Joe Biden has been Obama’s long time Chief of Gaff, but I feel we may be able to expect big things from our friend and rising star Rahm Emanuel Obama’s Chief of Staff, who served on Freddie Mac’s board of directors. At the risk of sounding too much like a conspiracy theorist (someday I will divulge my theory on how the government is hiding the existence of Atlantis from us), I would like to engage you with a couple statements I have found quite scary and an explanation of exactly why I feel that way.

It seems our country, or rather our government, uses times of hardship as an advantage to take advantage of us, the citizen. That is, when a war occurs or any sort of national crisis, our government finds a way to use these situations to their benefit by increasing taxes, taking away rights, or otherwise widening the divide between the populace and any government office, often increasing the government’s power over the people. Hence the regular citizen eventually gets a feeling of disassociation or of powerlessness to the injustices we perceive the government to be engaging in.

The examples of this are numerous, from the Civil War being used to impose a property tax, to the bailout situation. Throughout history, crisis has spelled opportunity for governments around the world and finally we have a person in the highest levels who readily admits it. This person is Rahm Emanuel, who said in November, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." Now maybe I am looking too much into things, but I find this to be an alarming statement. It’s not the sort of statement which lends itself to the interpretation, “Hey, hang in there. Everything is going to get better!” No, it’s more so, “Hey, I am going to manipulate this situation to all its possible potential in order to shape policy, the hearts and minds of citizens, while furthering the power of the government.” Although it may be subject to interpretation, within my little ol’ noggin, that’s certainly the impression I am getting. Try going out on the street and asking a random person: “Hello, how about this economic opportunity we have here hu?” I hope for your sake you are wearing a cup, because we, that is normal people who lack the power to mind-fornicate whole factions of people (I have met some people who can do it on an individual basis quite well), would much rather prefer to be without such circumstances as lay offs, 401 meltdowns, inability to buy food, clothes, and medicine. Oh, but what great opportunity! I recall during the campaigns when John McCain came out and said the, “fundamentals of our economy are strong,” referencing the American work force’s resilience and ingenuity in the midst of bad economic times. I also recall the far left having a severe brain aneurysm in response to the statement. McCain must have not been not nearly vague enough to satisfy them.

For the Kids (I do my part to support literacy):

Fundamental: serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying

Opportunity: a situation or condition favorable for attainment of a goal.

All this begs the question, is government not just using a crisis to further its goals, but also orchestrating one as well? Let us keep in mind such crises would need to be an extreme hardship to the average citizen, otherwise the lack of affect on the populace would render the plan and its possible outcome ineffective. Meaning, if a orchestrated crisis were to occur we would all suffer less than desirable consequences and government, our hero, would show up to bail us out with the stipulation we give something up, for the sake of our own security and well being of course. In the midst of such hardship, we may forego such freedoms or economic security more willingly than we would normally. Though it can be debated where this tactic of crisis orchestration has been used, certainly the reasoning behind it is quite sound and inarguable. Is this truly what Emanuel is hinting at though? I can’t say for certain and to make a charge like this, one is going to have to apply some more evidence. It may not be enough to convince, but it certainly has enough to make me paranoid to the extreme. Consider what Joe Biden said in Seattle, WA in October of last year: “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy . . . He's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right. Gird your loins. We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride."

Gird: to prepare or provide, equip, or invest, as with power or strength.

He also says in that little speech that such trouble is going to come from either the Middle East or Russia. Pretty darn specific and scary there if you ask me. I frequently have nightmares of Biden now, chasing me around with his little army of hair plugs which dangerously wield hammers and sickles flailing them about to and fro. Back to the topic though, if you turn on MSNBC (I don’t recommend it) you will find plenty of democrats in high places urging the public for faith in Obama in the days ahead, which could be completely innocent, or innocent relative to politics, or it could be completely evil ridden. Biden continued: "(Obama) has it. But he's gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, 'Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?' We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us. There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, 'Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision', because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound." Though the last sentence is enigmatic and philosophers will be pondering over the depths of Biden’s wisdom for years, more evidence Biden let something slip may be further apparent in his next statement, made only after spying some media. He said, putting on an air of humor, “I probably shouldn't have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.” What scares me is there is even a remote possibility in my mind of some pre-orchestrated crisis, which has been in the works since before his first day in office. I hate sounding this paranoid because I don’t know the future and I am not Dion Warwick. Yet, perhaps this event is already in the works. Let us consider Obama’s first item of business was to call Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas by the way is alleged to have funded the Palestinian operation in 1972 to massacre 11 Israeli athletes and he later penned the book, “The Other Side: The Secret Relationship between Nazism and the Zionist Movement,” which denied the truths behind the Holocaust.

