Proponents of euthanasia understand the power of language in shaping debate. Therefore, instead of using the term "physician-assisted suicide" to describe the practice they advocate, they use euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" to sugar coat the reality of the killings they have in view. They know the term "physician-assisted suicide" does not poll well, so they try to disguise the real nature of what it is they are championing. Since people are inherently uncomfortable with the notion that those trained in the healing arts would aid and abet the killing of their patients, euphemisms are used to conceal the true nature of what's involved. Everyone wants to die with dignity. Thus, like abortion, killing oneself with a doctor's assistance becomes just another "choice."

Many in the medical community are complicit in this deception, and, although doctors were once trained to "do no harm," they are now fostering it through the deceptive use of rhetoric. A recent New York Times article, written by Jane Gross, describes one such deception. The article explains that a new practice called "slow medicine" has gained support in medical communities in recent years. The goal of slow medicine is to encourage "physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limited rewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses...." [emphasis added]. Thus, slow medicine seeks to aid doctors, families, and patients in resisting medical efforts to cure treatable illnesses.

When first confronted with the slow medicine approach, patients understandably find it offensive. The New York Times article reports that Kendal at Hanover, a retirement community which encourages the slow medicine approach, "begins by asking newcomers whether they want to be resuscitated or go to the hospital and under what circumstances." Brenda Jordan, a nurse practitioner at Kendal, explains, "'They give me an amazingly puzzled look, like "Why wouldn't I?"'" This reaction is completely natural and in keeping with any patient who values their own life. Even Dr. Tom Rosenthal, UCLA's chief medical officer and a believer in slow medicine, admits, "The culture has a built-in bias that everything that can be done will be done."

To overcome that instinctive cultural bias, the Kendal staff steps in to explain things to its patients. While the explanation is couched in quality of life terms and foreboding statistics, underneath lies a utilitarian concern never overtly addressed. In her article, Gross explains, "The costliest patients—the elderly with chronic illnesses—are the only group with universal health coverage under Medicare, leading to huge federal expenditures that experts agree are unsustainable as boomers age." Thus, there are financial benefits that flow from every elderly person's decision to "die with dignity."

Recent experience in The Netherlands illustrates where deceptive language about euthanasia can lead. When The Netherlands first legalized euthanasia, it was only allowed in rare cases of "intolerable suffering." "The guidelines were designed specifically to keep assisted suicide occurrences few and far between by establishing demanding conditions that had to be met, at the risk of criminal prosecution." Yet doctors soon began interpreting these guidelines broadly, and the government and the courts did almost nothing to prevent it. Now the Netherlands, under its euthanasia law, allows the killing of infants with non-life threatening birth defects. Additionally, Dutch doctors are euthanizing patients without their permission. Repeated studies have demonstrated that 900-1000 patients experience "termination without request or consent" every year. The Dutch government usually turns a blind eye to this illegal practice as well.

If The Netherlands is any indication, the citizens of the United States ought to guard aggressively against the rhetorical gyrations of euthanasia's proponents. No matter how flowery their language is, they promote the killing of human beings. They propose a "right to die" but, in actuality, they want the right to kill.

In our postmodern world, however, many scholars are learning the hard way that "academic freedom" has become an Orwellian term meaning "academic tyranny." Today, in the academy, one is free only to advance notions that are consonant with the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. Challenges to that orthodoxy are often met with denials of tenure, refusals to renew contracts, or expulsion.

Nowhere is this more evident than when the notion of Darwinian Evolution is questioned. And nowhere are the limitations of academic freedom more in evidence than in the debate over Intelligent Design. In his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles the fate of scholars who dared to proffer the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) as an explanation for the origin of life. Their efforts were rebuffed with Gestapo-like tactics carried out by the politically correct police who brooked no challenges to Charles Darwin's theories. The heterodox were deemed unworthy of membership in the academy and were expelled. Tenure was denied and their contracts were not renewed. Challenges to the existing "academic consensus" are simply not allowed. Thus, a scholar's freedom of inquiry has been transmogrified to freedom from inquiry.

History is replete, however, with great advances made by scholars who challenged the existing "academic consensus." Names like Galileo and Kepler and Einstein come to mind. Progress, after all, often requires thinking outside the box.

Stein's documentary contains interviews with some of the world's leading atheists who are also proponents of Darwin's theories. Of course, they do not acknowledge Darwinism to be merely a theory; to them it is settled science. Yet their notions of the origin of life can hardly be called "scientific." Michael Ruse posits in the film that life on earth evolved on the backs of crystals and Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, hypothesizes that life was planted on earth through space aliens. Men such as these are deemed "leading lights" in the academic community, but Stein's cross-examination makes them appear to be rather "dim bulbs." Intelligent Design seems eminently plausible compared to the ravings of these scientists who appear educated beyond their intelligence.

In Expelled, Ben Stein also interviews Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE's mission is "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools," and Dr. Scott is the self-appointed Chief of the Politically Correct Thought Police. Although a putative proponent of academic freedom, she maintains that there is no room for discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom. She comes across as Darwin's Eva Braun in the film.

Instead of encouraging free inquiry, the scientists interviewed in the documentary mock ID as "pseudo-science" or "religion masquerading as science." These barbs are based on their assumption that the notion that God (or a designer) created life somehow contradicts rational thought. They argue that ID is based on belief—not rational science—but they neglect to mention that their theories on the origin of life are also based on an element of belief. Indeed, the acceptance of any theory of origins necessitates belief (or faith) in that theory.

The NCSE's dogmatic dismissal of alternative theories of our origin in an attempt to preserve "science standards" smacks of the censorship Galileo suffered at the hands of the Church when he defended the theory that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system. Perhaps most telling is Dr. Scott's claim that the NCSE will not rest until the last brushfires of controversy over evolution are put out. These efforts to extinguish controversy and to mute dissenting voices are antithetical to traditional notions of academic freedom. But that doesn't bother the scholars who are interviewed in the film. In the academy, it's 1984 and, in their world, freedom is tyranny.

Sadly, Mr. Obama's views are not uncommon among the elites who walk the corridors of power in the Federal City. These are the people who think Washington knows best. They think they are smarter than everybody else. They believe they can spend your money better than you can. And they know more about raising their children than you do.

Rural folk are seen as uninformed and unrefined. Their values are antiquated and their beliefs are passé. If one worries that they are going to be displaced in their job by someone who doesn't speak English and who will work for a cheaper wage, they must necessarily harbor some form of animus against those who are foreign-born. The idea that guns would be used for recreation is a foreign notion to the elites. Why on earth would you need them for protection, when big government exists to take care of you?

Senator Obama's comments are indicative of the lack of understanding many politicians have about the middle and lower classes. Democrats and Republicans alike speak of promoting the values and livelihood of the middle class, but few of the candidates seem to know what really drives these people's lives. Mayhill Fowler, a Huffington Post blogger who first leaked Obama's comments, argued that Obama's approach emphasized stereotypes instead of providing his wealthy audience with a window into the lives of blue collar workers.

Obama's remarks show the increasing distance between small town conservatives and those who control our government, media and major businesses. Obama says that the simple ideas of small town people are merely a result of their under-privileged economic status. As David Paul Kuhn of Real Clear Politics explains, however, this misunderstanding of rural culture has undercut liberal efforts for decades. In reality, the middle and lower classes in middle America are not "clinging" to their beliefs because they're poor or struggling. Their beliefs are fundamental to how they live their lives, and until liberals begin to understand this, they will not attract middle-America voters.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have long appealed to the moral concerns of these middle-state voters prior to each election, but their failure to come through on their promises (because their real agenda seems to be to advance the interest of the moneyed elites) has undercut much of their previous support among the small town conservatives. These voters are truly conservative, believing in the importance of limited government, low spending, local control and public morality. Their understanding of faith, morality and liberty informs their daily lives and political beliefs. These ideas compose the core of small town conservative communities—they are not merely a result of lost jobs.

The view of the middle class presented by Obama is not new or unique to him—it traces back to the prominent American progressives of the early 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men." Progressives have long thought that the fundamental factor determining cultural virtue was the economic stability of the American people.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have come to share this misunderstanding of rural conservatives. While they hold to different economic principles than Democrats (though increasingly less-so), Republicans today see culture in terms of dollars and cents. They believe culture will function smoothly and virtuously if everyone is allowed to participate freely in the market. While these economic principles are important, they still miss the true cultural foundation of America.

Wilhelm Röpke was a firm believer in the free market, but he also saw the vital importance of principles of morality in society. He said in A Humane Economy, "The free world will prevail only if it succeeds in filling the emptiness of the soul in its own manner and with its own values.... What we need is to bethink ourselves quietly and soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity and respect of human life and the ultimate values." Röpke understood that economic standing is not the basis of a sound culture. Ultimate values are far more important to the well-being and success of a nation than the condition of its markets.

Sadly, neither Mr. Obama nor the elites of the dominant political parties grasp these traditional conservative truths. Obama lumps together religion, xenophobia, the right to bear arms and prejudice—thereby displaying his liberal view of culture. The political elites, on the other hand, ignore traditional small-town conservatives in favor of their big donors whose primary concern is their own personal economic gain. The real hope for America, however, lies in the deeply-held faith and moral principles of these "simple" small-town folks. That faith and those principles will enable them to remain steadfast in their ways despite the politicians and the media who treat them so dismissively.

Science is unquestionably a worthwhile pursuit, but many have come to view science as an end unto itself. The unbridled pursuit of science and technology is glorified, and any who suggest constraining science within limits of morality or propriety are condemned. Raising the simple question of whether something should be done is considered taboo. Radical science advocates are only interested in whether something can be done.

Central to the "science without limits" view is the notion that man is merely an animal, the product of random chance. God is removed from the creation equation and the notion of moral truth is abandoned. Notions of right and wrong are relegated to the spheres of theology and philosophy and do not constrain the consciences or actions of radical scientists.

The latest example of the results of radical science is the blending of human DNA and animal cells in Britain. There scientists extracted the DNA from a human embryonic cell and injected it into a "emptied" cow egg. This process, it is argued, produces a 99.9% human embryo from which scientists can harvest stem cells for further research and analysis. A group at Newcastle University led by Lyle Armstrong produced one such "cybrid" embryo (cytoplasmic hybrid) on April 1. It lived three days and grew to 32 cells. The ultimate goal is to extend a cybrid's life cycle to six days, at which time stem cells can be removed.

Current British law makes it illegal to allow these cybrids to live longer than 14 days or to implant them into a human womb. The use of animal eggs is justified by the shortage of human eggs and the danger to women in harvesting them. The process is authorized upon receipt of a license from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

The creation of cybrids by the scientific community represents a frontal assault on human dignity. The mixing of human and animal cells for the purpose of creating a 99.9% person is a grave violation of the natural order and strikes at the heart of what it means to be a human being. If the practice is allowed to persist, the percentages will inevitably change based on the utility of the various combinations of humans and animals. The average person recoils at such a practice, but not the radical scientists.

Scientists working in embryology have long clamored for the complete freedom to create, manipulate and destroy embryos as they see fit. On top of this clamor, they demand a blank check from the government in pursuit of this research and are indignant at any restrictions. The British government recently considered a ban on the creation of cybrids, but quickly "retreated after a revolt by scientists."

The scientists hold out the promise of "cures" for diseases and disabilities in order to circumvent ethical concerns. These supposed future cures are the carrots with which the scientific community is manipulating the politicians.

Sadly, the truth about these ghoulish practices is usually buried under complex scientific verbiage and ambiguous promises. Professor Neil Scolding of Bristol University, a Catholic researcher into stem cells, stated that the practical prospect of human and animal DNA working in harmony and producing a useful organism is "a big ask".

Professor Scolding also refers to the new, more successful developments in adult stem cell research as an approach which could hold great cures while also avoiding the ethical problems of "cybrids" and embryonic stem cell research. He comments that these promising adult stem cell developments make it "all the more inexplicable why a small minority of UK stem cell scientists wants to pursue the extraordinarily complex and frankly speculative hybrid approach."

Unfortunately, the British Commons has completely acquiesced to the limitless pursuit of embryological science. Instead of seeking to ban this practice, they have proposed a "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill" which would give an official stamp of approval on the manufacture of cybrids.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, responded effectively to the idea that morality and restraint should be sacrificed on the altar of "cures". He said, "It is worth remembering that France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Australia have all banned the grotesque procedures we seek to legalise. Could it be that the citizens and politicians of those countries care nothing for the chronically ill among them? Perhaps they don't want to develop cures for therapies; perhaps they are simply anti-scientific luddites! Or could it be that we are wrong and these democracies see no reason to attack the sanctity and dignity of human life when many alternatives exist?"

The Cardinal is right to sound the alarm. Human dignity will be lost completely if mankind does not act to create ethical boundaries for scientific investigation. Respect for human life must be the pole star that guides science and technology. The foundation of human dignity is that human beings are created in the image of God. If we lose sight of that fact, all humanity will suffer and radical science will become one of the chief instruments that produces that suffering.

Unfortunately, slavery is still a widespread practice all over the world, including the US. The Civil War may have removed the public sanction of slavery, but it is still a common underground practice. Journalist Benjamin Skinner undertook four years of undercover investigation into "human trafficking" (a euphemism for slavery) in order to increase awareness of this international injustice. His research and experiences are chronicled in his recent book, "A Crime So Monstrous." Skinner posed as a customer at underground brothels in several countries in order to get a better picture of the realities of the slave trade. He was exposed to many heart-wrenching human abuses, including being offered a young woman with Down syndrome for a used car.

Skinner's interview with Salon magazine provides a disturbing look at a widespread practice of which most Americans are unaware. Skinner explains that, "'There are more slaves today than at any point in human history.'" Indeed, according to the recently released Department of State's "Trafficking In Persons Report", the International Labor Organization (a UN agency) "Estimates that there are 12.3 million people in forced labor, bonded labor, forced child labor, and sexual servitude at any given time; other estimates range from 4 million to 27 million."

These numbers are not confined to third world countries. The same Department of State report estimates that 800,000 persons are trafficked in the United States every year. Of these, 80% are female, and over 50% are minors. A CIA report indicates that 45,000-50,000 of the trafficked women and children were brought into the US under false pretenses and pushed into prostitution or forced labor. The worldwide circumstances of slavery vary widely. Many of the slaves in the United States are "employed" in brothels, striving to repay a debt to those who brought them into the country—a debt with terms that can never be fulfilled. In other countries indentured servitude is common—men, women, and children strive for many years, even lifetimes, to work off the "terms" of a small debt incurred by their parents or grandparents.

These numbers are sickening and hard to grasp, but more disturbing are the failures of the justice system to stop this profitable "industry". In 2000, only 76 cases of slavery were prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice, and there is not a single shelter for trafficked persons in the United States. While the US has taken some steps in the right direction, according to Skinner the U.N. has remained "tepid and afraid of offending member states." In 1999, the U.N decided to forego the term "slavery" in favor of "intertribal abductions" in order to be more diplomatic.

This weak response to slavery is outrageous. The modern slave trade has become a $9 billion industry, and human beings are traded for as little as $1000 or a used car. Not only is the justice system failing, but so are churches, private charities, and individuals. Most are not even aware of this plague of injustice, and very few are taking action to stop the trade or help the slaves.

The slave trade strikes at the core of human dignity—it encourages those involved to view people as mere property to be bought and sold. This practice degrades human dignity and fosters the view that slaves are property whose lives are worth only as much as their practical value to their owners. The Apostle Paul condemned slave traders, listing them among perjurers, murderers, perverts, and those who kill their parents. (1 Tim. 1:9-10 NIV)

Those who trade men and women like animals devalue their human nature. Inequality of human worth is at the heart of slavery—a trader who buys or sells other people views them as mere tools for labor, monetary gain, or sexual perversions. The American Founders proclaimed the equality of all human beings, and their declaration has been realized increasingly throughout the history of the United States. This realization can be expanded if people wake up to the reality of today's underground slave trade.

The fact that 800,000 people are trafficked in the US annually is a sad testament to the justice system in a nation which has supposedly banned slavery and affirmed the equality of all human beings. The slave traders themselves ought to be the targets of severe punishment—not, as is all too common, the slaves themselves. The mockery, punishment, and neglect of sexual slaves (among others) adds to the injustices of slavery. Men, women, and children are unlikely to flee their captors if they have nowhere to go. Herein lies a great opportunity for churches, charities, and individuals to minister to the poor and needy. Christians ought to extend lifelines to those who are enslaved, providing food, clothing, and shelter to those in need. Through such aid, these oppressed individuals can take the first steps to becoming free, independent, and self-sufficient members of society.

In the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln called for the elimination of slavery on the basis of human justice. He declared that granting the slaves freedom was "sincerely believed to be an act of justice," and he invoked "the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Those who seek a just society must call for the end of the underground slave trade and insist on vigorous prosecution of those who trade humans like cattle. They must also extend works of mercy to the individuals who suffer from this pernicious practice.

The act (S. 1810) mandates that health care providers provide the mother of an unborn or newly born child with "up-to-date, scientific, written information concerning the life expectancy, clinical course, and intellectual and functional development and treatment options for a fetus diagnosed with or child born with Down syndrome or other prenatally or postnatally diagnosed conditions." In addition, the health care provider must provide "referral to supportive services providers," including hotlines, resource centers, and support programs. These measures seek to ensure that medical advice to parents of developmentally disabled children is accurate and balanced.

Sadly, in today's post-Roe environment the news that a child is likely to be born with a significant handicap is often a death sentence. According to The New York Times, about ninety percent of unborn children who are diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. Moreover, when a prenatal cystic fibrosis test was developed, the number of children born with cystic fibrosis in Massachusetts dropped by fifty percent. No studies have been done to asses the cause of the drop, but the odds of this being simple coincidence are quite low. A likely cause is the prevalent cultural notion that "flawed" human beings do not have lives worth living.

