The saga of Chen Guangcheng is not over. For those who haven’t been following this story, let me summarize. Chen is a blind Chinese human rights activist. China’s policy of limiting the number of children a family can have has led to many forced abortions. Chen’s “crime” was to expose this unbridled government genocide against innocent children. China’s history of disrespect for human rights is well documented.

For this activity, he was sentenced in 2006 to four years in jail. When that sentence expired in 2010, the government kept him under house arrest, turning his home into a fortress of walls, security cameras, and armed guards. Somehow, Chen escaped this house prison and made his way to the American embassy seeking protection and asylum.

This became an embarrassment to the Obama administration in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who didn’t want to offend the Chinese government. Chen’s fate hung in the balance for a few days until he was supposedly allowed to emigrate to the United States as a student. He’s still in China, in a Beijing hospital, and until he actually arrives in the US, his friends and supporters don’t know whether to believe it will happen.

The Obama administration kept Chen twisting in the proverbial political winds for quite some time as it tried to figure out what to do.

Good relations with China almost trumped the life of a brave individual pointing out the abuses of Chinese policy. But then why would Obama care much that China forces abortions? Given his own stand on the issue, I doubt that concerns him. He doesn’t mind turning a “blind” eye to what China is doing. It’s more than a little ironic that the blind man has clearer vision than those who say they can see:

This is only one of a multitude of reasons why this president must be turned out of office this November.

It’s never my intent to stay on one story for an entire week, but the Herman Cain situation calls for it, especially when new info keeps coming on those who are making the accusations. For those who say a Christian shouldn’t spend time on these tawdry details, I simply reply that if someone’s reputation is on the line, and those who are damaging that reputation have things to hide themselves, they are fair game. Seeking truth is not wallowing in tawdry details.

Yesterday, I noted the many problems in the life of Sharon Bialek that ought to give one pause before believing her. Now we learn that her live-in fiancé who is her sole means of support is getting ready to declare bankruptcy. In other words, it appears that she is in need of funds after all. Despite her disclaimer that she is not seeking to make money, she has to know that somebody will pay her for more “juicy” details. I’m getting the strong impression she’s not above making up some of those details in exchange for monetary gain.

Then there’s the odd case of Karen Kraushaar, the other woman who has become a public face in the accusations. We now know that after she filed a complaint against Cain while she worked at the National Restaurant Association, that she did the same thing at her next job in the government. Her complaint centered around unfair treatment because she wasn’t allowed to work full-time from home and because she was offended by an e-mail she considered sexist and abusive to women. The e-mail in question was a common one that simply compared men and women. You can find it if you search, but it’s not particularly offensive, and it’s not abusive, just humorous. It’s not really any worse than blonde jokes that go around.

What does this say about her sensitivities? Is she perhaps too easily offended by remarks that wouldn’t offend most other people?

Quite aside from her character relating directly to sexual harassment charges, there is another part of her history that interests me. She was a spokeswoman for the Immigration and Naturalization Service back when that agency broke into a house and forcibly removed Elian Gonzalez from his relatives’ care and returned him to his father in Cuba. To me, that was one of the most outrageous episodes in the Clinton era under the auspices of Attorney General Janet Reno. Kraushaar was the voice of the agency, proclaiming that it was doing the right thing. As I said, that is not related to the current charges she is leveling, but I think it does provide more evidence of the type of person Cain had to deal with at the NRA.

Meanwhile, new evidence is surfacing that David Axelrod, who is President Obama’s “go-to” guy for reelection, may be behind the release of the Cain information from the NRA. Axelrod has done this type of thing before on behalf of Obama; ostensibly, it’s why he won his senatorial seat. I won’t go into the details here, but you can check out the possibility by going to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=47438.

On the positive side, there is an article that reveals a sophisticated software program that has been shown to be more accurate than lie detectors has concluded Cain is telling the truth, while Bialek probably is not. I’m no expert on this, by any means, but you can read that article at http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/16002149/investigator-herman-cain-innocent-of-sexual-advances.

What does this all mean, in practical terms? The more information that emerges, the more I’m leaning toward Cain’s innocence in these matters. Smearing a man’s reputation is never difficult. All it takes is a well-coordinated strategy from people who are practiced in devising such strategies. Sadly, all the innocent person can do is stoutly deny the charges and hope others believe him. That’s so unfair that it perhaps calls for Cain to make a charge of sexual harassment against him. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turnabout?

The accusations against Herman Cain aren’t any more substantial today than they were last week. In the meantime, he had an interesting sitdown debate with New Gingrich on the issues of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. I wasn’t able to watch it, but the reviews I’ve read say it was worthwhile—a real opportunity to allow candidates to speak their minds in depth on issues without being subject to the whims of the broadcast media. No “gotcha” questions, just straight talk.