The last part is merely speculation though, for Obama’s true motives cannot be known except within the man himself and many people are hailing this act as Obama’s move to bring peace to the region, which at this time I cannot immediately refute. Yet, it seems odd the first person he would call is a leader with terrorist ties that’s supposedly not even officially supposed to be in power (he extended his term another year).

Again, as to whether or not it is beyond government to orchestrate a crisis, I would like to close this rather sloppy blog entry with a quote from Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power in our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."

Your Conservative Fear-Monger,

Brandon Myhre

This week Barack Obama lived up to his campaign promise to dismantle the terrorist resort which lies on the Isle of Cuba. By this very action, we are accomplishing ourselves what we have been striving to do by our laws and securities for the last eight years: to keep terrorists from entering into the country and targeting innocent people. Now, we are shipping them in, which will only lead to trouble and possible disaster. I understand the argument about human rights violations and the possible unjust nature of Gitmo and it is this very argument I would like to explore while enumerating the points behind. One may say, however, what about the torture? The argument though valid does not apply, for the issue we are talking about is not the revamping of the procedures at Gitmo, but rather the complete obliteration of the prison altogether. I may address these practices at a later time, however for this particular installment I would like to stay on task with explaining why it is I find this decision dangerous and how it could potentially lead to the deaths of innocent Americans. The biggest reason is simply, if they don’t care about losing their own lives or even shielding military targets with their OWN children, how can we really expect, if we show them “respect,” they will in return cease their campaign of terror? I would like to believe this to be true, but I believe the roots of the hate run far, far beyond than just a lack of respect on our part. No, it goes to Israel’s mere existence and our backing of them, so in order to even possibly entertain the thought they would begin to respect us just by a mere change in policy, we will have to forfeit the lives of those in Israel. This will lead to more death and blood shed with the extermination of a whole nation. In fact, it could be said without our backing, Israel would be subject to attack from several countries around the Middle East, which would constitute a violation of their basic human right, which is the right to self-preservation. A conclusion could be drawn that one way or another human rights are going to be “violated.” To explain why I put “violated” in quotes we are going to have to look at our very system of government, government in general, the nature of man, and war. First, let us look at the citizen, which is you and me. By merely living in this land we come under an agreement with the United States of America, saying we will abide by its laws and in turn get the benefits of personal safety with the protection of the rights under the constitution. I feel some of these rights have deteriorated, however that’s for another article, yet the basic premise still holds true. We have the right to walk without fear in the midst of society, for one purpose of our government is to provide safety, which is a term of the charter which we belong to by having citizenship. When this safety is encroached upon by whoever, citizen or not, then the government by the agreement comes in to rectify the situation. There are two universal principles upon which our system of punishment is built upon. First, government must NEVER take any enjoyment in the punishment of those who trespass against law. Second, government must only punish when it leads to the overall good of society This is universal in nature, not to just us the citizens, but to all men. However, the means in which this is accomplished differ from that of the citizen, to those who try to trespass on the law and our safety from afar. Most Americans, which speaks somewhat to their credit, cannot handle the truths which are the realities of war. We see it through the eyes of media and public opinion, which is completely unreliable when it comes to such matters, yet it is a driving force behind getting rid of Gitmo. Even the brilliant Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once expressed the dangers of the majority when he said, “Groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.” This shows morality and justice are not things to be judged upon by the majority, for the majority opinion is always in flux. It runs by emotion rather than a concrete set of principles and such judgments should not be based on pop-opinion, but rather those who have a full awareness of facts. It is these people who are qualified to be an equal arbitrator between the nature of war and the citizen’s right to safety. Those in the know are those who stand in the front lines of the battle and these people completely disagree with the decision, which may give some credence to the real dangers this decision poses. Look, I am all for human rights, but I don’t want these people living in my back yard either. Truth is, when you threaten the lives of American civilians as many of those at Gitmo have done, you lose your rights, not by some arbitrary government decision, but rather in response to the actions which you have done of your own accord and thereby you deserve your rights to be taken away. Problem is most people think American judicial rules apply to such people, but in times of war they don’t. The only to which these laws apply is