After the elections Sarah Palin

 Now that the election is over, and Barack Obama has been elected as the 44th President… are we still going to hear about Sarah Palin? Or will her name become obsolete? After elections, the opponent that loses usually disappears within a week after the election… but this is Sarah Palin we’re talking about… 
 

75 percent of evenagelcials still did not vote for Obama, or 49 percent of the voting US population..

“The media is already harping on the fact that 60 percent of voters expressed doubts about Sarah Palin being ready to take over as President should something happen to John McCain.

But if you study the exit polls carefully, there is no evidence that this fact actually influenced the vote.

When people were asked if Palin’s presence on the ticket was an important factor in their decision, 60 percent answered yes, 33 percent no. But of the 60 percent that said yes, 56 percent ended up voting McCain versus 43 percent Obama.

On the other hand, of the 33 percent that said no, only 33 percent voted McCain versus 64 percent Obama.

What does this mean? People who thought Palin’s presence on the ticket was important were more likely to vote McCain by a significant margin. So the media is allowing their bias to influence the interpretation of the data.

You can look even closer than that. Palin was picked specifically to influence a few key demographics for the Republicans – women, independents, white evangelicals and gun owners:

– White women voted McCain/Palin 53-46. That’s within the margin of error for how Bush/Cheney score with the same group in 2004, 55-44.

– White independents voted McCain/Palin 49-47. There are no comparable data on this group for 2004, but we do know that independents went for Kerry 49-48 in 2004, and 52-44 for Obama this year. It’s safe to conclude that the swing to Obama in this category was caused by non-white independents voting overwhelmingly for the Democratic ticket.

– White evangelical/born again cCristians voted McCain/Palin 74-24 in 2008, which is slightly lower than the 78-21 breakdown in 2004. But their share of the total vote was larger this time than last time (26 percent in 2008 versus 23 percent in 2004), so on balance the white evangelical/born again contribution to the Republican vote was probably about the same size as it was in 2004.

– Gun owners voted for McCain/Palin in the same numbers they voted for Bush/Cheney last time round: 62-37 in 2008 versus 63-36 in 204

So, in those four major target groups, Palin delivered the goods for the McCain campaign. These are groups that were skeptical about McCain before Palin joined the ticket.

In all four categories, the McCain/Palin share of the vote was virtually identical to the Bush/Cheney share in 2004. That seemed impossible before Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with over the next four years.”

http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/

Sarah Palin In 2012


It was a teary-eyed Sarah Palin who waved to the crowd in Phoenix last night and is now on her way home to Alaska to split time as Governor and Mom.

She has a son in Iraq, a daughter pregnant and an infant with Down Syndrome.

She has her hand’s full.

But she has made it clear that this is not the last we will see of Sarah Palin.

“I’m not doing this for naught,” Palin said last week, when asked if all the mudslinging in the campaign made her long for a return to the more sedate politics of Alaska, where she is governor.

After McCain’s stinging loss, Palin, 44, has emerged as one of the strongest brands the Republicans have got.

As one of the most recognisable figures in a party searching for direction and new leadership, Palin’s future role will be a major theme when Republican heavyweights weigh up strategies for the 2010 mid-term congressional elections.

“She definitely is going to be the most popular Republican in this country when this thing is over,” Republican strategist Ed Rollins, and former political director to president Ronald Reagan, told CNN before the election.

And the carefully coiffed conservative Christian who cast herself as a maverick, a reformer and an anti-corruption star, has clearly indicated the 2008 run wasn’t an end-all to her national political ambitions.

“I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we’ve taken, that would bring this whole” endeavour to nothing, Palin told ABC last week.

In the last pre-election episode of NBC’s Saturday Night Live, comedienne Tina Fey, in her much lauded role impersonating Palin, made a show of “going rogue” from the McCain campaign talking points by trying to hawk “Palin 2012” t-shirts.

At Republican rallies in recent weeks supporters too have been seen displaying “Palin 2012″ shirts and banners.

There has been talk in Hollywood of Sarah Palin getting a talk show; talk in Washington of Sarah Palin as the best fundraiser the Republicans have; talk in Alaska of Sarah Palin running for the Senate.

