As it's becoming increasingly clear this presidency thing isn't going to work out for him, Barack Obama should feel relieved that he has proven to have the skills necessary to forge a successful follow-up career as a snake oil salesman.  His most recent Obamacare press conference demonstrated that when it comes to far-fetched guarantees of miracles at bargain-basement prices, President Obama is in a league of his own. 

The editors of National Review magazine pointed out that during the course of this hour long sales pitch, Obama "said essentially all of the uninsured would be covered, the insured could keep their existing coverage, the quality of care would rise, waste and fraud would be slashed, the deficit would decline, and no one would have to pay a price for all this except a few millionaires."  One must wonder if while he spoke, Vice President Biden was out looking for Pete's Dragon to capture and compound into the remedies necessary to make all this come to pass.

But since these snake oil deals never seem to work out very well for the customers, perhaps we citizens should take a careful look at the fine print on Mr. Obama's bill.  The current version of Obamacare working its way through the House of Representatives is a 1,018 page monstrosity that no lawmaker has actually read, and that they're assuming no citizen will take the time to read either.  Fortunately, you only wade through to page 16 to find out things aren't exactly as advertised.

Under the section entitled, "Limitation on New Enrollment," it states in black and white: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of Obamacare's enactment.

Plain English: those of you who have private coverage, you can keep it - but you can't change it.  And if you decide to leave your current job to start your own business, you won't be able to purchase individual plans from private carriers.  Page 16 forbids it.

Those of us who oppose socialism have been warning for some time that when a private company is forced to compete with the government, the private company will never survive.  Unlike private companies who need to make profits in order to operate, government does not.  Government can charge a ridiculously cheap amount for their insurance option and offset the difference with taxpayer money.  Since private companies don't have that ability and must keep their prices elevated to the point where they will make profit, a government option will eventually destroy the entire private market.  Why would employers pay more to a private company for coverage when they can take the government option and pay less?

As the nonpartisan Lewin Group study revealed and Investor's Business Daily reported, "120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program."  This gutting of the customer base of private insurance carriers would cause the market to "fizzle out altogether."

So why is that a bad thing?  People would be covered, right?  Sure, but as the president has often acknowledged, in order to cut costs, the government will have to limit access to certain procedures, surgeries, and treatment (recall that macabre moment when the president told a woman that under his plan her 105 year old mother would have received pain pills instead of a life-saving pacemaker).  The government will determine whether you're young, healthy, and responsible enough to be worth the expense.  And if you don't want a government bureaucrat making those determinations for you, can you opt out of the government plan and purchase your own private insurance?  Nope.  Page 16 forbids it.

Some have suggested that if things got too bad in a government run healthcare system, private companies would start popping up again and offering an alternative.  There's only one problem with that.  Page 16 forbids "any new policies [from being] written after the public option becomes law."

When you consider that the Obamacare header over page 16 reads "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage," you start to get an idea about the amount of deception that is taking place.

The president has admitted to being unsure of the details of the House version of Obamacare, yet has urged members to rush its passage regardless.  Why?  Because snake oil salesmen are never really concerned with the well-being of their customers.  They distort, manipulate, mislead, and make outlandish promises...right before they pack up their trailer with your money and head down the road.

It was indeed a heartwarming moment.  With teachers, representatives, and affiliates to the National Education Association's annual convention gathered around, the NEA's retiring General Counsel Bob Chanin took to the stage to deliver his outgoing remarks.  His inspiring and uplifting message asserted the profound commitment held by the NEA to the betterment of American society: "We are not paranoid, someone really is after us.  Why are these conservative and right-wing b****rds picking on NEA and its affiliates?  I will tell you why: it is the price we pay for success."

As one of those right-wing "fatherless lads" Mr. Chanin was referring to, I found myself moved at how open-minded and inclusive his speech sounded.  But more than that, Chanin did a masterful job of demonstrating what the true priorities of the NEA are when he stated that what makes the group effective is, "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child.  NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power."

Now there's a relief.  Perhaps the NEA should put that quote on its promotional fliers?  After all, who would want the largest association representing teachers in the country to be basing its effectiveness on its ability to improve the lives of children?!  Thankfully, the leadership of the NEA has sought a pursuit of raw political power instead.  And why are they so successful in this pursuit?  Mr. Chanin explains, "And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year."  Keep in mind that many of those 3.2 million are faithful Christian teachers who seem to turn Mr. Chanin's stomach.