Parents whose child has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis are often apprehensive and frequently terrified. They have little idea what to expect for the future and even less understanding of the resources available to assist them in providing for their child. Unfortunately, their fears are often heightened by doctors who present the news as a tragedy or encourage the parents to pursue an abortion. In their time of trial, many of these parents are not given sound information about the reality of raising a handicapped child.

Sadly, we have entered a period in our history when children who do not measure up to someone else's subjective standard of perfection are consigned to the ash heap of history. Roe v. Wade has produced a disposable man ethic which holds that if people are less than perfect or unwanted, they may be disposed of with impunity. What will be required in the future to secure our membership in the human family? Will we have to be as smart as a Supreme Court judge or as beautiful as Miss America? Will we have to be able to shoot baskets like Michael Jordan or ride a bike like Lance Armstrong?

And have we become so soft and so self-centered that we can't bear the burden of providing for those less fortunate than ourselves? Are we unwilling to learn the life lessons that come from serving the weak and frail and the handicapped? Have we come to the point where we seek only our own comfort and our own pleasure rather than the good of others? Is there no room in our society for those who are counted among the least of our brethren?

Only time will tell. But in the meantime, Brownback's and Kennedy's bill seeks to dispel the myths associated with disabilities and to let parents of handicapped children know that they are not alone.

There were times in America's past when neither blacks nor women were regarded as full fledged members of the human family. As a result, they too were deprived of the full panoply of rights endowed by the Creator to those created in his image. Those were not the best of times in America's history. Thankfully, however, there were other times when Americans were willing to pay the price to see to it that both blacks and women received the protections they were entitled to by virtue of their humanity. Will we be willing to pay such a price for the unborn and the handicapped in our time? Again, only time will tell.

That remains to be seen and a lot has to do with who is doing the talking.

In the case of Jeremiah Wright, the answer is emphatically no. Wright served as pastor at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ for decades and has been Barack Obama's pastor for 20 years. His rhetoric on race reveals him to be a race baiting, America hating demagogue who used his pulpit to fan the flames of racial hatred rather than use the Gospel as a balm for racial healing. His imprecations to God to damn America, his condemnation of "rich white people", and his placement of the blame on America for the terrorist acts of September 11 represent anything but an attempt to bridge the racial divide that has long existed in America.

And because racism is contagious, many Americans have come to fear it may have infected Sen. Obama, a protégé of Rev. Wright. Recognizing the political liability of guilt by association, Sen. Obama delivered a poignant address on race in America aimed at defusing the crisis created by the Reverend"s hateful rhetoric. Sen. Obama spoke in measured tones about the need for real dialogue between all Americans about past racial injustices and the potential for future reconciliation.

All Americans should welcome the opportunity to have a thoughtful and sensitive dialogue about race in America. While our country has made great strides in leveling the playing field between blacks and whites, the inescapable fact is that the after effects of slavery and racial discrimination persist in our society today. While we can't change our history, we can shape our future and the best way to do so is by candidly acknowledging where things stand in the present.

Although great progress has been made in ending racial discrimination in this country, many African-Americans are presently impacted in negative ways by our past history of discrimination. For them, the past truly is prologue. Today, many blacks begin life in America at a lower rung on the socio-economic ladder than whites because of the injustices suffered by their forebears. As a result of our country's history of slavery and racial discrimination, their ancestors did not have the same educational and economic opportunities as their white counterparts. Consequently, they did not have equivalent opportunities to accumulate financial or educational capital to pass on to succeeding generations. The result is that many blacks do not begin life at the same point on the starting line as whites. This reality, which is beyond the control of the present generation of African-Americans, is often a source of frustration and resentment for members of the black community. White people would do well to acknowledge these realities and look for constructive ways to ensure that blacks are afforded opportunities to offset this disadvantage.

Many of the remedies, however, proposed by the black community and aimed at overcoming America's history of racial discrimination are viewed by whites as punitive to a generation that did not commit the wrongdoing. Affirmative action and payment of reparations are but two examples of proposed remedies that many whites feel would punish the current generation for the sins of their fathers. These are people who reason, "I have not engaged in the discrimination complained of. Therefore, I should not have to pay the price of someone else"s misdeeds." It offends their sense of justice that the innocent should be punished for the sins of the guilty. Many blacks feel, on the other hand, "You are the beneficiaries of prior wrong doing. You enjoy an advantaged position over me because of the disadvantage your forefathers created for my forebears; therefore, you should be required to disgorge some of your ill gotten gains so that I can be placed in a better position."

And on and on the arguments go. They are arguments that generate intense passion and strong emotions. And, they can quickly degenerate into personal attacks on people who have committed no offense. Demagogues like Reverend Wright use them as bludgeons to drive the races apart rather than as tools to lead people to common ground.

Is the current inequality between blacks and whites the fault of the current generation of white Americans? Generally, it is not, but that does not change the reality that generations of black Americans have often been born into social, educational, and economic circumstances that are worse than those of whites. One simply cannot ignore that past racial injustices have a trickle-down effect that impacts the present.

Senator Obama correctly pointed out that there is anger on all sides of the racial divide. Blacks are often upset that they are born into less-privileged circumstances than many whites because of previous injustices, while many whites are angered by affirmative action standards which sometimes prevent them from obtaining jobs or getting into college because of their race. These concerns are both valid, but we must not allow the invective they can produce to foster injustice and hatred.

The only way to resolve this divide is through open and frank discussion. Only by recognizing these differences and injustices can Americans take steps to understand each other's problems and move forward towards reconciliation.

This reconciliation is particularly important among believers in Christ. The Apostle Paul speaks to the unity of mankind regardless of race: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28-29 NIV)

Similarly, the Founders recognized that a civic brotherhood based on equality is both a moral good and necessary for a strong community. They proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Americans must never forget these truths. We ignore them at our peril. These issues are far greater than any partisan divide, for they cut to the core of what it means to be human. In pursuit of equal human dignity regardless of race, every man, woman and child should engage in an open and honest discussion about the mistakes of previous generations and demonstrate a willingness to move forward to close the gap represented by the racial divide. Only in this pursuit can anger and discrimination give way to love and justice.

This is exactly what happened when the Eliot Spitzer scandal broke on Monday. Within the next few days, hundreds if not thousands of articles and blog posts were written, countless hours of tv commentary were logged, and the public came to know every last detail of Spitzer's affair and the life and background of the young woman he was with. On Wednesday, Spitzer resigned from office, apologizing to the people of New York for not living up to the standards of the office. In less than three days, his entire life was destroyed.

A few days earlier, Eliot Spitzer had been at the top of his game, with some talking about a possible Presidential run in the future. He had been very successful in life, attending Princeton University as an undergraduate, followed by Harvard Law School. His met his wife at the latter, graduated, formed a non-profit, and joined a law firm. He helped bring down the Gambino family while part of the Manhattan District Attorney's office. He went on to win election as New York State Attorney General, and from there became governor of New York in 2006. All of this work was gone in an instant because of his indiscretions.

This whole scandal should come as no surprise, for all humans have flaws. Some think man is inherently good—that a man would never do wrong if he were given all of the right opportunities. They say that it is the conditions in which men live that cause them to go astray. The truth is that the heart of each man causes him to sin, not his surroundings. Human nature is flawed by sin. The apostle Paul himself recognized this saying, "I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out." (Rom. 7:18 NIV) All human beings are plagued by their sinful natures. It is this same root which causes all to sin.

In Spitzer's situation, there is a lot that could be condemned, much moralizing that could be done, and many headlines that could be written. Nevertheless we should think twice before heaping invective on Mr. Spitzer. We should look into our own hearts to see the evils that lie there. Are we so certain that we wouldn't make similar mistakes, given the same opportunities? We are assured by the apostle Paul that, "There is no one righteous, not even one..." (Rom. 3:10 NIV) This is a sobering reminder that we are no holier than Eliot Spitzer. Nor does our common sinfulness make individual sin any less wrong—it simply makes all men equally corrupt.

Thankfully, there is a solution for our sins. Paul goes on to say, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8:1-2 NIV) Salvation through belief in Christ will not make us sinless (1 Jn. 1:8), but because He has paid the price for our sins (Rom. 6:23), we are not required to pay the price ourselves.

Our reaction to this latest scandal should not be to add more logs to the fire of condemnation from which Eliot Spitzer is already suffering, for we, too, have sin in our own hearts. Instead, we should pray for him and his family. We should also pray that we will not commit the sins of which we are capable.

Ever since the rise of the Moral Majority, the media has been labeling evangelicals "values voters." The assumption has been that evangelicals are concerned with a limited set of values, that they always act on the basis of those limited values, and that they are, therefore, less complicated or sophisticated than the rest of society. In the past few decades, the media has spotlighted abortion and homosexuality as the primary evangelical issues. Now with the waning popularity of the Bush Administration—an administration that has gotten a lot of mileage out of those issues—the media is trumpeting the downfall of traditional evangelicals and the rise of a new "centrist" or "leftist" evangelicalism. The old evangelicals who put Bush in office have lost. They are dying and being replaced by a new evangelicalism that is concerned with the environment, poverty, and human rights.

