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!

After weeks of bashing Republican Vice Presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin over the so-called "Bridge to Nowhere", it turns out both Obama and Biden voted AGAINST redirecting the project's funding, and both voted FOR the final legislation funding the bridge.

An added bit of hypocrisy can be found if you look closely -- another issue the Democrats have tried to use as an attack on the Bush administration is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Yet when given the chance, neither Obama nor Biden voted to send the "Bridge to Nowhere" funding to help the rebuilding of New Orleans.

But wait, it gets even better!  Biden, who continues to blow hot air about the bridge in Alaska, is responsible for $342 million in earmarks for Delaware, for things like an opera house and a water park. And the icing on the cake is -- can you guess? -- a bridge connecting two beachfront towns. The kicker? They already HAVE a bridge. A bridge that the head of the Rehoboth Beach-Dewey Beach Chamber of Commerce says is just fine. And really, the bridge is just a shortcut anyway, since an extra 30 minutes is all it takes to get from one town to the other without using the bridge.

We've got bridges in dire need of repair in this nation, as recent tragedies have clearly demonstrated. Yet here comes Biden, deciding that HIS bridge gets priority despite the fact there's already a bridge that isn't in need of any immediate repairs.

Obama and Biden refused to redirect the "Bridge to Nowhere" funds when they had the chance, they refused to send the money to New Orleans instead, they voted to build the bride, and Biden himself has his own little bridge back home that is a complete waste of taxpayer money and is just one part of hundreds of millions of dollars in pork Biden sends to his state.

And yet these hypocrites still stand up in front of the American people and sling mud at Gov. Palin, still use their applause lines about the bridge in Alaska, and still spout off in disingenuous anger about "pork" and insist they will bring change to Washington. But Republican Presidential Candidate Sen. John McCain is the only one who has consistently refused to seek any pork projects for his home state of Arizona.

Bottom line: the Obama-Biden campaign will lie about anything and everything to get elected.

Senator Barack Obama claims he wasn't calling Governor Sarah Palin a "pig" with his remarks the other day. Judging from the audience reaction, Sen. Obama was the only one in the room who didn't make the connection between his remarks and Governor Palin's joke about hockey moms being pit-bulls with lipstick. Her remark got so much attention, it is unimaginable that it just never occurred to Obama that people would immediately connect his comments with Palin's.

Then, of course, Obama went on David Letterman's show last night and made a joke calling Palin the "lipstick" being applied to "the pig" John McCain. So as usual, the Democrats want to have their cake and eat it too -- they expect to get away with slanderous remarks, to later deny the remarks were slanderous, and then make more slanderous jokes about the slanderous remarks. No doubt, anyone expressing further outrage over Obama's continued offensive jokes on Letterman's show will be met with more denials followed by more offensive wisecracks from the Democrats.

What surprises me is, nobody has mentioned that Obama's initial insulting remark about "lipstick on a pig" preceded yet another even more potentially crude and offensive bit of innuendo from Obama. Immediately after the "lipstick on a pig" slander, Obama made a remark about "old fish". Now, I'm not going to get into much detail explaining the obscene nature of the implied insult there, but I think everyone can pretty easily figure it out.

So, if Obama was indeed trying to make a not-so-subtle reference to Governor Palin with his "lipstick on a pig" remark, it seems to me that his very next comment about "old fish" has to be taken in the same light. And it is simply a disgusting way for a presidential candidate to conduct himself. Of course, disgusting behavior is nothing new for the Democrats, but this is really a new low even for them.

And even if we take Obama at his word -- a dangerous proposition, and not one I would ever recommend mind you -- then he was calling Palin nothing but "lipstick" and McCain the "pig", and further calling McCain "old" with the "old fish" insult. Right? I mean, whichever way Obama tries to spin it, either McCain was being called "old" and smelly, or Palin was being called a smelly fish. So which is it, Sen. Obama?

I'd also point out that, in Obama's version of events, him calling Palin "lipstick" still has rather overt sexist overtones. So she's just there to pretty things up, eh? Just comparing her to "makeup", right? Why not toss in a joke about shoe-shopping while you're at it, Senator? And really, we're supposed to think it's entirely appropriate for you to call Sen. McCain a "pig"? And "old"? And stinky? Really, you think that this spin on your slander makes it all acceptable?

