GenJHQ's Xanga

Fighting on...

Wed, 14 May 2008 15:04:52 GMT

Hilary Clinton is still in the primary race and kicking hard, despite a campaign that is over $20 million in debt, and behind over 150 delegates. Even after her resounding win in the West Virginia primary yesterday, Clinton only has 1,717 total delegates to Obama's 1,883.5. It will take 2,026 delegates to clinch the nomination.
Hilary is vowing to stay in until every vote is counted.

Posted by C. Dalton

Prayer List...

Mon, 12 May 2008 09:50:25 GMT

Dear Readers,

Today, let's please all take a moment to pray for those in the following areas. For their safety and salvation, and for the family's of those who have lost loved ones:

Thousands Dead After Magnitude 7.8 Earthquake Rocks Central China

Preliminary reports say that 3,000 to 5,000 people had died and 80 percent of buildings toppled in Beichuan county in Sichuan province after the 7.8-magnitude quake. Another 10,000 people there were believed to be hurt.

Tornadoes Cut Destructive Path Across Central U.S., Killing 22

Storms across the central U.S. have been generating multiple tornadoes.

U.S. Delivers First Relief Aid to Burma; U.N. Urges Junta to Cooperate

Thankfully, some outside aid is now being accepted to help the more than 2 million displaced from this cyclone. The official death toll is over 28,000 with another 33,416 still missing.

Let us lift these up in prayer.
Blessings!

Posted by C. Dalton

And the Impasse Goes Marching On...

Wed, 07 May 2008 09:02:58 GMT

On Tuesday, May 6^th, North Carolina and Indiana went to the polls. As of Tuesday morning many observers were anticipating a narrow win by Obama in North Carolina with a decisive win by Clinton in Indiana. Instead the opposite occurred. Obama won North Carolina with a lead of 14 percent (56-42 percent). With 99 percent of precincts reporting, it appears that Clinton narrowly won Indiana by 2 percent (51-49 percent).

Tuesday’s results effectively end Clinton’s chances at obtaining the Democratic nomination. To gain the lead now, she would have to obtain 70 percent of the delegates in the remaining primaries of West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, South Dakota, Montana, and Puerto Rico. It is anticipated that Clinton will at least win West Virginia and Kentucky. Clinton would also have to obtain 70% of the remaining superdelegates. With the states remaining being relatively small, the main battleground will be convincing the remaining 278 superdelegates to support Clinton. If they break for Obama, Clinton will have to play her last major card, trying to get Michigan and Florida’s delegates seated to regain some lost ground.

While last night’s primaries were split, Obama’s near tie in Indiana combined with a major win in North Carolina gave him an air of inevitability. The primaries also showed that Obama can weather major negative attacks without major loss. While the primaries may drag on until June 20^th, it is likely that Tuesday night drove home the last nail in the coffin of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by D. Turner

California Trying to Can Spanking...

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:10:33 GMT

California Assembly Member Sally Lieber (Left) introduced her anti-spanking bill earlier this year. AB 2943 would have the practical effect of making criminals out of loving parents who spank with an implement (i.e. inanimate object, such as a small paddle or ruler) in California. The result could be jail time for parents and temporary or permanent loss of their children.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee is set to have a hearing on this bill tomorrow, April 30.

In a day and age where youth violence is more rampant than ever and where children are brought up without self discipline or outside discipline, this move to remove a valuable and biblically mandated mode of child training does not bode well for the future of America's children.
According to HSLDA President Mike Smith,
"This likely will have several negative unjustifiable consequences in California. Prosecutors could end up filing criminal charges against parents for simply spanking their children with an object even though reasonable, age-appropriate corporal discipline is a protected right of parents in every state.

Secondly, by the mere fact that jurors in criminal cases would be instructed that they could consider spanking with an implement to be criminal conduct would imply that the legislature believes that this type of conduct is abusive conduct. Finally, if this law passes, it will have a chilling effect on parents who reasonably exercise discipline through the use of spanking with an implement."

Click here to learn more about this dangerous legislation.

Posted by C. Dalton

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:32:23 GMT

Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania Democratic primary on Tuesday by a margin of 55-45%, sparking questions from the media of why it is taking Barack Obama so long to close the deal. He has a front-runner state, a majority of delegates, and is outspending Clinton by at least 2-1. Yet, Obama was only able to knock Clinton’s 20 point lead down to 10 points. Perhaps, Clinton is exaggerating a little when she called last night “the turning of the tide” (after all, there are only 9 states left for her to catch up), but the question remains of why Obama has not been able to close the deal yet. Why are there still undecided super-delegates? Why has Obama failed to win the states that were battleground states in 2000 and 2004 (e.g. Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania)?

First of all, one must understand that while Obama is ahead, he only leads by about 130 delegates, and is still 305 short of the magic 2,025 needed to get the nomination. It would be difficult for Clinton to catch up with Obama and pass him, but events have made the situation look more hopeful for her recently. In past weeks, Obama has come under fire for inflammatory anti-American comments that his pastor made. At a San Fransisco fundraiser Obama stirred up controversy when he said

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama has increasingly come under fire from both Clinton and McCain (the media is not doing him any favors either). Between this and the narrow margins in delegates and the popular vote, it is not surprising that Obama is having a difficult time. In addition, Pennsylvania really did favor Clinton demographically, with its non-upscale white Democrats and independents to whom Obama has always had a hard time appealing. We shall have to see what happens as the race now moves to Indiana and North Carolina.

Posted by D. Turner and C. Dalton

Monday, April 21, 2008

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:16:28 GMT

Today former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, a long-time opponent of John McCain’s candidacy, grudgingly endorsed John McCain.

As recently as January, Santorum said “It’s amazing to hear what John McCain is trying to convince the voters he is all about. The bottom line is, I served 12 years with him, six years in the Senate as one of the leaders of the Senate, trying to put together the conservative agenda, and almost at every turn, on domestic policy, John McCain was not only against us, but leading the charge on the other side.” But’ it looks as if the Republican Party is closing ranks now.

In his statement, Santorum cited the Reagan axiom that “someone you agree with on 80 percent of the issues is your friend, not your enemy.” Santorum then goes down the list of issues to determine whether McCain is a “friend.”

Santorum believes that McCain knows our military, knows our enemies, and understands the human and financial cost of defeating them. Pulling no punches, Santorum says “In the end, with the exception of embryonic stem-cell funding, he always voted for life and stood for the culture of life. In short, he's been a reliable vote on life issues, which are critical to conservatives.”

Regarding the Gang of 14, Santorum says “I was in leadership pushing hard for a showdown with the Democrats on using the "Constitutional Option" to end their filibuster of judicial nominations. The Gang of 14 broke the impasse, and it probably was for the best. I was the one counting votes on that issue, and I was much less certain of success than others. In the end, the Gang deal resulted in numerous confirmations of qualified conservative jurists.” Santorum also adds that he can agree with McCain on appointing judges that will apply the law as written.

He points out his disagreement with McCain on taxcuts in the past, but gives McCain credit for thinking that the cuts should be made permanent to help the economy. Santorum continues to disagree with McCain on earmarks, believing that some are important for his state, but he appreciates McCain’s principled consistency on the matter.

Santorum offers as closing arguments the important matter of who controls bureaucratic appointments and his belief that McCain is will be better for America than Clinton or Obama.

“As for the Reagan Axiom, given his opponent, McCain is close enough to 80 percent for government work. That is why I am going to vote for my friend - John McCain.”

Notably absent from Santorum’s analysis of the issues, was his disagreement with McCain on campaign finance reform. Santorum earlier said that the bill was “an affront to personal freedom and liberty in this country, and what we’ve seen as a result of this misguided attempt to placate the New York Times and to help his stature within that community … is that special interests have absolutely taken over the political process, and individual candidates, unless you’re a billionaire, and parties have very little voice in the process.” His analysis of McCain’s views on immigration were also not articulated.

