Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” of a quarter century ago has given way to Barack Obama’s “Evening in America.” The journey to the threshold of a potentially dark and frightening night will hopefully provide a road map for recovery. My hope is that American conservatives can look objectively back at the time since Ronald Reagan left Washington D.C. and learn from the mistakes and circumstances that culminated in this moment. I also hope that this particular moment is indeed the culmination so we will not have to slip further into darkness before we see a new dawn.

There are some positives that can be taken from this year’s disappointing election. The anxiety over who will win has now dissipated and while the result gives reason for grave concern, we now know what we face. With either result, conservatives were to face great challenges and certain conflict with the new administration. I believe opposition to misguided policies will be strengthened due to the fact that they will be crafted by the opposing political party (even thought the Republican Party has made itself largely indistinguishable from the opposing party.)

Those of us who reluctantly supported John McCain (for me personally, much less reluctantly after he named Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate) no longer have to struggle with our decision. We did what we thought had to be done. Now it is over and we can move past supporting a liberal Republican as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps enough Republicans will recall this election in 2012 such that we will not allow a liberal-lite candidate to win the party’s nomination. Those of us that feel we betrayed at least a portion of our values in attempting to protect our national well-being can break free from the bondage of settling to seek and support future candidates who share our principles.

The level of darkness and length of the night our nation faces will be determined by a number of factors, including our level of resistance. It is possible that Barack Obama believes in his own rhetoric. If that is the case, our resistance will have to be nearly constant. It is hard to imagine that the promises made to win the support of far left loons will actually become the base of a presidential agenda… but if Barack Obama believes in those promises, we will need to be vigilant. Considering the character of the people drawn to Barack Obama (i.e. domestic terrorist Bill Ayers), it is likely that he will indeed push a dangerous far left agenda as president.

An unknown and deeply troubling factor is the effect of Obama’s policies on our economy, society, security, and liberty. We can hope to avoid utter devastation at the hands of the first Marxist President of The United States of America, but that hope is little more than a glimmer. If Obama’s agenda unfolds as planned, the question will become: How much misery will be required to convince the electorate that it made a mistake? There is also the uncertainty associated with the ability of an increasingly dependant electorate to not only awaken but have the ability to rise out of the shackles of dependence. As resources are limited and more people turn to the government to have their needs met, the stronger President Obama’s stranglehold on this nation’s working class will become. Again, we can hope that this nightmare is not realized and Obama can be largely neutralized by a vigilant citizenry.

Is it possible that the two-party dominance could weaken such that citizens have actual choices in future elections? One can dream. There will come a point, perhaps in four years or assuming Barack Obama doesn’t attempt to pull a Hugo Bloomberg, in eight years, when we will be selecting the next president. Will there be viable options to Republican and Democrat? Will the nose-in-the-air Republicans such as Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Brooks, and Kathleen Parker have a party in which they can be comfortable? It is unfortunate that The Democrat Party would need to splinter in order for factions of The Republican Party to be able to stand as viable options.

I realize that the idea of deconstructing the two-party system is highly unlikely to become a reality, but in the spirit of Obama’s campaign, one can hope! Assuming this dream is not realized, we will face the non-Obama related struggle to prevent the RINOs from convincing primary voters that despite the McCain example, our only chance to win is to run another soft-core liberal. The night will only be prolonged if we repeat our mistakes.

Here’s to remaining faithful to our values and to never forgetting how we arrived at this moment! Here’s to conservative leadership that can communicate conservative ideals (what a radical notion!) Here’s to the cleansing purge of Republicans that behaved like Democrats (or the division of the former party!) Here’s hoping that America will not have to wait a quarter of a century to awake to a new day!

The Washington Post might be the odds-on favorite for the D.C. base of “Big Brother” Barry’s “Ministry Of Truth,” but The L.A. Times is a leading contender for “The Left Coast Satellite Ministry.” Op-Ed writer Neal Gabler takes offense to the characterization of “The One” as a rock star. Apparently movie stars and Kennedies are deeper than rock stars and the emotional connections with their adoring fans are much stronger. Gabler’s five-star review of “Obamunism, Episode ” seeks to explain why feelings over thought should carry the vote for an Obamanation. This thinly veiled campaign ad is titled:

His ‘celebrity’ comes from an emotional identity with voters, not from ‘rock star’ hysteria.

Like all cliches, this one has some truth and a lot more gas. The last time the media carted out this theme was 40 years ago, when Robert Kennedy, running for president, attracted the same sort of frenzied adulation and also threatened to upset the political apple cart by assembling a coalition of the young, the disenfranchised and the well-educated. But for Obama and for Bobby, the characterization is insulting and

imprecise. It is insulting because it suggests that their devotees’ effusions are just a visceral reaction — the political equivalent of puppy love. And it is imprecise because Obama is — and Bobby was — more movie star than rock star, which is an analogy with a difference. Rock stars, with some glaring exceptions, typically whip up the crowd; the thrill tends to be short-lived. Movie stars, by contrast, tend to create a long-standing emotional identification with their audience. It’s a difference that may have a bearing on the outcome of this election as voters weigh the advantages of being a movie star against its disadvantages. Movie stardom can be confused with mere celebrity, which has connotations of insubstantiality.

