So far the 2008 Presidential Campaign for conservatives can be desribed as let's settle for less.  We currently have a president who said he was conservative, and was on some issues, but then became totally lost on fiscal conservatism, and again on immigration reform.  Not one of the frontrunner candidates has been solidly pro-life, which has been a bedrock principal of the Republican Party.  We do have one solid conservative in the race (Duncan Hunter), but we don't let him rise to the top, because he doesn't have the ability to raise enough money.  Two other leading conservatives Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson have not yet entered the race, although they have indicated they may get in.  Let's not just hope Romney means it that he switched to pro-life, let's certainly not support pro-abortion Rudy Guiliani, and let's not support pro-life on most things McCain.  It discourages me to see pro-life Republicans willing to give up their principles and back Rudy Guiliani because they think he has the best chance to win.  We have the opportunity now to change this let's settle attitude.  Let me suggest that instead of getting on the Guiliani or Romney bandwagon, that we send a check to Duncan Hunter, and write a letter to Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson encouraging them to get into the race.

President Bush indicated to Nancy Pelosi that it was not a good idea for her to take her mideast trip and to meet with leaders of nations who were sponsors of terror.  Vice President Cheney identified how harmful her trip was to American interests.  In this day of party ahead of everything else, American polititians have forgotten whose team they are on.  Ms. Pelosi is so desperate to prove a point that she is willing to risk American interests.  Regardless of who is in the presidency, America needs to speak with one voice.  We can't have either party trying to undermine the definitive foreign policy of the United States.  Regardless of party, Americans need to act as though we are the same team.  Ms. Pelosi's trip and meetings are undermining U.S. policy and they are demontrating a lack of leadership.  I don't mind if she wishes to influence U.S. Policy, but she should not be actively undermining it.

It amazes me that the Islamic Imams even have any type of standing to bring a suit agains those Americans that were concerned about their odd and purposeful behavior.  Our governmental officials need to pass some sort of legislation that prevents people who would purposefully try to intimidate Americans from bringing any type of action against concerned American citizens.  The Islamic religion has as one of their goals to destroy American culture as we have always enjoyed it.  It is time American stand up against such blatant antagonism against our culture.  Not only should we not be catering to Islamic interests but we should be limiting entry into America of those of Islamic faith.  It makes no sense to allow the unchecked growth of people in America that would seek to undermine our culture, anymore than we would invite in murderers, rapists, or others that would seek to undermine America.  Let all Americans wake up and understand what is happening in our country, and fight for the continuance of the faith and culture we have enjoyed since the birth of our country.

I was having a conversation the other day, and I was told that the United States cannot be the policeman of the world.  That statement was made in relationship to Iraq.  I have reflected on what that statement means.  I think in the context that it was made it means that as there becomes a growing number of countries that are about evil and inflicting harm on other countries, that we have to let the evil grow.  I think it also means that they believe the U.S. is helpless when it comes to pursuading other countries to confront evil.  If the statement that we cannot be policeman of the world is true, just what is in store for our country.  I guess it means we pull back and wait for someone to attack us here.  I think it also means we sit by why evil countries try to expand their influence and eventual become enemies of the U.S. as well.  When the time finally comes that we are attacked, what will be the level of destruction of our country?  Will it happen after there is increased nuclear capability by our enemies?  If so, will be even capable of defending our country?  I think the appropriate strategy for the U.S. is not only to confront evil when we come acrdoss it, but to recruit more policemen (countries) to join with us.  The last time we chose not confront mass evil (Hitler) soon enough,  it ended up costing many hundreds of thousands of American lives.

I just saw an interview with Rod Paige, a former Secretary of Education.  He has written a new book about the failure of public education in the U.S.  It made me reflect on just how much is wrong in public education from the national perspective.

From all that I have read on this subject it is clear to me that more money has never been corellated to a better education in the public school system.  Spending more money on education is seldom the correct fix.