the citizen, for in the very act of being a citizen you enter under the contract with the authority placed over you that you will be subservient to the principles which rule over you. This is a missing element with those in Gitmo; they have not entered into this contract and thereby our laws which apply to John Q. Public do not apply to Mohammad Q. Terrorist. Thomas Hobbes, whom all our founding fathers had to read before designing our government, proposed his 7th law of nature, which said when concerning retribution for wrong, “men not look to the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.” It is apparent that even though great efforts can be made to advance peace within society, those persons who follow their carnal, selfish nature, to the degree which they violate one's right to safety, are always going to be represented within any group of people. Yet, due to the need for safety, which Hobbes and our own government advocate, these trespassers against law and order must be judged, but again, with no other reason than “for the correction of the offender or direction of others.” Our justice system is designed not to take any pleasure in punishment of offenders, but rather use it as a means to further peace by making them an example and making sure the offender’s rehabilitation is in accordance with the nature and degree of his crime. This is what is behind the incarcerating of criminals and punishing those violent offenders who encroach upon the law, so those who strive towards peace may be protected under this same law while those who seek the adverse are discouraged from doing so. These principles when applied together show Gitmo offers the protection of our safety by the incarceration, which leads to the overall good of society and furthermore, their distance from our borders adds to this protection. It also represents the accountability that one will have to face if they break the safety of the American citizen or encroach upon it, which will direct others not to violate our rights, lest they be judged and locked away. Lastly, people aren’t just arbitrarily thrown into Gitmo, but are captured during the process of war, committing terrorist acts, close association of those terrorists, or support there of, which is the means to the end of the death of American citizens. So now let us reflect on the nature of war, the pact of the US citizens with government, and juxtapose it with those inmates incarcerated within Gitmo. War is an unfortunate thing, but is inevitable. It is said by many that the very nature of man brings such war about. A good government promotes self-respect through equality and liberty of every individual. This respect is not only towards the self, but mutual to all portions of society. John Rawls once said, “All social values and liberty and opportunity, income and wealth, and the bases of self-respect, are to be distributed equally UNLESS an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage.” The second part of the statement is not contradictory, but rather if applied, the concept of “to everyone’s advantage” will equate to equality by its very practice. Take this into account with the government’s duty to protect the citizen, and then you see these values are not contradictory to what is happening in Gitmo, but rather a fulfillment of the principles. Our protection is warranted in relation with civil rights and the incarceration of terror suspects is not a violation of those. It leads to safety and liberty, while still promoting a greater good in our society. It could be argued it actually promotes a greater good in their society as well. The nature of war, and even justice itself, determines the same laws which govern the citizen living under the law, do not apply to those who transgress the law. By the constant violence which surrounds the nature of war, one cannot always choose a judge, jury and conduct proceedings, for such violent actions which initially warrant incarceration are either already readily apparent, or the delay such a trial would have, would in itself be dangerous to American lives. It is the safety of these lives who are the first and foremost concern of our government as determined by the agreement. Concerning the agreement, you do have a few choices. One, you can void yourself from under it by leaving its sanctions in a peaceful, voluntary manner, which means leaving the country and thereby you are not held to the agreement by an action predetermined as reasonable within the pact. Secondly, you can attempt to persuade, but must do so in a manner that is in accordance with the contract. Third, you can obey. Anything outside of this can be otherwise deemed “criminal.” Lastly, despite the just nature of the existence of such a place as Gitmo, there is an unknown variable too, which makes me use the word “potentially” in talking about the dangers of the destruction of the prison. This variable is the one which is manifest concerning what Obama’s future plans are. I think he jumped the gun in efforts to keep with his campaign promise and made a dangerous decision for our security, without knowing where these people are really going to go or what the final outcome of the plan is, assuming he has one. Such people as those who are detained in Gitmo need to have a concrete set of plans set around them, for if they don’t it will lead to death and it is this degree of harm which government is supposed to protect us against, but thus far is compromising by their actions. In my humble opinion. If he does have a better plan, then it must be made known specifically, for failure to do so is closely encroaching upon the contract stipulation that we have the right of safety. A requisite of this safety is security and this security or sense of it is being breached even as we speak by the dismantling of Gitmo.

