WEBCommentary Contributor

Author: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  September 19, 2008

Topic category:  Other/General

God’s Country or Obama Country?

Washington not only used the phrase ‘under God,’ but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the ‘unborn.’ That's right! George Washington was a ‘pro-life extremist,’ just like Sarah Palin.

John Sidney McCain is not George W. Bush.

A McCain term as President would not be a third Bush term.

Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. is not John F. Kennedy.

An Obama term as President would not be a return to what is misremembered as “Camelot.”

The critical question for voters is not whether Obama is too inexperienced or McCain is too experienced to be President.

The critical question is whether America actually will reject its religious heritage and embrace the secular extremism of Obama.

When MSNBC Obama shill Chris Matthews says that if Obama wins Ohio, he will win the Presidency, Matthews is right.

Ohio has been called God’s Country for good reason.

If it still is, McCain will win, not Obama.

The vice presidential nominees emphasize the difference between the tickets.

Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., although purporting to be a practicing Catholic, is a secular extremist who rejects his Church’s fundamental teaching on life and instead embraces the "separation between faith and life" condemned by the Second Vatican Council as "among the more serious errors of our age."

Sarah Palin is a pro-life feminist and an existential threat to the secular extremists, especially the secular extremist feminists.

Pastor J. Grant Swank, Jr. astutely appraised the situation in “Nasty Atheist Feminists Vs. Sarah Palin.”

Pastor Swank:

“Those feminists who are nasty outright are by the main anti-God females.

“The crux is that Sarah Palin is a biblical believer—an evangelical. That means that those who despise the biblical deity, the Bible, Christ's ethics and the traditional Christian doctrines are automatically going to despise Sarah Palin.”

Pastor Swank is confident in Palin’s ability to prevail and to date the evidence of our eyes and ears indicates that his confidence is well justified.

“…because she is well schooled in biblical data, she knows that being despised by the theological opposition is part of the package of being a Christ disciple.

“Therefore, Sarah Palin over years I'm sure has honed her responses to these nasty feminist Sarah Palin haters. She can respond to them more smoothly than they can hate her in public. After all, Sarah Palin is a new and confusing element to them; however, they are familiar territory to her.

“For instance, Sarah Palin knows that by following Christ she takes seriously His words: ‘If they hate Me, they will hate you.’ That was spoken by Christ to His followers.

“Therefore, Sarah Palin expects to be hated by those who despise Christ and His ethic. It has always been; it always will be. Therefore, the Sarah Palins of this world consider it a privilege to be singled out for such hatred for all the more it proves their convictions to be genuine.”

Wendy Doniger, designated a distinguished professor of religion by the University of Chicago, is denying that Palin is a woman and enemies have hacked Palin’s private email and posted it on the Internet.

Why such hatred and vileness?

In a word, evil.

Pastor Swank’s explanation:

“Nasty feminists for example hate Sarah Palin because she is for womb children. They are for murdering them. She is for biblical definitions of marriage and family. They are for everything definition but what they consider the restrictive biblical definitions.

“In addition, nasty feminists don't like Sarah Palins who love their husbands and tell the world that they love their husbands. Nasty feminists don't admire mothers who adore their children and are willing to tell the world that this is proper. Nasty feminists don't appreciate a homemaker; they champion those who forsake home for any other venue than that cookie-making-dungeon.”

These nasty feminists have their litmus tests for women and Professor Doniger called Palin a hypocrite.

The truth is that Palin is genuine and, as Pastor Swank explained, her haters are the hypocrites.

Pastor Swank:

“Sarah Palin…, though a woman, is not going to get any accolades from nasty feminists. However, if they were genuine feminists, they would praise a Sarah Palin mayor, governor and now Vice President of the US running mate.

“Thus is the hypocrisy of such nasty feminists. They are not the real thing—feminists. They are nothing more than foul-mouthed, forlorn, lonely, misdirected, ignorant creatures who have no idea how to live out their gender.

“In other words, they are sick.”

Whether evil or sick, not fitting allies for good people of either sex.

Meanwhile, the irrepressible Ann Coulter hammered the importance of religion in “Obama: Lucifer is My Homeboy.”

Ann knows America's history and is not fooled by Democrat politicians suddenly seeming religious.

Ann: “It's another election season, so that means it's time for Democrats to start uttering wild malapropisms about the Bible to pretend they believe in God!“

Ann duly noted that in 2004 now Democrat chairman Howard Dean told an interviewer that his favorite part of the New Testament was the Book of Job.

This year it’s worse, as Team Obama is slicker.

Ann: “…in 2008, we have Democrats attacking Sarah Palin for being a Christian, while comparing Obama to Jesus Christ. (And not in the sarcastic way the rest of us do.)”

Obama enthusiasts are disregarding American history and pretending that Palin is an ignoramus instead of an American who understands and appreciates America’s great religious heritage.

Ann set the record straight, as follows:

“Their claim is based on a questionnaire Palin filled out when she was running for governor of Alaska in 2006, which asked the candidates if they were ‘offended by the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.’ Palin answered: ‘Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me, and I'll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.’

”As anyone can see, Palin was not suggesting that the founding fathers ‘wrote’ the Pledge of Allegiance: She said the founding fathers believed this was a country ‘under God.’ Which, um, it is.

”For the benefit of MSNBC viewers who aren't watching it as a joke, the whole point of the Declaration of Independence was to lay out the founders' breathtaking new argument that rights came not from the king, but from God or, as the Declaration said, ‘Nature's God,’ the ‘Creator.’

“That summer, in 1776, Gen. George Washington -- a charter member of the founding fathers -- rallied his troops, saying: ‘The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whether Americans are to be freemen or slaves. ... The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the courage and conduct of the army.’

”So Washington not only used the phrase ‘under God,’ but gave us one of the earliest known references to the rights of the ‘unborn.’ That's right! George Washington was a ‘pro-life extremist,’ just like Sarah Palin.

”There is no disputing that a nation ‘under God’ was ‘good enough’ for the founding fathers, exactly as Palin said.”

There is also no disputing that Obama would appoint the kind of Justices who would strike “under God” from “The Pledge of Allegiance.”

Then they’d insist that Ohio no longer be called “God’s Country.”

Make it McCain/Palin!

Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is gaynormike@aol.com.

Copyright © 2008 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

© 2004-2008 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved