Last Friday, Democrats led the House of Representatives in passing legislation to allow the open practice of homosexuality in the United States military for the first time in our history.  This is a catastrophic move that is coming as the result of political correctness trumping common sense.

It also demonstrates the extraordinary success of the rabid homosexual lobby that has, in a matter of just a few decades, successfully altered the landscape of this and other debates regarding depraved sexual conduct.  Because of their ceaseless onslaught of propaganda, a majority of Americans (some even within the church) have come to believe in the existence of a group of people whose natural state is "homosexual."  We now casually use this terminology, assuming that there are "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals."

When we accept this baseline, we have detached ourselves from rational thinking.  We have allowed the debates over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," marriage rights, hospital visitation and other legislative objectives like adoption privileges to become ones of civil rights and fairness.  And once those advancing homosexuality have successfully framed these debates in this way, those holding to traditional morality are helpless.  They are easily portrayed as cruel, discriminatory, hateful bigots unwilling to extend the rights they want for themselves to others who are not like them.  Needless to say, this is all by design.  It has been the stated strategy of the homosexual agenda from the start.

Yet all it would take to undo this fraudulent charade is basic common sense - the greatest enemy of political correctness.  So here it is: all sexual behavior - married heterosexual conduct, adulterous heterosexuality, bestiality, necrophilia, homosexuality, pedophilia, coprophilia, polyamory...ALL of it - is chosen behavior.  No one is compelled into any sexual conduct.  Even those who choose to abide by God's design for sex within the confines of a married, monogamous, man/woman relationship, how, when and if they engage in sexual behavior is a choice.  It has nothing to do with unalterable, unchangeable, immutable characteristics.

A person's natural state is that of male or female.  From there, people choose what kind of sexual behavior, if any, to participate in.  They choose whether to conform to Biblical standards, societal standards, or no standards at all.  But since what they do sexually is always chosen behavior, it has nothing to do with their identity.  Who a person is, is different than what a person does.

Once we regain this rational baseline for our thinking, we soon realize how terribly (and intentionally) skewed this debate over "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has become.  The ban that has existed from the infancy of the American military until today has not been on any group of people...it has been on the open practice of a chosen sexual behavior.  Moreover, homosexuality is but one of many sexual practices that has been banned by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  Even attempts of heterosexual adultery are forbidden.  Is that discriminatory against heterosexuals?

Therefore, the proper debate regarding "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should not be held as one that will determine whether certain people can serve.  That is a false premise.  The debate should be held over whether or not those who do serve should be banned from participating in certain sexual behaviors. 

Since the Uniform Code of Military Justice seeks, "to promote the well-being, morale...and good order and discipline" of our armed forces, we should be asking whether the open practice of men having sex with men is dangerous to military cohesion.

We should be asking whether or not the devastating physical effects of men having sex with men is conducive to a healthy and strong fighting force.

We should be asking if the preponderance of sexual transmitted diseases found in men having sex with men represents any concerns with the necessity of battlefield blood transfusions.

We should be asking if the same reasons the military forbids men and women from sharing barracks (avoiding sexual aggression, harassment and counterproductive distractions) should not preclude the open acceptance of men having sex with men.

These are the rational grounds upon which this debate should be fought.  Failing to recognize, articulate and demand as much guarantees the outcome - one in which grounded and clear thinking individuals are labeled bigots, and in which the most powerful military in world history surrenders to its most dangerous foe...political correctness.

Not long ago, I was witness to some pretty flagrant discrimination.  It has taken me awhile to find the courage to speak out about the incident, but in light of what is happening along our southern border in Arizona, I think it's time.

It happened two summers ago when I took my wife to a Cincinnati Reds baseball game.  When we arrived, I fully anticipated being able to walk right into the stadium without any harassment or nuisance.  Imagine my surprise when I found a walled complex with guards stationed at nearly every entrance.  And what do you suppose those guards were doing?  They were checking everyone's papers...or "tickets" as they called them.  And shockingly, if someone was unable to produce such papers upon demand, they were hatefully turned away.

Looking back, though I was fortunate enough to have brought my papers with me, my conscience should have refused to let me enter that den of discrimination.  I should have made a public spectacle and led a march of protest on the Reds' front office.  How can this be happening in America? 