Not that any of this should come as a surprise.  In 1996, the NEA issued a handbook on dealing with the "radical right's crusade against public schools."  The handbook states, "They won't go away.  No matter how bizarre we believe their beliefs to be, no matter how illogical and inconsistent their goals appear, and no matter how often we reassure ourselves that 'this too, shall pass,' the political, social, and religious forces that make up the radical right in contemporary American society will not go away."  For teachers who hold to traditional moral values, we're just to look the other way and continue sending our money.

Sadly, the pathetic reality of the current state of affairs in the National Education Association gets worse.  At this same convention in San Diego, the NEA voted to throw their full support behind homosexual "marriage" by committing to use its resources and political muscle to take down any legislation that hinders the homosexual movement.

Also, the NEA voted down a resolution that called for the group to take "no position" on the issue of abortion.  Currently, the NEA uses the dues money from members to advocate and support lobby groups battling for the "right to choose."  Had this resolution passed, the NEA would have been unable to commit any dues money of members to causes that have anything to do with the abortion debate.  Instead, they would have had to use that money on something preposterous...like issues actually pertaining to education.

To me, this year marks the line in the sand.  There are many justifications and reasons an individual Christian teacher can give for joining a local association.  But because of the power of the NEA in Washington, we can't deny the reality that our local associations are in many cases legally compelled to affiliate themselves under the NEA's control.  Consequently our money - money we intend to be put towards actually improving the lives of children - goes to fund deliberately anti-Christian activities.

Sure, there are excuses we can use to justify our capitulation and spineless allegiance to causes we know to be wrong.  We can accept the fear-mongering about how we'll all lose our jobs without the NEA.  We can delude ourselves into believing that when we check the box stating that our dues can't be used for political purposes that we aren't still contributing to the very executive councils, legal offices, and management that is publicly acknowledging their hatred towards everything we stand for.  We can rationalize that it's impossible anymore to keep from spending our money on things we don't really support.

But we shouldn't do it any longer.  Our consciences shouldn't allow it. 

We will undoubtedly be told that we are traitors to the cause, overreacting prudes, or freeloaders.  But we didn't tell the NEA to throw full support behind the slaughter of children in the womb.  We didn't tell the NEA to use their muscle to advocate homosexual marriage across the country.  We didn't make the decision to abandon the NEA.  The NEA made the conscious decision to abandon us.  And if there's any confusion on that fact, see Bob Chanin.

As pundits around the country debate what the political future will be of Alaska's soon-to-be former Governor, I can't help becoming increasingly convinced of the prediction I texted to my brother after watching her Vice-Presidential acceptance speech last summer: Sarah Palin will be the first woman president of the United States.

Don't be fooled - that condescending laughter you hear from Palin-despising liberals is a lot less about them thinking it could never happen, and a lot more about them fearing that it will.

Why else would that Democrat propaganda machine called the New York Times dump so much ink over the fourth of July weekend attempting to convince Americans Palin was a lunatic?  Back-to-back columns by those queens of incoherence, Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd, lambasted Palin for being a, "disjointed, garbled, scandalous, underachieving, nutty, batty, erratic, egoistic, solipsistic, reckless, crazy quitter," who "deserted Juneau with her tanning bed."  Methinks they doth protest too much.

But the Times wasn't alone.  Network morning shows and evening newscasts informed us that her resignation amounted to political suicide and undoubtedly took her out of contention for the presidency in 2012.  Evidently it didn't dawn on them that their rush to diminish the notion of her chances only demonstrated how strong they really are.

Consider the left's narrative ever since John McCain introduced Governor Palin to the national scene: she was supposedly an inexperienced, uneducated, quirky mayor of a podunk town that simply was not ready for prime time.  She lacked concentration, was unnecessarily divisive, mean to animals, and lacked any foreign policy savvy.  This, they said, sunk McCain's chances of winning the presidency.  No matter how demonstrably false, this was exactly the template the left pretended to believe.  But if they truly did - if they were truly convinced of her incompetence and un-electability - then why are they so obsessed with talking about her?