What’s difficult for some people to grasp is that it’s possible to be a black citizen in America and hold conservative views. Many think all blacks are completely sold out to liberal policies, so it astounds them when someone like Cain espouses conservatism, especially on economic issues and the role of government in society. It also enrages some. Such divergent opinions shouldn’t be permitted. Send that man to the back of the bus!

Or at least to the other water fountain. Let’s revive segregation! At least, that’s the way it appears at times.

I was watching the Huckabee program last night. His opening statement was about the way Cain has been treated by the media with respect to the unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations. I wish I had a transcript of Huckabee’s statement, but it went something like this:

• The media have tried to make a big deal out of nothing; they’ve worked hard to manufacture a scandal where one probably doesn’t exist.
• In the past, the media have ignored genuine instances of sexual harassment and rampant infidelities—witness John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards, in particular.
• Therefore, the media are very selective in deciding which ones merit extensive coverage, and wouldn’t you know, they always come out strong against any conservative who can be dragged down by either real wrongdoing or speculations of wrongdoing, while the escapades of liberals are scarcely mentioned.

Herman Cain should be given the benefit of the doubt, particularly since so many of his coworkers in the past have come to his defense, noting that he always treated everyone professionally, men and women alike.

Is the “Cain train” going to be derailed by this? We don’t know yet. But if it ever is derailed, let it be on the basis of a vote on his ideas and qualifications for the office, including his character, but not on a “he said, she almost-said” controversy. It’s time to turn the page on this pseudo-controversy and get back to the business of choosing the next president.

Much of the attention politically has been on the Republican side lately since there’s an actual competition for the nomination. On the Democrat side, there’s no drama. Every once in a while, a rumor floats about Hillary Clinton planning a run against her boss, but that’s not much more than fluff. No way that’s going to happen. The rumor gets circulated because of the spreading discontent with Obama within his party, but the rumormongers are going to have to come to grips with the brute fact that the establishment is on his side and will brook no rebellion in the ranks.

Given a choice between governing and campaigning, Obama has always found the latter more to his liking. It’s a lot more fun making promises and bashing opponents than it is having to deal with the reality of his failed policies. So in the guise of touting a so-called jobs bill, he is on the road quite often now, in campaign mode, all the while pretending that’s not what he’s doing:

But, hey, give him some credit—he’s an excellent pretender in many ways. Lately, he’s taken to identifying with the “Occupy” movement, claiming to be one with them in their attacks on Wall Street, a rather humorous identification since the Wall Streeters have filled the coffers for the Democrats for some time. The idea that Wall Street is Republican territory only is more mythology than truth:

Pretty brazen.

Earlier this month, I spoke at the Winter Haven, Florida, 9-12 Project. Last night I was closer to home at the Lakeland 9-12 Project meeting. As with the Winter Haven group, these are sincere citizens who want to see substantive change, as opposed to a vague, dreamy “hope-and-change” mantra without meaning. They are committed to restoring the original intent of the Constitution and in helping educate the public on basic principles.

My topic was the effect of third parties on elections. Here are a few of my prime examples.

In 1844, the Liberty Party entered the presidential election as an alternative to the Democrats and Whigs. This party had one issue only—the abolition of slavery. James G. Birney, a man of principle and courage was its presidential candidate. He had put his life on the line many times for his beliefs. I admire him. But since this was a one-issue party, defeat was inevitable; you have to develop a broad agenda and distinct philosophy of government to attract more people to your side. However, this small party probably turned the election in a direction it wouldn’t have gone otherwise. The Democrats were the pro-slavery party, while the Whigs, though divided on the issue, at least had some reformers who wanted to take steps to eliminate slavery. If any progress were to be made for abolition of slavery, it would have been far better had the Whigs won. However, the Liberty Party, although it took only 2% of the popular vote, drained enough support from the Whigs that the Democrats carried New York, the state with the largest number of electoral votes. If the Whigs had won that state, their candidate, Henry Clay, would have been president. Instead, we got James Polk, who supported the slave system.

Then, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt challenged sitting president William Howard Taft for the Republican nomination. Roosevelt was denied the nomination, and was so angered by it that he started his own third party known as the Progressives [with a nickname of Bull Moose]. Roosevelt effectively split the Republican vote in that election, putting Democrat Woodrow Wilson in the White House. Wilson, who was even more progressive than Roosevelt, championed the idea that the Constitution was a “living document,” and that original intent should be shelved. If Taft hadn’t been opposed by Roosevelt, he probably would have won reelection and Wilson never would have become president—he garnered only 42% of the popular vote.

Finally, in 1992, the entrance of Ross Perot into the race took away 19% of the vote that traditionally would have gone to the Republicans. The result? The presidency of Bill Clinton.

