People get angry at something they see on TV or read in the newspaper. Maybe they even write a letter or show up to a meeting. When the issue is decided one way or the other, these people go back to their usual routine. In other words, people only get involved in politics when it directly affects them.

This phenomenon is known as the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) effect and it has taken young minds by storm of late. Lehigh’s campus provides no shortage of examples.

(more…)

Everyone who listened to the Presidential debates probably recognizes this phrase. Several times, both Obama and McCain used it in reference to issues on which they disagreed. Once or twice when McCain spoke, I saw a little glimmer of clarity on the real fundamental difference between the parties. (more…)

It’s entirely possible that you’re reading this before November 4, 2008, but the likelihood is that you’re reading this after. Regardless, you will vote in an election sometime in the future, so the message is the same. The electoral system — nay, the whole political system — in the United States is broken. (more…)

A colleague of mine wrote last month about why he, as a Christian, feels obligated to vote for Barack Obama. To me, this notion is not only delusional but downright scary. I feel that I need to respond to this notion as well as list the almost countless other reasons Barack Obama would do great damage to this country. He is not even qualified to be President of this great nation. (more…)

Traditionally, Democrats claim to support tolerance, but, from the looks of the mainstream media, can’t seem to stand the conservative viewpoint. Excluding Fox News, there are two conservative anchors on television: John Stossel of ABC and Glenn Beck of CNN Headline News. Since Beck is moving to Fox News in the spring, soon Stossel will stand alone. Although Fox News was determined to have the most balanced election coverage by the bipartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs , it is regularly bashed by liberal pundits from Keith Olberman to Katie Couric. They see it as being the network of the far-right fringe, with Bill O’Reilly leading the sheep off a cliff. Not only is this blatantly false, but they also practice the exact tactics that they unsuccessfully blast Fox News for. At least Fox News has had guests like Michael Moore, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rosie O’Donnell, and other members of the liberal fringe. When was the last time you saw Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter on MSNBC? Bernard Goldberg, political commentator and former 28-year member of CBS News, has elaborated on this topic in all four of his New York Times bestselling books.

Prior to a few weeks ago, I had never really had any real world experience with the intolerance of the left. All that changed when, against my better judgment, I attended a party hosted by staunch Democrats. I wasn’t expecting much, especially since it was only an hour after the first presidential debate. The party pretty much went without a hitch for the first few hours. But as the party started to wind down, I got into a discussion with someone who lived in the house and was an obvious Obama supporter. I knew it would be a fun debate. He was quick to say Obama won the debate. I disagreed, but he couldn’t stand it. After a few exchanges, he proceeded to call me a name so awful I can’t repeat it here. Then he kicked me out. Obviously, I really got to him. And the Left preaches tolerance?

While the Right cannot be given a free pass on tolerance, the Left has made a sport out of their intolerance to conservative values. Keith Olberman believes a “race riot” will occur if Obama loses the presidential election. Liberals in the mainstream media also ignore the huge stories that showcase the successes of Conservative policies and practices. For example, it has just come to my attention that earlier this year US soldiers removed some 550 tons of Uranium from Iraq. So, when Liberals say that Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction, they really mean 550 tons. None of this surprises me; it happens all the time. Fox News is the closest thing to unbiased news reporting there is. The Liberals can have their faltering ratings and crazy soapbox-mounting guests. I’ll take the number one name in news.

With the election season now in full swing and Sarah Palin still being assaulted in the media and even by the Women’s Center on Lehigh’s campus, I thought it would be time to set the record straight on just who Sarah Palin is and what she stands for. Hopefully, I will also put to rest some myths along the way.

Sarah Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho, in 1964. Her family moved to Alaska shortly thereafter. She attended Wasilla High School, where she was head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and point guard of the school’s state championship basketball team. In 1984, she finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant and won Miss Congeniality. She also won a college scholarship. In 1987, she graduated from the University of Idaho with a degree in communications-journalism. She married Todd Palin the next year. Todd works in the oil industry on the North Slope and owns a small commercial fishing business.

Sarah entered politics in 1992 with a run for Wasilla City Council. She says she decided to run because she was afraid the new sales tax revenue would not be spent wisely. She won the race and immediately killed a measure to close Wasilla’s bars two hours earlier. She did this even though she was a member of a church that was against the drinking of alcohol. After winning a reelection bid in 1995, Sarah decided to run for mayor in 1996. She defeated a three-term incumbent mayor on a platform of cutting wasteful spending and lowering taxes. One of her first acts as mayor was to cut her own salary. She cut property taxes in the city by 75%, and made many city improvements while cutting unneeded spending. In 1999, she defeated the same opponent with a whopping 74% of the vote and was subsequently elected president of Alaska’s Conference of Mayors.