There is a world of options in front of Sarah Palin. She is the star of the Republican Conservative base and if you think she will stay in Alaska for long – you’re wrong.”

http://www.thesarahpalinblog.com/

 if you think the evangelicals have died for long – you’re wrong

Sarah Palin fires back at ‘jerks’ Los Angeles Times – The governor and her aides dispute claims about her foreign-policy knowledge and $150000-plus wardrobe. By Seema Mehta and Maeve Reston Alaska Gov.
Palin Denounces Her Critics as Cowardly ABC News
Palin Calls Criticism by McCain Aides ‘Cruel’ New York Times
Reuters – The Associated Press – Washington Post – The Weekly Standard
all 802 news articles »
 
Readers Respond: Bush and His Critics Wall Street Journal –  The reader response to “The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace” has been overwhelming. Here’s a selection from the thousands of comments submitted by Opinion Journal readers: Finally, someone with the guts to stand up for W. 
 

The Faith Factor 2008 vs. 2004 — Exit Polls

“”We worship an awesome God in the blue states,” Barack Obama declared during his 2004 Democratic convention keynote. Thunderous applause greeted that line, in part because Democrats felt frustrated that they’d been unfairly cast as a secular or even anti-religion party, and by the political dominance of religious conservatives.”

The Rise of the Religious Left. But clearly Obama still did not get the evangelical votes.

The Faith Factor 2008 vs. 2004 — Exit Polls

election god gap detail final.JPG

election attenders non attenders final.JPG

election by faith whites final third try.JPG

 

elections evangelicals final second try.JPG

http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/ 

http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/obama-triumphs-will-be-first-black-us-president/

 

Ten Faith Factors for Election Night

1.How Many Obamagelicals Are There? – It might seem farfetched that a socialist-terror-lovin’-pro-abortion candidate like Obama could win any evangelical Christians but he’s been courting them fervently since he began his presidential run. The key the 40% of evangelicals who call themselves “moderate” or “liberal.” Point of reference: John Kerry won 21% of white evangelicals, Gore 18%. Bill Clinton in 1996 won 26%.  

2.  Will Palin Turn Out the “Religious Right”? — By picking Sarah Palin, John McCain gambled that she’d be able to rev up the evangelical “base.” Even as her popularity has fallen generally, evangelicals still love her (some even believing she was sent to battle the anti-Christ.) Assuming most conservative evangelicals vote for McCain, the second question is: how many will show up? Point of reference: white evangelicals accounted for 23% of the electorate in 2004.

3. Do Midwestern Evangelicals Split With Their Brethren? — Recent polls have showed Obama trailing badly among evangelicals in Florida and Colorado but doing quite well with them in Michigan, Ohio and

Pennsylvania. If he succeeds there, he may have tapped into regional differences in style, theology and politics and launch a new era in faith-and-politics punditry, in which we no longer talk about “the evangelical vote” as a geographically uniform phenomenon.4. Will Catholics Ignore Their Bishops? – The overall Catholic vote has gone with the popular vote winner every election since 1968. Catholic Bishops have been urging Catholic voters to vote for pro-life candidates but a majority of Catholic voters are now pro-choice so it remains to be seen what influence the church will have. (Obama is also winning with the 100-year-old-nuns bloc) Another factor in Obama’s favor: a higher percentage of the Catholic vote will be Latino this year. Last election, George W. Bush won the Catholic 52%-46%.

5. Can Obama Finally Bowl a Strike With Skeptical White Catholics? – During the primaries, Obama did poorly with white Catholics, often working class ethnics or their offspring. Remember his feeble attempt to curry favor through bowling? They tend to be culturally conservative and haven’t voted for a Democrat since 1996. On the other hand, they’re especially concerned about the economy this year, and Joe Biden has been trying to bond with them as a fellow “cultural Catholics.” Point of reference: In 2004, Bush won 56% of white Catholics, Kerry 43%.

6. Will Whitebread Protestants Back the Black Guy? – Recent polls show Democrats gaining with a group that had leaned Republican for most of the past few decades – Mainline Protestants. It appears that while Sarah Palin energized evangelicals, she may have alienated some Mainliners. In 2004, they went for President George W. Bush 54%-46%.