Why not focus on the real threats to their power like Republican Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, or the increasingly impressive representative Mike Pence?  Why not spend the valuable pages of the Times ripping Newt Gingrich's strategy for real change, or Mitt Romney's perpetual candidacy?  Why focus on a loony that apparently no one would vote for anyway?  Why work so neurotically to convince Americans of what they say we already think?

The obvious answer is that they know Americans don't think those things about Governor Palin, and they are scared to death of her.

Regardless of what the talking heads postulate, any conscious observer of the 2008 election knows that McCain's margin of loss would have been staggering without the presence of Sarah Palin on his ticket.

Regardless of what left-wing demagogues deride as her lack of experience and knowledge, remember that this is a woman who had more executive experience in 2008 than Obama, Biden, and McCain combined.  Further, the position she took on Israel during the campaign that was mocked by liberal journalists is now being parroted by the Obama administration.  And Palin's statements on personal responsibility and the foolishness of the Obama stimulus monstrosity now seem prescient given the bill's epic failure.

Regardless of the "quitter" nonsense, the fact remains that politicians leave their posts to take on new, greater challenges and opportunities on a regular basis.  An example would be the man who "quit" on the people of Illinois to become president.  The truth is Palin had become such a target for the demented left that the good people of Alaska were being forced to pay millions of dollars of legal fees to fight frivolous lawsuits brought against their Governor for purely political reasons.  Her decision spares them that, plus it allows a staunch conservative lieutenant governor to carry on the successes of her administration and run in 2010 as an incumbent.

Regardless of what the Democratic spokesmen on MSNBC pontificate about Palin being an embarrassment to the Party, just ask any 2010 Republican congressional candidate which national figure they want to come and help campaign for them.  I'll give you a hint...it's not going to be Mike Huckabee.

The primary source of the left's angst over her decision is that as long as she was confined to the Great North, she had limited ability to grow her political base.  Now, she is free to tour, speak, study, raise money, and rejuvenate the country's defense, economic, and social conservatives.  That is what has the liberals worked up into a lather.

Many of the high-priced political thinkers are suggesting that if Palin is eyeing the presidency at all, it won't be until 2016 or 2020.  I don't buy it.  In three years, she will be the most well known, articulate, charismatic conservative in America with a boatload of cash, an energized base, and a solid team of advisers around her.  Palin in 2012?  You betcha.

With all due respect, when the President of France is quicker to defend the cause of freedom than the President of the United States, it's a sad day.  Welcome to the pitiful reality of Obama's brave new world.

In last week's column, I focused on President Obama's domestic agenda in illustrating the fundamental disagreements our 44th president has with our Founding Fathers and their faith in the unrelenting power of human liberty. 

But if there is any area where Obama's frightening disregard for the virtues of freedom becomes even more glaring, it is in his disastrous foreign policy.  In his inaugural address, the new president tipped his hand when he declared to the mad regimes of the world, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

At the time, Obama's words appealed to many as they demonstrated a marked departure from the past.  The conventional wisdom was that the eight years of George W. Bush had seen a dangerous isolation of regimes like Iran and North Korea that had made them more violent and unpredictable.  Extending a hand for peaceful coexistence, it was thought, would make these countries come to their senses.  But as Alexander Benard notes, "a dozen missile launches, a nuclear detonation, a rigged election, and countless crackdowns on individual liberties later, it is safe to say this effort has had the opposite of its intended effect."  Without question.

But Obama is not the first American president to misjudge foreign adversaries, or to indulge the fond illusions of hope against the better senses of many more savvy than himself.  He is not the first American president to learn the hard way or be forced to change course.  But he is the first American president to demonstrate such a disinterest in standing up for freedom before a watching world.

It started with questionable speeches in Turkey and Cairo in which he extolled the virtues of a religion (Islam) that stands diametrically opposed to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Elevating it to an intellectual and moral equivalence with the Judeo-Christian ethic of the United States was disturbing and bizarre.  Failing to condemn the atrocities and horrors committed by those who follow its plain teachings was dishonest and disconcerting.

But the utter lack of response to the courageous stand taken by thousands of repressed Iranians following the Ayatollah-rigged sham of an election was simply inexcusable.  It was an embarrassment to the American people, and one for which Barack Obama owes his office, his country, and the world an apology.