With the world we live in it is all too easy to get desensitized to the grave injustices which occur on a daily basis and are subsequently plastered all over our television screens. I confess I don’t always respond as sensitively as I should to some issues, due to their seeming repetitive nature within media. It is rare that a crime infuriates me to the point where I feel like my blood boils due to the anger, even though I may still find it despicable. This anger could of course be subsided by the justice system bestowing an ample amount of punishment against the offender, but all too often someone falls through the cracks of the justice system and full justice is not served, but rather only a watered down version which amounts merely to a inconvenience to the guilty party. No more is this manifest than in the case of 49 year old Lori Drew, aka 16 year old Josh Evans, who created a false Myspace account and is responsible for driving a 13 year old girl, Megan Meier, to suicide. Drew and an employee of hers, Ashley Grills, impersonated a teenage boy online in order to lure Megan into an online relationship, torment her and then break up with her. As if this wasn’t sick and twisted enough, Drew went on to tell Megan that the world would be a better place without her and shortly after, in October 2006, Megan tragically hung herself. This is absolutely disgusting and I am amazed that this Drew person actually was able to get other people to join her in this quest. Ashley Grills So what takes this beyond what would be considered normal teasing as argued by those in opposition to Drew’s prosecution? It has been stated by some that such teasing is merely a form of free speech, or an unfortunate result of the right of free speech, but a right nonetheless. My response would be this: the two defendants readily admitted they were just “messing with her,” which shows an obvious intent to inflict damage and emotional distress on this young girls mind. This very statement implies that they were there to toy with the girl’s mind and if you add that to their instant messages of the devaluing of Megan’s life and “playful” urging that the world would be “better off without her,” then I feel this constitutes a violation of Megan’s protected liberties and civil rights for the purpose of doing harm, which is against the law. Then again, I am no law student either. However, Drew was only convicted of three misdemeanor counts concerning computer fraud, which she is appealing. In my opinion justice was not served and this woman got away with murder. Now it’s not upon me to be some vigilante and dispense justice like some “Boondock Saint,” but I can’t help feel that I need to do my part to make Lori Drew completely miserable as she made Megan, her family and all those who are so appalled at her crimes that it affects even those who have no direct involvement. This is not to say I wish her any bodily harm and I won’t go as far as other blogs in posting addresses, phone numbers and such, for that in no way would bring honor to Megan. But wherever Drew goes, I want her to see in the eyes of the people she meets the foreknowledge that due to her viciousness and ethical perversion she is responsible for the death of an innocent 13 year old girl. Therefore, I have included as many pictures as I can of the woman, so that if you ever run across her, may your stare heap burning coals of guilt and shame upon her miserable head. Harsh? No, the unnecessary torment and death of a 13 year old girl is harsh! The anguish that Megan’s family must deal with due to the absence of their daughter with is harsh! Furthermore, this woman is appealing the verdict in the case, showing her complete lack of remorse for her actions. The justice system failed to convict according to what she deserves in my opinion. The pain she inflicted and her punishment are not nearly reciprocal enough to warrant the use of the term “justice,” and I found this whole incident to be one of the most heinous crimes of the last few years. I try to look at all sides, but even if I were to subscribe to the idea this was an unintended result then any rational person would be so overcome by grief and shame that they may welcome the punishment, or at the very least willfully succumb to it, knowing that their own flesh is tinted with the blood of the innocent. I wouldn’t expect anyone in such a place to put up much of a fight, but that’s not what we see here. No, she is appealing the decision and fighting it tooth and nail. This is an element that inferiorities me all the more. This is a situation that should really be paid attention to by everyone, from those that harass, to those that wish to bring death upon themselves by their own hand, to every one of us. Teen suicide is tragic epidemic that all of us must be aware of and do our part in combating. We must make the most of every opportunity to lift up the emotionally downtrodden. To anyone who runs across my little corner of the web that may be contemplating such a thing as suicide, let me just say that all of us tend to underestimate the importance we have in people’s lives and how much we are truly loved, and I think this case attests to that very fact.