Believe it or not, the Reds organization has actually condoned this practice of turning away undocumented game attendees.  And worse than that, their stated policy requires the immediate ejection of all people who are innocently and peacefully watching the game if they are discovered to be undocumented.

Being the committed proponent of social justice that I am, I wrote a sharply worded email to the commissioner of Major League Baseball, asking him to not only renounce these offensive practices, but to call for all other teams to boycott the Cincinnati Reds until they open their borders and start allowing anyone in to their games who wants to come in.

Shockingly, no such boycott will be forthcoming.  And why?  Apparently the commissioner feels the Cincinnati policy is appropriate.  His reasons - get this - were that without ticketing their events and enforcing their rules with security guards, the Reds' organization would be endangering their fans and players, and would suffer economically...to the point of collapse!  How ridiculous!  Let's take these one at a time.

How could anyone honestly allege that removing security guards at the perimeter of their complex is endangering fans?  Oh, I suppose you could make the silly argument that someone might smuggle a weapon or bomb in, or that unscrupulous rabble rousers could make mischief in the stands...but how likely is that?  In a major American city?  It's a chance in a million.

Do we really want to exchange our right to free entertainment for a quiet, respectful stadium?  Of course not.  The mere presence of these gun-toting intimidators is an affront to our civil liberties.  It opens up the possibility that they will unfairly profile the shady looking character with no ticket, a trench coat and a bulging backpack.  And if there's one thing that we all should demand, it's that those kind of individuals not be inconvenienced by having to show ID, open their coat and reveal the contents of their bags.  What makes them any more suspicious than an elderly season-ticket holder?

And even more outrageous than the supposed need for security is the economic argument.  Is the commissioner seriously suggesting that there would be any negative financial consequences to a ballclub that allowed thousands of people to walk into their games without purchasing a ticket?  The next thing you know, he'll be proposing that people be forced to pay for the various amenities the park has to offer - like concessions, memorabilia and game-day programs.  Are these not basic human rights to which all people - those with papers and those without - are simply entitled to?

With as disconcerting as this experience has been for me, at least there's reason for hope.  President Obama has taken a clear and uncompromising position on this type of Naziesque behavior, condemning the entire state of Arizona for their outrageous expectation that people follow the rules.  "We are not defined by our borders," the President has declared.  And as always, Mr. Obama practices what he preaches.

Remember the warm and jovial reaction he and his staff had when the Salahi couple crashed the White House party earlier in his term?  When it was uncovered that this pair didn't have the legal documentation to be at the event, the President's staff quickly laughed it off and put an end to all security screenings and ticket-checking.

Some will say, "But Peter, the President's secret service and the Reds security staff aren't unlawfully discriminating, they are simply doing their job to protect the innocent."  To that I simply point to Arizona and say, "Exactly."

At this year's National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama chided Republicans and Democrats to not contaminate our political discussions with smears and slander.  "Civility is not a sign of weakness," he said.  "At times, it seems like we are unable to listen to one another, to have at once a serious and civil debate. This erosion of civility in the public square sows division and cynicism among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion."

No word yet on whether the president choked on the thick irony that encrusted those hollow words as they poured from his lips.

In Newsweek editor Jonathan Alter's new book, "The Promise, President Obama, Year One," it is revealed that Mr. Civility decided to do a little poisoning of that well himself as he slandered millions of Americans who are fed up with his big-government approach.  Discussing the unanimous opposition Republicans mounted to his now-failed stimulus plan, Obama mocked how, "That helped to create the tea-baggers."  Perhaps referring to your fellow countrymen by using vile terminology like "tea-bagging" - an outrageously offensive term that describes a sex act - is Mr. Obama's idea of "serious and civil debate?"

Imagine if you will, the furor that would have erupted if President George W. Bush had used an equally offensive term, the "n-word," to describe his political opponents at the NAACP.  Or what if Bush had used slang terminology to refer to his political opponents within the homosexual lobby?  As media critic Brent Bozell pointed out, "if President George W. Bush had slurred the gay rights movement during his presidency, it would have immediately dominated the news of every single national media outlet."