7. Will Latino Protestants Vote Their Values or the Pocketbook? – One positive trend for Obama will likely be the shift of Latinos from the Republican side, where they resided in 2004, to the Democrats. The hidden religious story: most of the shift is driven by Latino Protestants. Many are evangelical and liked Bush’s Christian faith and his conservative positions on social issues (gay marriage, abortion) but have shifted to Obama because of the economy and concerns about immigration.

8. How Will the Kinda-Sorta Religious Vote? – In recent elections, the most religious you were, the more likely you were to vote Republican. This is known as the God Gap, which will still certainly exist. But watch for two things: among weekly churchoers how big is McCain’s margin? Bush won that group 61%-39% Second, Kerry last time beat Bush among more occasional churchgoers 53%-47%. Will Obama increase that margin?

9. Will Jews Schlep to Republican Side? – This only really matters in

Florida, and even there it doesn’t matter as much as you’d think (Jews made up 5% of the electorate there in 2004). Early polls had Obama struggling among Jews – in part because of fears about his former church’s connections to Louis Farrakhan — but more recently he’s caught up, possibly because Jews fear that Sarah Palin is an extreme evangelical. Or possibly the Sarah Silverman factor. Jews reportedly went about 75%-25% for Kerry.10. Will the GOP Become the ROP? – Will Republicans become the Religiously Oriented Party? In 2004, white evangelicals made up 36% of Bush voters.
Will that go up or down? If it becomes an even more dominant force within the party, how will that shape either the way McCain governs if he wins or, if he loses, how the Republicans re-invent themselves.

Carla Hinton  Religion Editor http://blog.newsok.com/religionandvalues/2008/10/31/389

 

so what do you say  about the faith factor…

Though the economy clearly was the defining issue of the election, Obama forged a new coalition by luring millions of religious left voters who had avoided Democrats in recent years.

In short:

He narrowed the God Gap. Bush beat Kerry among weekly church-goers by 61%-39%. McCain is beating Obama 54%-44% Most of that gain appears to have come from Protestants rather than Catholics

He won Catholics back. Early exit polls indicate he won 54% of the Catholic vote compared to 45% for John McCain. George W. Bush won the Catholic vote 52%-46%. Most of those gains came from Catholics who don’t attend mass weekly.

He also improved among white Catholics, according to the early exit polls. Bush got 56%-43% As of now, McCain lead by just 51%-49% This was despite an aggressive push by more than 50 Bishops to encourage Catholics to focus on abortion as the central issue.

He man real gainst among Evangelicals. Evangelicals and Born Again Christians made up a greater portion of the electorate this year than last election but that didn’t all accrue to McCain’s benefit, as predict. Obama improved slightly on a national level, getting 25% compared to Kerry’s 21%

But far more important, he made significant progress in the pivotal rustbelt states that won him the election. For instance, evangelicals flooded the polls in Ohio and Obama significantly improved on Kerry’s showing.

He attracted more Mainline Protestants — Though shifting toward the center in recent years, mainline Protestants — once a core of the Republican party — – still went for the Republicans in 2004. The exit polls didn’t ask specifically about mainline Protestants but it appears Obama improved slightly with this group.

He energized the lightly religious. Though secular voters already voted Democratic, they did so by an even bigger margin this year. Even more important, a quarter of the electorate says they go to worship services but only a few times a year. Kerry won that group with 54%-45%. Obama won 61%-38%

BREAKING: Catholic Shift to Obama

The rap on Obama during the primaries was that he couldn’t win because he struggled with Catholics. Apparently, he got past that. Early exit polls indicate he won 54% of the Catholic vote compared to 45% for John McCain….