More often than not, third parties allow someone to win who normally wouldn’t. And the one who wins quite often is worse than the one from whom votes were drained. In an attempt to achieve the perfect, third parties usually end up providing us with a raw deal. As the cliché goes, the perfect can be the enemy of the good.

If I have one electoral fear right now, it’s that someone, whether it be Donald Trump or Ron Paul, will decide to run as a third-party candidate in 2012, thereby ensuring an Obama reelection. I hope history can come along and be a guide—don’t destroy our best chance of reversing what has occurred on Obama’s watch. Don’t allow disunity to give this man a second term. I’m not sure the country can survive another four years.

I spoke last evening at the Winter Haven, Florida, 9/12 Project meeting. For those who are unfamiliar with the organization, it began after the 2008 elections with the expressed purpose of educating citizens on the kinds of principles and values that formed the bedrock of our nation and our government. This organization is performing a valuable public service, and I heartily endorse its goals. They are the same goals I have maintained throughout my twenty-two years of teaching at universities. We are an ignorant people, by and large, and it’s time we once again grasped the essence of the republic that was created over two hundred years ago.

I had spoken to this 9/12 group two times previously. The first time I gave an overview of progressivism and how it has led us astray from constitutionalism; the second time was an examination of the principles that made Ronald Reagan’s presidency successful. Last night I focused on the Clinton impeachment of more than a decade ago, and what we should learn from that sad episode. Drawing from the book I wrote back in 2001, Mission: Impeachable–The House Managers and the Historic Impeachment of President Clinton, I concentrated on the reasons the House Managers gave for prosecuting the president at that time. In the face of public opinion polls that showed 67% of the electorate didn’t want Clinton removed from office, and in the teeth of a Republican-dominated Senate that had no stomach for this endeavor, these House Managers risked the wrath of both to make the case for removal.

Why did they do it?

I interviewed all thirteen of those House Managers and found a fairly consistent rationale. They were concerned primarily about the importance of upholding the rule of law in our society. What does that mean? Simply that no one, not even a president, can set himself up as above the law. Everyone must be held accountable for their actions.

Intertwined with that concern were two others: constitutionality [the need for checks and balances in the government] and the character issue, given how Clinton disgraced the high office he held. Many of those congressmen I interviewed were up front with their Christian convictions, which provided the strength to go forward and do what was right even when the public opposed them.

My conclusion in the book is that the Managers acted on principle and deserve to be honored for their attempt. As one of them stated, we need to put principle above expediency, honor above incumbency. The application for our day, a decade later, is obvious.

I thank the 9/12 group for giving me the opportunity to share. I trust I helped fulfill the goals of the organization. May they continue to thrive and attract others to the cause.

No one is supposed to cast doubt on the wisdom of the American voter. To do so is to be accused of elitism, or some other equally odious quality. We are constantly assured that the overwhelming majority of voters are well informed and make their decisions based on sound knowledge.

There’s an academic term for that—baloney.

Now by saying this, I’ve opened myself up for criticism. Who do I think I am passing judgment on the electorate? What proof do I offer? Well, look who’s president right now. What had he ever done to earn the position? Key legislation? Executive experience? No. Many voted for him because they were upset over what Bush had done. They never bothered to find out what Obama believed, or what policies he would promote. They wanted “hope.” They wanted “change.” They got the latter for sure. The first is still an illusion.

More evidence? Bill Clinton served two terms in spite of all the scandals percolating around him. Even when caught lying to a grand jury, 67% of the electorate didn’t want him removed from office.

Every four years, as if on schedule, no matter what the real issues, Democrats will trot out their magic formula: tell people the Republicans are going to take away Social Security and Medicare. They’re going to kick the helpless out in the streets. They’re plotting to starve all the old people. It’s become routine.

It nearly always works. That’s why they keep using the tactic. You would think that after a while, the falseness of the charge would be so evident that it would fall flat. But our “educated” electorate panics every time.

We’re seeing the same approach now with the debt ceiling/national debt talks. Democrats have done nothing at all to resolve the situation; Republicans have offered concrete plans for dealing with it. Yet some polls show that voters will blame Republicans if the government has to cut back on expenditures due to this debt problem. Never mind that fully 1/3 of that debt has accumulated in the first two and one-half years of Obama’s administration, and that he has shown no sign of wanting to slow down his spending spree. He’s now talking about another stimulus—you know, because the first one wasn’t large enough to do the job.

How many voters will fall for it this time? There’s this mantra out there in the political world that says everyone’s vote is really important:

I’m going to break from this political correctness. In my view, “Phil” shouldn’t vote. And to all you “Phils” out there, please do your country a service and stay home on election night. We’ll make wiser choices without you.