Obama faces that obstacle too. It is the downside of being a star. What this election may finally come down to is a choice between politics and movie stardom, between the safety of what we think we know and the expansiveness of what we dream, or, in more prosaic terms, between good old John Wayne and the less predictable but more exciting Will Smith. In any case, rock stars need not apply.

The man who would bring you Obamunism draped in “hope” for “change” wants the Christian population to trust him with their support for the presidency. Let us ignore the contradiction that would be a Christian supporting Obama and look at the message of the charlatan. His D.C. campaign office (AKA The Washington Post) describes how “Obama Addresses His Faith:”

ST. LOUIS, July 5 — Sen. Barack Obama ended a week’s focus on values by giving a conference of the African Methodist Episcopal Church a highly personal account of his spiritual journey and a promise that he will make “faith-based” social service “a moral center of my administration.”

He “ended a week’s focus on values” so he must be relieved to have such unfamiliar subject matter behind him. I’m not saying that I don’t believe Barry has values. I am saying that his values are likely not what he was trying to sell last week… or did he give a speech on Marxism somewhere in there? Perhaps he did make a veiled reference to his plans for Obamunism in St. Louis:

He suggested that he would apply the lessons of his faith to the problems he would face if he became president. “The challenges we face today — war and poverty, joblessness and homelessness, violent streets and crumbling schools — are not simply technical problems in search of a 10-point plan,” he said. “They are moral problems, rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness, in the imperfections of man. And so the values we believe in — empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors — these cannot only be expressed in our churches and our synagogues, but in our policies and in our laws.”

The message I receive is that the working people will be required to pay more in taxes to enable us to exercise “empathy and justice and responsibility to ourselves and our neighbors.” Redistribution of wealth is the only way to prove that we are not a nation of “societal indifference and individual callousness.” His type of libiot ideology is largely to blame for the problems he mentions so how insulting is it to the intelligence of his audience that he expects them to believe that the solution can be found in the cause?

How dare he mention joblessness when his party seeks to stifle manufacturing either in the name of the environment or big labor unions? How dare he mention homelessness when his party seemingly has declared war on the productive? Or am I missing how the homelessness problem might be related to joblessness? “Violent streets and crumbling schools,” is this man insane? The left has worked for years to degrade society. They have glorified immorality and fatherless homes. they have made schools shift the focus from education to diversity and important subjects such as trans-gender-sex-education.

The vile purveyor of Obamunism will not admit that he and his ideology support the degradation of society and the ills he laments. He cannot admit that he needs unwed mothers raising children without fathers. He cannot admit that he needs children to receive poor educations and grow into less than productive citizens. The more people that rely on social programs and entitlements, the more people the Obamunists can control. He cannot admit that he needs dependents of the government so that he can justify the confiscation of the productive sector’s labor.

I get the sense that the most genuine Obama moment of the campaign occurred at a gathering with San Francisco elites when Barry didn’t know he was being recorded. Christian voters, Barry wants your support so please be so kind as to ignore what is likely the most honest quote you’ll get from the dope of hope. From The Hill:

Obama told guests at a private event in San Francisco that he was having trouble attracting support in rural Pennsylvania because people living there had become “bitter” over their economic circumstances and as a result “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

At least he didn’t come out and say “hillbillies” because that would just be tacky! Wait! He chose his words carelessly… and… and they weren’t the words he’s known for twenty years so “bitter” and “cling” have joined Rev. Wright, Wesley Clark, and Bill Ayers in the pile of items from which to distance himself.

Back to the article by his campaign (or Washington Post if you want to be picky.) He has apparently thrown Christians a bone by indicating that there might be an excuse that might not be good enough for slaughtering an unborn child:

Last week, Obama expressly came out against using “mental distress” as a justification for late-term abortions, a position widely seen as the latest in a string of moves toward the political center but one aimed specifically at Christian conservatives.

Oh, well in that case, every Christian should see it Barry as the pro-life candidate! Not so fast though, he still thinks abortion at any stage is acceptable as long as it isn’t a result of “feeling blue”:

“Historically, I have been a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose, with her doctor, her pastor, her family,” he said Saturday. “And I’ve been consistent in saying you have to have a health exception on any significant restrictions or bans on abortions, including late-term abortions.

“It can be defined by physical health. It can be defined by serious clinical mental health diseases,” he continued. But “it’s not just a matter of feeling blue.”

On a personal note, I believe that Obama’s pro-abortion activism would disqualify him from receiving a single Christian vote. What he did in the Illinois Senate to kill common sense legislation to protect babies that were born alive (botched abortions) might disqualify him from having a soul. From Jill Staneck:

On Jan. 10, 2005, newly elected U.S. Sen. Barack Obama visited former colleagues and staffers at the Illinois state Capitol, where he had served seven years as state senator. I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

Christians who oppose abortion are apparently supposed to be so caught up in “change” that we will accept the notion of not allowing abortions to a mother just because she’s “feeling blue” as a reasonable compromise on the issue. (Of course, in my opinion the life of an innocent child is not something open to compromise, but hey I’m not an enlightened elitist.) Christians’ intelligence and character are being insulted by Obama’s faith based pandering. Not only are we dumb enough to believe what this snake oil salesman is saying, we are greedy! We would not be charitable and giving; therefore, we need Obamunism and its wealth redistribution plan to care for the needy.

I sure am glad that American Christians have the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years (when not campaigning for something) and never heard the controversial parts of the sermons, to lecture us regarding faith!