Charles Colson and Anne Morse respond to this supposed shift eloquently in Christianity Today. They argue that evangelicals have always had a broad set of concerns, including Sudanese slavery, sex trafficking, AIDS in Africa, and prison rape, in addition to abortion and homosexuality. Colson and Morse believe that the limited perception of evangelicals was put in place by the media, who like to build up and then destroy groups because "it's good copy."

The reality is that evangelicals are not characterized by one or two "values" any more than any other large voting group. Most voters have a number of concerns on which they base their voting. These issues can vary: leadership, abortion, war, foreign relations, experience, economic policy, marriage and family, bioethics, welfare, healthcare, etc. Diversity among evangelicals on issues is no less common than among other large voting groups. Some evangelicals have always leaned left while others leaned right.

Expressions of concern about the need to protect the environment or to fight poverty do not indicate a gigantic shift among evangelicals. They do not represent abandonment of the old for the new. Christian duties are far more numerous than the two-to-three issues subsumed under the label "values voter." Concern for people dying from AIDS in Africa does not negate concern for babies dying in the womb in America. Sensitivity to these issues stems from evangelicals' main source of guidance: the teachings of the Bible.

The beliefs of evangelicals are the basis of their actions. The media has long picked up on the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage while ignoring their root: belief in the Bible. This is why so many members of the media have trouble understanding and predicting the actions of evangelicals. Right now, they see evangelicals as shifting their core values or giving up the culture war. But if they would dig down to the root of evangelical issues, they would see that both the old and the new are based on a biblical ethic.

Many also misinterpret the evangelical shift away from the Republican Party. Evangelicals are not leaving the Republican Party because they've changed—they're leaving because the Party didn't come through on its promises. Evangelicals joined in with Republicans because they were in sympathy with the party on a number of issues, including ending abortion, strengthening the family, eliminating scandal, and restoring fiscal accountability in government. The Republican Party made grand promises in all of these areas; yet when the Party gained power, it ignored many of these concerns for the duration of its tenure (except for short spurts right before elections). A retreat from the Republican Party does not suggest a fundamental evangelical shift—it suggests their disillusionment with the Republican Party.

There is, however, one positive and real change that the media has picked up on. While evangelicals aren't changing their concerns, they are changing their approach. They appear to be moving away from some of the vitriolic rhetoric of the past. Increasingly, they are approaching the political sphere with carefully reasoned arguments. In 1995, William Buckley was interviewed by Michael Cromartie on the subject of the "growing influence of religious conservatives." Buckley saw no real danger in evangelicals participating in politics. In fact, he saw their positions as consistent with their beliefs. On the motivations of evangelicals, he said, "They've figured out that our foundations need restoring, and I have never doubted that those foundations are religious."

Buckley's only concern for evangelicals was that they would be careful which answers they presented and how they presented them. He emphasized careful rhetoric, saying, "What frightens people most about the Religious Right is the rhetoric that is sometimes used." His advice seems to be affecting evangelicals today. Young evangelicals are still concerned with the same broad set of issues, but they appear to have embraced a rhetoric which is more reasoned than bombastic.

Evangelicals have a broad array of concerns that flow from the truths of the Bible. They are every bit as complicated as any other voters. Until the media understands evangelicals on their own terms, they will continue to misunderstand their political effect.

Another principle that under girds conservative thought is the notion that people ought to be accountable for the consequences of their actions. Conservatives know that accountability and responsibility run hand in hand. If wrongdoers are not held accountable for their wrongdoing, they will persist in their bad behaviors.

The faithful application of these principles has helped create the freest and most prosperous country in the world. Sadly, however, these principles are crumbling and, surprisingly, many a conservative is wielding the sledgehammer.

For the past few years, the Bush administration has been waging a war of "preemption" against state and local government control. Preemption is a doctrine that holds that when Congress legislates extensively in an area relating to commerce, state or local governments are precluded from enacting any conflicting requirements. In other words, Congress is deemed to have "preempted the field", and state and local governments have no further say in the matter. Preemption is a power that should be sparingly applied because it undercuts state and local control. Conservatives have long been proponents of local control because they know that government closest to the people works best. Federal bureaucrats far from the scene are unlikely to be responsive to the concerns of people at the local level.

It should, therefore, be disconcerting to conservatives that bureaucrats in various federal agencies in Washington , D.C. (agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, the Consumer Products Safety Commission, and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) have been expanding their control by including preemption language in bills that increases the scope of their jurisdiction. Often this language is inserted at the last minute in order to avoid detection and debate. Once in effect, the preemption language is used to eviscerate the authority of the states to regulate in the areas that are under the control of the agencies.

One example of the erosive effects preemption can have on the rights of individuals is evident in the Supreme Court"s recent decision Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. There the Court held that an individual injured by a defective medical device which had been approved by the FDA prior to being marketed could not recover for his injuries even though he had a remedy under state law. In other words, approval of the product by federal bureaucrats (notwithstanding defects in its design or manufacture) immunized the manufacturer from accountability for its wrongdoing.

Principled conservatives should be outraged by this result. It takes control away from the people at the local level, allows wrong doers to avoid the consequences of their neglect, and shuts the doors of state courthouses to the victims of the wrongdoing. The decision of FDA bureaucrats trumps the judgment of lawmakers and jurors in the communities where the injuries occurred.

Do you think the executives at Medtronic learned any lessons?

The big winners, of course, are the corporations which the FDA regulates. Sadly recent events suggest that FDA bureaucrats view the corporations they regulate as their principal constituency, rather than the American people whose safety is affected by the drugs and devices they allow to be put on the market. The blessing of the FDA in cases like Riegel immunizes corporate wrongdoers from accountability and tramples upon the rights of the individual. The great equalizer between the weak and the powerful, the local jury, is not an option for an injured victim. Neither is petitioning one's own state or local government for relief since their traditional authority has been preempted by the feds.

Wherever conservatives gather, state's rights and smaller government has been the mustering call. But when it comes to protecting the right to seek redress before a jury of one's peers, a quintessential conservative principle, the ranks are slim. Though conservatives maintain they trust the people, many do not act that way when it comes to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Conservatives have often been in the foreground of undermining the right to trial by jury. As that right erodes, however, the principles of limited government and personal accountability will crumble.

Frustrated at her opponent's success in the quest for her party's nomination for President of the United States, Hillary Clinton has suggested that Barack Obama is all talk and no action. Obama's soaring oratory has translated into record crowds, provoked unprecedented turnout, and catapulted him into front runner status for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Clinton, who is not known for her rhetorical flourishes and who often appears wooden on the stump, has lashed out at Obama suggesting that words don't count and that a candidate's record is more important than their rhetoric.

Mrs. Clinton is right that mere talk is not enough to qualify one to serve as President of the United States, but she is wrong in underestimating the importance of rhetoric on the campaign trail. Rhetoric is profoundly important. Words really do matter.

Words are the vehicles through which we transmit ideas, and since ideas have consequences, words have consequences. Words shape our beliefs, and what we believe determines how we behave. Therefore, words inspire behavior. Mark Twain understood this when he said, "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." Obama has been more like the former. Mrs. Cinton increasingly seems more like the latter.

High among those who have shaped the course of human history, are people who understood and harnessed the power of language. America's founding began with words. The words of the Declaration of Independence inspired men to give their lives in pursuit of the ideas embodied in it. Abraham Lincoln changed the course of history when he wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. Martin Luther King's oratory inspired the nation to finally live up to the ideals of its founding. Edward R. Murrow, in lionizing Winston Churchill, said that he "mobilized the English language and sent it into battle." Three simple words, "Duty, Honor, Country", have inspired many a member of the long gray line to lay down their lives for their country.

Words are not empty vessels. They are pregnant with meaning and laden with content. They evoke images and transmit feelings. They can hurt or heal, and cause anger or heartache or comfort. The writer of Ephesians understood this when he adjured his readers, "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen." (Eph. 4:29 NIV) The writer of Proverbs acknowledged that words have impact when he wrote, "Reckless words pierce like a sword, but the tongue of the wise brings healing." (Prov. 12:18 NIV)

America seems to have lost sight of the importance of rhetoric in shaping culture and politics. Sadly, rhetoric is a subject rarely taught today in our public schools. Yet, as far back as ancient Greece, rhetoric was considered an essential part of education. Indeed, it is one of the three pillars of a classical liberal arts education (along with grammar and logic); pillars upon which all learning and understanding are based.

Mr. Obama's words will inspire ideas and those ideas will have consequences. Whether they are the right ideas for our time will be up to the voters to decide in November. In the meantime, however, we should be thankful for the renewed interest that his campaign is sparking on the importance of rhetoric in the shaping of a society.

The Anglican/Episcopal divide is old news and I am sure the Archbishop finds it tiresome. But what is at stake is the authority of Scripture; whether the Word of God is binding on its adherents or not. Williams has hardly distinguished himself on this essential issue. His response has been ponderously slow, confusing in its assessment, and much more accommodating of textual "relativism" than most members of the Communion would like. In short, he has punted on the issue by cravenly trying to accommodate both sides.