In 2002, Sarah sought the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, but lost. Governor Frank Murkowski appointed Palin the chairperson of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Committee. She resigned from the committee in 2004, citing a lack of ethics among fellow Republican members. She filed formal complaints against two fellow Republicans, one of whom was the state party chair. The governor did not take her complaints seriously, so in 2006 she decided to run against him. She defeated the incumbent governor from her own party in the primary and then beat a former governor in the general election. Both of the men against whom Palin filed the original complaint were found guilty and subsequently fined. She became the first female and youngest governor in Alaska’s history. She is also the first Alaskan governor to be born after Alaska became a state. Governor Palin’s first legislative action was to push through a bipartisan ethics reform bill. She put the state jet on eBay and later sold it privately because she did not need it. She championed the oil and natural gas pipeline and secured the funding and permissions required to link the pipeline through Canada to the lower 48 states. In two submitted budgets, Governor Palin has cut $523 million in spending from the Alaska construction budget alone. In 2008, revenues to the state of Alaska doubled to $10 billion and there is no state sales tax or income tax. Also, citizens of the state of Alaska each received $1200 last year as a share of oil revenues from the state.

Governor Palin is a reformer, traditionalist, and conservative. She is committed to doing what she believes to be right, and does so regardless of who she angers along the way. She has stepped on the toes of Democrats and Republicans alike in Alaska, to the benefit of the people she represents. However, not everyone likes her. This month, her approval rating fell to 82%, which happens to be only four times as high as the approval rating for Congress. She stands for lower taxes, less spending, and energy independence. Who would know more about energy policy than the governor of the state that produces 20% of our energy? She is the most qualified person in public office today to talk about how to solve our energy crisis. Sarah Palin supports the surge; her oldest son deployed to Iraq just last week. She is solidly pro-life, having chosen to give birth to a child she knew would have Down syndrome.

At least now we know where the Women’s Center’s priorities lie. They lie not with the advancement of women, but with the advancement of liberalism. If a venue like the Women’s Center cannot support a woman with as impressive a resume as Palin’s, I question the need for their existence. Obviously, Governor Palin should be judged on the issues just like every other candidate. If that was happening, then I would still question the need for the Women’s Center, as their goals will have been accomplished. It is ironic that it took a chauvinistic Republican male (sense the sarcasm) to defend the female vice-Presidential nominee from attacks incurred at the Women’s Center. It took a sexist conservative to defend the only woman in the race based on her merits, qualifications, and views on the issues. Maybe I should run the Women’s Center; women would get a fairer shake.

Myths about Sarah Palin

Myth #1: Sarah Palin tried to censor books in the public library.

Answer: There was never any request made to remove any books from the library, it was a simple inquiry by then-mayor Palin to the librarian.

Myth #2: Sarah Palin improperly took a $58 per diem allowance while she lived at home.

Answer: While the legislature is not in session; Governor Palin works from her office in Anchorage. Instead of taking the allowance for hotels as well, she drives 50 miles to her home in Wasilla. She is well within her rights to take the travel allowance. Her gubernatorial expenses are only 80% of those of the previous governor.

Myth #3: Sarah Palin actually did support the “bridge to nowhere”.

Answer: While Governor Palin did run for governor supporting the bridge, she was responsible for killing the bridge once she became governor. An anti-Ted Stevens, Democratic website actually credits Palin with stopping Stevens’ pork project.

Myth #4: Governor Palin is too inexperienced, and therefore unqualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

Answer: Sarah Palin held elected office five years before Barack Obama. She has more executive experience than Barack Obama and Joe Biden combined. In fact, she has more executive experience than Barack Obama has legislative experience. She has run a town, a state energy commission, a state with a $10 billion budget, and a small business with her husband. Barack Obama has run for President for two years. It’s quite sad that the Republicans’ vice-Presidential nominee is more qualified than the Democrats’ Presidential nominee. True, she does not have foreign policy experience. Of course, neither did Presidents Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush, to name a few. Since foreign policy is John McCain’s strong suit, and he is the one who will be President, I am not too worried about the lack of foreign experience.

To impose or not to impose, that is the question. Whether it is more beneficial to let people decide to be responsible for their environment and surroundings or to force it upon them by taking drastic measures that affect the entire population directly.

It is a difficult question to answer, whether or not I am opposed to the removal of trays from our dining facilities. Yes, it saves water and waste – but at what cost? Are the benefits gained in the long run worth the sacrifice now? I cannot say that I know just how polluted the environment actually is, and how much my everyday actions, whether I am conscious of it or not, affect the environment around me.

My family raised me under the impression that preserving the earth’s energy is the good and right thing to do, but not at the expense of the modern conveniences that allow me to stay productive, healthy, and happy. If I need to see, the room light is turned on (yes, I turn it off when I leave). If I need to write, I use whatever paper is necessary (yes, it’s double sided). If it is unbearably hot outside, the air-conditioner is on (yes, I turn it off at night). If I need a tray to carry my plate, cup, utensils, and soup, then I use a tray. But surely, it would not be that much of an inconvenience to make several trips to carry these things. So this is where I am torn, as is arguable with almost all modern conveniences – are these things, in fact, a necessary convenience, or merely a reflection of our laziness?

People are inherently lazy. Period. I am too. But in my opinion, if raised properly, people learn how to be responsible and overcome that laziness in order to do what is right. Recently, I was at a large pizza lunch in Zoellner. There were 15 pizzas, 8 containers of soda, 50 hungry people, and only one small wastebasket next to the door. Fess up, we’ve all done it – squish, balance, and contort our paper plates and cups until the recepticle is overflowing because we are too lazy, too busy, or too ignorant to dispose of them in another trash can; then it becomes someone else’s problem. I made a bold decision that day – if the people wouldn’t go to another trash can, I’d bring another trash can to them. I found a much bigger trash can in the hallway of Zoellner and personally brought it into the room before the wastebasket started overflowing. After the crowd started dwindling down, I began to clean up the boxes of pizza and wipe down the tables. One of the freshmen asked me why I was wiping down the table, and I told her – because WE, the organization of 50 people having this lunch, were responsible for the mess , therefore it was OUR obligation to clean it up – a simple lesson I learned a long time ago from “Barney & Friends.” I asked her to help dry. She informed me that there was no point. “How do you know someone else isn’t just going to clean them later? In that case, you’re just wasting your time.” I rolled my eyes and shook my head.

I ask myself, in this age of globalization, how can we expect people who are not respectful of their local environment to be respectful of their global environment? We are quick to think of things on large scales, passing legislature on chemical waste reduction and car-exhaust regulations and the like; so willing to throw funding at alternative sources of energy. We are quick to hold events to help our “global” environment and “global” neighbors in far away countries, but what about our local environment and our local neighbors who we encounter everyday? How many people pick up a loose piece of paper on the floor and place it in the recycle bin? How many people shovel the snow off the sidewalk in front of their house after the first snowfall? How many people help the freshman who doesn’t know where his class is? Or do we just walk by, and let the frustrations of life get the better of us – “Someone else will do it; I don’t have the time.” I myself am guilty of this.

In high school, my classmates and I frequently debated whether or not service hours should be required of students. Some students cited the Bible – saying that acts without love are empty, and that a lack of dedication and enthusiasm among students being forced to participate would lead to a less dedicated, less enthusiastic service ministry. Others argued that if students were forced to do community service as a graduation requirement, more students would discover the satisfaction that comes from serving others. I see merits in both of these arguments. I’m torn.

As I am with trays! I believe that it is important to understand the reasons why tray use needs to be limited, and I certainly don’t believe in wasted food and resources. The lack of trays will certainly discourage students from taking as much food, but in turn, it seems that we are also discouraging students from EATING as much. Yes, as a campus we should make efforts to consume less, but there are individuals who I believe should first make it a priority to CONSUME MORE! Food is not a convenience – IT IS A NECESSITY. And, let’s recall, I am inherently lazy. I have a medical condition that puts my appetite off, even when I desperately need the nutrients. When my appetite is off, I don’t feel hungry. When I’m not hungry, I’m not going to make a bunch of extra trips and wait in long serving lines to get food, and I refuse to look like an idiot trying to balance a bunch of loose things in my arms in one trip. So, I’m seriously contemplating just buying myself a tray – it is that much of a convenience.

