or just flat out not knowing what's in it.

More Like This, Please

"...Would you like Fox’s right to free press put up to a vote and say well, if five states approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do? These are fundament constitutional rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees Fox News and you, Chris Wallace, the right to speak. It’s in the constitution. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the denial of our citizens of the equal rights to equal access to justice under the law, is a violation of our fundamental rights."

(H/T Think Progress)

Think Before You Speak

No sooner does President Obama nominate Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court, than the RNC makes asses of themselves.

In a tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall shortly before his death, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan quoted our first black Justice as having said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC now asks. A litmus test for Kagan, it implies.

But of course the answer should be, yes. Might the Three-Fifths Clause have been a wee bit of a defect?

The continuation of slavery, the three-fifths clause, the omission of women's ability to vote until 1920... uh... yeah, the original Constitution is flawed. But go ahead, RNC, keep making your "big tent" smaller and smaller. It's no wonder that Michael Steele blurts out occasional truths. He can't help himself.

Where Did All The Rational People Go?

I saw this on Hardball last night and all I could do was shake my head... after I had picked my jaw up off the floor.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Seriously, Oath Keeper guy? When law enforcement officers and military personnel lose their process of rational thinking to the point of joining this pathetic, fear mongering group, it really is time to worry. Why is it that this group formed only after a black man won the Presidential election? Do you seriously think they would exist under a President John McCain? Me neither.

But... The Founders... Also, Such As

Absolutely amazing. These are the kind of people making the loud noises at town hall meetings. People who would most likely benefit from health care reform, yet are scared out of their minds by disinformation and misinformation.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I have to say I feel sorry for people like Katy Abram, in a small business family who has a health insurance plan with a $5,000 deductible, with a sick son who needs surgery, and she doesn't realize that her family could probably get better a health insurance plan and be more financially sound with the passage of a public option.

But I have to say it also pisses me off after hearing this interview that this person is freaking out about something she self-admittedly knows nothing about. She was never interested in politics until now, she doesn't know what her family's yearly income is, she doesn't know that her parents will soon benefit from Medicare and Social Security, but doesn't like socialism and probably couldn't define it if asked. And yet she shows up to a town hall meeting to yell at a Senator with decades of experience when she doesn't even know what she's yelling about. Just another dittohead talking about the Founders and the Constitution.

Who's willing to take bets on whether she's ever read the Constitution?

This Is Incredibly Depressing

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

CPAC's Defender of Constitution Award Recipient Misquotes Constitution

Is it really this easy?

"We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life. Liberty, Freedom. And the pursuit of happiness." —Rush Limbaugh in his address to CPAC

Psst... Rush, that's the Declaration of Independence... which you also got wrong.

Like shooting whales in a barrel.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Retake The Oath? Seriously? - UPDATED

After Chief Justice John Roberts royally fucked up what was probably the most important moment of his career in the spotlight by blowing the 35-word Presidential Oath of Office, some Constitutional scholars are suggesting that President Obama retake the oath... you know, just in case.

A do-over "would take him 30 seconds, he can do it in private, it's not a big deal, and he ought to do it just to be safe," said Boston University constitutional scholar and Supreme Court watcher Jack Beermann. "It's an open question whether he's president until he takes the proper oath."

..."The Constitution says what he's supposed to say," Beermann said. "... It's kind of surprising the chief justice couldn't get it right."

You hear that, Drudge? The Chief Justice couldn't get it right. Not Obama, the CHIEF JUSTICE. Can he be put in the stockade for something like that (he says with fingers crossed and hope in his voice)? But I have to agree with Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at George Washington University, just to stuff a sock down the naysayers' throats.

"He should probably go ahead and take the oath again," Turley said. "If he doesn't, there are going to be people who for the next four years are going to argue that he didn't meet the constitutional standard. I don't think it's necessary, and it's not a constitutional crisis. This is the chief justice's version of a wardrobe malfunction."

One reason not to retake the oath argues Beermann, is to save Roberts some embarrassment, but if that's the case, I say make him do it on national television... maybe during the Super Bowl halftime show.


UPDATE (9:45pm): Barack Obama retook the Oath of Office today. You know... just in case.

...the scene was the White House Map Room in front of a small group of reporters, not the Capitol platform before the whole watching world.

"We decided that because it was so much fun ...," Obama joked to reporters who followed press secretary Robert Gibbs into the room. No TV camera crews or news photographers were allowed in. A few of Obama's closest aides were there, along with a White House photographer.
Roberts put on his black robe.

"Are you ready to take the oath?" he said.

"Yes, I am," Obama said. "And we're going to do it very slowly."

What A Complete Moron

I never thought it would be possible that an elected official, a former Mayor and a current Governor of one of our fifty states, someone running for the Vice Presidency of the United States, would be so ingorant and not understand the Constitution of the country she is running to lead.

Sarah Palin: "If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

Spies R Us

As if our Constitutional rights haven't been pissed upon enough, here comes another doozy.

U.S. May Ease Police Spy Rules
More Federal Intelligence Changes Planned

The Justice Department has proposed a new domestic spying measure that would make it easier for state and local police to collect intelligence about Americans, share the sensitive data with federal agencies and retain it for at least 10 years.

... law enforcement agencies would be allowed to target groups as well as individuals, and to launch a criminal intelligence investigation based on the suspicion that a target is engaged in terrorism or providing material support to terrorists. They also could share results with a constellation of federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, and others in many cases.

