The Electoral What???

So what’s the deal with the Electoral College? What is it? Why do we have it? Why not just base the election for the president on the popular vote? What were the Founders thinking when they set up this complicated system of presidential elections, and why not change it now?

Establishment of Electoral College

The Electoral College was established in Article II of the Constitution, although it was not given that exact name within the Constitution, it simply talked about the electors. The official name of Electoral College was assigned to these electors in 1845.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may
direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress; but no
senator or representative, or person holding office of trust or profit under the
United States, shall be appointed and elector.

This article explains how the electors are allocated to the states. Electors are distributed the same way that members of congress are apportioned; the number of representatives per state is based on the population of that state, with the number of senators being equal in all states, that number being two. The number of congressional members ensures that all states have an equal say in at least one body of congress, but that all people have a voice within that same body. States have equality through the Senate and each person is represented in the House of Representatives.

Reason for Electoral College

The Founders believed that all states should be seen as equal no matter how large their populations grew. The Electoral College keeps states like California and New York from holding absolute power over presidential elections. All those small states in the middle have two electors just like the large states. This might not seem supper important when you look at California’s 55 votes compared to Arizona’s 10, but take away the two equal votes the states have and the smaller states would have no chance influence presidential elections. With those two electors, a cluster of smaller states can stand against the overwhelming number of electors in one populous state.

That is why the mid-west or the South can form voting block, allowing all those red states to carry as much weight as the larger but less numerous blue states. The Founders were all about balancing out power.

How the Electoral College Influenced Elections

The 2000 presidential election revealed the balance of power concept. Al Gore won the big population states, like CA and NY, but the smaller states joined together, with a couple bigger states and shifted the win to George W. Bush. At the time everyone was upset. We had not had an election that was decided by the Elector College in over 100 years at the time. People were upset that the popular vote had not decided that election, that the Supreme Court gave the win to Bush, but it wasn’t the Supreme Court, but the Founders and the Constitution that gave the win the Bush. The balance added by the Electoral College was lived out in that election.

The 2000 win for Bush was not the first nor the most dramatic win by a man not receiving the largest number of popular votes. In 1876, Samuel Tilden received a quarter of a million more votes than Rutherford B. Hayes. Three states had accusations of voter fraud, and their election results were disputed, so no one had enough electoral votes to claim the presidency. A commission of fifteen members was appointed to solve the dispute. They (8 to 7) gave the disputed states to Hayes, and he was elected president.

In 1824, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote and 99 electoral votes, but not the majority of electoral votes needed to win the presidency. John Quincy Adams won 84 electors, and Henry Clay and William Crawford split the 78 electors that were left. In order to resolve the issue, the election was thrown into the House of Representatives, where Clay threw his support behind Adams, causing the House to vote for Adams. Jackson accused Clay and Adams of unfairly swinging votes in Adams direction, and came back four years later to claim the presidency back from John Quincy.

The first time the Electoral College came into play in a presidential election was in 1800. The Founders had to live by the rules they established in the Constitution, when Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Aaron Burr ran against one another. Jefferson defeated Adams soundly, but the electors divided sending the election to the House, where the votes lined up behind Adams. At that time, the person who won the second most votes in an election became vice-president. Adams won the presidency with Jefferson winning the vice-presidency. It was a long four years for Adams, and Jefferson came back to win the 1804 election easily.

Balance of Power

The Founders gave us the Electoral College to ensure that the states with the largest populations would not overwhelm all of the political landscape. I think at many levels they succeeded. California, with the largest number of electoral votes went to the democrats in the last two elections (2000, 2004), yet republicans won the White House in those elections. The last Californian elected president was Ronald Reagan, and before him Richard Nixon, but we have had presidents from Georgia, Arkansas and Nebraska within that same period of time, showing that population is not all that matters within our electoral system of government. If not for the Electoral College, limiting the effect of the popular vote, New York, California and a couple of other states would determine every presidential election.

Thankfully, the Framers of the Constitution understood the need to limit power, and realized the best way to do that was to balance out power among the branches of government as well as between the larger and smaller states. The Electoral College is a complicated system, but it has served us well for the past 219 years.

Check out this years electoral map as it changes and shapes up over the next week at:

http://rove.com/election

The Greatness of America

Tonight I watch John McCain and Barack Obama sit at the same table and have dinner with one another. They were at a fundraiser for the Alfed Smith Foundation (I know nothing of this organization). Each man had a chance to speak and they were both hilarious. They basically roasted themselves, each other, the media and the political process we have all been involved in for the past 18 months. They laughed at one another’s jokes, were sincere in their praise of each other, and they warmly shook hands as it was all over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cen37qxA7E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SkFjTCscM4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLR3oa30w9Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZXX9Wfl5S0

No other nation in the history of the world has transferred power from one leader to another as peacefully, as seamlessly, as consistently as the United States of America. That is, in the end, the key to our greatness. The principles the Founders established in the Constitution have withstood the test of time; they have weathered civil war, economic despair, foreign attacks, and political divisions. This nation was not established by the will of one man, but upon the dream of many men. Men who understood tyranny, dictatorship, and would never allow their nation, birthed in freedom, to be shackled by any man’s hunger for absolute power. They understood that the right to govern is derived from the people, and established the Constitution, the document that would forever guide the nation, upon that principle:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Preamble of the Constitution

Obama's Call

Barack Obama says that all American’s have a right to health care. He uses the story of his Mom’s battle with ovarian cancer as a justification for his position. He and Michelle both utilize the picture of his fifty-three year old mother arguing on the phone with the insurance company as the backdrop for their position. They explain that no one in that situation should have to spend their last days on earth convincing their insurance company to cover their medical costs, and they are right. No one should have to do that.

