In regards to the Presidential Election of 2008, Wisconsin is a battleground state. Over the past few weeks, the various polls have shown that Barack Obama holds a consistent lead. Yet, those same polls have shown that John McCain has managed to narrow that lead significantly, typically within the margin of error. 

There are several reasons that would explain McCain’s rise in the polls, such as his pick of Sarah Palin as a running mate, Obama’s extreme, left wing ideology, and the nation’s slow recognition of the fact that McCain is the only candidate that has actually demonstrated the ability to cross party lines to achieve what is best for the American people. (Incidentally, Obama boasts a post-partisan ideology, but his lack of compliance with that ideology is demonstrated in the way he blames Republicans for all the world’s problems, while neglecting to highlight his own party’s laxity.)   However, the least accurate and the most dangerous explanation of Obama’s failure to pull ahead and easily prance to victory on November 4^th is the charge of racism.

During the Democratic primaries, I began to see numerous articles and pundits that where subtly charging that Obama was struggling because of his race. More recently, as McCain has pulled ahead or narrowed Obama’s lead in many polls, many of you may have began to notice the proliferation and magnification of that dangerous reasoning. 

Those that oppose John McCain are getting desperate. They just can’t see how the American people could not support Obama. They fail to recognize that his values just don’t jive with the values of America, and they fail to see that he is entirely wrong for America! So, they resort to playing the race card. 

The angry left is attempting to lay the groundwork of a grand excuse for their candidate’s loss. Leftists are so completely out of touch that they just can’t see the reality of the situation, and their ego defense is to blame the American people. They will try to play on the supposed “white guilt” in America, and they will try to tell us that racism is rampant throughout the nation. Worst of all, the suggestion that Obama will lose because America is racist will only serve to divide Americans. When the reality is that Obama’s race has nothing to do with it, and his lack of integrity, left-wing, and tax and spend ideology is the real culprit. (So much for the first black candidate of a major party, who speaks of uniting the country?) America is ready for a black President! We will never be ready for a Barack Obama Presidency. Don’t buy the hype! Barack Obama will lose this election for any number of reasons, and race will have nothing to do with it.

"I'm not going to vote for McCain because he's not conservative enough!"  What exactly do evangelicals such as James Dobson mean when they make this assertion?   It  would be more accurate for them to say that they are going to throw the babies out with the bath water! 

The abortion issue is the topic that politically minded evangelicals cut their teeth on.  The fact is that McCain may not march in lockstep with every issue that is important to evangelicals, but he is consistently and solidly pro-life.  On the other hand, NARAL the leading pro-abortion advocacy group has consistently given Barack Obama a 100% rating for his commitment to maintaining a woman's "right" to terminate their pregnancies. 

Furthermore, John McCain has promised to appoint "strict constructionist" to the Supreme Court.  Thanks to good ol' California, the issue of same-sex marriage is emerging as a formidable election issue.  Again, McCain is on the evangelicals side on this issue.  While he does not support a constitutional amendment protecting one man, one woman marriage, in favor of states' rights, he has said that he would support an amendment if activist judges tried to force the issue on Americans.  Well, California's courts are definitely demonstrating activism, and I would hope to hear from McCain on the issue soon.

Overall, if you primarily identify yourself with the evangelical or cultural conservative movements, you have got to recognize that voting for Obama, whether by actually pulling Obama's lever at the polls or failing to vote for McCain, is an exercise in ignorance!  You've got to remember the bed rock standards that abortion is wrong and God designed marriage between one man and one woman.  An Obama Presidency will close the casket on the fight against abortion and same-sex marriage.  With McCain we will keep that fighting chance.  I urge all evangelicals and cultural conservatives to avoid the urge to, quite literally, throw the baby out with the bath water.  Wakeup folks!  An Obama Presidency equals the death of the cultural conservative cause, whereas a McCain Presidency gives true, Christian values a fighting chance!

Liberalism equals ignorance may be an understatement!  While watching "Morning Joe" on MSNBC this morning, I noticed that Barack Obama's  Foreign Affairs Adviser, Susan Rice, continued with the tired argument that we are less safe now than before 9/11 because of Iraq.  Do liberals really believe this?  Is it just that liberals are unable to give any credit to the Bush Administration?

The fact is that there has not been another Islamic Terrorist's attack on US soil because they are focused on Iraq also.  I've heard President Bush allude to the fact, and I have understood this from day one of the invasion or Iraq, that we are fighting them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them in OUR streets.  Al Queda and the like have a very limited amount of resources and they are limited in their ability to fight on multiple fronts, even more so than nations with greater resources.  So, do liberals understand that Al Queda cannot fight us around the world, or attack us at home, because they are bogged down in Iraq themselves? 

The war in Iraq and the war on terror are intricately linked.  Not because Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11, but because the Bush Administration recognized that we were better off to create an actual, physical front for the war on terror!  What better way to create that front than to do so in a place that needed to be dealt with anyway?  Invading Iraq and taking out Saddam killed two birds with one stone.  We created a physical front for the war on terror, and we got rid of a dictatorial tyrant that had been a thorn in our collective backsides for years. 

Yes, there were some major mistakes during the infancy of the occupation, but it does not change the fact that the war in Iraq is a "distraction" for the terrorist also.  They are too busy fighting us in Iraq to attack us at home.  While the loss of even one soldier's life is a sad occurence, it must be understood that our soldiers are much more capable of fighting a war than our citizens.