Obama Luring Rest Belt Evangelicals But Not Southerners

Obama seems to have made far more progress with Born Again Christians in rust belt states than in the South. Based on preliminary exit polls: Florida: 78%-20% (McCain-Obama) Virginia: 78%-21% Ohio: 70%-29% Indiana: 66%-32%

BREAKING: Weekly Churchgoers vs. Occasionals

One thing that puzzles me about these numbers: Obama’s progress among Catholics is with those who don’t attend mass weekly. But among Protestants, he improved among those who do attend weekly. One possible theory: abortion. Mass-attending Catholics are more likely…

News reporting these days tends to be Unprofessional

 
I have known now for half a century that news reporting these days tends to be Unprofessional, whether it is the Times, CNN or what ever, for News reporting has too often now become lies, spins, desertions , contradictory even.. no  wonder many people stop buying news papers, do not believe necessary all they hear and read as well, especially in Canada now too  it seems the Vancouver Sun, Calgary Sun, Calgary Herald, Edmonton Journal, the National Post, and many many others now too. So now also  the cops they also do  tend to be unprofessional  it seems as well. Why?
 
 Do now simply go the the Google Canadian http://news.google.ca/  or the US version  http://news.google.ca/news?ned=us   of the news and read about the same subjects first 
 
 for example
– The Canadian federal elections, related political parties and their leaders
– The US federal  elections, related political parties and their leaders
 
and as you read you will see the news editors, news reporters, columnist offering you now their gossip, their opinion, their lies, their slanders, spins  too often and not the balanced, impartial, professional fair , honest facts firstly to allow you to make the right decision on your own.. and too often they even do immorally bully, bash others no as well..
 
sad.. this is all really sad and unacceptable still too
 
“The Canadian 2008 federal election campaign will go down as one of the nastiest in recent political memory.  There was no mistaking the steady use of U.S.-style political attack ads by almost all of the parties. We witnessed just about everything: from a pooping puffin defecating on Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s shoulder to Conservative leader Stephen Harper being inextricably linked to lame-duck U.S. President George W. Bush.” But did  these attack ads actually work? clearly they  were they successful in producing such a strong showing for Canada’s Prime Minister Mr. Harper in yesterday’s vote? “Some pundits and party operatives argue that attack ads are merely part of the cut and thrust of politics. They maintain that we need to know both the good and the “bad” about our prospective political representatives.  Not surprisingly, they have no hesitation about saying that these ads are very effective during election campaigns. To be sure, the very fact that political parties continue to use them is proof positive of their electoral value and import. These same analysts would quickly point to the “Willie Horton” ad in the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign — used by George Bush Sr. to paint his Democratic challenger, Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime for supporting weekend furloughs for murderers when governor of Massachusetts — to highlight just how powerful these attacks can be. Others will single out the “Swift Boat” attacks against former presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004 to buttress their argument. For them, these ads enabled the sponsoring party to define their opponent in a very negative light. And if the target of the ad doesn’t respond immediately and forcefully, that individual risks being framed in an inauspicious fashion — as Mr. Dion knows only too well. The ads work, then, because the negative image tends to stay longer in the mind of the hapless voter. Furthermore, those voters sitting on the fence or undecided about their party preference are likely most susceptible to this type of electoral messaging.” And we will see more not less of them but THE ADVERTISING MONEY AVAILABLE STILL DID NOT GIVE THE TORIES  HERE THEIR DESIRED MAJORITY GOVERNMENT AND WHY WAS THAT? WAS IT ALL A WASTE OF MONEY RATHER, THE ELECTION NOW INCLUDED? http://anyonecare.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/canada-harper-failed-again-in-an-attempt-to-win-majority-government/

“Other observers and commentators argue just the opposite — namely, that these attack ads have little impact or staying power during an election campaign. In addition, they contend that the more discerning voter would not be influenced by this kind of political appeal.” And that on the contrary such adds will clearly rather cause a backlash, cause more people to van support the person being attack as has clearly happened in the republican vice president nominee Sarah Palin TO THE CLEAR, ADMITTED FRUSTRATIONS NOW OF THE DEMOCRATS IN REALITY.

In reality Genuine Born Again, Evangelical, Christians are total abstainers from smoking, drugs, alcohol, cheating, lying, stealing, tax evasions, pornography, or rather all personal vices, Impairments, gay sex now too.  
 
 Clearly ** The Bible teaches against drinking alcoholic beverages.
 
The liars and the demons  of course will say other wise.

