Obama said, "We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. . . He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black? . . . That old stuff just divides us."

Interestingly, the only ones bringing up the fact that Obama is black is, well, his campaign and his supporters.

And honestly, I don't care what his ethnicity is. In truth, it all comes down to the issues.

Obama voted against banning partial birth abortion. I don't care where you stand on the abortion issue. Common sense dictates that if a child is slated to be born, but is terminated before the child has a chance to pass through the birth canal, and would have survived easily outside the mother, it is straight-out murder.

He voted "No" on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. Is there any parent of a teenage girl that can tell me that that is fine with them? I doubt it.

He wishes to pull out of the war zone as quickly as possible. Granted, he is too inexperienced to realize a full pull-out is not realistically possible that quickly - the time to remove even a portion of the equipment will take a formidable amount of time. But my concern is not whether or not he is capable of pulling out of the region quickly, or incrementally. My concern is the message it sends to the enemy. Islamism will see a retreat as a weakness, and will respond with terror. What fascinates me is Obama is so urgent to meet with the leaders of the enemy, yet refuses to meet with General Petraeus.

He opposed the Patriot Act. The best way to fully understand my position, and support, for the Patriot Act is to read "Living under The Patriot Act: Educating a Society" by Paul A. Ibbetson first. Honestly, his rejection of the Patriot Act is a rejection of National Security.

He supports Universal Health Care, which has been a proven failure in Britain and Canada. And I don't care how you try to slice it, government funded Health Care falls under government control, and such systems are failures, and have been proven to be failures over and over again. This does not mean I think the current system of private insurance here in America is wonderful, but to replace a problematic system with a system that has a larger potential for failure is not the answer to this problem.

He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal aliens, as well as extending welfare to them. What part of illegal, and "not a citizen," does this idiot not understand?

He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax, voted No on repealing the Death Tax, and wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax. So, his idea for stimulating the economy is to take even more money away from the citizens. Oh, that is rich.

And did I mention that from the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator he has logged in 143 days of experience? Would you hire a manager with only 143 days of experience if you were a business owner? And this guy, with his inexperience (and yes, he said we'd claim he's inexperienced) wants to lead the greatest nation on Earth? I don't care about scaring anybody - it is just a fact - he has 143 days of Federal Political experience and I don't want a president trying to learn on the job.

And this is only a few of the issues. If you learn all about him you realize the man's politics are more in line with Karl Marx's than the U.S. Constitution.

But, since at the beginning of the post I brought up the fact that he claims to be the first black presidential candidate, let's touch on that for a moment.

Senator Obama will not be the first African-American president as he claims. He will be the first Arab-American president if he is elected. The Senator's background is: Caucasian from his mother [and] Arab-African from his father. The Kenyan Obamas are listed in the Kenyan census as Arab-African, not as Tribal 'Black' African. His father's great great grandmother was a Tribal African.

Therefore by ethnic lines the Senator is 50% Caucasian, 43.75% Arab, and 6.25% Black African (from where the Senator gets his skin pigmentation).

The Arab press has made much of the Senator's Arab heritage, but luckily for Senator Obama, American voters don't read the Arab press! However, key financial backers like the Arab "Americans" Rezko and Al-Sammarae, and the Iraqi Auchi do, and the money rolls in.

In Dreams From My Father, his autobiography, Obama confessed to concealing his white heritage in his youth.

Has Obama been concealing his Arab heritage as an adult?

Fascinating how Obama mentions his "blackness" about every chance he gets, but fails to mention that he is mostly white and Arab. Who's the one using race in the campaign, Barry? The GOP? Or you?

Mr. Obama, you are wrong about the GOP trying to scare voters by trying to point out you are black (or so you say you are), or by pointing anything else out. The GOP doesn't have to try to scare the voters in regards to you. The facts do that on their own (or will if the biased mainstream media actually allows themselves to report the facts).

One of the primary motives, if not "the" primary motive, for the English colonization of North America was the search for religious freedom. In England the state-run Church of England was the King's tool for controlling the people, and failure to be a member of the Church of England resulted in punishment - for such dissension against the State Church was not tolerated. The colonists desired to live in a place where they could worship as they pleased, and the New World provided such an opportunity.

The New England Colonies were founded for both economic and religious purposes. By 1627, after seven years of hard work that included fur trading and farming the land, the colony was out of debt and self-supporting. The colonies grew rapidly, spreading their radical idea of religious freedom.

For some, however, old habits die hard. The Puritans (Calvinists) tried to create a theocracy, but found quickly that such a system interfered with the people's desire for religious freedom. In 1634 a committee was appointed to examine the theocratic charter. A new legislature arose out of the findings of the committee, and though not fully democratic (at that point only church members were admitted to the ranks of the voters), the seeds of democracy had been planted.

During that time, while the Massachusetts government demanded membership of the Puritan Church to vote, a whole series of rebels were bred, and founded other New England colonies.

The Rhode Island Charter authorized the settlement of Rhode Island in 1644, followed later by another charter in 1663. The latter established a permanent government based on that of Massachusetts, but not requiring church membership of voters. The complete political and religious freedom attracted dissenters from all over America and Europe.

Historians agree that religion was an important force inspiring migration to the English colonies, especially to the northern colonies. Far fewer would have risked immigration had dissent to a state-run church been accepted in England. This did not mean that the colonists favored freedom of conscience. They simply wanted a place where they could worship as they pleased.

At the start, religious freedom in the colonies was as restricted as it was in England, but with the passing of time greater religious freedom was enjoyed by the colonists.

The settlement of Pennsylvania was founded in the interest of guaranteeing both religious and political freedom. The "Frame of Government" (1682) and "Charter of Privileges" (1701) decreed complete freedom of worship and a democratic government in which power was vested in a one-house elected legislature.

In the colonies eventually no one church was dominant, with each religion contributing more to the theory of religious freedom. Due to fears of governmental control of any one church, a system of voluntarism was developed, through which churches were supported by voluntary contributions, rather than taxes as was the standard in many European countries.

Though some of the religions remained skeptical of religious freedom, such as the Puritans who banned non-church members from voting at first, banished and persecuted Baptists and Quakers, and persecuted people they deemed as witches (through an inaccurate interpretation of scripture), the desire for complete religious freedom eventually impacted all of the citizens of the colonies, and the fundamental basics of the idea of freedom of religion took hold.

The evolution of liberty is intertwined with the pursuit of religious freedom. The non-Biblical actions of churches, like the Puritan Calvinists, enabled other churches to prosper, which led to a revival of evangelism in the 1720's. This revival strengthened more Biblically grounded churches like the Baptists, giving the common people more control over the churches, and more religious freedom as originally intended.

By the eve of the American Revolution, the colonists had determined that democracy was the best means of government (though later the founding fathers agreed upon a representative republic instead), and supported the emphasis on individualism where limitless opportunity made men less dependent on the social group, as well as less dependent upon any centralized government control. This, in turn, encouraged a belief that no distant parliament could solve their problems, and that their prosperity lay in trading outside the empire. No ruler, they realized, should be able to interfere with their progress or their political freedom. Self-rule was the only answer, and by then the colonists were convinced that King George III was denying them their God-given rights.

Understanding the drive for independence and religious freedom, it is easy to see that the founding fathers did not want the government telling the church in any way, shape, or form how to worship, nor did they want the government dictating to the church what they could or could not do in relation to church business.

Around the world, and even around America, speaking out about the Christian teachings regarding homosexuality can result in a criminal crackdown against you. And though currently the law is not "requiring" churches to marry gay couples if it is against their doctrine, the fear among pastors is that this will change, and hate-crime laws will be used to persecute any clergy that refuse to perform a ceremony for a gay couple on the grounds that it is against the teachings of the Bible.

Don't forget about the New Mexico family owned photography studio who was fined more than $6,600 for declining a demand to take pictures at a same-sex ceremony.

Answer me this: After I have illustrated the struggles our founding fathers went through to ensure we have religious freedoms, and where the state does not dictate to us how we worship or conduct our religious affairs, why is it that the state can dictate that a photography studio must pay a fine for not taking pictures because it is against their religion? And is the government dictating to pastors that they must conduct gay marriage ceremonies whether they like it or not on the horizon?