Religion seems to be the most important issue of the election right now, with candidates giving presentations and interviews about their particular beliefs, in the hopes to convince people to vote for them. My question is… at what point did religion become such a key issue in presidential elections? If you read some blogs and news articles, people point towards George W. Bush, but I blame that answer either on intellectual dishonesty or ignorance. Some point back to John F. Kennedy, who like Mitt Romney, had to hold a press conference explaining his religion and religious views. But even then I would have to disagree. Perhaps we should go back to 1928, with former NY Governor Al Smith who was the Democratic Party nominee for President. He too was a Catholic like Kennedy, and the Protestants of the U.S. viewed him as possibly taking orders from the Vatican.

I’m not sure, since you could say it goes all the way back to the beginning with the need for the Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution to protect our right to the Freedom of Religion and that the government would not establish a national religion. Back then, our leaders understood that our nation was going to be the home of multiple religions and that the people should be able to practice their beliefs without intimidation. So, with this Freedom and tolerance, Religion shouldn’t be an issue in politics today, right? Well, maybe not.

Mitt Romney, the first seriously considered Mormon Presidential candidate, was compelled to pull a John F. Kennedy to reassure the nation that his religious beliefs are not extreme or infringe on his ability to lead the nation, even though he’s been a Governor (not to mention that there are approximately 4 Million Mormons currently in the US). Mike Huckabee has to fend off calls for his sermons back when he was a Minister to be released so they could be examined in the hopes of some dirt on him can be found. Barack Obama has to defend his family Muslim ties, even though he himself is a member of the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the Churches of Christ). Why do three qualified presidential candidates have to defend their religious affiliations? Does the public exposure of a presidential candidate mean their right to Freedom of Religion can be infringed upon by the media?

It is time that the media gets back to focusing on what is important in presidential candidates, and that is what are their views on the issues and what qualifies them for the position. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a religious affiliation requirement to be President, since that would violate the First Amendment. The fact that the President believes that Allah is God, there is no God, aliens exist, there was no big bang, or any other religious-based view does not impact in his ability to protect the nation from threats both foreign and domestic. It is time for a change in the way we cover presidential elections.

December 7th, 1941 – The U.S. Pacific Fleet was attacked early Sunday morning by the Imperial Japanese Navy. In a perfectly executed strike, the Japanese Navy flew in low during the early hours, striking as many U.S. vessels as possible with very low resistance. In addition, support stations and airfields across the island were disabled to ensure success of the strike.

After the skies cleared, five U.S. ships, 188 aircraft, and almost 2400 souls were lost, while another ten vessels were damaged (but later salvaged and recommissioned). On the other hand, Japan sailed away with only 29 aircraft, five submarines, and 65 souls lost. Statistically and psychologically, the attack was beyond successful.

Fortunately for us, the U.S. found the courage to recover and maximize their potential with their remaining forces, primarily being aircraft carriers and submarines – the core of the modern U.S. fleets 65 years later. Pulling together these untouched vessels and combining them with the recommissioned vessels salvaged from Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Pacific Fleet avenged the lives of those sailors and crewmen who died that tragic morning.

There are not many Veterans of Pearl Harbor remaining with us today. Let us take time to stop and reflect on their service to our country while remembering those that were lost. If you happen to know or come in contact with any Veterans, spend time with them and listen to their stories. They and their stories are national treasures. For example, I recommend visiting FamilyForest.com and reading the story of Donald Spangler (provided by one of the readers of this web site).

I was recently reading an article about the King Ranch wind farm debate down in Texas and it started me thinking. How often do you hear about one group of environmentalists arguing against wind farms while another group argues for more “green” energy, including wind farms? Do these different group of environmentalists ever talk to each other to get their arguments in line? Talk about setting yourself up for failure.

In case you do not understand the controversy regarding wind farms, there are environmentalists worried that wind farms kill birds. It is true; the rotating blades do kill birds that try to flying through them. Statistically, more birds die by colliding into buildings and cars than they do by the wind turbines, so businesses can easily justify the losses. But is that good enough?

Unfortunately no for some people, and I can understand why. If we can minimize the impact on wildlife, it should be a win-win situation for everyone. So how do we do that? For starters, we need to identify which zones within the country are best suited for wind farms. These areas are usually near the coast, Mid-West (North/South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, etc), and along mountain ranges. Secondly, tracking migration patters of birds and other wildlife is important. This is a natural party of any environmental study done prior to construction. Lastly, identify regions where endangered and protected bird populations exist. When you overlap these three maps, the areas where the bird and wildlife population variables listed above do not exist are our best bets for windfarm locations.

With all the effort listed above to protect the wildlife, the environmentalists should be willing to concede on behalf of the “green” technology for our needs.

If you haven’t heard about this yet, you are in for a treat. We have been blessed by a big name celebrity that is doing more than just talking. He’s taking action. For those of you familiar with the slogan “ACTA NON VERBA,” used by many schools and institutions including the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, this gentleman (and his organization) are definitely showing the power of “DEEDS NOT WORDS.”

Ok, I’ll stop with the Latin lesson. What I am talking about is the “Make It Right” project, headed by actor Brad Pitt with support from Global Green and other partners. The plan is to build 150 new homes in the lower 9th ward of New Orleans. Most of you will remember this area due to the low-income families that found their homes submerged when the protective levies around the area failed following Hurricane Katrina. To make this project “interesting,” Make It Right sought out designs from 13 different architects that met certain design aspects, including being “green.” The plan … to have all these homes built in two years and be affordable for those who lost their homes, so the community can come back.

Now I come from the group that believes certain portions of New Orleans should NOT be redeveloped, including the lower 9th ward, due to the unnecessary risks and expenses associated with trying to keep the river at bay. The city has been sinking for decades, requiring growing expenses and engineering to keep the city afloat. In this case, just because we CAN do something doesn’t necessarily mean we SHOULD do it. However, I applaud the efforts by Pitt and his team.

As such, Make It Right makes it into my Helping Hands group. If you are interested in helping out, you can visit their site and make a donation. For the wealthy reader, you can donate a full house for the cost of $150K. For the average reader, you can donate as little as you’d like, and it will be tax deductible. Some items which you can specifically put donations towards include solar panels for the roof, tankless hot water heaters, and oak trees. If anything, I encourage all of you to visit the site and take the time to read their plan. This is a noble cause.

I wish I could claim credit for the above saying, but it belongs to Barack Obama. 

“It’s silly season. I understand she’s been quoting my kindergarten teacher in Indonesia.” - Barack Obama

To put this all into content for you, let’s look at http://facts.hillaryhub.com/, the “Straight scoop on election ‘08 from the Hillary Clinton campaign.”  Starting with the following quote:

“I have not been planning to run for president for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for.” - Barack Obama

Followed by a response from the Clinton campaign:

“Senator Obama’s comment today is fundamentally at odds with what his teachers, family, classmates and staff have said about his plans to run for president. Senator Obama’s campaign rhetoric is getting in the way of his reality.” – Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer

His teachers said he had plans to run for President?  Yes, it is true, and the Clinton campaign has the source on their site:

“Iis Darmawan, 63, Obama’s kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, ‘I Want To Become President,’ the teacher said.”

So yes, all those years ago, Barack Obama hatched his evil scheme to take over the world … or at least the White House.  We’re so glad to see that the Clinton campaign is putting all their hard-earned donations to good work, aren’t you?