I find the picture that Michelle and Barack Obama paint to be an indictment, but not an indictment of the healthcare industry; not an indictment of insurance companies. No, the picture of this deathly, sick woman, battling ovarian cancer, arguing on the phone with her insurance is an indictment of her son and his wife.

Why was he, this educated, well spoken, successful man watching his mother's struggle. Why was he not on the phone himself, why wasn’t he helping to pay for the care of his dying mother? Why were they by-standards to the injustice they felt his mother to be suffering, when both of them have law degrees from prestigious schools?

The picture is meant to stir sympathy for this dying woman and her plight; meant to shame insurance companies around the country; meant to point a finger at those in the healthcare industry, but what it really does is to reveal the character of Barack Obama. He chose to let his mother fight her own fight, even while he was on the streets of Chicago telling others to stand up for injustice. He presents himself as a defender of the weak, as the righter of injustice, yet he never puts himself on the line. He organizes other, but stays out of the fray, allowing those weaker than himself to stand on the front lines, fighting for themselves.

Is it really the responsibility of a faceless person on the other end of a phone to care for all the needs of the person they are talking to, or does that responsibility fall on the shoulders of the son or daughter actually sitting in the room with their sick parent?

Liberals like to attack institutions for not caring, for not taking care of the needs of people, but the amazing thing is that they themselves walk by those in need. Joe Biden said paying taxes is patriotic, Obama wants to tax those making over $250,000 a year in order to make the playing field even for others, but neither man gives freely of his own wealth to those in need. Based on the tax returns the Obamas released, they gave only 1% of their income in charitable giving from 2000-04. In 2005-06, they contributed 5% of their income. That number was said to increase in 2007, but the returns for that year have not yet been released.
Compared to the frugal, Scrooge-like giving of Joe Biden, the Obamas look like Santa Clause. Joe Biden, in a ten-year period, contributed a total of $3690 to charity. Even though, the Biden’s would be considered one of the wealthiest 1% by their own campaign, because they make over $250,000 a year.

Biden's Adjusted Gross Income Charity

1998 $215,432 $195
1999 $210,797 $120
2000 $219,953 $360
2001 $220,712 $360
2002 $227,811 $260
2003 $231,375 $260
2004 $234,271 $380
2005 $321,379 $380
2006 $248,459 $380
2007 $319,853 $995
Total $2,450,042 $3,690

These men decry the lack of care showed for the poor in our nation, they demand healthcare for every citizen, they criticize the educational system and yet, neither man opens up their own wallets to feed the poor, to provide healthcare for the members of their own families, or to aid another in their pursuit of a higher education. They deny their personal responsibility, yet attack those who fulfill their personal responsibility to those around them. They believe themselves to be modern day Robin Hoods, taking from the rich to give to the poor, yet they won’t even reach into their own pockets.

Barack Obama’s Mom should not have spent her last hours on earth fighting with the insurance company. Her son should have taken care of that for her, he should have been her community organizer, he should have been the one on the phone.

The Greatest Challenge of Our Time

“This is the greatest challenge of our time”….what might that challenge be? The sub-prime lending crisis, healthcare, energy independence, global climate change? Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth last night he said, “This is the greatest challenge of our time.” Every time I listen to him speak there is one song that comes to my mind, one phrase that runs through my head, “It’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it but I feel fine.”

I do feel fine. I do not believe that if the House of Representatives doesn’t pass a piece of legislation that the world will end. Based on the media and the political establishment it truly must be a miracle that the US is still standing, after the House said no the first time to the enormous bailout package that is now being sold as a “rescue” plan.

Even after it was passed and signed into law by the President, it did not stop the Stock Market from dropping below 10,000 this Monday? Amazingly though, people are still working, still eating, still shopping, still travelling, still buying homes and cars, still living as Americans have always lived.

Those in DC have a false sense of their own importance and significance. They believe that THEY can “rescue” banks, homeowners, and even the US economy by simply passing a piece of legislation. They have no control over the stock market; their attacks on Wall Street have attempted to shift blame. If they make Wall Street the bad guy, then they can come in and look like the heroes.

The funny thing to me is that they all talk about the middle class. How the middle class need a rescue plan, a life preserver thrown to them by the great Federal government, but you know whom Wall Street is? It is made up of the middle class; their 401K , their IRAs, their e-trade business, their Walmart stock, so when the politicians sit around attacking Wall Street they are attacking the very people they say they want to save.

Obama says that wealth does not trickle down, but it does. People with money should buy homes, because they can afford them and will pay their mortgage payments. They are the ones running the small business that has 20 employees, they are the ones investing into their communities and creating wealth for others. Obama’s philosophy and that of the Democratic party is what created this sub-prime lending mess. They sell a bill of goods that says that wealth can be created by giving people things, well if you are giving it to them, they are going to expect more giving and that does not create wealth. All that creates is a dependence on the government.

Apparently, John McCain is okay with that dependence mentality as well. He is planning on having the Federal government by bad mortgages and having the courts or others renegotiate those mortgages. No longer a free market system of supply and demand, if you can’t afford it, you should not have bought it, so you lose it. No now, both parties want to FIX things, take the consequence of bad business practices and poor choices away and make the government the savior of the people.

There is no fiscal conservative at the top of either ticket. Nina Easton of Fortune Magazine said last night was a historic debate. No longer are free market principles the standard, not even for the republican candidate.