When the communists were oppressing the freedom loving dissidents of the Solidarity movement in Poland back in 1982, the freedom-fighters bolstered their convictions through the knowledge that they had the support of the Americans.  Why?  Because the American president Ronald Reagan let them know.  Declaring "Solidarity Day," he blasted the communist thugs and immediately condemned their persecution.

Years later, the leader of that Solidarity movement became president of Poland and said this: "When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal.  We in Poland took him so personally.  Why?  Because we owe him our liberty.  This can't be said often enough."

Contrast that to the image of Iranians staring into cameras begging, "Please don't leave us alone," or weeping over bleeding martyrs asking reporters, "Are we on our own?"  The answer they received from the American president was stone cold silence.

Finally, after being shamed by congressional Republicans who refused to stand for his cowardly inaction and pushed through a condemnation of Iranian repression by a 405-1 vote, President Obama toughened his rhetoric.  Sort of.  After condemning the violence, he shockingly stated his belief that, "It's not too late" for Iran's regime to negotiate with the international community.

This was an outrage of the highest order.  Not only does it suggest that the United States is willing to partner with such enemies of humanity, it horrifyingly signals to Iranian freedom-fighters President Obama's belief that they will be unsuccessful.  And, that once they have been crushed into submission, the U.S. is ready to shake hands with their killers. 

Given these realities perhaps we shouldn't have been surprised when President Obama rushed to the defense of Honduras' would-be dictator Zelaya, attempting to prevent his ouster by democratic forces.  This is where Barack Obama has brought us: freedom loving people in Honduras taking to the streets protesting their oppression from a socialist dictator and his allies in Ortega of Nicaragua, Chavez of Venezuela, Castro of Cuba...and the President of the United States of America.  Barack Obama is no friend of freedom.

As the United States prepares to celebrate its 233rd year of independence, we are forced to take note of this dismaying reality: our new president is no friend of freedom.  This isn't intended to be unfair, unproductive Barack-bashing.  Instead, it is simply the culminating, irrefutable conclusion any observer comes to after evaluating his first six months in office.  Allow me to explain.

American greatness was achieved through the unrelenting power of a free people pursuing their dreams.  Whether it was Pilgrims in a hostile new world, teachers and farmers armed with muskets, pioneers facing a treacherous wilderness, inventors enduring setbacks, volunteers storming beaches, or citizens rushing into smoldering towers to save their fellow countrymen, the glory of America has never been defined by its government, but rather its people.

The American people have cured diseases, constructed skyscrapers, explored the ocean depths, and walked on the moon.  And we did these things because we were free - free to create, free to innovate, and free to pursue goals once thought unimaginable by man.  That is what has set this civilization apart.

Ours is a history marked by individualism, responsibility, and self-reliance...not government-reliance.  Yet, all that seems lost on our 44th president who startlingly declared in his inaugural address, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." 

To any fair-minded observers, those words should have resounded through the halls of our consciences and awakened us from the media-induced trance of Obama-obsession we might have been suffering.  For these are not the words of individualism and self reliance.  They are the siren song of government dependence that both belittles and underestimates the ingenuity and creativity of the American people in a way that would have appalled the Founding Fathers.

That's not to say that our forefathers didn't care about families making a decent wage, getting good healthcare, or having a happy retirement.  To the contrary, they cared so much about those things that they offered up their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to bless us with the liberty necessary to earn them for ourselves.

But now the assumption of our political leadership is that we need the government to help us pay our mortgage, to find us jobs, to set our wages and salaries, to keep our businesses afloat, to give us healthcare, to pay our credit card debt, to finance our college tuition and to fund our retirement.  And as we ignorantly shrug and submit to such a proposition, we are blind to the shadow of slavery that is creeping over us.  As we foolishly screech about such things being our "rights," we drown out the sound of our own chains that are being fitted for us.

For when we accept the increased role of government that Obama proposes - one intended to prevent our failure - we necessarily grant it the power to prevent our success and prosperity.  How? 

In order to prevent the failure of its people, the American government must begin making decisions for them.  They must begin controlling them.  Give people freedom and they might screw up, invest poorly, or purchase the wrong product.  So the government makes the decisions - they choose your healthcare plan, they choose your retirement investments, and they set your salary and wages.