I was looking through the Wall Street Journal the other day when I saw the headline “Black Voters Fret Over Obama.” I wondered, when I saw the title, what black voters were ‘fretting over’, so I read on. One part of the article quoted a radio host talking about Obama losing, “My audience is upset. Some people said they would be so angry it would be reminiscent of the [1960s] riots – that is how despondent they would be.”¹ Another part quoted a Democratic governor, saying that blacks need to remember that “many Democrats have lost the Presidential race in recent decades and they were white.” Apparently, black voters are concerned that if Obama loses this election it will be partly due to the racism of white voters.

Excuse my naiveté, but I have a really hard time believing that this would be the case. First of all, let us look and see exactly who is being racist. Then humor me while I digress a bit and explain why I think conservatives get the majority vote of another group of people with whom I am much more familiar.

The above article says that, according to the latest Wall Street Journal poll, 88% of blacks support Obama. If we could point out that 88% of whites support McCain, we might be able to say that racism is a factor. However, this is not the case. Instead, McCain and Obama are evenly tied across the general population of voters.² Statistically, if we are going to decide between two candidates and we have tens of millions of people voting, popular opinion should be roughly 50/50. Based on the data, it is blacks who are heavily biased.

But we should not jump to conclusions. Historically, the large majority of blacks have supported the Democratic candidate. So chances are that blacks are not supporting the Democrat because he is black, but because he is a Democrat. The only good way to see if blacks vote based on race would be to have a black person run for office as a conservative and see how many blacks vote for him. My guess is that most blacks would still vote Democrat. So the real question is: why do almost all blacks vote Democrat?

One of the major problems in this country is the miserable state of the government-run urban education system. Over half of all children entering 9th grade in urban public schools never graduate. Of those kids who do go to school often enough to show up in test results, only a small minority can read at a level considered “proficient” for their grade level. Did I mention that a large majority of the poor kids at the mercy of the government system in urban schools are black?

Isn’t it rather ironic that the Democrats have the vast majority of the vote of a statistically poor and poorly-educated demographic, and then doubly ironic that those very people are so shoddily educated because of the very government they so ardently support?

These facts tell a sad story. Many blacks have subjected themselves to the mercy of a government that promises them all kinds of ‘free’ benefits from health care to education and food (all paid for with money coerced from you and me, incidentally).

Many blacks are on the “receiving” end of this bargain largely because of deficient education, which leads to lower average incomes. The deficient education is largely the fault of the U.S. Government. If you want statistics, the National Center for Education Statistics reports that 70% of all black fourth graders are eligible for free and reduced lunch in public schools as opposed to 24% of all white fourth graders.

There seems to be a pattern emerging. Who is exploiting whom here? A political party gets the votes of a people in a group largely through promises to meet the very needs that the government itself has encouraged or created!

Now if liberals want to berate Republicans for getting the majority vote of a particular group like working class evangelical Christians, can we pinpoint a similar pattern in which these Christians receive something from the government in exchange for their vote? I think not.

Perhaps, you say, Christians support the traditionally conservative party as part of a vast conspiracy to stuff religion and creationism down everyone’s throat. But, even if that were true (and, for the most part, it is not), it is unlikely to happen anytime soon and would be a pretty bad reason to vote conservative.

The more likely reason is just that we want freedom, and real conservative values let us have it. It is as simple as that.

Conservatives want freedom to choose the means and end recipients of our charity, and the freedom to keep what we earn. This provides the freedom to improve our homes and families before our resources go to improve someone else’s, and the freedom to choose the schools our children go to. Conservatives promise little in the way of handouts or ‘redistribution of wealth’, yet they are often supported by those who work the hardest for the least reward.

Many of these conservatives start out ‘under-privileged,’ yet work their tails off, often without paid vacations and cushioned chairs in air-conditioned offices, to have enough money to put an addition on their old house or to give their kids a couple hundred dollars to help them out from time to time.

Take it from me: working-class kids often would not think of expecting their parents to pay their way through college. They do not ask their parents for money to help with their first car to get them to their first job. Vacations for them might mean a family camping trip; not airfare to a beach complete with many hotels and dining establishments. They do not mind, however. Contrary to what some may believe, these people really live the American dream. Every cent they have, they worked for themselves and they are proud of it.

These people generally do not want any government benefits. If they do take advantage of any benefits, they are just getting back a little bit of what they have been forced to pay into the public system for years.

The working class knows how important it is to be allowed the freedom to keep that extra couple hundred dollars each year, or not worry about being taxed out of their house. They know the importance of keeping their hard-earned thousands, and would prefer to avoid sending their kids to a school with poor teaching and overly progressive ideology. They work the hardest for the least, and they want the freedom to benefit from it.