All in all, liberals and those that support Barack Obama have got to realize that the war in Iraq is a heavy burden for Al Queda and other terrorist.  Without that burden, they would be better situated to attack our homeland.  Furthermore, how ignorant is it to sit under the umbrella of safety that has been created over our homeland, the umbrella that has proven inpenetrible thus far, and claim that we are not safer because of the Administration's actions?  The competency in which Bush and company have demonstrated in protecting the homeland has been so keenly conducted that liberals have forgetten about the dangers that exist in this world!  Yes, the world is a more dangerous place, because we are stirring the hornets nest, which is an entirely necesarry evil.  However, until when and if our homeland is attacked again, they have got to recognize that we are safer at home, and that is the center piece of the grand design of the war in Iraq.

For sometime now, I have been a regular poster on my local paper's website.  It is unfortunate that such a small town is not accurately represented on the discussion boards.  The Tomah Journal is rather neutral as they are willing to publish letters from conservatives on a variety of issues.  However, the representation of conservative and Christian points of view on the discussion boards is sorely lacking.

Therefore, I am writing this simple request to ask a favor from all conservatives that scan these blogs.  Please log on to tomahjournal.com, and give me some back up.  I'm doing my best, but I think that the liberals have a red phone to bring them all to the site when a conservative has the gull to speak their mind.  Right now the hot topic is same-sex marriage, and I'm doing my best, but I'm being drowned out by all the liberal hacks.  They have even pulled out the obligatory Christo-facsist moniker.  Please help... www.tomahjournal.com 

Just look at the "creating a buzz" section right under the reader polls.  It's very easy to do.  You don't even need to register.  Just think of a name for yourself and discuss away.  Thanks!

Sometime around April 3, 2008, Texas police entered the Fundamentalist Ladder Day Saints compound in Eldorado, Texas. (Some of you may remember that the FLDS compound had gained some notoriety several years ago, when the news outlets covered the sect’s exalted leader Warren Jeffs’ run from the law for polygamy charges.) The Texas police had conducted its raid on the compound due to evidence supporting allegations of child abuse and a phone call (the smoking gun,) from within the compound, from a 16-year-old named “Sarah,” who called for help.

This story is intriguing on many different levels, but I feel that the most pertinent aspect of this whole incident is its ultimate affect on the 1^st Amendment of the US Constitution and the State’s responsibility to remain neutral in regards to religion. Ultimately, polygamy is illegal. However, from my understanding, the FLDS practice is for there to be one legal marriage between one man and one woman and any additional marriages entered into by that sole man are not legally recognized. In other words, according to their sincerely held beliefs, the sole husband has one wife recognized by the state and several other wives that are recognized by their creator and not the law. I’m far from a legal expert, but it would seem to me that the FLDS sect has found a loop hole that would allow them to live their lives according to their beliefs. 

Of course, the whole situation grows even more difficult when the sect’s children are thrown into the equation. Obviously, I do not agree that polygamy is part of God’s plan for our lives, but as far as I can see they are not breaking any laws legislated by man. However, if the child abuse allegations are true, the parents responsible for the abuse should lose their children. The problem is whether it’s appropriate to take the children from parents that have not been accused of abuse. It would be a grievous tragedy if my neighbor was facing child abuse allegations and the State stepped in and took MY children into protective custody. Therefore, is it really appropriate for all the parents in the compound to be separated from all of the children in the compound? In this nation are we not entitled to individual rights, even if we are part of an unpopular group?

Another serious question lingering about this story is whether the 16-year-old girl, Sarah, actually exists. It has been several days since the raid on the FLDS compound, and the police have yet to actually identify the girl, and the FLDS community denies the girls existence. It would seem to me that if the evidence gained from the supposed call from this underage girl was a primary part of getting the warrant to conduct this raid and this girl doesn’t exist, the grounds for the warrant were manufactured and any evidence gained from the illegal raid could not be used. 

Bottom line, regardless of whether some of these parents are guilty of abuse, surely not all of them are, and surely not all of the children are victims of the abuse. Therefore, it is important that the State of Texas and thereby other states are careful to be sure of abuse before they seize all the children from a religious “situation” where only some may be guilty. It is not the State’s job to regulate religious belief, even if they are undesirable beliefs! If some of the parents haven’t broken any laws and if there is no accusations toward some of those parents, they and their children should not be separated. I feel that the State may have overstepped its obligation to uphold the Constitution when it assumed that all members of an unpopular group are guilty by association.   

In the end, it is imperative that the State of Texas had verifiable evidence to get the warrant to enter the compound.    If not, the tragedy could result is one of two outcomes.  One, if there was child abuse happening, there will be no justice and the children will continue to suffer simply because the State bungled the whole operation. Two, if there was no abuse and the evidence was manufactured it would mean that the State participated in the persecution of a religious group that had not broken any laws legislated by man. 

My wishes are not to defend a group of people that adhere to a belief that is forbidden by the Father. However, it is not up to the State to decide which tenants of any faith are acceptable to God, and if the latter tragedy I suggested turns out to be true, God help other groups that adhere to deeply held religious beliefs misunderstood by the rest of the country! The FLDS sect in Texas will answer to God for their actions and if they did break any laws they should be held accountable on a CASE BY CASE basis, but if they did not break any laws they should not suffer persecution from the State.