Now Williams is making another craven attempt at accommodation, but this time he has raised the ire of his countrymen, and not just that of his communicants. In a recent BBC interview, Williams found dangerous any understanding of law which says, "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts." Rather, he thought, the British government should consider adding new Islamic laws for the rising number of Muslim communities in the nation.

Essentially, what Williams is advocating is a parallel system of justice in the British Isles; the common law for the common folk and Sharia for the Muslims. Of course, Sharia law governs every aspect of daily existence for a Muslim so adding "some aspects of Muslim law", as the Archbishop has suggested, is not practical. If Williams' muddle-headed suggestion is adopted, equal protection in Britain would no longer exist. Neither would the idea that the nation is one of "laws" and not "men", since different laws would apply to different men (or women), depending on their ethnicity and religion. Given the draconian impact of Sharia law on women, they would have a great deal to fear.

Concepts like the "rights of man", "equal justice", "freedom of conscience", and the notion that "the law is king"—hallmarks of the British justice system—do not exist in Islamic countries. One need only compare the principles of due process that exist in British courts with those that are used in Islamic courts (there are none) to get the picture. The protections of the British justice system are no doubt one reason why Islamists are flocking to Britain. Undoubtedly, they also likely account for why there does not seem to be a similar exodus of Brits to Islamic countries.

Additionally, Islamic countries that have instituted Sharia do not allow for freedom of religion. Muslims must stay Muslim or be subjected to the death penalty. Christian evangelism is strictly prohibited. Thus, the Archbishop, in the name of relativism, is willing to promote a system that openly opposes his claimed faith. Of course, when an Anglican Archbishop asserts that Sharia law is derived from "revealed texts", one is left to question what faith he really claims.

Archbishop Williams, who accurately describes himself as a "hairy leftie", wants to impose the same visions of moral and legal relativism on his country's judicial system that his apostate U.S. congregants want to impose on the Anglican Communion. The British will do well to ignore the ravings of this muddle-headed cleric. If they don't, they will witness the disintegration of their country, even as the Archbishop is witnessing the disintegration of his church.

Picture above licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 License.

It should be a cause for embarrassment that less than half of Americans registered to vote turn out when the highest office in our country is up for grabs. This country was founded on the hope that freedom could be preserved for all. This freedom is preserved through a representative system of government established on the basis of free elections by the common people. Voting is part of our duty as citizens to preserve our freedoms for future generations. Yet half of the people of this country find other things to do on our most important election day—a day which only comes once every four years.

This latest election turnout, however, is an encouraging sign that people may finally be taking their civic responsibilities more seriously. Through Super Tuesday, 27% appear to have turned out. If this trend continues, it would break the previous record of 25.9% set in 1972. Moreover, America's youth are turning out to vote at record pace. For instance, in Georgia, young people tripled their 2000 voting turnout, and in Tennessee the youth turnout was quadruple that of the 2000 turnout.

Perhaps this larger turnout is due to the significance of this election. It will, after all, decide the first new leader to come into office since the start of the War on Terror. It could decide the next several Supreme Court Justices, and thus the future of legal protections for unborn children. It will install a new a leader in the midst of turbulent economic waters. These concerns have contributed to the intensity of this election, as millions try to figure out who will best lead the country for the coming four years.

The War on Terror grew out of the roots of the September 11th, 2001 attack—an attack which changed the way Americans live. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been underway since shortly after the attack, and are still continuing to this day. The efforts in Iraq seem to be making progress, while reports from Afghanistan are less encouraging.

The troop count in Afghanistan is set to increase by 3200 Marines this spring, but officials are concerned that this will put too great a strain on the military unless Marines are siphoned away from Iraq. Meanwhile the total number of troops in Iraq is around 160,000, with another 28,000 in Afghanistan. With military forces strained and two conflicts not yet won, the next President will have difficult decisions to make in apportioning troops and taking steps to conclude both wars.

Of equal or perhaps even greater importance is the appointment of future Supreme Court Justices. Four of the current justices are over the age of seventy. By the end of this next President's term, the oldest justice, Stevens, will be 91 years old. This election may decide the face of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.

The importance of judicial appointments should be obvious when one considers the weighty matters on which Supreme Court justices have come to rule. Matters of life, liberty and human dignity are decided at their feet. What could be more important than deciding who among us will make those decisions?

The import of the Court's decisions is evidenced by the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court decided that a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of her unborn child. Since that ruling, the death toll from abortion has climbed to 48.5 million in America. With recent decisions about the rights of unborn children, there is a very real chance that Roe may be overturned by the Supreme court in the coming years.

In addition, important ethical decisions are required now that technology has unlocked our ability to manipulate human life in a petri dish. The possibilities are great, and ethical lines must be drawn to restrict "research" which destroys human life. Otherwise, our technology may soon come to undermine our own dignity. Undoubtedly, many of these bioethics decisions will come before the Supreme Court for review.

While the war and the Supreme Court have long been on Americans' minds, the economy has recently risen to the forefront. Nothing grabs the attention of a voter like his pocketbook, and the economy has certainly affected that. Activity in the service industry, which is measured by the Institute for Supply Management's non-manufacturing index, saw its steepest drop ever recently as it slid to its lowest point since the 9-11 attacks. Since the service industry accounts for three-fourths of the American economy, this is a sign that the nation is in significant financial trouble.

A turbulent economy always produces anxiety, and when people are anxious, they often look to the federal government for help. Most recently, the government responded to current economic anxieties by slashing interest rates and putting together a $152 billion stimulus package. Like it or not, the President has great sway over the financial well-being of the country. These coming four years will be characterized either by more taxing and spending or by trimming spending and lowering the deficit. Both policies will claim to fix the economy—but only one will provide true long-term solutions.

The War, the appointment of Supreme Court justices, and the Economy are but three of many concerns on the minds of Americans as they go to vote this Presidential election season. But the weight of these three alone should demonstrate to all the importance of taking seriously their civic responsibilities.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." Americans will do well to heed the good Justice's words and to take their civic responsibilities seriously.

As President Bush explained in his State of the Union address, scientists recently "discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells." This development holds the promise of new, ethical research and may eliminate the "need" for research that destroys embryos, produces clones, or harvests women's eggs. These adult stem cells provide hope for human life in a culture that seems willing to destroy its young to heal its old.

This willingness to destroy life began when scientists clamored for funding and attention as they explored the potential of embryonic stem cells. The media and many politicians were only too happy to oblige, trumpeting the "promises" of embryonic stem cells long before anything was actually tested. Moreover, any resistance to the idea of leaping into embryonic stem cell research was immediately labeled "ramblings of the religious right" and promptly dismissed.

This hasty move dismissed the need for care and wisdom in medical ethics, but that's not surprising in a culture that kills millions of its own when they become "inconvenient." If we can kill the unborn because they are inconvenient, why not kill even younger humans if they can provide us with cures for diseases?

No one proclaims the fact that embryonic stem cell research has yet to provide one approved treatment. The research moves forward on the basis of hope. Ethical and fiscal concerns are ignored on the basis of hope—hope that old humans will one day be able to harvest cures from the lives of small, young humans.

Thankfully, science itself has provided a practical hope for those who find their culture's embrace of death deplorable. In September, Toronto researchers used stem cells derived from skin cells to treat the spinal cords of rats. These cells, termed induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), have most of the same characteristics as embryonic stem cells, but forming them does not require the destruction of embryos. In November, James Thomson, a Wisconsin scientist, was able to do produce the same pluripotent stem cells from human cells.

In addition to removing the "need" to destroy human embryos, the creation of iPSCs from adult cells holds the future possibility that a diseased person could be treated with stem cells derived from their own cells. This would solve the "need" for cloning, since cloning is performed in the hope that it will produce stem cells which are not rejected by a patient's immune system. Stem cells derived from a patient's own cells would not be rejected by their immune system. Moreover, the iPSC method would eliminate cloning's ethical problems: the common destruction of embryos, the harvesting of women's eggs, and the possible ethical nightmare of cloned humans.

The potential of iPSCs is so great that it may very well eliminate the "need" for typical embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Embryos would not be destroyed, because similar stem cells would be produced from regular adult cells. Cloning would not be "needed", because these adult stem cells would be accepted by the patient's immune system.

There is much to be excited about in this development. So much, in fact, that two prominent scientists have already declared that the future lies with iPSCs. Professor Ian Wilmut, whose work in cloning originally produced Dolly the sheep, said in November that he was turning away from cloning in order to focus on the better prospects of iPSCs. Dr. James Thompson, who developed the first human embryonic stem cell lines, declared that the development of iPSCs was a huge step forward that would probably make the stem cell wars a distant memory: "Isn't it great to start a field and then to end it?"

The development of adult stem cells is a great technical boon that may allow the culture to move beyond the ethical questions of the stem cell debate, but as wonderful as this technology is, there are deeper questions which remain unresolved. Americans have been unwilling to impose strict moral limits on the progress of science. In fact, such efforts have been labeled foolhardy and fundamentalist instead of what they really are: careful and wise. But much evil has been done in the name of progress or science—one need only recount the terrors inflicted on Jews prior to World War II. The progress of science should be undergirded by sound moral and ethical principles.