Am I making this up?  Look at the bank bailouts, the home mortgage bailouts, or the bailout of the auto industry.  In each instance, the government steps in to prevent failure and then sets new rules, determines new interest rates, determines investments, determines product lines, takes over finances, and hires and fires officials at its will.  The government usurps control - all in the name of protecting you.

Call it loans, call it restructuring, call it security, call it stabilization, call it compassion...call it whatever you want.  But one thing it's not: it's not freedom.

The Founding Fathers, the very architects of our great success, would have rejected Obama's fundamental disregard for the power of liberty.  How do I know?  Compare their words.  While the 44th president says that the question of the size of the government is not the important question, the 4th president and Father of the Constitution, James Madison, saw it differently.  He wrote in the Federalist Papers, "Is the power of the government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question."

And why was it the first question?  Because Madison and his fellow patriots understood that increasing the size of government meant decreasing the freedom of the people.  Barack Obama is no friend of freedom.

In a recent speech to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, former President Bill Clinton stated the obvious: that we are a nation with a great deal of diversity.  Heralding this fact as a "very positive thing," Clinton joined with the growing chorus of cultural commentators who apparently think that there is something inherently wonderful about diversity.

Sure, ethnic diversity has many benefits.  And the opportunity to learn about different customs and cultural characteristics is an enlightening exercise.  But the architects of our republic chose the Latin phrase "E pluribus unum" in describing our civilization for a reason.  The phrase means "out of many, one."  It's the notion that though having different experiences and varying backgrounds, the people of our country accept, embrace, and perpetuate similar values, a common belief system, and a unity in purpose.

In other words, what has made the United States so special is not the mere fact that we have welcomed in immigrants from many lands - that is merely diversity for diversity's sake.  The true glory of America has come when that rich diversity of persons has united behind core principles and advanced shared ideals. 

Unfortunately, at the behest of the politically correct and tolerant crowd, we are in danger of losing sight of that crucial reality.  Remember it was not long ago that President Obama made the declaration that, "Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation.  We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers." 

Now, certainly Barack Obama is smart enough to know that this country has maintained populations of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and atheists for generations - it's not a new development.  So what was he saying?  Read in context, the President was suggesting that because of this diversity, the United States needs to fundamentally change its cultural foundation to incorporate values not just from the Christian faith, but from all these religions.  He called for us to begin to "translate our reasoning" to a more diverse approach.  This is a disastrous concept because it naively assumes that there will be no consequences from doing so. 

Our Founding Fathers were wise and learned individuals who were students of political philosophy.  When crafting the basis for our civilization, they could have chosen any of a number of belief systems, but they chose Christianity for a reason.  No, it was not to use the power of government to force everyone to be Christian or abide by a strict Christian code.  The First Amendment clearly prohibited such action.  Rather, it was because they understood that the absolute moral principles that come from Christian scripture - respect for life, private property rights, charity, frugality, stewardship, benevolence, peaceful living, responsible liberty - were the best friend to a free society and should be encouraged.

Don't take my word for it.  John Adams said, "The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed in ancient or modern times the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity."  Dr. Benjamin Rush added that the only means of perpetuating our form of government was the, "universal education of our children in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible.  For this divine book, above all others, favors that respect for just laws, those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism."

Even Benjamin Franklin, commonly regarded as the least religious of all the Founding Fathers said, "History will afford the frequent opportunities of showing the excellency of the Christian religion above all others."  If those words were uttered in our politically correct country today, whoever spoke them would be regarded as a narrow minded right-wing bigot.  Thus, you see the danger we are up against.

Again, our founders weren't suggesting that we use the power of government to force everyone into the baptistery.  They were suggesting, however, that for our culture to survive and endure, it would take a unified recognition amongst our people that not all belief systems are equal, and Christianity stands above them all.

Mr. Obama is right in saying that this country is made up of people of varying beliefs.  But there's a reason that peaceful Muslims have found it safer to live in this country than in those founded on Islamic law.  There's a reason atheists have found it safer to live in this country than in those founded on the absence of moral authority.  It's because our founders made Christian principle our cultural foundation.  And that's something that if we're wise, no amount of diversity will ever change.