 The Sarah Palin effect has clearly perturbed the Democrats

 

 
do see also
 

the false supression of free speech

 

 

 

“GOODNESS WORLD LIFE BLOG
 Huffington Post Bans Goodness World Life Blog
 
Now there’s free speech for you!  In the grand tradition of modern liberalism, the Huffington Post has banned this writer from commenting on their articles and “news” stories.   This morning, in an attempt to post a comment, the following greeting emerged:
“Sorry, but you have been banned from commenting.”

In this the Huffington Post joins the Obama campaign in stifling free speech.  Apparently you are free to comment, but only if your comments support their ideology.  Huffington is fine posting pornography, but let a conservative challenge some of the assumptions, and well, the thought police deploy.

There is satisfaction knowing the information we presented could not be sufficiently refuted and so their only recourse was censorship.
http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/2008/10/11/the-coming-obama-thugocracy/

What could be next, attempts to destroy my server?  Secret Service ringing the doorbell?

Ah, the tolerant, multicultural, open-minded, freedom-loving Left.   What a future we shall enjoy under the boot.

FOR THE RECORD:  COMMENTS CONSISTED OF LINKS TO ARTICLES HERE, NOTHING ABUSIVE, SLANDEROUS, UNKIND OR VULGAR, EVER.  HENCE, THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BAN WAS SIMPLY STATING AN OPINION CONTRARY TO THE PREVAILING HOT WINDS AT HUFF, HUFF, HUFFINGTON….PUFF!”

http://allanerickson.wordpress.com/

 Face it the devil hates the good people, especially the straight shooters, always has and always will too, the darkness hates the light as the Bible had said.. one can try to tone down, water down the message but they will still hate you unless you tell them what they want to hear it seems.. anything but the real negative truth about themselves especially still.. breathless public exposure of the Bullies, abusers, the bad, guilty persons serves everyone’s best interest next too. God undeniably himself does not show false partialities or accept lightly the human rights, personal abuse of others.  Shout the truth from the housetops..

 

 

 

The best way to save money in Politics

The Bible’s suggestions on electing rulers..
 
(Deu 1:13 KJV)  Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
(Deu 1:14 KJV)  And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
(Deu 1:15 KJV)  So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
(Deu 1:16 KJV)  And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
(Deu 1:17 KJV)  Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
(Deu 1:18 KJV)  And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.
   
(1 Tim 3:1 KJV)  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(1 Tim 3:2 KJV)  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(1 Tim 3:3 KJV)  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(1 Tim 3:4 KJV)  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(1 Tim 3:5 KJV)  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(1 Tim 3:6 KJV)  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(1 Tim 3:7 KJV)  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. 
 

Banking system on brink of ‘meltdown’
Edmonton Journal –  WASHINGTON – A heightened sense of urgency over the economic crisis gripped world leaders Saturday even as US President George W. Bush appeared with the G7 finance ministers — among them Canada’s Jim Flaherty — in a bid to underline their resolve to
Flaherty pledges to speed up infrastructure spending Globe and Mail
Debt and bonds to fund Ottawa’s mortgage buy Toronto Star
Financial Post – Bloomberg – The Gazette (Montreal) – StarPhoenix
all 903 news articles »

 

 

 
 
The best way to save money in Politics is to firstly fire all of the Alcoholics in the civil and public services, governments.. all governmental Ministers, MPs, provincial  MPPs, MLAs, MNAs  included, not just in Canada now too?
 
For decades I have been writing to news editors, politicians about important issues… and every once a while there come at different peaks significant writings that do have historical effect.. such as this one.. that affected both Ralph Klein’s and Paul Martin’s political career.. and will it effect Peter McKay and Stephen Harper’s now as well?
 