The biggest fault in public education is that God has been removed from the equation.  Administrators and Teachers are to instill in students what is "right", but they are left with no source to quote on how you determine "right".  Unfortunately, this leads to a secularly determined value system.  This is not beneficial for U.S. children.

Also, once any religious foundation is removed as a basis for education, and replaced with a secular foundation, our children become exposed to a variety of secular agendas.

The U.S. government has also chosen to support a monopoly when it comes to public school education.  In business our government knows better than to allow a monopoly, because of all the negative things that come from it, but when it comes to our children's business they are not quite as smart.

In order to improve all schools it is time to break the monopoly of the public schools, and return our money to us, so that we can make the best choice for our children, whether this be public schools, charter schools, private schools or home schooling.  In most cases children being educated under these alternative schools are out-performing public school children.

Breaking this education monopoly will allow students to achieve a better education and even improve public schools as they strive to compete in the market place.  Our children would be then educated in a school system that shares a parents value system.  The public schools are increasingly at odds with the values that parents want for their children.

I would encourage everyone to write to their U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, and state and local representative and express that you want your money returned to you to spend on your child's education.

I have been pro-life my entire life.  I was not old enough at the time of the Roe V. Wade decision to fully appreciate the magnitude of the mistakes being made by the U.S. Supreme Court.  I had only been out of high school for two years.  I am currently reading a book entitled "ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments" by Randy Alcorn.  If the Supreme Court had the opportunity to read this book during their deliberations on Roe V. Wade perhaps they wouldn't have signed the death warrant for over 40 million Americans. 

When I was in college I took a course in "Hitlers Germany".  It addressed Hitler's rise to power and of course the Holocaust and his defeat in World War Two.  I remember the biggest question in my mind at that time being how was Hitler able to persuade the German people that the answer to their problems was to kill off the Jewish population.  Sure, a few crazy people might buy into this, but surely the majority of the German people were good people and would never go along with this.  While this question of mine was answered academically, I have never fully understood the answer until I have observed the mass murder of Americans through abortion.

Even as I watched the tragedy of 911, with people making the decision to leap to their deaths from the World Trade Center buildings, I was thinking to myself, even at the time of their tragic and unstoppable deaths they were given one last limited choice in how they would die.  This limited choice is not even extended to the unborn.  The unborn do not know the time or the manner in which they will face their death.  Approximately 3,000 Americans died on that September morning.  Approximately 3,700 deaths occur virtually eveyday due to abortion.

Abortion is only legal today for two basic reasons:  1) the U.S. Supreme Court made a mistake, and 2) the ability of those in support of it to prevent the American public from being educated about it, and to fully understand what is involved in abortion.  I firmly believe if all Americans were forced to watch abortions being performed or otherwise be informed of the atrocity that is abortion, that it would be outlawed immediately.

The German people were forced to end their mistake after the extermination of 6,000,000 jewish people.  I hope the American people have enough sense to end their mistake by their own doing after the extermination of 40,000,000 American people.

As we make a decision about who will be our next president, more important than the candidates views on the Iraq War should be their position to support life.

I know a lot has been written about Amanda Marcotte, a blogger hired by John Edwards campaign.  Ms. Marcotte has resigned amidst the fury about her anti-christian and profane blogs written in support of John Edwards.  What I find most troubling about this whole episode is that John Edwards either new the character of Ms. Marcotte and it didn't bother him, or chose not to find out about her character, and risked hiring someone to represent him that could cost him and his campaign in a big way.  I believe Mr. Edwards or someone in his campaign chose to retain Ms. Marcotte knowing what she was capable of writing, and believed it would result in a benefit to his campaign. 

What Mr. Edwards should know is that that there is a direct connection between him and those he hires.  It doesn't matter if Edwards hired Marcotte or whether someone in his campaign hired Marcotte.  Mr. Edwards is responsible for hiring people who understand him and understand his message and who would not represent him in a way that did not agree with that message.