So, there it is – my observations on a couple groups who respectively support each dominant political ideology. If you have ever wondered why the working class votes for freedom while poor blacks vote for social welfare, I hope my observations make you think.

(Endnotes)

1. The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 12, 2008

2. CBS News Poll, Sept. 4, 2008

As the 2008 election season is under way, with the Democrat and Republican conventions just behind us and the elections just around the corner, it’s time for the last two frenzied months of campaigning. The Vice Presidential candidates were announced not long ago and already they are on the campaign trail, traveling from state to state, giving speeches, and promoting their ticket. The public buildup and political maneuvering to determine this election year’s candidates began four years ago, as soon as the last election ballot of 2004 was cast.

For some candidates, plans were laid in place long before even the 2004 election. However, the campaigning prior to now is relatively insignificant compared to these last two months, which are the most crucial because of undecided voters. The effect of previously released headlines and resulting damage to the candidates’ reputations has little consequence now and has largely been forgotten. Any harmful press now will have triple the effect on the candidate’s campaign. It’s an exciting time in the United States, as we are on the brink of some drastic changes in the administration of this country.

Two years ago, big changes were afoot in the little state of Vermont. Of its three national representatives, two seats were open and up for grabs and I had the opportunity to be a part of the action. As a senior in high school, I was required to complete a graduation challenge project – completing 60 hours of volunteer work and writing an analysis paper. To a senior already half checked out of high school it seemed like a ton of pointless work. I had always had a strong interest in politics and, though it was tempting to do something uninteresting just to obtain the required credit, I decided to try something that I had never done before to see where it led.

I volunteered for the Victory Office in my town. This Victory Office was one of many in an effort called the Victory Program across the nation launched by the GOP. President Bush began the program and Karl Rove began implementing it in 2000 and greatly expanded it for the 2004 election. The Victory Program’s goal is to reach potential voters and get them out to the polls on Election Day. It accomplishes this objective using many techniques, such as door-to-door canvassing, phone calls, absentee ballots, and other means, but mainly by its overarching focus on voters and candidates up for election, not necessarily the individual candidates themselves.

My primary job as an intern in the Victory Office was to work the phone banks and make calls to voters. To some this might sound exceedingly boring, but I never had a dull night. The survey questions were exactly the same from one call to the next, but the conversations went a little different way each time. I met quite a few interesting characters through the calls. And when I needed a break from the phone calls, there were all the fellow volunteers and staffers that occupied the office.

In a little town of less than eight thousand people, there were forty phone lines in one room and on any given night all forty lines were being used. As a then-seventeen-year-old senior in high school I was always the youngest one there. A few college students worked at the Victory Office as well, but mainly the phones were occupied by middle-aged to elderly volunteers. They all had interesting stories of previous elections to tell and were thrilled to have younger volunteers there. I also had the opportunity to meet almost all of the local state senators and representatives.

On the eve of the election, every single one of the forty phone lines was occupied. An additional office was opened up across the hall for an additional twenty people to use cell phones for long distance calls to all counties in Vermont. By the end of the evening, many of us were making calls on the cell phones clustered around power outlets because the batteries had lost their charge. Vermont Governor Douglas and Lieutenant Governor Dubie showed up at the very end to thank us for our support and hard work. In the small office space packed with volunteers and staffers, people were pumped and the air was energized. It was one of the most exhilarating moments of the entire campaign season for me.

Even though the election of 2006 didn’t go especially well for Republicans in general, it was an exciting time to be involved. If you ever have the chance to get involved with a campaign, be certain to take advantage of the opportunity. It’s bound to be a rewarding experience and you will learn more than you ever could from the news about candidates and their campaigns. You will meet so many new people, both voters and volunteers working alongside you for the same goal. The 2008 elections are sure to be eventful and have an interesting outcome.

This was a tough call for me. I do like McCain — really. He’s a nice guy, I’m sure, but I can’t help but wonder if he is too confident he has the Christian vote simply because of his Republican status. Sadly it is the case that, all too often, Republicans pretend to have the moral high ground on everything. The word Christian and the word Republican have somehow merged to have the same meaning. What Democrats say about helping those in poverty is a vital part of Jesus’ teachings.¹ Democrats just quit trying, and gave up on ever garnering the Christian vote. When Democrats see the word “Christian,” more often than not they see the words “political opponent” or “enemy.” Personally, I see the world in a different light. I quit being a “Republican” around the same time I started being a Christian, as ironic as that sounds. Of course, I’m no Democrat either; I dislike both parties (the two-party system really has to go). I guess you could call me an independent, but in actuality I hope to ally myself with only one party: God’s.