“Prime Minister Paul Martin looks at a red wine while visiting a winery in Beamsville, Ont. Sunday. Mind you this is not what real Professing Christians tend to do especially on Sunday.. and this is not a rare occasion for the PM Paul Martin who has been giving out free beer too it seems.. as I have detailed here elsewhere too.. But Paul Martin the PM is still too often associated with alcoholic beer, he and his party members too… Liberal party workers, members have pizza and beer parties too. The New Liberals- more Alcoholics at the taxpayer’s expenses too. Unacceptable. and next the PM Paul Martin will likely like Premier Ralph Klein try to say he is not an alcoholic, he like Premier Ralph Klein only encourages beer drinking and drink beer too often cause this is another Canadian value.. even the related drunk driving.. the too often stingy, unimpassioned of others abusive behavior of alcoholics, plus the permanent brain damage alcohol causes. Alocholics are known to be liars, they often even lie to themselves and others often saying even they are not alcoholics too. You still can tell if they are aloholics by what they do and who their good Friends are.You can still tell who they are for they like to be around other alcoholics, and now also by the amount of alcohol they do like to have or to even have even around them. They also do like to have and to be often around plenty of beer and alcohol. Klein was known to be a regular drinker in a tavern in Calgary when he worked as a reporter before becoming the Premier.. for that is his regular church of prayer..””Beamsville, Ont. — One of Paul Martin’s top aides apologized to Canadian parents yesterday after saying on national television that they would buy popcorn and beer with the money the Conservatives are offering for child care. The Conservatives rolled out a child-care plan last week that would give parents of preschool children an annual $1,200 per child to spend as they see fit Scott Reid, Mr. Martin’s communications director, tried to explain on CBC News: Sunday the difference between that approach — which he broke down to $25 a week — and the Liberal plan to establish a national child-care system. “Working families need care,” he said. “They need care that is regulated, safe and secure and that’s what we’re building here. Don’t give people $25 a week to blow on beer and popcorn. Give them child-care spaces that work.””
Reid’s apology doesn’t change the Liberal policy on daycare, which fails to respect parents’ choices and trust them to decide what’s best for their kids His comment was not just a “slip of the tongue” but a reflection of a long pattern of Liberal attitude that devalues parents’ choices, Kate Tennier, founder of Advocates for Childcare Choice, said she was appalled by Reid’s comments and said they shows “Paul Martin appears to agree with this rather scary notion of government intrusion into Canadian family life,” she said.” How really scary!” About 13% of the nation’s children receive daycare from government-sanctioned providers, while the other 87% either receive care from a stay-at-home parent, a relative, or an unlicensed daycare provider who are left out by the Liberals.
 
How appropriate this would occur while Paul Martin was on a Sunday at a wine factory.. The Liberals aid that the Parent’s can’t be trusted to handle the tax payer’s money and what only the Liberals can? Real Liberal Rubbish. We all do from real experiences too already do know how Liberal cannot be trusted with our taxpayer’s money and that they wrongfully even buy beer, wine, Martinis, alcohol with it too. All of this was, is just more Liberal hypocrisy!Not only is any cheating, lying, stealing, tax payer’s money abuses is unacceptable also for any civil, public servant, elected representatives, not even for one of them, and no matter what political party they may support too, it is also always inappropriate, unethical, immoral to use one cent of the taxpayer’s money on booze, alcohol as well at any time and anywhere now too.
 
Since we normal persons already tend to know the negative effect of Alcoholism.. Let me be also very clear about it too, I am rightfully against any brain damaged or not alcoholics having any position, job in governments, the civil, public services, rather they should all be fired immediately rather and that includes any Prime Minister, Premier, Member of Parliament or their staff members
 
This may be the season for some to be jolly with booze, drugs but keep it all, all out of politics, the governments.
EDMONTON (CP) – Ralph Klein says he wouldn’t be Alberta’s premier today and he could be dead by now if he’d kept up his heavy drinking. The premier swore off the bottle in 2001 after a night on the town which ended with him swearing at men at a homeless shelter and throwing money at them. But in year-end media interviews this week he acknowledged he continues to have the odd drink. “I probably would have died of liver disease,” Klein said in one such interview with The Canadian Press. “It’s not only unhealthy, but it’s politically unhealthy. Mentally unhealthy.” Klein conceded he has had a few drinks in the last year, but there have been differing accounts of how often and how much. After his encounter at the homeless shelter, Klein admitted that boozing had taken a toll on his ability to carry out his duties as premier. “I do know I have a problem, and I do know I’m going to deal with it,” he said at the time as tears rolled down his cheeks. “I am going to go as long as I possibly can and hopefully end this journey without having another drink . . . one day at a time.” Klein also said then that he had considered resigning. “When you get up and you are feeling rotten and you wonder, ‘Gee, I feel this badly, do I really want to get on and do the work of the day,’ you bring yourself around to do it, but it is a lot better to do it with an absolutely clear head.” Klein admitted he drank the equivalent of a bottle of wine every day.” this is all true? you really believe him??? His decades of alcohol did not cause any brain damage now too? How come also very few other people can give up drinking alcoholic that easy now too? His still often odd behavior, emotional outburst is not associated with his alcohol problem? 