Ms. Marcotte's writings on his behalf were profane, explicit, anti-Christian, and anti-Catholic.  Is this part of John Edward's message to the American people?

Mr Edwards indicated that he was "personally offended" by the writing of Marcotte and a second blogger, Melissa McEwan, but that he was keeping them on in the interest of giving everyone "a fair shake."

What is critical here and what John Edwards clearly just doesn't get, is that it should be unacceptable for these two bloggers to be working for his campaign, for the simple reason that their writings become directly associated with him.

John Edwards made a clear choice to say his campaign is about being profane, about being anti-christian, and about being anti-Catholic.  Is making such a profound mistake in judgement by clear choice a trait we look for in a future president?

Given his choice to support his two profane anti-Christian bloggers his campaign for the presidency of the United States should be over.  No American despite their party affiliation should stand in support of a candidate that would send a message that these traits represent him and his message.

Mr. Edward's bloggers may be gone, but his character flaw remains.

I recently was having lunch with a co-worker and the conversation turned to the subject of the 2008 presidential election.  Naturally, we discussed the leading candidates and their potential to win.  We started to discuss the Republican candidates, both those who have announced their candidacy, and those who have not.  The Republican Party has in recent times been the "pro-life" party. 

This is the first presidential campaign in which there is no clear pro-life candidate among the early leaders.  Mitt Romney is a convert to the pro-life position, this does not mean he may not have truly changed his position on this issue, but it does raise questions.  John McCain is generally pro-life, but does not seem comfortable with this position in all cases.  Rudy Guliani favors the legal continuation of abortion.  Rudy Guiliani is the current leader according to most polls I have seen.  One can understand his popularity, given his leadership after 911, but it seems odd that he would be the current leading Republican candidate given his pro-abortion position.

I indicated to my co-worker that I could not vote for Guliani, even though I believe him to be charismatic and conservative on many fronts, because of his abortion position.  My co-worker expressed the importance of "electibility" in the end.  I find this concept troubling.  While I would consider electibility in choosing a candidate who favored a 75 cent increase in minimum wage versus a 50 cent increase, I don't think electibility can be the final concern when there is an issue as important as life itself. 

Virtually, all other issues one considers in a candidate involves life itself directly, or how a specific issue affects the quality of life.  If you have to turn your back on life itself to elect someone who has potential to win an election so that they may seek to improve only some aspects of life, I think you are being counter productive.

Let me give an example.  Let's assume Rudy Guliani as president turns out to be the best choice to keep America safe.  Let's assume under his first term as president America does not lose more than two hundred innocent lives due to terrorist attacks.  During that same time America will lose at least 5 million innocent lives to abortion.  Let us further assume a President Guliani would cut our national deficit by 20 percent. Let us also assume that this deficit cut has the impact of saving the average taxpayer $100.00 or $200.00 dollars per year in taxes.  Would you really consider trading this money for so much loss of life?

If approving the quality of American's lives is a good quality in a president, saving their lives is even a better quality.

I would urge all Americans not to let polls determine who they will vote for in any state's primary, or in the 2008 election.  Right now, we have a broader selection of candidates, some of the lesser known ones who have positions closer aligned with our own. Don't let the media convince you to arbitrarily limit your presidential choices.  Call your TV stations and let them know you want all candidates in the race to be given time in their coverage.  Research online which candidates best represent the America you want.  Consider donating to the candidate of  your choice.  Grass roots fundraising is one of the only ways better candidates can rise to the top.

I will not be voting for Rudy Guliani for president if he wins the Republican nomination, even though I think he might be better than the Democratic choice.  I won't be voting for him because it sends the wrong message long term.  I believe the Republic party has to remain "pro-life", or truly we will have no party looking out for us.

I urge the Republican Party not to let the "opportunity to win" or "electibility rob the party of its core values.  I urge them to nominate a pro-life candidate.