I used to think Hamas wasn’t all bad, I mean it is named after pretty tasty dip, and the chickpeas are delicious! Yet, Hamas has really tumbled down hill since the good ol’ days when they resorted to suicide bombings to take out the infidels. Now, instead they resort to rockets and attacking over long distances with limited success. However, one long range attack is proving to be very effective and this is the one which rages on the hearts, minds and constitution of world-wide popular opinion. Since it’s founding in the late 80’s, Hamas has been waging a war with Israel by formulating suicide bombings, rocket attacks, and along with their campaign of terror, organizing a campaign of propaganda for the purpose of enslaving the minds of the people living there and throughout the middle east. The depravity of such Palestinian groups knows no bounds as seen with the deployment of mentally handicapped women and children to set off suicide bombs, it no longer being a suicide, but rather murder of the most perverted kind. Words do not exist to properly articulate how disgusting such actions are. Despite all this though, we see an increasing sympathy for Hamas, who has quickly put on the guise of victimhood to engage in this new kind of war, not by bombs and guns, but through TV screens, radio and other media. An outcry is being raised against Israel now, whose sovereign borders were encroached upon by attacks of violence, yet they are increasingly being seen not as a country defending itself, but as a country hell bent on war and the death of millions of people. An argument I have run across is that Israel is somehow at fault because their attack has caused the death of more people then Hamas’s “minor” mass murders. Yet, this argument denotes all action would cease at this very hour, and no further acts of violence would be committed by either side after the war halted (we need to call it as it is, war, not some minor skirmish). I don’t think I need to go too far into it when I say this is a silly thing to presuppose. Hamas will rise up once again as soon as the fighting has ended and we all know it. Also, it is unreliable to base any ethical conclusion on mere statistical data such as this, for it doesn’t take into account, oh little things like, you know, right and wrong. It was the actions of Hamas themselves that determined how Israel is reacting. Would we ourselves want such groups attacking us to continue on unchecked? By no means! No being is outside the principle that our actions result in consequence. Hamas certainly isn’t exempt from it and they should not be treated like they are. The blame rests on Hamas’s shoulders and the blood of their very own people is on their hands. I find myself frustrated at this increasingly contradictory message being expressed by Hamas. I don’t see how you can precipitate a violent situation by targeting innocent people and then turn around and play the victim. You can’t. Now, I am sympathetic to the innocent deaths of those in Gaza due to Israel’s defense, but what I would postulate is that it’s a reverberation of the initial actions of Hamas. Furthermore, their complete disregard for human life is apparent by the utilization of human shields around their biggest targets, which Israel would naturally want to target. They choose these places not to be in some far away compound, but instead in the middle of populated area’s and surrounded by women and children for a reason. This is no accident; it’s a logical conclusion that Israel would attack these locales and they are using the very attack from Israel, against Israel, by use of this propaganda. It is working too, for demonstrations are happening all over the world for Israel’s supposed butchery; the most striking being right here in America. Terrorism is being supported on our own soil, which was, in 2001, drenched in the innocent blood of thousands of Americans due to it. That day Hamas celebrated in the streets, yet now reach out to the Western world to help their cause, while groups march waving the flag of Hamas within our cities. They are protected by the first amendment and their expression isn’t illegal, though I would be keeping a close eye on them if I were in a position to do so, but still, there is really only one flag they should be waving and that’s a flag that stands not for death, but for life. Not for violence, but for peace. Not for division, but unity. Finally, not for anarchy, but for democracy. They are not fit to be called American’s no matter what hyphenated title you want to give them.

On January 20, Barack Obama will officially be sworn in as the president of the United States and there is already a substantial amount of controversy surrounding the ceremony. The invocation is to be done by Pastor Rick Warren, who was invited to perform the initiation by the president elect himself. In addition to several gay rights groups being upset that Obama would invite the Pastor, and whom consider it contradictory to the promises Obama has made, the American Humanist Association has filed a lawsuit affirming that the statement “so help me God,” included in the invocation is unconstitutional. Apparently, this lawsuit is being filed by the same guy who lost previous identical lawsuits in 2001 and 2005. I suspect the outcome will be the same for this lawsuit as well. To me, it just doesn’t make sense that if you are elected into public office, then you are somehow exempt of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment. Those who are elected by a majority still have those inherent rights the forefathers determined applicable to every individual. To suggest otherwise and to hinder someone from making an oath to their god is infringing upon the very constitution such groups claim is being breached already. However, despite their proclamation, it is truly their desire which would be the trespass if put into action. The first amendment states it protects against religion as it applies to law and not the free exercise thereof. The constitution protects us against many things, but one thing it doesn’t offer, is the absolute protection against being offended. The constitution and, indeed, the very meaning of liberty itself, denote that sometimes, unfortunately, you’re going to step on a few toes in your exercise of these freedoms. It is inevitable in a democracy, and such people as the American Humanist Association need to reflect on exactly what battles they are choosing to fight and when it is appropriate. Unfortunately, they don’t, and as our country teeters on the brink of falling into a permanent state of economic and social dejection, we have people who are getting all worked up about an oath; and an oath to what means exactly? To improve this country and to lead it to a state that is better than whence it was found by the incoming administration. Therefore, I would challenge any of those offended by “under God” or “so help me God” to not look at the words, but the maxim, or motive behind it. Truthfully, the reason behind why such an oath is being made should be of most concern and focus, not necessarily upon what deity or conception thereof (depending on your worldview) it is. To be truthful there is a part of me, being a Christian which would like nothing more than for every incoming president or official to swear unto God that they will make the choices which only serve in the ultimate best interest of the nation, but to do so would contradict those very principles and freedoms that protect myself. Thereby, to advocate such a thing would promote the very elimination of those freedoms and liberties that I hold dear. I have no issues with any blessing or oath during the invocation and the elements of such should be based upon the president-to-be’s discretion. That is, if an atheist or agnostic gets elected, than he can opt not to make an oath to a higher power. Likewise, if a Buddhist gets elected than he can opt to make an oath onto him. It should be up to the incoming President, how THEIR inauguration goes, for though it is clearly in the public view, we cannot forget the personal nature of the event as well. Furthermore, why it has been a part of the invocation so long isn’t because it is trying to single out any one religion, but rather a ceremony where the candidate determines it is appropriate to make an oath to something greater than himself, above his own self-interest and swear to continue to protect those rights, which are considered an inherent part of mans being. That is, freedom, brotherhood or sisterhood, truth, justice, liberty, equality and the like. Of course, we could always just smash a bottle of champagne over a president elects head for blessing, much like they do with ships before they set out to sea. That being said, people that oppose presidents who adhere to a religion still have a say. In fact, their voice can be heard in the most boisterous way possible within a democracy, and this is by their vote. If the voting pool is really concerned about religion creeping into the white house, than may I suggest not voting for a candidate who subscribes to any particular religion. This would be the most effective way of expressing your opinion, and would not attempt to encroach upon the liberties or freedoms of those who endorse, within their lives, any religious creed. So when Obama takes the oath, I say good for him, but him alone, for at that moment, it’s going to be personal in nature, and to forbid him from taking the oath, in the way he desires, would nullify the constitution to which he is swearing an everlasting allegiance.