 

 

 

Can you really believe as the truth what most of these too many still too alcoholic politicians say to us these days too??”” 
 

 

 

It seems that according to some  Senator Joe Bilden is an alcoholic too, and Barrack Obama too?  Wow!!
 
What about any other politicians? 
  
Reality! These days it is too hard to tell the difference between secular persons and  the professing Christians . Genuine Born Again Evangelical Christians are total abstainers from smoking, drugs, alcohol, cheating, lying, stealing, tax evasions, pornography, or rather all personal vices, Impairments http://thefocusonthefamily.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/abstainers/
 
The major undeniable  weakness, weakness, discrepancies, shortfall in the soft underbelly of  the personal life of Barrack Obama and even Canada’s prime Minister Stephen Harper is clear, and  is that already   proven  too, that there is a wide discrepancy between what he verbally says he is and  who he really is now and  and what he in fact still next does. Even now starting clearly with his profession of being a real practicing Christian. Barack Obama for continuity he is not a real practicing Christian and he undeniably has violated God laws continually, and there is no excuse for it.. While it is often a thorny issue, discussion in the Christian faith, amongst the protestants and evangelicals whether Christians drinking wine is tolerate now, the Bible in both the old and new testament clearly and undeniably still  says that anyone in a leadership position cannot consume wine, alcohol or get drunk. This is not even subject even to any debate now as well. Both Obama and Bilden do undeniably drink alcohol now.. and what about McCain and Palin now  too?
 
Again ““Dr. Daniel Akin, President of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary has written an article in favor of the famous Resolution #5 (Resolution calling for total opposition to alcohol). Alcohol is the number one drug problem among teenagers. (1 Cor. 8:13; 9:19-22; 10:32-33). Because I am an example to others, I will make certain no one ever walks the road of sorrow called alcoholism because they saw me take a drink and assumed, “if it is alright for him it is alright for me.” No, I will choose to set an uncompromising example of abstinence because I love them.  I will seek my joy and filling in the Spirit not in alcohol. I love the Phillips translation of Ephesians 5:18 which reads, “Don’t get your stimulus from wine (for there is always the danger of excessive drinking), but let the Spirit stimulate your souls.” Psalm 4:7-8 adds, “You [O Lord] have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound. In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O Lord, make me dwell in safety.”  There is no record that Jesus drank strong drink,  As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstinence for  leadership? Absolutely! The principle of Proverbs 31:4-5 is appropriately applied here, “It is not for Kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, or for rulers to take strong drink, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed and pervert the rights of all the afflicted.” “
(1 Cor 11:28 KJV)  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30   For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31  For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

(Prov 3:33 KJV)  The curse of the LORD is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.

Jesus himself had said that professing to be a Christian is not enough, 

Matt 3:8 Bring forth fruit that is consistent with repentance [let your lives prove your change of heart];

Gal 5:23 Gentleness (meekness, humility), self-control (self-restraint, continence). Against such things there is no law [that can bring a charge].

Matt 7:16 You will fully recognize them by their fruits. Do people pick grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles?17 Even so, every healthy (sound) tree bears good fruit [worthy of admiration], but the sickly (decaying, worthless) tree bears bad (worthless) fruit. 18 A good (healthy) tree cannot bear bad (worthless) fruit, nor can a bad (diseased) tree bear excellent fruit [worthy of admiration].  19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and cast into the fire. 20 Therefore, you will fully know them by their fruits.