Of course you do. Because how dare we even begin to question you, someone who lives so high above the rest of us unwashed masses down here on Earth, right? Palin's just some broad without substance and good for nothing but eye-candy, and McCain is just some old pig who smells bad, right Senator? I can't wait to hear you call Palin "sweetie" or whatever it is you go around calling women this week.

So yes, by all means, call Palin a "pig" or "lipstick" or a "fish", or call McCain a "pig" and "old" and smelly. Because one thing we'll never call YOU is "President".

So the Democrats think it's fine and dandy to mock Alaska. More moose than people, a dozen people and some caribou, and other such snide insults have been tossed around by liberals and the MSM since Sen. McCain announced Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate.

Apparently the Democrats think it's acceptable to spit on states with smaller populations. Well, unless it's New Hampshire -- do you think the Democrats would dare mock residents of that state as unimportant and their leaders as unqualified? How about Montana? How about Wyoming, which actually has a smaller population than Alaska by the way? Why don't the Democrats just come out and say it: the only people who really "count" to liberals are those living in California, New York, and a handful of other left-leaning states. If you live in any states in-between, well forget about it, you aren't important and your leaders are worthless.

Palin is the only candidate on either ticket who actually has executive experience. She also has "legislative" experience from city council work. She also has business experience, what some of us who aren't named "Biden" call WORKING for a living. And she has family experience. Someone needs to inform the Democrats and the MSM that despite their smug opinions, the life experiences of people NOT named "Obama" happen to matter, too.

I seem to recall a lot of hoopla made about the fact that Obama's life OUTSIDE of the United States, his time pontificating about his place in the world while he snorted cocaine, and his time as a father are all supposedly very important and this life experience (especially, in typical liberal fashion, the time spent in other countries) is supposedly an actual qualification to be president. Yet being a working woman, a working mother, fighting for education and ethics reform in her community, and running an entire state aren't qualifications. Obama can spend four years doing nothing in Congress, on the heels of his time spent avoiding voting on anything in Illinois, and that (combined with his time as a child living in places not called "The United States") make him the best choice to lead our nation and command our armed forces. Oh, I forgot, he knows how much arugula costs... I guess that proves his superiority to all those knuckle-dragging normal people who live in Alaska with the moose, right?

And besides the actually very positive comparisons we can draw between Palin and Obama, how about a VP-to-VP comparison? If the Democrats want to talk about experience and qualifications, I'd like to point out that while it's indeed true that Biden has spent more than half his life sitting in chairs during committee meetings talking endlessly about his liberal ideas for foreign policy, that's not actually "experience". My uncle does that, too, with the minor difference that he doesn't bore us to death. While Biden's been holding his little meetings to explain in extremely long detail what he'd do if he were in charge (all of it wrong, of course) and spending months running for president (where he called Obama too inexperienced to be president but said he'd be "honored" to be McCain's VP), Governor Palin was running a state. Biden talks, Palin works. It's that simple.

So every time the liberals and the MSM spew some new insult about Alaska and why Palin running a state isn't experience, we need to remind them -- LOUDLY, so they can hear us over Biden talking about himself -- that a few years running a state full of working people counts for more than doing nothing in Congress for a few years more. Both Palin and Obama have spent less time as elected officials than their running mates. The difference is that the time Palin spent counts for something, and that the narrative of HER life was spent here in America and she's smart enough to be PROUD of that fact.

[Side Note: Can Republican crowds PLEASE stop booing and jeering, or otherwise making extremely unhelpful negative displays, when Palin refers to Hillary Clinton and her supporters? If you are endlessly committed to working against our party winning over women voters, reaching out to former Clinton supporters, and generally recognizing the importance of the impact of Clinton's campaign on women in politics and presidential elections -- then sure, by all means, continue to be unhelpful and obtuse and utterly kill important lines in Palin or McCain's speeches. Boo your hearts out, create embarrassing moments on television at our party's public events. But if, just by chance, you are showing up at the events because you perhaps SUPPORT conservative issues and actually maybe LIKE Palin, maybe -- just MAYBE -- consider not booing when she's trying to help our party's outreach strategies, okay? Yeah, just think it through, people. Thanks.]