The reason Sarah Palin won her debate with Biden is because she believes in the American people. She said last Thursday night “Government needs to get out of the peoples way, so that the people can continue to make the United States the greatest nation on earth.” Maybe this is just a trial run for the real conservative to arise four years from now and reclaim the true Reagan mantel, but until then this election is “the greatest challenge of our time”, and neither candidate has a plan to fix that.

It’s the end of the world as we know it, it’s the end of the world as we know it, but I feel fine…..

Christianity and Abortion

Life is an issue that divides our nation. It has been dividing it since January 1972. The division arose with the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade. That decision made abortion legal in the United States for the first time. It was seen as a victory for women, a victory so that they would no longer have to publically carry the burden of an “indiscretion”, a public burden their male counterparts did not have to carry. Women now had the right to chose; to chose what they would do with their own bodies.

With that decision, the nation was firmly divided. The United States was and is divided between two passionate world views; those who believe life is sacred and no one has a “right” to take the life of another, no matter how small that life might be, and those who see women’s bodies as their own and the Roe v. Wade decision as liberation for women across the nation.

This decision acted as the final catalyst for many Christians around the country. Prayer and the Bible had been removed from the public schools by this same court, and now that same court said that life, a unborn child’s life, was not sacred. By 1979, only seven years after the Roe decision, Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority was up and running, moving a pro-life president into the White House, by calling on Christians to vote according to their moral beliefs. A movement against judicial activism began with Roe v. Wade, a movement wrought from the pens of the Burger justices; a movement that is known today as the “Religious Right.”

Christians, as a voting bloc, became a significant power in the political landscape. Politicians on both sides of the isle started to court them. The rise of the “Religious Right” was lead by organizations like the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and The Family Research Council. Family values became the dominate theme of presidential convention after convention, especially for the Republican Party, whose party platform lined up with the pro-life passion of the majority of its constituent base. “Christian” became synonymous with Republican for many American’s, but that correlation was not always seen as a positive. A backlash to the political drive of the “Religious Right”, especially their political activities, has arisen among a new generation of political activists.

The youth of the 90’s saw the founders of the “religious right” as mean spirited, vindictive men who did not want to share Christ with the world, but instead wanted to gain power for themselves. The dominate worldview of the founders of the religious right movement is being rejected by the generation that followed them. Self-proclaimed, post-modern Christians see men like Jerry Falwell, Gary Baure, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy as unloving and unchristian in their approach to political activity. This new generation of politically active Christians is just as passionate as the prior leaders, but their focus is far different. They protest against those standing up for “traditional” family values, arguing against such things as the Marriage Amendment. They believe it is harsh and uncaring to ask for a Constitutional Amendment for marriage, believing this amendment pushes people, specifically homosexuals, away from God.

The life of the unborn or as Rick Warren stated, the human rights of the unborn, is not even enough to rally this new generation into one political entity with their predecessors. The life issue has become passé. To many, it is divisive and unwinnable, so why make it the one issue to live and die over. The new generation of Christians and non-Christians argue that people are being killed around the world. All killing should be stopped including the killing our own nation perpetrates against innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan. For the post-modern generation, global warming is the equivalent of marching for civil rights in the ‘60’s. The planet, not humanity, needs to be saved. Saved from what; saved from humanity itself. The Republican Party is no longer seen as the party of moral values. Moral values have shifted for many post-modern Christians, with abortion taking a backseat to more faddish and popular causes.

These new political Christians are no less engaged in changing culture than their older counterparts. They differ in how that should be achieved and what social change actually should take place. The post-moderns don’t stand against anything. They embrace everything and everyone that is different from themselves, except their forefathers in the political world they all inhabit.

The political divide that separates these two generations is based on a multitude of factors, but one of the main features of their differences of thought has arisen within the past decade. The disparity between them is based on their interpretations or application of the Bible; more specifically the inspiration or importance of all Scripture.

To the post-modern Christian, the Gospels are the most significant section the Bible. The life of Jesus is the gold standard and the rest of the Bible is not as vital to the life of a believer. Now the leaders of the “right” or more clearly described, the moderns, believe all Scripture is God breathed and is profitable for correction, teaching and training in righteousness. They too would claim Christ as the gold standard, but they would look at His life as part of the overall plan of God for humankind. A plan encompassed by both Old and New Testaments; the writings of Moses as much as the writings of Paul. The importance of all Scripture to modern Christians is one of the reasons they are so passionate in their stance against abortion, gay rights and moral relationships in marriage. Those in the “right” believe that the Ten Commandments matter, and there is a moral law humanity should live by. The post-moderns do not hold to this belief as strongly. They never want to appear judgmental or unloving. Relationship for the post-modern trumps a biblical standard of morality.

This is one reason that Barack Obama was unable to answer Rick Warren, when Warren asked him at what stage human rights should be extended to a child. Obama said the answer to that question was “above his pay grade.” He could not say because if he answered in either direction he would be making a judgmental statement. Yet he was able to say that evil does exist, such as in killing of innocents in Darfur, but he was unable to say that that evil should be crushed or defeated as John McCain said. To say that the United States had a right to defeat an evil presupposes a moral superiority and that is judgmental or uncaring for those on the other side, who might not be evil but simply misguided.

Many young Christians are drawn to Barack Obama because they too believe that it is not possible to make moral judgments of other nations because we ourselves have moral failings. They are also being drawn by the new focus the Democratic Party is placing on faith and prayer. An announcer on the Christian radio station, KLOVE, overflowed with excitement and praise for the Democratic convention. She said that God was not absent, His name was being used and prayer was a prevelant part of the huge event being held in Denver.