The Bible’s suggestions on electing rulers.. good managers
(Deu 1:13 KJV) Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you.
(Deu 1:14 KJV) And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do.
(Deu 1:15 KJV) So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.
(Deu 1:16 KJV) And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
(Deu 1:17 KJV) Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it.
(Deu 1:18 KJV) And I commanded you at that time all the things which ye should do.
(1 Tim 3:1 KJV) This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
(1 Tim 3:2 KJV) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
(1 Tim 3:3 KJV) Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
(1 Tim 3:4 KJV) One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(1 Tim 3:5 KJV) (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
(1 Tim 3:6 KJV) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
(1 Tim 3:7 KJV) Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

1 Tim 3:2 Now a bishop (superintendent, overseer) must give no grounds for accusation {but} must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, circumspect {and} temperate {and} self-controlled ( Sober) ; [he must be] sensible {and} well behaved {and} dignified and lead an orderly (disciplined) life; [he must be] hospitable [showing love for and being a friend to the believers, especially strangers or foreigners, and be] a capable {and} qualified teacher,
Alcoholics, wine drinkers, smokers, drug users too they all  tend to have evidentially lost their self control.. 

Undeniably whether you are also a leader or not getting drunk is still an unacceptable sin as well. And all true Christians consider this still a sinful act

 
 Obama amongst some others  reiterated his support for civil unions for homosexuals. No surprise there. Some Christians   do indeed allow for the conferring of some legal rights, short of marital status, on gays as a simple matter of fairness. We cannot legislate or enforce morality. Nevertheless all true Christians consider this a sinful act But I suspect his rationale raised some hackles. “If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans”. Barrack Obama. Since when did Romans 1 become obscure? I thought pitting the words of Jesus against those of Paul was a tactic of Red Letter Christians, not something a serious candidate for the Oval Office would engage in.There is no refererence to gay civil unions in the Sermon on the Mount (unless you stretch the Golden Rule beyond all recognition). Perhaps Obama mixed up his Bible references   Is Barack Obama a Red Letter Christian? http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2008/03/is_barack_obama.html
 
Is Obama What another  type of Christian  also now ?  Are there now really so many different types?  My next door neighbor tells me he is a Christian, and he says is a member of the church of Jesus Christ, the LATTER DAY SAINTS, Mormons, and he says now today he reads the Bible and prays daily too.  But  when I started to ask him about what the   Apostle had said in the Bible now about getting drunk,  he next said he did not believe in any of the the 12 apostles  writings, but yes, he believes that these writings  they are in the books that supposedly composing the Common Bible, but he does not  believe they are really part of the valid Bible. So when I next had further asked him what he now had defined as being the true Bible, he said the Bible according to Him now  was solely the spoken word of Jesus. He is another one of  those red lettered Christians..  So I asked him if he believed solely   in the  4 Gospels, the Bible books written now anyway by some of the 12   Apostles of Jesus anyway,  even Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.. and so if he really is now  believing in the 4  Gospel, the  still   Apostolic writings so what was the problem in him now even believing that the Book of Revelation  in the Standard Bible now was aalso a  part of the Bible? After all it was written by the same Apostle John who now had written  the book of John, and the epistles of John now too.. Now he next replied and had said  he did not believe in the book of Revelation as being a part of the Bible. Wow! This is getting all so confusing, needlessly complicated too , listening to him firstly. Really now what does he  believe in cause I really cannot figure out how he picks and chooses to believe, it seems he believes in the ten commandments, but he does not even know what they are still too, he really believes in the Gospel solely according  to him and not the Gospel according to Jesus and the Apostles.. and he admits has these complex rules for Bible interpretations as to what is valid and what is not, all  made by his church, and he next had said I should go to his church to find out what these rules now are. I replied and said I did not need any more of these clearly false mere man made religion, rules to tell me what part of the Bible I should believe in firstly , for the Holy sprit himself, the spirit of Christ has clearly promised to lead us and to guide us personaly now  into all truth, not rather anyone else who admits they do not even believe in the standard Bible now too. The Bible and Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever too.  I can read for myself and I can believe in it myself without has clearly distorted directions, guidance, rules now too. . I also either take it all as being  God’s word’s or none of it. It is as simple as that for a start now too. 
  
In reality Genuine Born Again, Evangelical, Christians are total abstainers from smoking, drugs, alcohol, cheating, lying, stealing, tax evasions, pornography, or rather all personal vices, Impairments, gay sex now too.  
 
 Clearly ** The Bible teaches against drinking alcoholic beverages.
 
The liars and the demons  of course will say other wise.