“I think none of the above.” I answered.

“Well,” he pondered. “If Jesus wouldn’t vote for any of the candidates why would you?”

Good question. Clearly my son got his good looks from my side of the family and his brains from his mothers. I took a deep breath before answering him. Children often say the darndest things and I didn’t want to dampen his intellectual curiosity by patronizing him with my answer.

Though I am a Christian, I always cringe a bit when some political party or organization pretends some propriety relationship with God. The Lord is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. In fact I am not convinced that God cares a great deal for politics (and even less for politicians).

In the New Testament the apostle Matthew recounts the time the Pharisees attempted to trap God with a query about taxes paid to Caesar. Jesus takes a coin from his questioners and says, “Give to Caesar what is Caesars and give to the Lord what is the Lords.”

I have always understood this scripture to say to us that God recognizes that men are imperfect and social creatures and must therefore somehow organize and govern their associations. Governments – that is moral governments — exist to protect the liberty, lives, and property of those it governs in order that men may live together in their imperfectness. So we become political. We vote, we campaign and often feel a sense of divine appointment in our political institutions though such sentiments are often misplaced. The message of this story in scripture is that leaders as well as citizens must remember that ultimate authority rests with the creator. And he is not concerned with our political institutions. His primary concern is with the hearts and souls of the individuals that make up the institutions.

I do not claim to know the mind of God. I suspect anyone making such claims is engaged in pretense. However, as it happens we do have a moral and ethical roadmap of sorts that clues us in to the direction the Lord would like us to walk. I am of the opinion that god is always on the side of Liberty and Justice and if we as individuals keep that in mind, trust in his benevolence and mercy, follow his commandments and offer ourselves as sacrifices to our fellow man as he did for us, all will go well with us.

This was the message of Moses. The Israelites had wandered 40 years in the desert and when they were at long last set to enter the Promised Land– their leader cautioned them to have faith and let that faith guide their behavior and all will go well.

This message was repeated again by the Prophet Samuel when the people of Israel pleaded with Samuel to name a king over them in order that they might be protected and nurtured. Samuel reminds them of the words of Moses — that if they but trusted in God and behaved according to his law all would go well with them.

I concluded my answer to my son by reminding him that we are blessed to live in a country where we have a say in who will govern us. Our participation is therefore in my book mandatory. When he comes of age he must involve himself in the political life. He should weigh the issues and the candidates against the moral and ethical lessons provided by God’s roadmap and he must vote. He must also keep in mind that the men and women we vote for are imperfect and faith placed in men is faith misplaced.

And, in his daily life it will go better for him if he always casts a write-in vote for Jesus as his candidate of choice.

Joseph C. Phillips is the author of “He Talk Like A White Boy” available wherever books are sold.

It is a point that Americans ought to seriously ponder, as the future of their nation appears to increasingly rise and fall on the basis of a single vote in the United States Supreme Court.

This past June, the ever more prominent annual ritual played out in which the Court handed down its latest batch of “decisions,” which increasingly appear less as judicial considerations and more as edicts. More disturbing is that a growing number of Americans seem to be accepting the latest whims of the court as some sort of celestial standard, determining with absolute finality what America can or cannot be, and what Americans can or cannot do.

This was never intended to be the role of the courts. Rather, the founders clearly sought to prevent such unaccountable governing practices by consigning the ultimate power of legislating to the Congress which, among the three branches of government, would in turn be most accountable to the people.

The Constitution was to be the embodiment and demarcation of the pact among the States, whereby they would cooperatively form a Federal Government to arbitrate between them and collectively represent them among foreign powers. In its most extreme exercise of power, the court was intended merely to ensure that all parties under the jurisdiction of the agreement (the States) would abide by its original terms, thus maintaining its integrity.

Changes were allowed, but only under a stringent set of rules, known as the amendment process. And once those changes were instituted, the only proper duty of the Court was to enforce them. In this manner, citizens could rely on the protections afforded them under the Constitution, and its execution in all matters of governing, to be conducted in a just manner that they themselves had enjoined.

In complete contrast to modern thinking, even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that its design does not empower government but, at every turn, restricts and regulates the means by which those in power can exercise their dominion over the people. Even the first five words of the First Amendment (which was placed at the top of the list for a reason), lend incontrovertible proof to this case: “Congress shall make No law…” Clearly, the restrictions of the First Amendment are imposed on the Congress. And any First Amendment matter before the Court should be adjudicated solely on that basis.

In contrast, the three most notable cases of the latest Supreme Court session give a clear indication of just how far beyond its original boundaries the Court has reached, and just how dire is the burgeoning threat it represents to America. That governing officials and pundits are essentially ignoring the Court’s overreaching behavior, and are instead focusing on the minutia of the individual decisions, suggests that the problem in American thinking must be corrected outside the Court before any real fix can be implemented within.

Absent any Constitutional authority or mandate, in “Kennedy v. Louisiana” the Court summarily struck down the death penalty for child rapists in all fifty states. Citing no Constitutional precept, it instead substituted its own interpretation of “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.”