The Democrats have always claimed faith, the difference in their draw to Christians a decade ago and their draw today is that the post-modern generation does not look at one issue as the plumb line in their voting decisions. The Democratic Party has not changed. Its platform has always been the same since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1972. It states:

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a
woman's right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her
ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that
right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption
incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Democrats stand behind the right of every woman to
choose. We believe it is a constitutional liberty. This year’s Supreme Court
ruling show us that eliminating a woman’s right to choose is only one justice
away. Our goal is to make abortion more rare, not more dangerous. We support
contraceptive research, family planning, comprehensive family life education,
and policies that support healthy childbearing. Source: The Democratic
Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004

Life still divides us as a nation, but sadly, it has just become another issue among the many. No longer is it an evil to be defeated. It is a political issue to be discussed, and accepted if necessary in order not to appear judgmental. The truth is if evil is not defeated a moral judgment is still made.

July 20, 2000,
Testimony of Jill Stanek to Illinois Legislature on behalf of The
Born-Alive Infant Act

I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery
Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past five years.
Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third
trimesters of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted are healthy, and
sometimes they are not.

The method of abortion that Christ Hospital uses is called "induced
labor abortion," also now known as "live birth abortion." This type of abortion
can be performed different ways, but the goal always is to cause a pregnant
woman's cervix to open so that she will deliver a premature baby who dies during
the birth process or soon afterward. The way that induced abortion is most often
executed at my hospital is by the physician inserting a medication called
Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix
and stimulates it to open. When this occurs, the small, preterm baby drops out
of the uterus, oftentimes alive. It is not uncommon for one of these live
aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. One of them once
lived for almost eight hours.

In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she receives no
medical assessments or care but is only given what my hospital calls "comfort
care." "Comfort care" is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until he
or she dies, although even this minimal compassion is not always provided. It is
not required that these babies be held during their short lives.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome
baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not
want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the
thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I
cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks
old, weighed about 1/2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to
move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he
was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to
the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he
was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in
a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead
patients are taken.

Other co-workers have told me many upsetting stories about live aborted
babies whom they have cared for. I was told about an aborted baby who was
supposed to have Spina bifida but was delivered with an intact spine. Another
nurse is haunted by the memory of an aborted baby who came out weighing much
more than expected ~ almost two pounds. She is haunted because she doesn't know
if she made a mistake by not getting that baby medical help. A Support Associate
told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the
Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally
thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to
find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor.

I was recently told about a situation by a nurse who said, "I can't
stop thinking about it." She had a patient who was 23+ weeks pregnant, and it
did not look as if her baby would be able to continue to live inside of her. The
baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national
statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the
mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a
neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist
present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present
for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my co-worker. After delivery
the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket
and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2-1/2 hours
later.

Something is very wrong with a legal system that says doctors are
mandated to pronounce babies dead but are not mandated to assess babies for life
and chances of survival. In other words, our laws currently say that babies have
no rights to medical oversight until they are dead. We look the other way and
pretend that these babies aren't human while they're alive but human only after
they are dead. We issue these babies both birth and death certificates, but it
is really only the death certificate that matters. No other children in America
are medically abandoned like this.

Abortion is a cancer that is literally killing America. It is killing
our children while it is killing our consciences. It began when we took God out
of our decision making and proclaimed that the little beings growing inside of
women were "products of conception" and not little girls and little boys. Who
should be surprised that we keep pushing the envelope so that now we are
aborting these "products of conception" alive? I even work at a hospital named
"Christ" that does this very thing! It is beyond me to comprehend that we're
doing what we're doing now, and so I can't even imagine what horrible ways we
will think of next to torture our children. Please help put an end to this by
proclaiming infants as American human being homo sapiens with the same legal and
medical rights that you and I big people have. Thank you.

Added to second-to-last paragraph of Jill's oral testimony:
"I am
also very uncomfortable with the fact that the very doctors who may be
miscalculating due dates and fetal birth weights, or misdiagnosing fetal
handicaps, are the same ones deciding that these babies should not be assessed
after delivery. Shouldn't these babies be given the simple opportunity for
second opinion, just like you and I?"

Life continues to divide our nation along party lines. Some of those lines are blurred at times. There is a harsh, judgmental attitude among many in the “Religious Right” movement that needs to be changed. Christ came to seek and save the lost, not gain political power and position, but neither did He ignore the moral ills of His day. He loved the adulterous woman, and said to her, “go and sin no more.” He made a moral judgment on her sin. Relationship is important to sharing the love of Christ, but there is a standard of right and wrong that God set up in His Word, His Law. Jesus did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.

“Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19).

Victory for California Homeschoolers

Great news for homeschoolers across not just in California, but across the United States. The California Court of Appeals ruled that homeschooling is legal in the state of California "as a species of private school education." The Following is a letter to homeschoolers explaining the ruling, which was issued Aug. 8, 2008.

Dear HSLDA Members and Friends:

In a unanimous decision, the California Court of Appeal for the Second
Appellate District today ruled that "California statutes permit home schooling
as a species of private school education."Today's decision stands in stark
contrast to the opinion this same three-judge panel issued in February, which
would have made California the only state in the union to outlaw home education
had it remained in effect.

"It is unusual for an appellate court to grant a petition for rehearing
as this court did in March," said HSLDA Chairman Mike Farris, "but it is truly
remarkable for a court to completely reverse its own earlier opinion. We thank
you for your prayers and give God the glory for this great victory."When the
court vacated its earlier decision on March 25, 2008, it invited interested
organizations to file friend-of-the-court briefs.