Americans have abandoned a full understanding of human life. The destruction of human life for convenience through abortion has run rampant for over three decades. Advancing science is encountering new questions which may further undermine the definition and value of human life. Americans must rediscover the importance of human life before that life is completely trampled through their own selfish hunger for cures at any cost.

President Bush recognized this connection between human life and stem cell research in his State of the Union address. Regarding the adult stem cell development, he said, "This breakthrough has the potential to move us beyond the divisive debates of the past by extending the frontiers of medicine without the destruction of human life.... And as we explore promising avenues of research, we must also ensure that all life is treated with the dignity it deserves."

The President's remarks prompted all present to stand and applaud. His words were an important reminder that human life should be respected and protected at every stage of existence. A just society must never loose sight of that foundational principle.

This past Tuesday marked the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Since that fateful decision, over 48.5 million children have perished at the hands of abortionists. One out of every four children conceived in America will be killed by an abortionist. In 2003 alone, more children died from abortion than the total number of Americans who died in the Revolutionary War, Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and Gulf War combined. Two-thirds of all abortions are performed on single women. Statistically, the womb has become the most dangerous place in America.

This war against unborn children has been waged by white-coated mercenaries who are paid to carry out surgical strikes against defenseless human targets. Their techniques are effective—1.21 million casualties in 2005. Not content to merely wage war against the unborn in the operating room, however, the abortion industry has expanded the theater of action. Chemical warfare is now waged against the unborn. RU-486, the abortion pill, is hailed as a "quick and easy" chemical-induced abortion. With FDA approval of the deadly drug in 2000, the casualty count from "killing through chemistry" can be expected to grow.

In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court adopted a disposable-man ethic. The Court decided that the taking of an unborn child's life was a matter of "choice" to be determined by the needs and desires of others. This disposable view of human life has adversely affected our culture on many levels. Beyond the millions of unborn babies who have been killed, the last 35 years have led our culture to accept the idea of killing the elderly and handicapped. What is the justification for such heinous acts? Their quality of life didn't measure up to someone else's subjective standard of perfection and they had become "inconvenient." And no doubt, they would have wanted us to end their lives anyway.

The disposable man ethic has also negatively impacted the frontier of science. We now take lightly the destruction of millions of human embryos in the hope that we might possibly find a cure for some diseases. What is the justification for this experimentation? Pure utilitarianism. By killing these tiny embryonic human beings, we offer hope for larger ones. In the process, we have adopted the notion that it is acceptable to sacrifice some members of the human family in the hope that, by their deaths, we might save others or at least improve their quality of life. Of course, those being sacrificed have no choice in the matter.

The rationale of Roe v. Wade is a fabrication. The right to abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The justices maintained they saw it in "emanations" arising from the "penumbras" of the document. If your teenager claimed such fanciful hallucinations, you would immediately order a drug test for them. Yet, coming from such an august body as the Supreme Court, many Americans have accepted such ravings as the law of the land. Roe proved the power of the law to teach and mold the populace. Emboldened by the results, the court has foisted other fictionalized requirements of the Constitution on a people who have lost the art of reading the Constitution for themselves.

Despite the long standing acceptance of Roe and its devastating consequences, there is room for hope. Improved ultra-sound technology has provided a window on the womb, as a result of which, women contemplating destroying that growing "blob of tissue" within them now realize that it is a baby's life that is actually at stake. And the selfless sacrifices of countless volunteers at crisis pregnancy centers has resulted in the saving of thousands of lives as people have learned that the most effective way of saving a baby is by loving, and helping, that baby's mother.

Slowly, attitudes about Abortion in America seem to be changing. In the past few years, there has been a spate of popular movies with pro-life messages, including "Waitress", "Bella", "Knocked Up", and "Juno." Several surveys among young adults have shown increasing pro-life sentiment among the younger generations. For example, a Washington Times article, reports that a recent Harris Poll found 55 percent of young adults opposed abortion rights.

History will not look kindly upon our cruelty toward the unborn. Theologian and author Francis Schaffer rightly noted in his book, Whatever Happened to the Human Race, that the character of a society will be judged by the way it treats its most vulnerable members. Sadly, the history of the destruction of our unborn children is a stain on America"s character that will not go away.

Americans should be duly proud of the fact that a woman and an African-American are candidates for the office of President of the United States. Both women and blacks have come a long way, baby.

At the beginning of the republic neither women nor blacks were regarded as full fledged citizens of this country. The lofty language of the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" was not enough to secure equal rights for women or blacks. "Men" apparently did not include those of the female persuasion, and it most certainly did not include those of a darker hue. In early America, the law largely treated women as the property of their husbands. It took a lot of agitating and a constitutional amendment just to secure women the right to vote. And, of course, it took a civil war, several constitutional amendments, and lots of civil rights legislation to put African-Americans on a par with whites in the U.S.A.

So it should come as no surprise that there is a lot of enthusiasm for the fact that the two top Democratic contenders for the top political office in the country are a woman and an African-American. After all, leaders like Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, together with many other unsung heroes, paid dearly to assure that women and blacks are treated equally in this country. Their goal was to ensure that members of the body politic were blind to color and oblivious to gender. Dr. King cast the vision for the future in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, when he urged his fellow Americans to judge one another on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

It is, therefore, ironic that the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama have brought both race and sex to the forefront of the current presidential election. Obama supporters have criticized Mrs. Clinton of denigrating the contributions of Dr. King and accuse the New York Senator of "racism." Firing back, Clinton supporters argue that her critics in the Obama camp are guilty of "sexism." Blatant appeals have been made to the voters on the basis of race and sex. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright has gone so far as to declare that "there is a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." Some Obama proponents have suggested that the black community should support the Illinois senator's candidacy precisely because of his race. Others have asked whether the Senator is "black enough."

Appeals for preferential treatment on the basis of race or sex undercut the progress made by the civil rights movement. America has made substantial progress toward the creation of a color blind society. The advances in the area of women's rights have been dramatic. While we have not altogether eliminated discrimination on the basis of race or sex, Americans have made great strides. We will not end discrimination by advocating reverse discrimination. Imagine the howls of indignation that would rightly arise if a candidate advocated that he be elected because he was white and male.

Americans have done well in paving the way for a woman and an African-American to run for president. They will do better by ignoring the race and gender of the candidates and judging all of the presidential hopefuls on the basis of the content of their character and their qualifications to serve.

It is a command, not a request. The mood is emphatic, the tone condescending, the derision palpable. The sentiment is laced with the disdain that is common when patricians speak of the hoi polloi. They are, after all, accustomed to sitting at head tables and in box seats. They summer at Nantucket and Bar Harbor. They are educated at Harvard and Yale. They read the Wall Street Journal and Barron's. They are used to calling the shots, to being in charge. For them, there is no waiting in line.

They are the Republican elites, the bluebloods that fund political campaigns. They fashion for themselves quaint little names like "Rangers" and "Pioneers." Raising political capital is their new frontier. They invest in political campaigns as a cost of doing business and they expect a return on their investment. To spread the risk, they often put their money down on more than one candidate. And the returns are good—subsidies, tax breaks, limitations on liability when things go awry. Power is a wonderful way to leverage wealth! They are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. After all, one never knows when the right to abortion might come in handy. An unexpected pregnancy can be so inconvenient!

They expect people to know their place—and to stay in it. Place, after all, reflects one's station in life. It is, therefore, unsettling when one gets out of place.

That's why the candidacy of Mike Huckabee is so unsettling to them. A Baptist preacher who wants to sit at the head of the table! Can't he just pronounce the benediction? A graduate of Ouachita Baptist University—never heard of it. Where is he from? Arkansas? That's where the Ozarks are, right? They make moonshine there and those quaint little dolls with faces made of dried fruit. Governor, you say? Ah, but has he ever run a business? Wasn't Bill Clinton governor of Arkansas? Who is backing Huckabee? Home schoolers? Why would anyone want to teach their kids at home when there are perfectly lovely boarding schools available? Evangelicals? Those are the folks with the red necks and blue collars that carry big black Bibles, right? The ones that don't believe in evolution and want to take the nation back for Christ. They think the earth is flat and object to embryonic stem cell research? I thought so. Oh, they can be useful by winning elections for you, but they are soooo presumptuous! Who do they think they are? Give someone a seat at the table, and the next thing you know, they want to sit at the head of the table!

Here's the bad news for the bluebloods. The blue collars aren't going to go away. The base isn't going to the back of the bus. They've ridden back there for so long, their behinds are sore. They're mad as hell and they aren't going to take it any more. They've found a champion in Mike Huckabee and they intend to fight. They've chafed long enough. For years, they watched as the Republican controlled Congress spent money like drunken sailors. They saw "earmarks" for the business elites elevated to an art form and rise to an all time high under Republican leadership. They watched as the party of family values became embroiled in scandals involving sex and money. They winced as the Republican led Congress gave away tens of millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortionist in the business. And they became apoplectic when the business elites thwarted efforts to stem the tide of illegal immigration because the bluebloods wanted to maximize profits through the use of cheap immigrant labor at the expense of the American worker.