So, is the Reagan axiom a good concept? Is anyone who agrees with you on 80% of the issues your friend? How much does it matter what the 20% that you disagree on is?

This is Santorum's take on the matter:

"Many of my fellow Republicans have faulted me privately and publicly for being so outspoken about McCain, suggesting that I should have kept my mouth shut. First, I’ve never been very good at that. Second, I do not regret being up-front about such an important decision. Third, the primaries are a time when each party wrestles over what it’s looking for in a presidential candidate. Now is the time to come together."

Posted by D. Turner and C. Dalton

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:09:32 GMT

Former President Carter is meeting with representatives from Hamas in Egypt today in hopes of being able to negotiate a peace deal for the middle east. This action contradicts the Bush administration’s policy of not negotiating with Hamas unless it recognizes the existence of Israel and forsakes terror. The Bush administration currently does not recognize Hamas as an actual government, but considers it a “terrorist organization”.

The Whitehouse has been vocal in its criticism of Carter’s trip. US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "We do not think that meeting was useful. As we can all see by the recent violence in Gaza, Hamas is a terrorist organization." White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said,"The president believes that if president Carter wants to go, that he is doing so in his own private capacity, as a private citizen, he is not representing the United States."
Even though Former President Carter is acting on his own, Hamas officials said Wednesday that Carter's meetings with its leaders will boost the group's legitimacy despite criticism by Israel and the U.S. government of the former president's personal peace mission.
This trip has also boiled over into the presidential race. Obama has drawn flack from both Clinton and McCain for saying he would meet with foreign countries that are hostile to us. With the critical Pennsylvania primary coming up, Obama has opposed Carter’s trip. Obama says we must maintain an “unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from “its bitter enemies.” "That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas. We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements. Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” said Obama....
hmmmm...wait, isn't that the Bush administration's policy?
Don't get your hopes up there. I highly doubt Obama's wishy washy foreign policy stance has changed at all. It's called bending to political pressure, and the reality of it is, no one wants to be caught saying that they are going to negotiate with terrorists...well, no one but former President Carter, I guess.

Posted by C. Dalton and W. Deutsch

Protests Around the World: The Story of the 2008 Olympic Torch

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:46:39 GMT

It is a long-standing tradition that the Olympic torch travels around the world to location of the Olympics every 4 years. The torch was lit this year on March 24, in Athen's Panathenian stadium, site of the first modern Olympic Games in 1896. It is traveling across five continents to Beijing, China, the site of the 2008 Olympics. The protests began in Greece, continuing with major protests in Paris, London, and San Francisco. Thousands of protesters have scuffled with police, attempted to block the torches passage, and even tried to extinguish the torch. Today the torch is in Buenos Aires, Argentina and protests are planned there as well.

Why has the Olympic torch met so much opposition? The protestors are voicing their opposition to the Olympics being held in Beijing, China, because of China’s human rights record, its harsh rule in Tibet, and its friendly ties with Sudan. The protest is not just being made by a few activists either. Thus far, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have confirmed that they will not be attending the Olympics opening ceremony. French President Nicolas Sarkozy is also considering staying away.

In case you are wondering, the U.S presidential candidates have all voiced their opinions as well. Hillary Clinton was the first to comment on the matter, saying on Wednesday,

“The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership…These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government.”

Barack Obama originally resisted a call to follow Clinton’s lead and call for boycott of the opening ceremony. He later changed his mind and said in a written statement,

“If the Chinese do not take steps to help stop the genocide in Darfur and to respect the dignity, security, and human rights of the Tibetan people, then the President should boycott the opening ceremonies. As I have communicated in public and to the President, it is past time for China to respect the human rights of the Tibetan people, to allow foreign journalists and diplomats access to the region, and to engage the Dalai Lama in meaningful talks about the future of Tibet. I am also deeply concerned about China's failure to support efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur. Regarding the Beijing Olympics this summer, a boycott of the opening ceremonies should be firmly on the table, but this decision should be made closer to the Games.”

Last, but not least, John McCain also voiced an opinion yesterday.