"I have never seen such an impressive array of people and organizations coming to the defense of homeschooling," said Farris, who was one of the attorneys who argued the case on rehearing along with Alliance Defense Fund attorney Jeff Shafer, who represented the father.

The father was also represented by Gary Kreep of the United States
Justice Foundation.California's three largest homeschool organizations,
California Homeschool Network, Homeschool Association of California and
Christian Home Education Association joined together in one brief to defend the
right of all parents to homeschool. HSLDA, Family Protection Ministries and
Focus on the Family also joined in a separate brief. Numerous other private
organizations came to the defense of home education as did California's
governor, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction.

We are extremely grateful to all of the organizations who worked
tirelessly to protect and preserve homeschooling freedom in California. We are
also thankful for you, our members, for your prayers and support during this
trying season.The freedom to homeschool is a precious gift from God. But keeping
it free requires vigilance and perseverance. We must continue to work together
diligently to preserve this precious freedom in California and
elsewhere.

Sincerely,
J. Michael SmithHSLDA President

To read the full opinion click here. Below are excerpts from the opinion:

We will conclude that: (1) California statutes permit home schooling as
a species of private school education; and (2) the statutory permission to home
school may constitutionally be overridden in order to protect the safety of a
child who has been declared dependent.

[FN1: We use the terms "home school" and "home schooling" to refer to
full-time education in the home by a parent or guardian who does not necessarily
possess a teaching credential.] ...Although the Legislature did not amend the
statutory scheme so as to expressly permit home schooling, more recent
enactments demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature of the
proposition that home schooling is taking place in California, with home schools
allowed as private schools.

Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some
parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be
private schools. Moreover, several statutory enactments indicate a legislative
approval of home schooling, by exempting home schools from requirements
otherwise applicable to private schools....

While the Legislature has never acted to expressly supersede Turner and Shinn, it has acted as though home schooling is, in fact, permitted in California. ... While the legislative history of Education Code section 44237 is somewhat complicated, it confirms this interpretation, and also reflects the Legislature's apparent intent to
accommodate home schooling parents. ...

The most logical interpretation of subsequent legislative enactments and regulatory provisions supports the conclusion that a home school can, in fact, fall within the private school exception to the general compulsory education law. ... We therefore conclude that home schools may constitute private schools. ...

While the interpretation of the private school exemption is ultimately
an issue for the courts, we find it significant that education and enforcement
officials at both the state and local levels agree that home schools may
constitute private schools....

In short, the rule of Turner and Shinn has been discounted as a doctrinal anachronism, and clinging to such precedent would undermine a practice that has been, if not actively encouraged, at least acknowledged and accepted by officials and the public for many years.

John Edwards: The Arrogance of Power

Politicians do not seem to learn that they can’t have an affair, play the family card and get away with it. John Edwards is the latest politician to publicly destroy his family and his political career. Edwards chose to run for president with the baggage of an affair around his neck. Why would anyone put himself or herself out there in such a public way, while knowing something like this could come out at any given moment?

In his public statement, John Edwards stated that, “I started to believe that I was special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic.”

I have not heard of too many politicians who do not believe that they are special and that is one of the ways they are able to get up in front of us and tell us what they think, and what we should all do. Edwards said he became “increasingly egocentric and narcissistic” meaning he was already arrogant and self-centered before his “serious error in judgment”.

It is the politician’s belief in their own rightness that propels them into the political arena in the first place, but sadly, this belief in one’s own rightness is the downfall of these same political figures. They begin to believe that they are above others, that they can do what they please because they are who they are. Every scandal in Washington from Watergate to Iran Contra to Lewinsky to Weapons of Mass Destruction to Jonathon Edwards destruction of his name and family are all based on this belief in ones own greatness.

It doesn’t matter what party they are in, they all have the ability to be ruled by the arrogance of power.

I am still surprised at times when I hear of a man in public office who made this same “serious error in judgment.” I shake my head and wonder what in the world they were thinking or not thinking. Then I remember that all have sinned, and that pride always comes before a fall. If any of us thinks we would never commit such and act, we had better start to look around us, because it just might be waiting at the door.

Jonathan Edwards is not the first person to attempt to hide his private sin in a public arena and sadly he will not be the last. His attempt to take personal responsibility for his actions failed, when in his statement he turned attention from his actions and culpability into a poor me moment.

In 2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a
way that was disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my
mistake and I told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked
for her forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my
family, I did not tell the public. When a supermarket tabloid told a version of
the story, I used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it.
But being 99 percent honest is no longer enough.

I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices, and I had hoped
that it would never become public. With my family, I took responsibility for my
actions in 2006 and today I take full responsibility publicly. But that
misconduct took place for a short period in 2006. It ended then. I am and have
been willing to take any test necessary to establish the fact that I am not the
father of any baby, and I am truly hopeful that a test will be done so this fact
can be definitively established. I only know that the apparent father has said
publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any
activity of any description that requested, agreed to or supported payments of
any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby.

It is inadequate to say to the people who believed in me that I am
sorry, as it is inadequate to say to the people who love me that I am sorry. In
the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was special and
became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat me up —
feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up myself. I
have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to help my
family and others who need my help.

Edwards' statement admitting affair. By The Associated Press

Funny that Edwards once believed that 99% honesty was ever enough. Edwards attempt at righting his actions only shows that his struggle with his egocentric and narcissistic behavior is not yet complete. A full moment of true humility, not blaming a “supermarket tabloid” is the only way he will ever get rid of his own idea that he is “special” or above the morals and values of everyone else.