Though predictable, it was no less despicable.  Just a day following the heinous murder of the country's foremost practitioner of infanticide, George Tiller, radical anti-human rights activists on the left were already condemning the entire pro-life movement for facilitating the incident.  Left-wing websites like the Daily Kos blamed conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck for causing it, the Huffington Post deemed it a morally outrageous hypocrisy, and PBS's abortion fanatic Bonnie Erbe went so far as to characterize the entire pro-life movement as a breeding ground for domestic terrorists.

Of course rational people recognize that it borders on clinical insanity to rail about the moral outrage of killing a single human being while simultaneously defending and advocating the wholesale slaughter of millions of others.  And just to make sure that there is no confusion on this point, let's be clear on what Tiller did for a living.

George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late term abortion.  It involves the breech (feet first) delivery of a full term baby to the point where only the head remains inside the birth canal...ostensibly to soothe the conscience of the mother by muffling the child's screams as scissors penetrate the back of his tiny skull and the contents are brutally suctioned out.

The lifeless little body is then fully removed and discarded, in pieces, into a trash sack.  Former late term abortionists have also admitted that sometimes a partially delivered child can pose health risks for the woman, and so the baby is entirely delivered before being exterminated.  There is a term that some of us use for such an act.  It's called murder. 

Again, these are full-term, completely viable infants capable of living outside the womb with totally developed life systems - including the ability to experience pain.  In short, Tiller practiced, and the left defended, infanticide.  Hearing these leftists now lament the taking of human life is disgracefully stomach turning.

Notice then the irony of the situation.  The only people in a position to truly express outrage over Tiller's murder are those that the left are attempting to blame for it.  But this is just one of the numerous twists surrounding this tragic situation.

For instance, consider this irony: those that claim to be outraged by Tiller's murder will be calling for a lighter penalty than those they condemn for causing it.  When Tiller's murderer is brought to justice, it will be those of us who oppose abortion that will be demanding his execution.  The intrinsic value of human life (which, paradoxically, Tiller assaulted) is so great that anyone who violates it forfeits his own right to live. 

Meanwhile, it will be those on the left who proudly defended Tiller's life work that will call for a softer sentence.  They consider the death penalty barbaric and find pro-lifers who advocate capital punishment inconsistent.  "You can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty!" they shout.

Evidently to them, being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is somehow better?!  Is there anything more ethically offensive then those who defend the right to life for convicted, murderous felons, yet strip that right from innocent newborn babies?  It is astonishing that anyone can be so blinded by their own self-righteous pomposity that they fail to see this blatant moral incongruity. 

It's also notably ironic that the same ideological movement that demands we not castigate all Muslims for the actions of a few is so quick to violate its own precepts when it comes to this issue.  We aren't hearing the throngs of Hollywood activists shouting that "most pro-lifers are peaceful," or seeing Democrat Congressmen thumping their chests while proclaiming that "revenge against the pro-life movement for the actions of this one radical will not be tolerated."

Indeed, the ironies surrounding the murder of this murderer are plentiful to say the least.  But perhaps the most tragic of them all is that in the end, George Tiller met a brutal demise at the hands of someone who exhibited a blatant disrespect for the intrinsic value of human life...a lesson that Tiller - with the left's blessing - dedicated his life to teaching.

Achieving energy independence has become a common refrain for both parties in recent elections.  And it is a worthy objective.  One needn't look too far into the history of the Middle East to recognize that having our nation's lifeblood dependent upon such an unstable part of the world is not wise or prudent.  First, it gives these oil-producing countries excellent leverage to wield economic blackmail over us.  Second, and far more important, we constantly run the risk of having to send young Americans to die in conflicts to preserve our national interests.  It's all needless and unnecessary if the United States would get serious about energy independence - meaning we actually pursue policies that bring us to that result rather than just talk about them during election season.

Our current president said on the campaign trail, "I will set a clear goal as president. In 10 years, we will finally end our dependence on oil in the Middle East."  That's a wonderful idea - if only he meant it.

There are at least four common sense steps we could take immediately to ensure meeting President Obama's stated goal.  The major obstacle in taking them, unfortunately, is President Obama and his party.

Perhaps that's not fair.  Pursuing alternative energies like solar and wind power are excellent ideas, and Obama embraces them.  These two sources of energy should be utilized to their fullest.  But it does us absolutely no good to ignore that solar power is incredibly expensive, and that the cumulative benefits of both it and wind power are modest.  Simply put, we won't be powering cities off of either.

