This is a serious matter, my questions and concerns are serious, and I ask that everyone take them as such. Those who know me know my record and my views, know my work on behalf of our party and of people of faith in our nation.

Is Question 1 really a ruse?  Consider that in California, there is currently a petition underway to get a measure on the ballot to deny all married couples the right to divorce. This measure is promoted as coming from a conservative religious person who wants to protect marriage, when in fact it is a false front for someone who supports gay marriage and seeks to trick religious people and conservatives into supporting a ballot measure that targets straight couples. This is all part of a campaign to undermine and denigrate those who support traditional marriage, and to make us look foolish.

Now we have Question 1, supposedly to overturn gay marriage in Maine. The question I have is, are we in fact seeing just another ruse by those out to in fact prolong gay marriage in Maine and undermine our ability to offer future ballot measures that would reverse the gay marriage agenda. There are several reasons to be suspicious of Question 1. Let's look at a few.

Organizations backing Question 1 have refused to reveal their IRS 990 forms, in violation of the law. They have refused to file campaign disclosure reports, despite legal requirements to do so. They have even sought a federal restraining order to avoid disclosing who their real donors are. This is not only keeping secret those who are backing the measure, it is also jeopardizing the measure if it is challenged in court.

Question 1 has used an initiative called 2M4M, supposedly standing for "2 Million For Marriage" -- but in fact, 2M4M is a secret CODE in the GAY culture that stands for gay couples seeking a third man for sex orgies. Is this actually an attempt to mock supporters of traditional marriage, turning supporters of Question 1 into a "third man" for gay couples? It's hard to believe that this just happened, by sheer coincidence.

Consider also the commercials airing in favor of Question 1.  They seem to actually be ads that rely on stereotypes of conservative fears, and they promote a liberal stereotypical image of conservatives and religious families and opinions. The ads have even been noted for their overt camp -- camp being a very common aspect of gay culture, and a frequent tactic of liberals to mock conservatives.

They also rely on a common method by liberals to attempt to mock conservatives -- the misspelling of words. You'll find a great deal of mockery from liberals who frequently use photoshop or their own planted people at conservative rallies (such as the Tea Parties or anti-Obama protests) to create images of conservatives holding signs featuring misspelled words.

This is such a common tactic by liberals that it is a bit suspicious to see not just one but repeated instances of misspelled words in the Question 1 promotional ads. The word "marriage" itself was misspelled!  When that received widespread media attention mocking the ads, the misspelling was corrected, but another grammatical error -- the repetition of the word "same" in "same sex marriages" -- was not fixed.

Should Question 1 pass but face legal challenges over the inaccuracies in these ads and the multiple campaign law and IRS violations by the measure's proponents, it would very possibly lead to an easy overturning of the measure -- and thus we'd be right back to having legal gay marriage in Maine for more years until another attempt to reverse it could be launched.

But how much energy and resources would be committed to any future attempt to successfully overturn gay marriage in Maine, if the previous measure was overturned? Would donors once again dip into their wallets to help support another measure? Would the legal precedent from the first failed attempt further hamper future attempts? Or would Question 1's passage and subsequent overturning help to increase the likelihood that gay marriage would remain law in Maine?

The latter is almost surely the case. If Question 1, in its flawed and suspicious form, passes and is quickly overturned, it will be a victory for the gay agenda and will set back our efforts to protect traditional marriage. I urge everyone to consider the evidence and ask themselves whether it is a good idea to back a measure that may in fact be part of a dishonest liberal attack on our beliefs, and whether we want to risk losing the chance at a strong, honest campaign to repeal gay marriage in 2010 or 2012.

We cannot afford to back a measure that is a Trojan Horse of the left to undo traditional marriage and make a mockery of conservative values.  Maine voters should be very suspicious of this measure, and of backing something that evidence shows could be the work of our opponents. Make no mistake, they are well-funded, they are sneaky, and they are willing and able to invest time and resources into deceptive election practices to achieve their goals.  We saw this with ACORN and Obama, and they are getting more efficient and devious.

If in fact Question 1 is serious and is not the work of liberal operatives, or is not an organization infiltrated by and being used by liberals, then it is simply a very poorly done and weak measure that may be doomed to failure or to quick reversal in the courts. Either way, supporting it could very well be working against our own interests in the long-term. Passage of a flawed measure likely to be overturned would hurt our efforts and in the long run probably mean gay marriage remains legal in Maine for years to come, while future efforts to overturn it flounder and fail before they get started.

Voters should ask themselves whether the best tactical decision is to support this measure, or to avoid the dangers and look to the future in 2010 or 2012 for a better, honest measure that will truly best serve our goals and support the traditional values we hold dear.  Perhaps I've just grown more suspicious in the aftermath of the dirty tricks that Obama and his Democrats have relied on lately, and maybe I'm less tolerant of shoddy work by well-meaning groups who ultimately hurt rather than help. But I have strong doubts and suspicions about Question 1, and I think the points and questions I've raised are at least worth considering.

If Question 1 is serious, is not a liberal ploy, has not been infiltrated, and is simply bad work likely to assist our enemies in the end, then it is still not a measure that will help us succeed. We need to be smart and make good tactical as well as strategic decisions, so think well on this matter before casting a final vote!

Glen Beck's commentary at CNN today is excellent in many regards, but one issue in particular deserves to be looked at more closely: health care, and the 47 million people currently without health insurance in the United States. That sounds like a lot, because it is. But let's examine the numbers more closely, using the most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau's report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.

About 38% of them – over 17 million – live in households making $50,000 or more per year.

About 20% of them – almost 10 million – aren't citizens of this nation.

About 33% of them – roughly 16 million – are eligible for govt insurance but aren't enrolled yet.

So, 43 million of that 47 million – or about 91% -- either can afford insurance, aren't even citizens of our country, or are already able to GET health care assistance but haven't.

So more than 33 million of the 47 million uninsured – or almost 79% -- either could afford insurance and just don't get it, or are eligible for health care assistance but haven't bothered to sign up.

Only 9% -- about 4 million people – are U.S. citizens who cannot afford insurance and are not eligible for government insurance. That is barely more than 1% of the population. Of course it is sad that anyone goes without health care insurance, and we should find ways to fix even that low number; but it does not signal an actual crisis, and is certainly something entirely manageable within the existing health care structure of this nation. And by the way, the 47 million number? That's one million LESS than it was before, which is more than a 2% reduction. That's a drop equivalent to 25% of the total number of people – 4 million – who currently lack insurance and cannot afford it but who aren't eligible for government insurance. If all of those one million people were among that group, then there was a 20% decline in the rate of uninsured people from that group.

And we might also consider that many of those (nearly 9 million) without insurance are children – a point Democrats love to make but ignore the implication that the overall number of households and families without insurance is actually very low, and as already noted the majority of them in fact either can afford insurance but choose to do without it or they are eligible for government insurance but choose not to enroll.

So what, exactly, have the Democrats – and their nominee, Senator Obama – done about the supposed health care "crisis"? Nothing. Obama, in fact, skipped nine of the 15 Senate votes on health related measures during his tenure. NINE. He missed 60% of the votes. At least Hillary Clinton can claim to have actually done a lot of work to create a gigantic monstrosity of a health care proposal once in her life.

No, there is no health care crisis in America. It is merely another Democratic party scare-tactic based on a myth.