Sadly Many See This As True

He ventured forth to bring light to the world
The anointed one's pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action -

and a blessing to all his faithful followers

By Gerard Baker

And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.

When he was twelve years old, they found him in the temple in the City
of Chicago, arguing the finer points of community organisation with the Prophet
Jeremiah and the Elders. And the Elders were astonished at what they heard and
said among themselves: “Verily, who is this Child that he opens our hearts and
minds to the audacity of hope?”

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving
Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of
Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the
appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the
light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue
that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He
ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the
Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world. And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats
that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces
of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms
raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no
more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the
great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen
Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to
destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge
of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of
vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child's very
presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to
speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the
mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their
uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the
Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the
lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long
enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child's wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and
McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child's journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

The Great Prophet Algore of Nobel and Oscar, who many had believed was the anointed one, smiled and told his followers that the Child was the one generations had been waiting for. And there were other wonderful signs. In the city of the Street at the Wall, spreads on interbank interest rates dropped like manna from Heaven and rates on credit default swaps fell to the ground as dead birds from the almond tree, and the people who had lived in foreclosure were able to borrow again.

Black gold gushed from the ground at prices well below $140 per barrel. In hospitals across the land the sick were cured even though they were uninsured. And all because the Child had pronounced it.

And this is the testimony of one who speaks the truth and bears witness
to the truth so that you might believe. And he knows it is the truth for he saw
it all on CNN and the BBC and in the pages of The New York Times.

Then the Child ventured forth from Israel and Palestine and stepped
onto the shores of the Old Continent. In the land of Queen Angela of Merkel,
vast multitudes gathered to hear his voice, and he preached to them at length.

But when he had finished speaking his disciples told him the crowd was
hungry, for they had had nothing to eat all the hours they had waited for him.

And so the Child told his disciples to fetch some food but all they had
was five loaves and a couple of frankfurters. So he took the bread and the
frankfurters and blessed them and told his disciples to feed the multitudes. And
when all had eaten their fill, the scraps filled twelve baskets.

Thence he travelled west to Mount Sarkozy. Even the beauteous Princess
Carla of the tribe of the Bruni was struck by awe and she was great in love with
the Child, but he was tempted not.
On the Seventh Day he walked across the
Channel of the Angles to the ancient land of the hooligans. There he was
welcomed with open arms by the once great prophet Blair and his successor,
Gordon the Leper, and his successor, David the Golden One.

And suddenly, with the men appeared the archangel Gabriel and the whole
host of the heavenly choir, ranks of cherubim and seraphim, all praising God and
singing: “Yes, We Can.”

Alan Colmes off of Hannity and Colmes said, "What in this is not true."

Sean Hannity replied, "Really?" and then looked at Alan in disbelief.

Too many believe as Alan. Barack Obama is seen as a savior, a savior of the world. Gerard Baker uses the absurd to point out the fallacy of the great Barack, but all good humor has a thread of truth in it. Not the truth of Obama being "the Child", but of peoples misconceptions of him. Obama is no Jesus!!! And he will never save the world.

Citizen of the World

We are the world, we are the children

We are the ones who make a brighter day

So lets start giving

Theres a choice we're making

We're saving our own lives its true we'll make a better day

Just you and me

Is Barack Obama running for President of the United States or for President of the World? Hard to tell, especially when you listen to him speak to Europeans. Check out his speech to the world:

Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let
me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me
earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most
of all thank you for this welcome.

I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in
this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born
in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His
father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the
British.

At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others
in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required
the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after
letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his
prayer for a better life.

That is why I'm here. And you are here because you too know that
yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know
that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better
life.

Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on
the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of
this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across
Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of
their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.
This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army.
And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

And that's when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely
rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog
filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping
off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry
families who had no comfort from the cold. But in the darkest hours, the
people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to
give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to
the Tiergarten, and heard the city's mayor implore the world not to give up on
freedom. "There is only one possibility," he said. "For us to stand together
united until this battle is won...The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done
our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your
duty...People of the world, look at Berlin!"

People of the world - look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together
and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field
of battle.

Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity
of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny
gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common
security.

Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber
stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our
common humanity.

People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a
continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great
for a world that stands as one.

Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has
led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and
tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness
has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the
borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in
Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on
American soil.

As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the
ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing
drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya. Poorly secured nuclear material in
the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help
build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the
heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of
tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than
our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one
nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None
of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in
the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget
this truth. And if we're honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both
sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared
destiny.

In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our
world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In
America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe's role
in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today
are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the
world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to
defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice
greatly for freedom around the globe.

Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt,
there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship
continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift
this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required
to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a
choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and
advance our common humanity.

That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide
us from one another. The walls between old allies on either side of the
Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those
with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and
immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls
we must tear down.

We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people
of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a
column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace.
Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast,
where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans,
where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to
justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated
apartheid.

So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task
is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and
sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and
diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each
other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.
That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared
sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the
21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky
above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the
moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit
anew.

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of
extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our
responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet
Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks
that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand
with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate
instead of hope.

This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the
terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who
sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous
difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing
that NATO's first mission beyond Europe's borders is a success. For the people
of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America
cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our
support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their
economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to
turn back now.

This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without
nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of
this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that
we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further
spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to
stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era.
This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without
nuclear weapons.

This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to
choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we
need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this
continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all
cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work
with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a
partnership that extends across this entire continent.

This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets
have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a
cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to
sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must
forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful
protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is
free and fair for all.

This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the
Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a
direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must
support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis
and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past
differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of
Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the
Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let
us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and
famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all
nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as
has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the
moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as
one.

And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a
globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a
battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin
did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful
children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military
victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from
the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did
here.

Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with
this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of
this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security
and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the
refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the
blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words
"never again" in Darfur?

Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one
each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for
the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun
discrimination against those who don't look like us or worship like we do, and
keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our
time.

I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled
to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made
our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world
have not lived up to our best intentions. But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great
cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other
nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular
tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every
culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our
public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people;
what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to
aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from
want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and
worship as we please.

Those are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this
city. Those aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is
because of those aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of those
aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is
in pursuit of those aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must
make our mark on history.

People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge
is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are
heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us
build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.

New Yorker Cover

The cover of the newest New Yorker Magazine is drawing a lot of attention. At first glance, you might think the magazine is making fun of Obama and his wife, Michelle, but that is not the case. According to the New Yorker, the cartoonist was actually making fun of the crazy accusations the "right" makes about the Obama's, and their position on terrorism (The Guardian).

Funny though, most people who see the magazine cover will never know what the intent of the magazine really was, they will simply have the image of the Obama's in the White House with a portrait of Bin Laden as the focal point of the Oval Office. So, when they go in to vote, they won't picture a noble President Obama sitting with the faces of all those dead, white guys we call the founders sitting over his shoulder. No, instead they will see Bin Laden.

The next time the New Yorker wants to point out the misguided ideas of those on the right, they might want to leave their guy out of the picture. Sometimes a little help from your friends can actually hurt.

Russia As An Ally?

I am not sure what presidency Barack Obama is running for. He seems to want to protect every other country in the world’s rights, while laying ours aside. He is like the parent who is more concerned about the neighbor’s kid’s well-being than that of his own.

In his latest appeasement, the Democratic Nominee argued that Russia should not be excluded from the G8, as John McCain suggested. During a CNN interview, Obama stated that Russia was a needed ally in the fight against nuclear proliferation. “Without Russia’s cooperation,” Obama said that, “our efforts on that (stopping proliferation of nuclear materials and technical knowhow) will be greatly weekend” (Reuters, July 12, 08).

The question that arises is this, What has Russia done over the past eight years to stop nuclear proliferation? NOTHING! While we have been fighting a two-pronged war against terrorism and the spread of “weapons of mass destruction” through that war, Russia has actually aided Iran in developing their nuclear program.

“WHEN Russia announced it had started shipping low-enriched uranium fuel to power the civilian nuclear reactor it is helping Iran build at Bushehr, George Bush tried to squeeze some comfort out of a piece of news which—for the international effort to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions—was a disappointing about-turn. “If the Iranians accept that [Russian] uranium for a civilian power plant, then there's no need for them to learn how to enrich,” he said on December 17th.

True, in theory. But Iran refuses to follow such logic. By making long-delayed fuel shipments to Bushehr now, Russia will weaken further the UN Security Council effort to end Iran's defiance. It also risks undermining plans to limit the spread of dangerous nuclear technologies at a time when many governments, including a number in the volatile Middle East, plan to invest in nuclear power” (Ecomomist.com, December 19, 07).

John McCain’s reason for excluding Russia from the G8 was their new clampdown on political freedom. The presses freedom as well as the freedom of political dissension is taking hold in parliament.

"Not a single private TV channel is left at the national level, and a similar process is under way in the regions," says Boris Nemtsov, a parliamentary leader of the liberal Union of Right Forces. "Freedom of the press is gradually being squelched in Russia" (Rusnet, July 13,08).

“Amnesty International examines the pernicious effect of arbitrary interpretations of vague legislation and increasing harassment on the freedom of people in Russia to express their opinions and to stand up for their rights. The report comes after a tumultuous period under Russian President Vladimir Putin that has seen armed police attack peaceful 'Other Russia' demonstrators, new laws that have harassed NGOs and their personnel, the unsolved murder of outspoken journalists and the closure of nearly all independent media outlets” (Amnesty.org, Feb.2008).

Politically, Russia is beginning to move back to the days of its Soviet past. A weak hand and a naïve belief that the Russians want a relationship with the United States will only increase the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world. Strength is the position they and the rest of the world respect and understand. The Reagan model of working with the Soviets is the premier that should be followed. It was the only one that ended the proliferation of nuclear weapons up until that point in history.

Obama needs to remember his history. The only relationship we have ever had with Russia that has worked long term in controlling rouge nations and the spread of weapons of mass destruction was the cold war. It seems that he wants to be everyone’s friend, but he needs to remember that no one wants to be the friend of the United States. Russia hates our position, and our power as does every other nation in the world that is not already our close ally. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Failed Policy

Not only should John McCain compare Obama’s economic policies with the failed policies of the Carter administration (up and coming post), he should also compare his homeland defense policies with the failed policies of the Clinton administration.

The voice of the Democratic Party coming from the Obama camp calls the war on terror and the reaction to 911 pursued by the Bush administration wrong. John Kerry (not such a new voice) said in relation to the Obama’s vision for handling terrorists that the policy of prosecuting terrorists used in the 1990’s, especially the way the World Trade Center bombing was handled was the right course to follow in dealing with terrorism. He said the perpetrators were tried, convicted and sent to prison, problem solved.

Well, that might be the case, but that prosecutorial method most favored by democrats never addressed the overall picture of global terrorism, and never acted as a deterrent to those who wanted to destroy the United States and her allies.