Apparently, the majority believes it sees a trend away from such punishment, and in response issued a blanket decree prohibiting any variance from that perceived trend. Abominating the Constitution and the rule of law, the Court simply imposed its views above those of all elected legislatures and the people.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court did indeed reaffirm, albeit grudgingly, that the Bill of Rights does indeed assert an inherent right to keep and bear arms, as if the unambiguous text of the Second Amendment was ever in question among those who can read. But if anyone doubts that this 5 to 4 decision represents a tenuous hold on the reality of such a fundamental constitutional guarantee, consider the words of dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens, who expressed incredulity at the prospect that Second Amendment advocates “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In Justice Stevens’ mind (and he is clearly not alone in his thinking), the ultimate authority to regulate society lies with high officials such as himself. It was exactly for this reason that the founders recognized the vital importance of including the Second Amendment, in order that the limitations on the exercise of governmental power imposed by the Constitution would endure.

Where, one must wonder, does Justice Stevens deem rights to be inherent? Certainly not the rights of a child to be free from the threat of a grisly sexual assault. Yet in another arena, Stevens and his liberal cohorts do indeed embrace the concept of “unalienable rights,” at least for foreign Islamic terrorists.

“Boumediene v. Bush,” possibly the most abominable and traitorous decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court (and again a 5 to 4 ruling), gives a shocking glimpse into how thoroughly an unaccountable and unrestrained court can insidiously destroy the nation. By its very name, this case representing a terrorist suit against the President of the United States, reveals how an out-of control Court can become a weapon for America’s mortal enemies. And the Court’s appalling decision, effectively granting “Constitutional Rights” to the terrorists, represents a level of collaboration with the enemy not witnessed within this nation’s shores since the days of Benedict Arnold.

In truth, the Court can no more “grant rights” to non citizens than can it alter the reality of an unborn child. It can, by properly upholding its own responsibilities, maximize the God-given rights of Americans or, as it has done here, abridge them by bestowing unlawful protections to murderous enemy combatants.

Many Americans look to this next presidential election as a watershed moment, possibly determining whether the court will be returned to its constitutional roots, or by the appointment of a few more liberal “justices,” veer irretrievably away from the foundations of the nation. Yet a proper fix must go much further than that.

While it is unrealistic to expect a move towards the impeachment of any Justices despite their having clearly exceeded the authority of office, the Constitution clearly stipulates that the Congress can, at its own discretion, place certain issues beyond the realm of the Court. Until it musters the principle and courage to do so, this unchecked Supreme Court will undoubtedly continue its perversion of the Constitution and thus the rest of America.

Many of us have a friend or acquaintance that may possess a questionable background. Such is life. Many of us like to believe that, with our help, these individuals can straighten out their lives, or “see the light,” setting themselves on a path of health, prosperity and productivity. It is noble to want to help those in need or those whose full potential has not been recognized. It’s what Americans do. But we Americans expect more from our leaders. We do so because we want to believe in them, in their judgment. We want them to have vision and foresight, judgment that proves to us that they possess the ability to stay above the fray. This is exactly the problem that Barack Obama is having with the electorate. His judgment hasn’t allowed him to “stay above the fray.” In fact, by his own refusal to readily explain and disassociate himself with the less than savory characters and organizations noted above, he chooses to remain “in the fray.” Not a good place to be for someone who wants to be the leader of the free world.

A perfect example of Barack Obama’s questionable judgment comes in the form of his selections for his “Senior Working Group on National Security.” As we face a most ominous and violent foe in the form of a cadre of aggressive Islamofascists, terrorist groups who are on record as joining Osama bin Laden’s 1998 fatwa against the United States – a declaration of war against the United States, Barack Obama wants to “turn the page” on today’s “with us or against us” foreign policy.

Barack Obama has been quoted as saying:

“Instead of adhering to a rigid ideology, I want to get back to a more pragmatic tradition of American foreign policy which has been so ably advanced by the people in this room…”

The problem here is that the people he is referring to presided over some of the most horrific decisions in US foreign policy history.

The same can be said for another Obama panelist, Warren Christopher, who served as Clinton’s Secretary of State from 1993 until 1997 when Albright took the mantle.Then there is

▪ The first bombing of the World Trade Center by radical Islamists affiliated with al Qaeda,

▪ The al Qaeda victory in Mogadishu as depicted in the film Blackhawk Down

▪ The alliance with the Kosovo Liberation Army (a radical Islamist group affiliated with al Qaeda) and the Kosovo War

▪ The bombing of the USS Cole by al Qaeda operatives (2000).

If that weren’t enough we need to remember that all of the above mentioned were serving during a time when al Qaeda was growing, organizing, training and planning the attacks of September 11, 2001; attacks that could have been avoided had President Clinton’s crack team of policy advisors advised the president to take Osama bin Laden out when they had the chance.

Barack Obama says he wants to turn the page on today’s foreign policy back to a time when it was more “pragmatic.” Once again, Obama fails to “vet the vettors.” Once again, he demonstrates that his judgment is not worthy of the highest office in the land. Once again his associations paint a picture of weak leadership and naiveté.

How else could you explain confusing the notion of pragmatism with assembling a foreign policy team responsible for over a million dead?

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for BasicsProject.org a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, BasicsProject.org, partnered in producing the original national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is a regular guest on talk radio including on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world. His opinion-editorials have been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times & Human Events and are syndicated nationally. He is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at newmediajournal@comcast.net.