Since the day he was elected, President Barack Hussein Obama has been living “high on the hog” and spending money as if there were no tomorrow while the economy is shrinking and unemployment continues to rise. He has traveled more than any president in history and spares no expense in indulging himself and his leftist friends in the lap of luxury.

The 2010 General Election is only one week away, and some voters have not decided for whom they will cast their vote. In these days when things are upside down, when right is wrong and wrong is right, Christian discernment is beneficial in sorting through the information available regarding candidates, what they say and what others say about them.

With the 2010 General Election less than two weeks away, the South Carolina Republican Party is sitting on a fence separating feast from famine, victory from defeat. If conservative voters turn out in large numbers and elect the GOP   nominee for governor, they will likely sweep the other constitutional offices including the critically important superintendent of education into office. Such a victory would provide the first opportunity in three decades to shake up the bureaucracy and upgrade the quality of education in South Carolina.  Mick Zais is the first candidate for South Carolina Superintendent of Education in recent memory that is not indebted or otherwise tied to the NEA, the education bureaucracy, and the “good ol’ boy” network that has kept the children of South Carolina in the “back of the education bus” and 49th in the nation behind Mississippi and the District of Columbia for decades while constantly demanding more money for “the children.”

The right to own property and use it as you see fit and bear arms are two characteristics that distinguish a free people from the subjects of a tyrannical government. Both of those rights granted by our Creator and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States are under attack today in our republic as never before.

Just 50 or 60 years ago, an individual or group would have been afraid to even discuss depriving another citizen of the use of his or her privately owned real property. The culprit would have been ostracized and shunned by law-abiding citizens who had fought, bled, worked and sacrificed for the right to live in a free country – unmolested on their private property. No elected official would dare to become a party to such a scheme.