In the 1990’s under this system of national security, the following attacks on the United States at home and abroad dominated the news:

• 1993: World Trade Center Bombing
  The World Trade Center bombing took place on February 26, 1993, when a car bomb was detonated below Tower One. The device was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into Tower Two, bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people. It failed to do so, but did kill six people and injured 1,042.
  The Attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Yousef, Abouhalima, Salameh, Ayyad, Rahman Yasin, and Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four were convicted of carrying out the bombing. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November, two more were convicted, one being Yousef, the mastermind of the attack” (Wikipedia).



• 1996: Khobar Towers
  The Khobar Towers bombing was a terrorist attack on part of a housing complex in the city of Khobar, Saudi Arabia. It was being used to house foreign military personnel.
  On June 25, 1996, members of Hizballah Al-Hijaz exploded a fuel truck next to the housing complex. The eight-story building housed US Air Force personnel. In all, 19 airmen and Saudis were killed and 372 of many nationalities were wounded
  In June 21, 2001 and indictment was issued charging 18 terrorists with murder, conspiracy and other charges related to the bombing, most of those charged being Saudis.
  The 9/11 Commission noted that Osama Bin Laden had been congratulated on the day of the Khobar attack (Wikipedia).




• 1998: Embassy Bombings
  August 7, 1998 the US embassies in cities of Dar es Salaam, Tanzanie and Nairobi, Kenya were bombed killing hundreds of people simultaneously. These attacks were tied to local members of al Qaeda, and brought bin Laden and al Qaeda to the international community for the first time.
  The Clinton administration sent cruise missiles into key locations in Sudan, where terrorists were believed to be located, but the only target damaged was a civilian pharmaceutical factory.
  The investigation into the bombing was handled by the FBI and local authorities resulting in several men being charged with the bombing.
  The son of Saddam Hussein of Iraq, following the bombings, praised Osama bin Laden. He called him “an Arab and Islamic hero.” A court in Afghanistan declared bin Laden “a man without a sin” following the bombing.
  Twenty-one people were indicted in relation to the bombing: two were killed in war on terror since 9-11, since 2001 four are serving life without parole, three have been held in the UK since 1998/99, two are held in Guantanamo Bay, ten still at large including bin Laden (Wikipedia).
  



• 2000: USS Cole
  A suicide bomber attacked the USS Cole on October 12, 2000, while it was harbored in Yemeni. Seventeen sailors were killed, and thirty-nine were injured in the attack, orchestrated by bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
  All those convicted in the attack escaped from prison or had been freed by Yemeni officials by May 2008.
  Dr. Rice (national security advisor at the time) stated the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he ‘made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.’The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.
  On November 3, 2002, the CIA fired a AGM-114 Hellfire missile from a Predator UAV at a vehicle carrying Abu Ali al-Harithi, a suspected planner of the bombing plot. Also in the vehicle was Ahmed Hijazi, a U.S. citizen. Both were killed. This operation was carried out on Yemeni soil.
  On September 29, 2004, a Yemeni judge sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the bombing. Al-Nashiri, believed to be the operation's mastermind, is currently being held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[26] Al-Badawi, in Yemeni custody, denounced the verdict as "an American one." Four others were sentenced to prison terms of five to 10 years for their involvement, including one Yemeni who had videotaped the attack.
  On February 3, 2006, 23 suspected or convicted Al-Qaeda members escaped from jail in Yemen. This number included 13 who were convicted of the USS Cole bombings and the bombing of the French tanker Limburg in 2002. Among those who reportedly escaped was Al-Badawi. Al-Qaeda's Yemeni number two Abu Assem al-Ahdal may also be among those now on the loose. (Wikipedia)




• 2001: 9/11
  On the morning of September 11, 2001, an al-Qaeda orchestrated terrorist attack murdered 2,998 people in the United States. Terrorists hijacked four airplanes. They intentionally crashed two of those airplanes into the World Trade Center, which both fell, another into the Pentagon, and the fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania when the passengers attempted to stop the hijackers and retake the plane.
  Following this attack, the United States declared the War on Terrorism and launched an offensive against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan (Wikipedia).
  

The policy of prosecution did not lead to an end of terrorism against Americans at home and abroad. Following the failed attempt to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993, al-Qaeda became stronger, more aggressive, and finally successful in terrorizing the United States. The small missile strikes used by the Clinton Administration and the indictment process used by his justice department did not threaten men who desired to destroy western civilization. They willingly used their bodies as weapons of war, so why would going to jail deter them?

The War on Terrorism, initiated by President Bush and his administration lead to the death and capture of not only those responsible for 9-11, but it also lead to the capture or death of those responsible for the embassy bombings of 1998 and the attack on the USS Cole as shown above.
An active, offense is the best defense. Since 2001 there has not been a terrorist attack carried out on US soil, nor against our military outside their service in war. The Bush Administrations War, ended the string of attacks led by bin Laden and al-Qaeda that ran through the Clinton years of prosecutorial indictments, and which culminated in the deaths of thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001.

Barack Obama and those in the Democratic Party would take us back to the failed policies of the ‘90’s. He would have us return to September 10, 2001, but, with his philosophy of defense, all that would lead to would be September 11, 2001.

The following link reveals Barack Obama’s defense plan. Pay close attention to his goals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfwKKxVC7_o&eurl=http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2008/02/27/obama-plans-to-disarm-america/

If Obama is elected president, we might as well give Iran all our nuclear weapons now. If we stop developing new weapons, if we take our nuclear system off alert, if we surrender our position as super power, we will return to pre-9/11 terrorist attacks. Worse than even that, we will find ourselves in a world controlled by rogue nations, which we are impotent to stop.