People should be asking me right now, “Aren’t you Christian? Aren’t you anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-secularist, pro-school prayer, pro-intelligent design?” To answer them, I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am against abortion in all senses. I do not feel I could fully promote homosexuality, but that doesn’t stop me from loving them. I do want God to continue to be discussed in this nation, not erased. I don’t really see how prayer in school is a threat to anyone, provided it is voluntary. Intelligent design doesn’t make sense to anyone who hasn’t read, or doesn’t believe in, the Bible. I’m not alone either; Obama feels the same way.

Heads should be doing a double take right now, as people frantically Google for Obama’s stance on the issues to confirm that he is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. Do not worry; he is. But his personal views, because of his faith, are like mine. This is hypocrisy, right? How can you be against abortions, but pro-choice? The answer is simple; he and I share a common higher value: freedom. It is wrong to have an abortion, but you can’t force someone to stop it with a law. Homosexual marriage does go against the institution of marriage set up by God, but it is wrong to outright ban it. Of course, with this same logic, you could say that, although it is wrong to murder and rape, it would also be wrong to restrict someone from doing it, as that would infringe on freedoms. Indeed it would, but these are different in that they are rather cut and dry issues. Society agrees in general (except for murderers and rapists) that these things are wrong (and so does God for that matter). It’s the morally grey issues to society that divide us, and, although I know where I stand on these issues, I can’t try to force this on others through a law. I look at what prohibition was back in the day and how that was an utter failure, even though it was strongly backed by many Christians at the time. We see the result of forcing our beliefs on others, and it is doomed.

Instead, as a Christian, I believe the focus should not be on treating the symptoms of society by force, but on changing the hearts. It’s like wiping the blood off of your shirt without caring for your bloody nose. If we could learn anything from Jesus, it’s that you cannot force someone to do anything.² Even if you do, you need to provide a way for it to happen. We are called to restore the world back to a place where discrimination, hatred, sexism, racism, suffering, violence, fear, shame, and oppression are gone. Utopian, indeed, but it is completely possible. Restoration begins with the individual, not with a mandate for the masses. I can rant and rave, call you a sinner, or condemn you to hell, or I can become the change I wish to see. Also, if our perceptions are different, if we see and hear different things, we can only act according to what is real to us, causing the divide. What looks like murder to one person could be a life-saving act to another. We lack objectivity, the ability to see from all perspectives at once. Christians often forget that people do not see the world as we do and are often not understanding of that fact, and the same goes the other way around.

I believe Obama sees this too, from what I read of his “Call to Renewal” keynote address, in which he stated that faith should be discussed by both Democrats and Republicans alike. Many of the great social revolutions of history (public education, health care, human rights, children’s rights, women’s suffrage, civil rights, literacy education, rights for the disabled, even fair trade coffee) were started by Christians. Even Gandhi, though not Christian, borrowed ideas from the teachings of Jesus about loving your enemies, and turning the other cheek. I believe Obama can be the instrument of change he says he is. If I may quote from his speech:

“…What I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

I see Obama as being the next Lincoln, a nameless politician from Illinois who was never expected to win the Presidency, changed it for the better, and unified a country in civil war. I’m also sad to say that today we stand as a country divided. We appear weak, stupid, bickering amongst ourselves while troops die in Iraq. The one place where we should be standing unified is foreign affairs and that is in pieces. The world seems to have left us behind, our education is in shambles, our currency is European toilet paper, and our credibility and respect in the world is on its way down. Perhaps it’s time we focus on our own needs, fixing ourselves before we fix the problems of the world.

This is why I state that I feel Obama is the Christian candidate of choice. He has the right (meaning the ones I have, naturally) ideas to restore our education, our credibility, our country, our economy, our environment, our peace, our equality, and, most importantly, our faith. That is the world I wish to live in, so I cast my vote for the one I feel best espouses these Christian desires of mine, Barack Obama.

References

Obama, Barack H. “Barack Obama| Change We Can Believe In.” http://www.barackobama.com/index.php. 28 June 2006. 1 June 2008 .

1 Matthew 19:21

2 Mark 6:11