“Our relationship with China is important, and we value our ability to cooperate with the Chinese government on a wide variety of strategic, economic, and diplomatic fronts. But the Chinese government needs to understand that in our modern world, how a nation treats its citizens is a legitimate subject of international concern. China has signed numerous international agreements that make China's treatment of its citizens a subject of legitimate international concern, not just a matter of national sovereignty. To be a responsible stakeholder in the modern world, a government must also be responsible at home, in protecting, not trampling, the rights of its people.”

“I deplore the violent crackdown by Chinese authorities and the continuing oppression in Tibet of those merely wishing to practice their faith and preserve their culture and heritage. I have listened carefully to the Dalai Lama and am convinced he is a man of peace who reflects the hopes and aspirations of Tibetans. I urge the government of the People's Republic of China to address the root causes of unrest in Tibet by opening a genuine dialogue with His Holiness, the Dalai Lama, aimed at granting greater autonomy. I urge the Chinese authorities to ensure peaceful protest is not met with violence, to release monks and others detained for peacefully expressing their views and to allow full outside access to Tibet.”

“I understand and respect Prime Minister Brown's decision not to attend the Olympic opening ceremonies. I believe President Bush should evaluate his participation in the ceremonies surrounding the Olympics and, based on Chinese actions, decide whether it is appropriate to attend. If Chinese policies and practices do not change, I would not attend the opening ceremonies. It does no service to the Chinese government, and certainly no service to the people of China, for the United States and other democracies to pretend that the suppression of rights in China does not concern us. It does, will and must concern us.”

The issue that seems to be ignored by all is the persecution of Christians in China. All of these human rights violations are legitimate reasons to be troubled by the choice of China as a site of the Olympic Games. How should a Christian respond to this? Is this a matter where we should refuse to participate as Eric Liddell refused to run on Sunday during the Olympics? Should we boycott the Olympics opening ceremony as a sign of symbolic protest? Or should we participate as usual, saying that sports and human rights are separate issues that should not interfere with one another? What would you do?

Posted by D. Turner

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:14:08 GMT

General Petraeus has been testifying before congress on Iraq’s status for the last two days. He had already recommended to President Bush that he proceed with the planned withdrawal of the five “surge” combat brigades by the end of July. Petraeus then suggests a 45-day hiatus for the purpose of consolidation and evaluation. At that point, Petraeus said, he would begin “a process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground,” and decide whether he should recommend “further reductions as conditions permit.”

Needless to say, the Democrats are displeased with this prospect. Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) dismissed Petraeus’s recommendations as “just the next page in a war plan with no exit strategy.” Democratic icon, Ted Kennedy complained “A year ago, the president said we couldn't withdraw because there was too much violence. Now he says we can't afford to withdraw because violence is down.”

Senator John McCain viewed the report far more positively. He said “We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat.” Instead, “success is within reach.”

Posted by D. Turner and C. Dalton

Monday, April 07, 2008

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:11:53 GMT

The stir in DC today was the rumor that Condoleezza Rice is vying for the Republican VP nomination. Republican Strategist Dan Senor started the rumor, saying “Condi Rice has been actively, actually in recent weeks, campaigning for this.” He pointed out that Rice recently attended Americans for Tax Reform’s weekly meeting of conservative leaders, a first for her.

The response to this idea was prompt. Sean McCormack, the State Department’s spokesman, quickly shot down the idea, saying that Rice is still tenured and Stanford and plans to return there at the end of the year. The idea also seemed to be news to McCain. “I did not hear that. I miss ed those signals,” he said, also praising her as a “great American.”

Senor notes that Rice would have some strengths as a VP candidate, including her experience, her name recognition, and her ability to step into the presidency, if necessary (there also is the unspoken matter of her race and gender). There remains, however, the awkward fact that McCain has noted that that Rice, as national security advisor during the first year-and-a-half of the Iraq conflict, deserves some responsibility for the original, unsuccessful strategy in Iraq. Because of this fact and repeated assertion by Rice that she does not want the position, one is led to conclude that it is unlikely that she will be selected for the Republican VP nomination.

Posted by D. Turner