To borrow a phrase from Hillary Clinton, Huckabee listened to them and found his own voice. And the base is responding to it.

Bluebloods like George Will mock Huckabee's "economic populism" and deride him for it. But the Huckster's message is resonating with the Republican base which has become sick of the dominance of the bluebloods in all things Republican. So sick, that the sign planting, precinct walking, phone banking worker bees—who had only sweat and shoe leather to invest in the campaign—enabled Huckabee to administer a good old fashioned spanking to Mitt Romney, the Harvard educated millionaire who outspent Huckabee 20 to 1 in Iowa. Huckabee's victory may have mortally wounded Romney who was theretofore the favorite of the bluebloods. He is, after all, one of them.

If Romney falters in Michigan, however, expect to see the bluebloods coalesce around John McCain whose moribund campaign was recently revived with an unexpected win over Romney in New Hampshire.

McCain is not a natural ally of the bluebloods, but his advantage with the Nantucket set is he is not Huckabee. Moreover, the bluebloods take comfort in the fact that, in his previous lap around the track, McCain described Pat Robertson and the now deceased Jerry Falwell, pooh-bahs of the evangelical movement, as "agents of intolerance"—to which the bluebloods replied with a hearty "Amen!" Additionally, McCain's "family values" include civil unions—anathema to the base, but a quaint notion to the martini set. Finally, through the McCain-Feingold Act, McCain was the catalyst for imposing gag rules on issue advocacy during federal elections, thereby limiting the ability of grass roots groups to meaningfully participate in the election process. As a result of all of this, James Dobson, echoing the sentiments of many an evangelical, has stated he will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.

In any event, before they ever confront the Democrat nominee in the Presidential race, you can expect that the Republican standard-bearer will have been battle tested. The matchup between the bluebloods and the base will guarantee that. What remains to be seen is whether the GOP winner will be battle hardened and ready to rumble or so weakened by the contest that he will be unable to put up much of a fight.

Regardless, there is a good chance that on Election Day the bluebloods will be riding the bus alone.

Ability to cast a vision. Americans are sharply divided about the direction in which the country should move. The country is divided over polarizing issues like abortion, immigration and Iraq. Many of the candidates foster existing divisions by demonizing their opponents and engaging in personal attacks. These attacks are calculated to anger their supporters and animate them to turn out and vote. Anger is certainly a good motivator, but it is not a conciliator. And it is not likely to produce a consensus about the direction in which the country should move. Is there a candidate who is capable of healing divisions, articulating first principles and uniting the country? It was said of Winston Churchill that he "mobilized the English language" in support of the war effort against the Axis powers. Do we have a candidate capable of mobilizing the English language in such a way as to unite the American people in pursuit of the common good?

Making the case for life. The right to life is the foundation of all other rights. It is that right without which no other right can exist. Unless one's right to life is preserved, all other "rights" are meaningless. One's net worth is not a function of their age, size, location or stage of development. Human beings have dignity because they are created in the image of God. Is there a candidate with a demonstrated record of protecting the rights of human beings at all stages of development? Is there a candidate who can credibly make an appeal for a consistent life ethic which includes protection of the embryo and the elderly? Does the candidate understand the basis for human dignity? How has that understanding affected their decision making in the past? Can they defend the innate sanctity of human life against the biotech industry's utilitarian appeals for embryonic stem cell research and human cloning?

Defending marriage. Marriage has historically been the union of one man and one woman. It is the foundation of society and the best vehicle for propagating and raising children. Nevertheless, the institution of marriage has fallen on hard times. The divorce rate has exploded, cohabitation has increased and out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed. The institution of marriage is also under assault by radical homosexual activists who wish to redefine it. Is there a candidate who can make the case for heterosexual marriage without reverting to gay bashing? Can they explain credibly why marriage is an institution that should be favored in the social policy of this country? Does the candidate's personal history reflect that they value marriage and family in word as well as deed?

Caveat: Voters should not be under the illusion that a federal marriage amendment (FMA) will be the silver bullet that will save marriage in this country. Passage of such an amendment will be problematic in that it requires supermajority votes of members of Congress and of the states. More than 2000 amendments have been proposed to the Constitution, yet only 27 have been adopted—a testament to the difficulty of passing constitutional amendments. Moreover, there is no reason to expect that activist judges who have a history of ignoring the language of the Constitution and the intent of its Framers will show any more regard for new language which is inserted into the document. Nevertheless, there are many steps which can be taken in law and policy which will have the effect of protecting and strengthening marriage and do not require the supermajority votes of the Congress and of the states. Do the candidates have any proposals other than the FMA to protect marriage?

The Judiciary. Who the President nominates to the judiciary is of grave importance. Long after a President leaves office, the judges they have appointed remain. What kind of nominees will the candidate appoint? Will they appoint judges who strictly construe the Constitution or ones who believe it is constantly "evolving"? Will the intent of our Founders prevail or the political whims of today? Will their nominees respect the sanctity of life or is "convenience" their litmus test? Does the candidate understand the concepts of separation of powers and Federalism, and will they make sure the judges they nominate do as well? Will the candidate defend their nominees against the inevitable smear campaigns? When sitting judges overstep their constitutional bounds and usurp the power of the legislative and/or executive branches, will the candidate confront them and publicly reproach them for their usurpation?

Immigration. Does the candidate have a credible and workable plan for securing America's borders? What length of time will it take to put such a plan in place? What will it cost? Does the candidate have a viable plan for dealing with the illegal immigrants who are already here? What does that plan involve? Does it include a path to citizenship for such people, or will they be sent back to their native land? What plan does the candidate have for the children born in the U. S. to such illegals? How will they be accommodated if their parents are sent back to their native land? What actions will be taken with respect to employers who hire illegal aliens? If not with immigrant labor, exactly how does the candidate plan to offset the loss of workers caused by America's aging population and its low birth rates and high levels of abortions?

Social Security and Medicare. The long term viability of Social Security and Medicare is in doubt. As a consequence of the graying of America, expenditures for both programs will soon exceed revenues. The ratio of workers to retirees has slipped from 15 to 1 in the 1950's to 3 to 1 today. Younger workers will be in increasingly short supply in the future due to low birth rates and high abortion rates. They will chafe at the increased burden of supporting an ever burgeoning cohort of older and economically unproductive Americans. What concrete proposals does the candidate have for dealing with the looming crisis involving Social Security and Medicare? Will they cut benefits for older Americans? Increase taxes on younger Americans? Create new vehicles to invest for retirement?

The War on Terror. What vital interests does the candidate identify as being at stake in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? What role does U.S. oil consumption play in our engagement in the region? How does the candidate define our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan? What objective criteria will they use to determine whether our mission has been accomplished? What factors should influence the United States' decision to intervene militarily in other parts of the world? What will the candidate do to bolster our sagging military resources? Is a draft in order? If not, how will recruitment be bolstered? What specific steps will be taken to blunt the spread of Islamic fundamentalism which threatens Western security and values?

These are just a few of the questions Americans should be asking the candidates who aspire to leadership of the free world. Voters should insist on straight and specific answers. They should reject answers that are couched in vague generalities. Candidates who advocate "change" should be required to indicate with precision the nature and types of changes they intend to make and to demonstrate why they ought to be the preferred agent of change. Candidates who tout their "experience" should be required to indicate how that experience qualifies them to address specific issues of concern to the voters. They should also be required to demonstrate how their record of experience matches their rhetoric in the campaign.

Undoubtedly it will require effort on the part of voters to get answers to these and other questions. If candidates are not forthcoming, voters should withhold their vote. Answers ought to be the medium of exchange. Good looks and smooth talk ought not to be enough. If we don't get their answers now, we may not like what we get later.

What's not to like about Christmas? We all enjoy getting gifts. Most of us have experienced that rush that comes with opening a gaily-wrapped package that comes from a loved one.

Doubtless we have all experienced how that excitement diminishes with time. Over time the shine dulls, the new becomes old, and that treasured possession we were so excited about in the beginning gathers dust in the corner.

Not so with the first gift that kicked off the season 2000 years ago. It is the gift that keeps on giving.

What motivated that first gift? Love—the same impulse that impels most of us to give gifts to our children. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son...." (John 3:16 NIV)

Why would he give such a gift? Salvation. God gave his Son "...that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." (John 3:16 NIV)

Why was such a gift necessary? Sin and separation from God. "[F]or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God...." (Rom. 3:23 NIV) And "all" means everyone. "There is no one righteous, not even one....All have turned away...." (Rom. 3:10,12 NIV)

What are the consequences of our sin? Death. "For the wages of sin is death...." (Rom. 6:23 NIV)

What is the solution to our sin problem? Jesus, God's gift to us. "[B]ut the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23 NIV) "[W]e were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions...." (Eph. 2:3-5 NIV)

How do we accept God's gift? By grace through faith. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast." (Eph. 2:8-9 NIV)

Unlike other gifts, the gift of God's Son never malfunctions. It never becomes obsolete. It is like the Energizer Bunny. It keeps going and going. "For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all...." (Rom. 6:9-10 NIV) "For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God...." (1 Pet. 3:18 NIV)

So enjoy the holidays. Accept your Father's gift. And have a Merry Christmas.