President Obama has also called to rebuild the nation's energy grid to save wasted energy.  I'm with him.  And when he asks Americans to do a better job conserving energy, we shouldn't bristle in response.  Conservation is a good thing - whether it's carpooling when we can, turning off the lights when we leave a room, recycling, or turning our thermostats down when we go on vacation.

On those objectives (wind, solar, conservation, and electrical grid), Mr. Obama has my unwavering support.  But pretending like that alone will bring us to energy independence in 100 years, much less a decade, is silly.  True energy independence will only be achieved when we start putting it as a higher priority than allegiance to outdated ecological concerns and unreasonable environmental alarmism...something that to this point, Democrats like Mr. Obama have been unwilling to do.

First, the United States must greatly expand our own domestic drilling.  The outer continental shelf and Gulf of Mexico hold incredibly rich supplies of oil and natural gas.  The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a massive piece of land with some pristine and beautiful areas that should be left alone.  But the tiny portion of ANWR proposed for drilling is far removed from these gorgeous regions and is a barren wasteland.  Drill now.

Secondly, we should begin seriously mining oil shale from mountains in the United States.  We have more oil shale in our mountains than the Middle East has oil in their reserves.

Third, we could be the Saudi Arabia of the world when it comes to coal if we so desired.  We have the ability to burn coal cleanly, and we're sitting on massive supplies of it.

Fourth and finally, anyone who is truly serious about energy independence has no choice but to demand the expansion of nuclear power.  Any environmentalist who frets over man-made global warming, yet opposes nuclear power, has absolutely no credibility.  Even the waste from nuclear energy can be properly stored and reused for more energy later.  Moreover, it is the only non-fossil fuel based energy that can legitimately power cities.  And when alarmists warn that it can't be done safely, remind them that our Navy has been powering submarines with it for decades just fine.  Also, even the French are building nuke plants.  Enough said.

These four steps should be embraced by all Americans.  Yet President Obama is committed to an "environmental alarmist-based," not "energy independence-based" agenda.  He plans to force Americans off fossil fuels by causing their price to soar.  In a pre-election interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Obama said, "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket."  This is the worst possible policy for the United States when it comes to energy, as it will inevitably gut the American economy. 

Destroying jobs is not the way to make America energy independent, Mr. President.  The answer is to pursue four obvious solutions that your party doesn't seem to be interested in at all.

It's not a scare tactic...it's simply a scary reality.  The United States and the rest of the free world stand on the precipice of entering an age of nuclear blackmail, tension, and terror.  Whatever allegiances our President feels to particular interest groups, whatever motivations he previously held, whatever his domestic agenda might entail, this issue deserves his undivided attention.  It's time to be President, Mr. Obama.  And that means making your top priority protecting this generation of Americans, and those yet to be born.

For the purpose of achieving political power, the Democratic Party waged a successful six-year propaganda campaign against former President George W. Bush.  They tarnished him as engaging in cowboy diplomacy, accused him of war crimes, suggested that he was urinating on the Constitution, and condemned him for destroying civil liberties in his maniacal quest for unlimited authority.  It was a calculated political strategy to use the President's unwavering commitment to fighting threats to our country against him.  And it worked.  Bush left office with an incredibly low approval rating, and both branches of elected government are now completely dominated by those who opposed America's preemptive war strategy from the start (President Obama), or those who originally supported it but then changed their minds once it became politically expedient to do so (virtually every other Democrat in Washington).

But as news broke that North Korea belligerently defied the world again by testing nuclear weapons and missile capabilities, all while Iran rejected the softer approach of our new leadership to continue their own pursuit of nukes, you wouldn't be blamed for wondering if this change of power in Washington was really so great after all.

Regardless of how one might feel about the actions of former President Bush - whether they went too far or were too obsessive - there is no denying the motivation behind those actions: he vowed to protect the American people at any cost.  If it meant going it alone, he would do it.  If it meant allowing tough interrogations against murderous butchers, he would do it.  And while liberals across the country publicly lamented his bullish behavior, they benefitted from his relentless resolve.  They were able to put their heads on their pillows at night knowing that the man they impugned was pacing the floors of the White House to ensure they could wake up safely the next day to resume their criticism.