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.

If Obama wants to make the "elitist" label stick, he is doing a marvelous job. Consider his remarks about McCain's and Clinton's suggestions that the gas tax be suspended during summer months. Obama says it wouldn't be worth it, because it would only save an average of $30 per family and is simply a short-term solution.

Let's try some simple math. Summer is about three months long. Divide $30 by three, and you get $10 per month.

For people who actually work for a living, unlike Senator Obama (and I don't just mean that as a slight against Democratic politicians, I mean it even more literally, in light of Obama's tendency to skip work), $10 a month can in fact make a difference.  You can buy a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, a carton of eggs, and a five-pound bag of sugar with that $10. That's an extra week's worth of staple grocery items at a time when prices for such goods are on the increase, and if you are a parent with mouths to feed, an extra week's worth of those groceries every month is very helpful.

Or that $10 could be seen as a little government subsidy for the energy bill each month, during summer months when energy bills run higher. A ten percent subsidy on the first $100 of your electric or gas bill can be a big help for a working-class or poor family.

How about using the $10 for an extra three or four gallons of gas, to get to work or pick up the kids from school or take your family to the park? I don't know anybody who would turn down $10 per month in free gasoline, do you? Look at it that way, and it doesn't seem so worthless after all, does it?

An extra week's worth of groceries each month, a subsidy for your energy bills, or three free gallons of gas every month -- that's what the gas tax suspension equates to for working and poor families in this country, and that is why this simple proposal can be a helpful little short-term friend for a lot of households. When people are already struggling to support their families on just a little bit, every extra little bit helps.

Obama and others like him dismiss the importance of such things, precisely because of their contempt for the average family. Already displayed through things like his dismissal of gun ownership and church attendance as things embraced only by bitter rednecks, Obama's elitist attitudes and utter failure to relate to working Americans is further clarified by his new opposition to helping those same Americans buy more food, more gas, and pay their bills. Maybe someone needs to point out to him that he can use his own $10 a month in savings as a government subsidy for pricey arugula.

One of Obama's criticisms of the gas tax suspension is that it would in fact increase demand and thus not help bring down prices. Well, the first rather obvious problem with this snotty attitude is that it pretty much debunks Obama's own suggestions, like the plan to stop buying oil for the strategic reserve. If there is more oil on the market, the price would go down, right? Oops, wrong, since increased demand would drive the price higher again, remember? Anything that brings down the price inherently would raise demand, and increased demand is at the heart of Obama's claim that prices won't drop.

Obama also keeps repeating the empty rhetorical line that gas tax suspension is just a short-term solution when what we need are long-term solutions. So, it appears that Obama doesn't think that sometimes short-term relief is necessary while bratty elitists work out their long-term solutions. When did Senator McCain (or Senator Clinton) state that the gas tax suspension is the only plan? Why does Obama falsely pretend it's an "either-or" situation? Because he's disingenuous, he can't relate to the day-to-day problems working people face, and he pretty much looks down his nose at and resents any idea that isn't his own, that's why.

(And apparently, Obama must've forgot that in fact, gas tax suspension was his idea previously. Yeah, that's right -- he voted for a gas tax holiday THREE TIMES.)

People are hurting right now. They will be hurting more this summer, as gas prices and energy bills and food prices rise even more. Yes, obviously we need long-term solutions, but in the meantime something should be done to help people get by while the grand schemes for the future are debated and studied endlessly. The gas tax suspension is a simple idea that admittedly brings short-term, moderate relief, but that is something a lot of families would benefit from in the here and now. The here and now, however, is someplace that Obama doesn't seem to live in. He resides on some alternate plain of existence where he transcends the problems and shortcomings of us mere mortals, where change, the future, the inadequacies of those he seeks to rule, and the just massive size of his own great big brainy brain are the only concepts he has time to contemplate.

Me? I'll take the $10 a month, thank you. I work for a living, and I've got bills to pay.