The Center for a Just Society will be closing down for a few days to enjoy the holidays, but please continue to check our website regularly for new content and to browse all of the articles we've added over the past few weeks.

In his newfound role as "front-runner", Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is the subject of increased scrutiny by the media. For many in the secular media, Huckabee's prior role as a minister is of far greater concern than his prior role as governor of the State of Arkansas. (A preacher as President? Heaven help us!) Consequently, Huckabee has been the candidate among the Republican wannabes who has had to field most of the tough "God questions" during their debates.

Without a doubt, the intersection of faith and politics is one that requires careful navigation. This is particularly true in America, where our founding fathers worked hard to ensure that religious freedom was preserved for their descendants. For many, religious liberty is the "first right" and liberty of conscience has always been highly prized in these United States. The Framers of the Constitution refused to establish a national church. Conscience was deemed to be a private domain where government had no right to intrude.

The secularists among today's media elites seem to think that candidates for office who profess fervent religious faith are incapable of playing by the rules set by the Constitution. Their index of suspicion for candidates like Huckabee—a man who has vigorously and publicly professed his faith—is much higher than for those candidates whose faith has been a "private matter" or non-existent. A recent editorial by USA Today entitled "Huckabee's Challenge" is a case in point. In their analysis of Huckabee's candidacy, the paper's editors raise "concerns in several areas", including his failure to declare whether Mormons are Christians, his disavowal of evolution, and the particulars of his intention to take the nation back for Christ. In their registration of these concerns, the editors demonstrate a poor understanding of the tenets of the Christian religion and of the Constitution.

The editors express concern that Huckabee's "equivocation about whether Mormons are Christians" creates questions about his "acceptance" of others' beliefs. They imply that Huckabee's failure to declare Mormons to be "Christians" also creates doubt about his understanding about the separation of church and state. Such criticisms are nothing short of muddleheaded. If the First Amendment means anything, it means that neither Mike Huckabee, nor anyone else, is required to "accept" anyone else's religious beliefs. That's part of the beauty of our Constitution. We are not required to accept any religious belief and we are free to reject them all.

Nonetheless, presidential candidates are running for Commander in Chief, not chief theologian. Whether a particular denomination falls within the orbit of the Christian faith is not within the ambit of a president's authority and, if he were to make such an official proclamation, religious and irreligious alike should be indignant.

Of course, there are profound differences between what historic Christianity and Mormonism have taught about the nature of God, the means of salvation, the virgin birth and the scope of the Scriptures; but, the resolution of these theological tensions is not to be sorted out by anyone in his or her capacity as a representative of the United States government. Therefore, Huckabee got it right when he declared, "I'm just not going to go off into evaluating other people's doctrines and faiths. I think that is absolutely not a role for a president."

USA Today sees a red flag in Huckabee's call for "taking back the nation for Christ" in 1998, but what they fail to point out is that Huckabee was speaking to a pastor's conference about the goals of the church, not government. Huckabee's comments had nothing to do with imposing religion by governmental decree, and the editors were duplicitous in implying otherwise. Although the secularists on USA Today's editorial board may not like it, in America the Christian church is free to compete for every single soul in the country—as is every other religion.

Finally, USA Today cites Huckabee's disavowal of evolution as a sign that he is blatantly anti-science, but Huckabee's statement is anything but anti-science. He stated, "I believe there is a God who was very active in the creation process. Now how did he do it, and when did he do it, and how long did he take? I don't honestly know and I don't think that knowing that would make me a better or worse president.... [Y]ou know, if anybody wants to believe that they are descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it...but I believe that all of us in this room are the unique creations of a God who knows us and loves us and who created us for his own purpose." Huckabee's unpardonable sin was not that he is anti-science, but rather that he affirmed the Creator's role in our creation—a view held by Americans like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and other signers of the Declaration of Independence.

Christianity is not antithetical to science. Throughout centuries, it was Christians who advanced the cause of science. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and Pascal, among others, were all Christians. This connection between faith and science was based upon Christianity's belief in a God who gave order and meaning to the world. Christians believed that God's consistent nature produced consistent laws by which the world operated; laws which could be studied and applied. This is why theology came to be known as the "queen of the sciences." From this basic investigation of God's nature and his creation came the vast body of knowledge we now call "science."

USA Today's editorial reveals more about the editors than it does Mike Huckabee. Their piece demonstrates a profound ignorance of Christianity and the Constitution. They prefer fear-mongering to a careful dissection of the facts. Regardless of what one thinks of Mike Huckabee, one can only hope that the editors will endeavor to remove the log from their own eyes before trying to remove the speck from someone else's.

The quest for religious liberty animated our forefathers to abandon their homes, traverse vast oceans in flimsy boats, and endure innumerable hardships in a foreign land—all to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. They chafed at the ecclesiastical strictures imposed by the Crown and yearned to interact with their Maker on their own terms. Belief, they felt, ought to be the province of individuals, not government.

When the Constitution of the new republic was finally forged, the Framers took great pains to assure freedom of religion and liberty of conscience for all citizens of the United States. The Constitution forbade the requirement of a religious test as a qualification for any office of the United States (Article VI, Section 3) and the First Amendment prohibited Congress from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No national church was permitted. The government was not authorized to advance or inhibit the spread of any particular denomination. A sect could only advance on the basis of the lives and testimonies of its adherents. Government's role in the battle for the mind was to be neutral. It was to avoid siding with any of the partisans.

Fast forward 220 years to the Presidential election of 2008. The Democratic candidates are trying to outdo one another in proclaiming their commitment to religious faith. The leading Republican candidate is a former Baptist minister and the candidate from whom he has recently taken the lead, a Mormon, has just delivered a speech on the role of faith in American life. In that speech, he affirmed his faith in Jesus Christ as the son of God and the savior of mankind.

All of this "religion-speak" among the candidates is driving radical secularists and some media elites absolutely crazy. After all, they have worked hand in hand for decades trying to exorcise any vestige of religion from the public square. They have mocked and ridiculed "religionists" who aspired to public office. They have marginalized religious groups who sought to participate in the public life of our country. And just a few weeks ago, they pronounced the Religious Right "dead" in no uncertain terms. But religion's influence in politics has risen strongly once again, rising from the grave in a manner which must surprise secularists. And to top it all off, even Obama, Hillary, and Edwards—candidates with a "D" after their names—are regularly quoting Bible verses and making overt religious appeals in their campaign rhetoric.

What's going on here? Is the Constitution being put asunder? Have the candidates stepped over the line? Should they be sent to the locker room for violating the rules of the game?

Absolutely not! What's going on is a healthy, robust discussion about the role of religion in American life. After all, religion is often a powerful influence on one's life. If you doubt that, consider how it has animated the actions of suicide bombers around the world. If an Islamic fundamentalist was running for president, wouldn't you want to know that? And wouldn't you want to know how such a candidate felt about things like the separation of church and state, religious tolerance, and the role of women in society before casting your ballot? Such an inquiry does not amount to an impermissible religious test under the Constitution. Imposing an impermissible test under the constitution would be to say that if you are a Muslim (or a Presbyterian or a Mormon), you cannot run for office.

If what we believe determines how we behave (and it often does), then an exploration of one's religious beliefs is fair game in any election. The electorate has a perfect right to inquire of the candidates about their religious beliefs. They do well, however, to stick to relevant inquiries. How a candidate feels about transubstantiation, concupiscence or infralapsarianism, and whether they are "sippers" or "dippers" during communion is not likely to reveal much about how they will govern. On the other hand, queries about where our rights come from, whether or not human beings are created in the image of God, and whether all people are really created equal (points of view that are often shaped by our religious views) may provide useful information by which to judge the candidates.

In engaging in such inquiries, voters will do well to do so with charity and humility. After all, probing into deeply held views can provoke strong reactions among candidates and the electorate alike. The goal should to be to inform, not inflame. Demagoguery does not advance the democratic process. But to suggest that an inquiry into one's religious beliefs is off limits and irrelevant to the voters' consideration of a candidate trivializes the importance of religious faith and reflects a poor understanding of the things that animate human behavior.

True conservatives support the idea that states are generally better suited than the federal government to decide what works best for its citizens. We believe that government works best when it"s closest to the people. Currently, state courts are where victims of medical malpractice bring their claims when they have been injured. The claims are tried under state law and in front of a jury of their peers. Some states have set caps on medical malpractice awards, while others have not. That is what federalism is all about—the people of the several states deciding what works best for them in their state.

Governor Romney, while invoking the cloak of conservatism, doesn't see it that way. He apparently sees a "one-size-fits-all", Washington-dictated policy prescription to cap medical malpractice awards as the answer to a local question. This belies any trust in the people and perpetuates the "Nanny State" conservatives so despise.

Why does Governor Romney think Washington knows best? Do all states have the same problems; do all states have problems? Of course not! Does he think Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer are better finders of fact than a Texas jury that has just heard all the evidence? I would hope not. Or, is it because "tort reform" opens the doors to c