But the cowboy who was once so easy to demonize is gone.  And in his place, an under-qualified Chicago politician who doesn't seem to grasp that radical Islamists and lunatic dictators aren't tempted by "peace," nor enticed by compromises.  Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aren't intrigued by Obama's new rhetoric, they aren't fascinated by his humble beginnings, they aren't captivated by his powerful oratory, and they certainly aren't impressed by his global celebrity.  They will view Barack Obama just as they have viewed other American presidents: either an obstacle to overcome, or a pushover to manipulate.

To this point, Americans have reason for concern.  President Obama has already spoken out against preemptive strikes even when intelligence reveals an imminent threat.  He has condemned tough interrogations as beneath our dignity, even if it means saving countless American lives.  He has ordered his Secretary of Defense to slash spending on missile defense, even as the threat of a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse emanating from an ICBM has become real.

Bear in mind this new nuclear threat is not like the last.  During the Cold War, Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan knew they were dealing with an evil, but rational regime.  The Soviets were our ideological enemies, but we both benefited from the knowledge that neither desired a nuclear holocaust that would end all life on earth.  That was the baseline that made negotiations, diplomacy, and compromise possible.  We have no such baseline with North Korea and Iran.

In his letter to the church at Colosse, the apostle Paul warned the faithful believers to be on guard for those who speak with eloquence, but whose message is corrupt and evil.  His purpose was, "so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."  It is becoming increasingly clear that as our country has lost its grip on its Godly underpinnings, and has forsaken a solid Biblical worldview, our ability as a people to resist this trap has greatly deteriorated.

Consider as evidence the reaction of many Americans to our President's recent remarks on the most crucial human rights issue of our time.  In addressing abortion during a commencement speech, the President appeared to humbly propose attempting to find common ground. 

"Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived."  Does President Obama not realize how twisted of a statement that is for him to make given that his policies facilitate the destruction of human dignity in the womb?  If we are all endowed by God with the right to experience the fulfillment of a life well-lived, Mr. President, why do you continue to advocate limiting that right to merely those who are convenient? 

Yet media sources across the country had high praise for Obama's "eloquence" on the issue.  To them I would simply point out that a steaming pile of excrement, eloquently presented, is still a steaming pile of excrement.

To illustrate, let's suppose I made the audacious suggestion that we begin allowing families to choose the execution of their dependent great-grandparents.  These elderly folks are not productive members of society, they are a financial and emotional drain on a family's resources, and they drive big cars with large emissions, making our planet less livable.  Or perhaps I suggest allowing families to choose the execution of their physically or emotionally handicapped children.  They tried their best to provide for these kids, but they had no idea the burden they would end up being.  Financially, emotionally, it's just too much for them.

Though I would be using the same logic as the abortion crowd, you would hopefully recoil in disgust at my depraved and inhuman proposals.  So in response, suppose I offered to "find common ground" with you.  How about a waiting period?  You have to wait 30 days after your initial decision to kill your grandparents.  That's more reasonable, right?  Or we could have a familial consent law?  You must have unanimous approval from your immediate family to go through with the execution.  Better yet a post-birth version of the ultrasound law: you have to watch a 30 minute video of your grandparents knitting, crocheting, and watching TV before you have them exterminated. 

Do these compromises make my suggestion more agreeable to you?  Of course not.  And why?  Because you recognize that life itself is worth protecting, not because of what it can do, or how easy it is to deal with, or whether it's "wanted," or whether it's financially independent.  It's worth protecting simply because it's life...and there is intrinsic worth in every human being.

That is why there is and can be no "common ground" on the issue of abortion.  Waiting periods, parental consent, ultrasound laws...they all end up with the same result: "Do these things, and then you can kill the baby."  To Americans who have grown up in a country predicated upon defending the defenseless and recognizing what even Barack Obama himself calls the dignity of life given to us by God, this is unacceptable.

Scientifically, medically, spiritually, there is no longer any question that human life begins at the moment of conception.  And therefore we are compelled to defend it from that point, not find common ground with those who wish to allow its destruction.even if they make their proposals with what Paul called, "fine-sounding arguments."

Obama may speak with high platitudes and with soaring rhetoric.  But if we as a people lack the ability to see through such eloquence and examine the content of what is being said, rather than the mere presentation of how it is said, God help us.