Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  April 15, 2008
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Under God, Not Under Obama

No one fit to be President of the United States would try to "separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty'" or disparage religion as something to which embittered people "cling."

No one fit to be President of the United States would try to "separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty'" or disparage religion as something to which embittered people "cling."

Time's cover story on presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.'s mother, "Raising Obama: How his mother made him who he is," by Amanda Ripley, seems to have been designed to make Obama look like a perfect potential president with a poignant personal story.

But Obama actually is a secular extremist elitist with an arrogant disdain for the religious preferences of so many Americans.

So much for his elite education at a private school in Hawaii, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.

Apparently the author and editors did not expect that Obama's "erudite" expression of contempt for the attitude of "small town Americans" toward religion and guns made at a private San Francisco event would be taped and shared with the rest of the world will the issue of the magazine carrying the puff piece was on the newsstands.

To the consternation of Obamamaniacs, Rev. Jeremiah A. "God damn America" Wright, Jr. is not Obama's only political problem and their no guilt by association argument can't possibly apply to Obama's own statements about his attitudes.

Disparaging people for "clinging" to "guns" and "religion" and explaining it in Marxist terms might be politically savvy in San Francisco, but San Francisco is atypical of America.

The Time article quoted Obama as saying that his mother "had a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution" and "as a consequence. so did I."

With Rev. Wright. credited by Obama as the person who brought him to Christ, his parents' "marriage" being bigamous (his father having already married in Kenya before coming to the United States) and Obama preaching "a healthy skepticism of religion as an institution" and channeling Karl Marx when it comes to explaining religion in economic terms, it's critical to think about what kind of change Obama has in mind for America and to remember that change can be for the worse as well as the better.

Obama is the candidate of secular extremism, excessive political correctness, multicultural and moral relativism mischief.

But the American people are still primarily a religious people and not about to put aside their religious faith for an elitist political opportunist.

As Mitt Romney explained in his Faith in America speech:

"There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation's founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: 'We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.'

"Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone."

Mr. Romney continued:

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'"

Mr. Romney is absolutely right about all that.

No one fit to be President of the United States would try to "separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty'" or disparage religion as something to which embittered people "cling."

Obama is not fit to be President.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.

Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.

The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.

Gaynor currently contributes regularly to,,, and and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.

Gaynor's email address is

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2008 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2024 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved