Bob's Blog: 2006

Foster care should be renamed "limbo." It would be more accurate, because it describes what is happening for the child, the birth parents, and the foster parents.

At present we have two foster children. One is a 13-month-old girl. She first came to us in February, when her mother broke a bone in the baby's leg. We only had her a few days in February, because the caseworker found a relative who said she could care for the baby. That lasted until June, when the relative could no longer care for her. She came back to us in June. She is very bonded to me and to my wife. We have loved and cared for her as though she were our own child.

New caseworker, new plan. New caseworker told the biological mother to move in with her grandmother who raised her. Mom and her new baby boy have now moved in with grandmother. But we have heard nothing from the caseworker, and there is one minor detail: the mother's criminal case has still not reached any conclusions about what the mother's consequences should be for breaking the bone in her daughter's leg! So the baby, the mother, the grandmother, and the foster parents remain in limbo.

A father? Yes, there was a man involved with the mother for at least ten minutes, but no one seems to be asking anything about him or any of his relatives.

Our other foster child is a rambunctuous (the politically correct word is ADHD) 23-month-old boy. He requires constant monitoring. His mother is incarcerated. She is a drug-abusing prostitute who has abandoned the boy on many occasions. As a result, he is used to doing whatever he pleases. We have placed limits on him, and he likes it here. He absolutely loves going out to the ranch where we keep two horses and two goats, and there are several other kinds of animals for him to romp with.

The people who were providing day care for him when his mother last abandoned him have stepped forward and told the caseworker that they would like to have him long term, maybe even adopt him. One problem: the man of the house has a felony on his record, a traffic felony. The powers that be are going to meet soon to determine if they can waive their normal rules (no person with a felony can qualify as a foster parent). The mother expects to be released from her present incarceration in the Spring. Although she has already lost parental rights to three other children, she will still be given a chance to be reunited with her son. Meanwhile, you guessed it: the son, mother, day care operators, and the foster parents are all in limbo.

A father? Yes, there is a man who was involved with the mother for at least ten minutes, but no one seems to be asking anything about his ability to care for his son or if he has relatives who could.

Taking advice from Michelle Malkin and Alexandra Von Maltzan, today I read two columns by Washington Times columnist Diana West suggesting ways America should change course to better defend itself against Muslim killers who wish to destroy America. West's point is that the constitutions of both Afghanistan and Iraq have enshrined Islamic law, known as "sharia." Sharia does not permit equality among the sexes or among religions, and it outlaws words and deeds that oppose this power structure. West adds,From this same Islamic legal tradition comes the mandate for jihad (holy war, usually against non-Muslims) and dhimmitude, the official state of inferiority of non-Muslims under Islam." Obviously, none of this is anything we want to come to American shores, "whether by means of violent jihad terrorism as practiced by the likes of Al Qaeda or Hezbollah, or through peaceful patterns of migration, such as those that have already Islamized large parts of Europe."

Therefore, West urges President Bush to change course. Instead of trying to promote democracy in countries that will democratically impose sharia, she urges the President to change from the offense to the defense. Instead of promoting democracy, she believes we should be making sure our borders are defended to protect the liberty and equality we already enjoy here in America. If you do not believe in the liberty and equality that we enjoy, then do not come to our country!

West points out that in what sociologists call post-Christian Europe, unregulated immigration of people from sharia states has already transformed Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. So, step number one in this change of course should be for the President to ask Congress to bar any further immigration from anyone currently living in a sharia state. In her second column West amplifies: "This may appear to go against our cherished tradition of religious tolerance, not to mention good manners. But if the laws promulgated by Islam directly threaten freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and religion, women's rights, and key concepts of equality — and they do — it is a sign of intellectual rigor mortis not to say so. And I do say so, but, again, not to launch a transformative military or cultural offensive against Islam, but to initiate the mobilization of a defensive movement to prevent the Islamization of American law and liberty."

But, what about the people in the sharia countries who go out of their way to aid American troops? There must be some way for them to reach the freedom of American shores.

It was not a mistake to chase Osama Bin Laden into his cave or Saddam Hussein into his rat hole. We will probably need to do the same thing to the Mullahs in Iran, the punk dictator who starves and imprisons his own people in North Korea, and the Saudia Arabian fiananciers and exporters of hatred. But it is time now for us to celebrate and protect the freedom and equality our own nation has achieved.