It's clear from Barack Obama's latest verbal mishap that he just doesn't get it!

In making some highly prejudicial remarks about small-town America, he stated that there is a large degree of "bitterness" and resentment festering under the surface, which manifests itself into xenophobia, religious fervor, and arsenal-building.  Obama stated:

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

What Obama 'just doesn't get' is that small-town America really couldn't be happier.  There's no "bitterness" to speak of.

The reality is that those who "cling to religion" could not be happier!  Poll after poll shows that those who are more stronger in their faith and those who attend religious services more often are happier than those who are without faith or those who attend religious services less frequently.

• An extensive survey by The Associated Press and MTV found that people aged 13 to 24 who describe themselves as very spiritual or religious tend to be happier than those who don't. 
• According to a new poll poll, religious belief is linked to higher levels of happiness, and provides psychological help when people are afflicted by dramatic life changes such as job loss or divorce. Professor Andrew Clark, from the Paris School of Economics, and Dr Orsolya Lelkes, from the European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research, reached this conclusion after analysing the results of surveys sent to Christian households across Europe. Professor Clark said: "We originally started the research to work out why some European countries had more generous unemployment benefits than others, but our analysis suggested that religious people suffered less psychological harm from unemployment than the non-religious. They had higher levels of life satisfaction".

Further, considering that those who tend to vote Republican are more likely to be more religious than those who vote Democratic, recent polls have shown that Republicans are happier than Democrats, as well.

An Investor's Business Daily/TIPP poll recently asked Democrats, Republicans and Independents to define "rich." Does "rich" mean material possessions, or does "rich" mean something like happiness/health/satisfaction?

Democrats at 41.5 percent, versus Republicans at 28.2 percent, more often defined "rich" as either possessing lots of money, material goods or power. Sample "materialistic" responses included things like, "Rich means:" 1. "If you have an income in excess of $500,000 a year," 2. "Someone who has $1 million in the bank," 3. "To have substantially more money than you can spend," and 4. "Being able to afford anything you want and buy your way out of trouble."

When specifically asked whether rich means having family, friends and good relationships, Republicans, more so than Democrats, defined the term this way. Sixteen percent of Republicans defined "rich" in this way versus 9.7 percent of Democrats. Sample "non-materialistic" responses included things like: 1. "I am rich because I have a roof over my head and a good family and I am emotionally and morally stable." 2. "Someone who has many friends that you care about and that care about you." 3. "I am rich because my children and grandchildren live close to me and I live where I want to -- this is rich to me."

Considering what we have recently learned about the hateful and "bitter" (... if I may) rhetoric which has rained down from the pulpit of Obama's church, maybe Obama needs to consider aligning himself with a new political affiliation - and a new church, for that matter!

The slippery slope of secular humanism continues to become even more so all around the world.  We are quickly moving beyond a mere degradation of social virtues to outright hostility against religion and potential criminalization of adherents who practice their faith in their daily lives.

In recent years we have seen the Dutch government change its laws to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, infanticide of imperfect children, and most recently, the sanctioning of gay polygamous unions.

Gay marriage has become a reality in Canada and Massachusetts.  For years our own government has flirted with passage of so called “hate crimes” legislation that essentially criminalizes individual thoughts by way of adding extra penalties if biases, hatreds or intolerances are perceived in the commission of a crime.

And now the British government is proposing a sweeping new legal code that would forbid discrimination against homosexuals when in the market for “goods and services”.

As we know from our own experience in this country with the broad interpretation of our Constitution’s language regarding “interstate commerce”, it’s no leap of logic to deduce that “goods and services” will soon encompass just about any human interaction involving an exchange of money.  Its effect will be that of forcing people of faith, be it Christian, Jew or Muslim – pretty much everyone except secular humanists – to act contrary to their religious beliefs in the conduct of their everyday lives, or else become a criminal.

For example, religious schools would commit a crime by not allowing gay students or teachers.  Churches that occasionally rent out their facilities for community events would violate the law by not allowing gays the same access – perhaps even to hold same-sex “marriage” services.

Religious newspapers would violate the law if they refuse to run advertisements for gay lobbying groups.  A Christian owned ad agency would be unable to refuse to do work for a campaign promoting gay marriage.

In short, the active practice of one’s faith in everyday life would no longer be legal.

Here in the United States, the move by Massachusetts’ Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage without so much as a vote by that state’s legislature, much less its citizens, has resulted in making the adoption agency practices of the Catholic Church illegal.  That being the case, the Church was forced to end providing such services altogether, rather than compromise their faith.

The implications don’t stop there.  Kansas Senator Sam Brownback recently pointed out that, “…in states with same-sex marriage, religiously affiliated schools, adoption agencies, psychological clinics, social workers, marital counselors, etc. will be forced to choose between violating their own deeply held beliefs and giving up government contracts, tax-exempt status, or even being denied the right to operate at all.”

Generally, such proposed legal changes stem from the fact that the secular humanist crowd doesn’t see religion as something that should instruct one’s daily life and relationships, but rather as simply representative of a place some people go on Sunday.  And they have no patience for people who take it more seriously than that.

Someone once said that true tolerance also means having tolerance for the views of the majority.  While history is filled with examples of religious intolerances, the greatest levels of intolerance today no longer come from the faithful, but rather from the anti-religious.

Much is made by the left in our country of the First Amendment’s “establishment clause” in our Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”.  From bans on prayer in schools, or at publicly sponsored events, to public displays of the Ten Commandments and even the inclusion of the words “under God” in our Pledge of Allegiance, we are told that such observances constitute an “establishment of religion” and are therefore unconstitutional.

They seem to forget that the very next phrase in the First Amendment states, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.  In other words, it provides for freedom “of” religion, not freedom “from” religion.

How is it that prayer in schools constitutes a violation of the “establishment” clause of the Constitution today when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an “establishment of religion” to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

It is incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to base their electoral choices on their values.  This is probably the result of more education and information as well as that they increasingly feel that fundamental issues are under attack, such as marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, etc..  They are becoming more aware of political differences between candidates and political parties and are beginning to align their views with their electoral choices.

How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their “rights”?  Or that we change our laws to accommodate them.

When did “undocumented workers” become “guest workers” or just “immigrants”?  And when did illegal immigrants become “undocumented workers”?  For that matter, when did “illegal aliens” become “illegal immigrants”?  When did the nomenclature of this debate change?  And who sent out the memo?

We’re lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut.  Sort of like the pro-abortion crowd refusing to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.

People who complain about political parties as being too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets.

American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as telephone service, airlines and banking.  In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that de-regulation – or at least de-monopolization – of public education would prove less beneficial?

One thought to consider is that the very laws being proclaimed by activist judges as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage (or married couple) lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was.

Note that we’re not having this debate over the legal definition of marriage as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist state judges in a few states.  And the potential impact of those actions on the rest of us by way of the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

The ultimate strategy is to use the “Full Faith and Credit” clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter.  They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.

For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of “amnesty” is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people).  Not that facts should matter to members of Congress.