...Michael German, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the proposed rule may be misunderstood as permitting police to collect intelligence even when no underlying crime is suspected, such as when a person gives money to a charity that independently gives money to a group later designated a terrorist organization.

Excuse me while I go vomit.

Is Obama Christian Enough?

Whenever I hear someone ask about Barack Obama's religion or religious beliefs , I always ask, "Why is that important? What difference does it make?"

Would you refuse to vote for someone on the simple point of his or her religion? If the answer is 'yes' then you don't know your history.

Article Six of the US Constitution states that "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. " Our forefathers, religious men all, knew of the consequences of a theocracy and actually wrote a directive in our soon to be 222 year old Constitution to prevent such a thing happening in the United States as it happens in Saudi Arabia or Iran.

The reason I bring this up is because when I hear supposed "Christians" like Cal Thomas not only question someone's Christianity, but whether they are "Christian enough", I shake my head in amazement.

In a column published last week, Cal Thomas took a verbal swing at Barack Obama's claim to be a committed Christian. "He can call himself anything he likes," wrote the syndicated columnist, "but there are certain markers among the evangelicals he is courting that one must meet in order to qualify for that label."

..."... [T]here is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn't meet that requirement," stated Thomas. "One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in scripture. They are called 'false prophets.'"

Oh really, Mr. Thomas? He has to meet with the approval of evangelicals to "qualify" as a Christian? And which evangelicals would those be? Do you happen to have a list? Perhaps we can start with the more Christian ones and work our way down, seeing as you know who the real Christians are and who are "false prophets."

A quick Google search of "Cal Thomas" reveals a few books he's written, his official website and various articles and appearances he's made on Fox News. His Wikipedia page reveals a very light biography stating that he was a reporter in the 60's and 70's and the Vice President of the Moral Majority from 1980-1985. There is no mention of schooling, whether secular or seminary.

And yet this man seems to know who is more Christian, less Christian or Christian at all. I don't claim to be a religious expert, but I'll defer to someone who commented on Thomas' website in regards to Obama's Christianity:

Posted by radar, June 20, 2008 4:36:41

First, let me say that I am a political moderate; with over 40 years voting, I have probably divided my votes equally between Republicans and Democrats, altho [sic] I have also voted for 3rd party candidates. I agree with Cal that no one should use their Christianity to gain political (or any other) advantage. While Obama may be headed that way, clearly the Republican Party has been doing this for years. I hope and pray that all guilty folks will stop, be they Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, black or white, or whatever. I also am moderate when it comes to my Christianity; my father and both grandfathers were ministers, and I have been in Baptist churches all of my 64 years, and currently serve as Chairman of Deacons in a Southern Baptist Church. Based on my 64 years of study and being taught at my ancestors' tables, I disagree with Cal as to our right to judge another person's Christianity; while we can judge someone's actions, to say someone is not a Christian when they profess to be is not our job. If someone who professes to be a Christian doesn't behave as a Christian, we certainly have a responsibility to confront that individual, but not to denounce him/her as being a non-Christian. I think Cal crosses the line when he writes that Obama is not a Christian.

Truly the Christian answer.

Perhaps it is Cal Thomas for whom we should be reserving the right to confront as "someone who professes to be a Christian but doesn't behave as a Christian." And even so, for the sake of argument, let's listen to those evangelicals Thomas speaks of and see what they have to say about those "certain markers... one must meet in order to qualify for that [Christian] label."

From the Washington Post:

This month, the Illinois senator held a closed-door meeting in Chicago with almost 40 Christian leaders, including evangelical heavyweights such as the Rev. Franklin Graham, publishing magnate Steve Strang and megachurch pastor Bishop T.D. Jakes.

..."I've never seen anything quite like it before," said evangelical author Stephen Mansfield, who wrote "The Faith of George W. Bush" and has a forthcoming book about Obama. "To be running against a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, and to be reaching into the Christian community as wisely and knowledgeably as (Obama) is -- understanding their terms and their values -- is just remarkable."

Strang wrote in a blog, Obama "won over the loyalties of many. He came across as thoughtful and much more of a 'centrist' than I would have expected," Strang wrote, adding that he hopes McCain will host a similar gathering.

It seems that the religious evangelical leaders that met with Senator Obama were impressed by him, much more so than a crackpot like Cal Thomas would have been, with his preconceived ideas and his notion that he can decide who is a Christian and who is not. The fact is that Cal Thomas is a political tool, a pundit hiding in evangelical clothing, casting doubt on those he is told to cast doubt upon. He is a reporter, and a hackish one at that, using lies and smears for his political agenda. Is that how a Christian acts?

And speaking of acting like a Christian, if you're not planning on voting for Obama because of a religious question, that leaves John McCain. And is McCain a Christian? A man who cheated on and divorced his first wife after finding out she had a disfiguring car accident while he was a POW? A man involved in a savings and loan scandal that robbed thousands of their retirement funds and cost the US taxpayer $3.4 billion? A man who was tortured for five and a half years during the Vietnam War and spoke out against torture his entire life in public service until it was politically convenient for him to vote against a ban on waterboarding? Is that the kind of "Christian" man you would vote into the Oval Office?

As the first lines of the Cal Thomas/Obama smear e-mail I received state, "Please read this and take this coming election very seriously. Please pray about how you will vote." And for those of you who do pray, I hope you will pray for the strength to vote for what you believe is right, and not for what you are told to believe is right.


Also read: Keep Cal Thomas Away From Your Kids