This is the paragraph that has me worried:

“We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma.  So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.”

It seems to me this can be used to require homeschoolers to be registered and/or tracked.  After all, how else can you be sure they are really “in” school.

This is especially worrying for any homeschoolers in Illinois – lawmakers tried to enact a bill requiring exactly this less than a year ago. It was tabled after homeschoolers showed up in force to defeat it.  However, that may not be enough if lawmakers feel they have a mandate from the Federal government requiring it.  If they simply have to say “hey my hands are tied – we don’t have a choice” we could march a million people to the  capital and it still wouldn’t make a difference.

Of course, a call to states to take an action is not binding, so nothing may come of it.  However, if it is something the State Politicians want anyways and all they are looking for is an excuse to do it, Obama just handed it to them.

He claims to be the inventor, but recent evidence suggests that at least some form of mind map was used before Buzan’s time – WELL before then…

I’ve always enjoyed both star wars and star trek.  They both have their good points and bad points (which was worse – the voyager finale or episode 2?) and I just took the good with the bad and felt better for it.  Of course, I enjoyed the William Shatner/Carrie Fisher rivalry as being all in good fun.  So I kind of regret the fact that George Takei is trying to make nice between the two.

However, he is right.  When it comes to the greater good, we all need to join together and defeat the nemesis that is Twilight.

Which, by the way, is now officially gayer than George Takei.

from WND:

Both Newt Romney and Barack Obama supported the banking bailouts and will not hesitate to bail out any financial institutions that fail in the future. Both Newt Romney and Barack Obama believe government is the solution to the global economic crisis and support intervention in the global economy through the International Monetary Fund and the various European organizations. Both Newt Romney and Barack Obama favor permitting more foreigners to enter and remain in the United States. Both Newt Romney and Barack Obama favor continuing the various military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda and now Iran. And neither Newt Romney nor Barack Obama has any intention in taking control of the rogue Federal Reserve, which is funneling billions of dollars to European banks without any oversight from anyone.

Moreover, they are WORSE than Obama in one important area – they would get MORE done.

Mr. Hope and Change has turned out to be the most lazy, supine and disengaged president since Calvin Coolidge, which is an excellent quality, indeed. If we must have an activist committed to an insane ideology as president, by all means, let him be a lazy one. Newt Romney, on the other hand, will be either excessively enthusiastic or excessively efficient in driving the nation into the economic abyss. As more than one Republican has commented, about the only thing worse than Obama’s election would have been President John McCain. As bad as Obama has been, it is readily apparent that McCain would have bombed Pakistan, invaded Iran and bailed out Greece had he won in 2008.

Mr. Day’s proposed alternative is the same as mine – its time to consider Ron Paul for President!

In the long run, politically, it changes nothing.

Should Newt get the nomination, the republican odds of defeating Obama in 2012 don’t change one bit.  Gingrich is exactly as electable as Romney – no more and no less. Sure, Gingrich has more dirt on him, but it’s pretty well already dug through and, simply stated, he’s a more experienced politician and can overcome more than Romney can.

Should he win the election, policy under Newt would be pretty much the same thing as policy under Mitt.  Currently, their stated values are virtually identical.  And hey! If there ARE any differences that you find significant, just wait a week or two – they’ll change!

Finally, they are both bad for the US in general for the same reasons.  They put the entire political framework under the rule of one party and eliminate checks and balances completely and they both have the same misapprehensions about the economy.  The only republican this does NOT apply to is Ron Paul.  Every other potential nominee values party over principles.

In other “two sides of the same coin” news, Obama refused to relax “Plan B” restrictions and continues to fight for preventing tax increases in 2012.  Liberals who previously voted for him are cringing.

The thing is, objectively, it makes no sense.  Sure he has been doing very well in the debates and he is a very skillful and experienced politician, but beyond that, there simply isn’t any compelling reason for him to be as strong a contender as he has turned out to be. Every criticism you can make of Romney, you can make of him and he has weaknesses Romney doesn’t.

Can his rise be on the shoulders of the “Anyone but Romney” crowd?  Anyone who dislikes Romney should dislike Gingrich for pretty much the same reason.  Do you have a problem with Romney’s Faith?  Most people who have issues with Mormonism, have similar issues with Catholicism (Catholics are the exception here, but they tend to trend Democratic and so probably aren’t a major factor here).   Do you have a problem with RomneyCare?   Gingrich supports it – including the individual mandate!  How about flip flops on Abortion?  Gingrich’s record is as spotted as Romney’s.  His stance on Climate Change?  Gingrich loses there too.  Illegal Immigration? Romney’s stance shifted on this one -  Gingrich still supports Amnesty.

Can anyone think he is more electable than Romney?  Historically, there is no evidence for this.  Governors are electable, Speakers of the House are not.  There have only been two speakers of the house who went on to be President.  Gerald Ford was never elected as either president or vice president, and James Polk, who was elected, served both as speaker of the House AND as Governor of Tennessee.  And as Speakers go, Gingrich is one of the most polarizing.  The only speaker I can think of who is more polarizing is Pelosi, and I doubt anyone considers her to be a likely presidential candidate any time soon.  Add to that his personal and political scandals and you have a nearly insurmountable obstacle to the presidency.  I’m not saying Gingrich CAN’T surmount those obstacles, I’m just saying that no one else ever has been able to.

Gingrich still may be able to secure the nomination.  I haven’t seen anything to suggest that Obama is stronger or weaker in November if Romney or Gingrich is his opponent.  I don’t begrudge it of him if he is able to secure it.  It just greatly surprises me that he even has the chance.

I don’t wanna be startin’ somethin’.  Everyone knows what he did was dangerous.  You know he’s bad, but if he can beat it, he’ll be a smooth criminal.

Sixty five percent is generally regarded as a lock for most contests on Intrade.com.  If you can get consistently above sixty-five percent, your contest is pretty much settled.  You may not like him, but if you’re Republican, you had better get used to the idea of having him as your nominee.  Even though there are candidates that have a more coherent economic plan and there are serious issues with his candidacy in general.

Oh, and if he does get elected, remember that gridlock tends to be our country’s only saving grace.  Romney’s presidency will likely be just as bad as George W’s – if not worse.