He's right.  And such criticism would have been completely warranted.  Demeaning and slandering fellow citizens (even those you disagree with politically) is unproductive, childish and certainly beneath the dignity of the office of President of the United States.

Yet, this practice of sowing division and discord while simultaneously condemning the sowing of division and discord has become the Obama way.  It was reflected in his inaugural address when he heroically decreed, "On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances...that for far too long have strangled our politics."

This shortly after he had scoffed at the bitter Pennsylvanians who "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."  No petty grievances there.

Or take his recent speech to the University of Michigan class of 2010 where he counseled, "If we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized, more set in our ways.  But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from."

This said following his first year and a half in office in which he attempted to shun an entire news agency because they dared question him, demonized Rush Limbaugh, attempted to cut Fox News from the White House press pool, and had members of his staff orchestrating boycotts against cultural commentators who oppose his policies.  Is this what "seeking out information that challenges our assumptions" means?

Of course, no one in the mainstream press seems interested in pointing out this duplicity.  And why should they?  These modern prophets of one-way tolerance seem to enjoy using offensive slang like "tea-bagging" as much as their fearless leader.  Demonstrating the pathetic state of journalistic integrity in the old media, consider that CBS's Mark Knoller, PBS's Gwen Ifill, CNN's Katrina Vanden Heuval, Suzanne Malveaux, Candy Crowley and Anderson Cooper, MSNBC's David Shuster, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, and ABC's George Stephanopoulos have all used that disgusting epithet to describe conservative Americans.

At the prayer breakfast, Obama lamented, "We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God's voice."  If the president truly seeks to encourage Americans to find their inner angels, my humble suggestion would be for him to try leading by example.

But if, as I suspect, this rhetoric is meant only to perpetuate the myth of Obama as post-partisan healer, while he insults and defames those who get in his way, I have but one message for him: stay classy, Mr. President.

If I could go back in time, there is one group of people that I wish I wouldn't have been so quick to dismiss...those who expressed dismay over what they perceived as George W. Bush using his presidential power to trample the Constitution.  I might not have ended up agreeing with all of their accusations, but I know my predisposition towards liking the guy caused me to discount their charges without always giving them fair thought.

Obviously there were those on the far left who made it difficult to do so.  You can only watch Keith Olbermann froth at the mouth so many times while pompously condemning the Commander-in-Chief of "urinating on the Constitution" before you begin to build up a tolerance to such reckless hyperbole.  But there were others whose case against Bush was rooted in logic and experience.  They cautiously questioned the wisdom of urgently enacting a monstrous bill (the Patriot Act) that few Congressmen had time to even read.  They cautioned that it could limit constitutionally protected liberty, even though it was done with the best of intentions (sound familiar?).  Regardless of whether they were right or wrong, their objections deserved to be addressed.

One of those who voiced opposition to Bush's behavior was Barack Obama, who wisely crafted his campaign on the platform of undoing those supposed missteps.  He promised a presidency that would see the United States return to constitutional fidelity, ending the practice of renditions, enhanced interrogations, and wiretapping, as well as reinstate our trampled civil liberties and the sacrosanct writ of habeas corpus (this provision allows for the criminally detained to be brought before a judge rather than being held indefinitely without charge).

But besides the fact that President Obama has left virtually every single one of those Bush-era practices firmly in place, his actions reveal a governing philosophy that appears to be belligerently rebellious to the legal restraints put on him by the Constitution.  This is either the result of blissful ignorance of those limitations, or willful betrayal. 

Take for instance the President's reaction to the recent British Petroleum oil spill.  In an effort to save face politically, President Obama issued a statement saying that he, "strongly supports efforts on Capitol Hill to raise the Oil Pollution Act damages cap significantly above $75 million."  So even though at the time of the accident the law required companies like BP to be financially responsible up to a specified amount, Obama has arbitrarily decided that BP should pay more, and is therefore urging Congress to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Whatever your feelings may be about the President, BP Oil, or environmental protection, there is no escaping the reality that such a move by Obama is blatantly unconstitutional.  Article I, section 9 of the Constitution explicitly forbids Congress from passing what are called "ex post facto" (after the fact) laws.  That is to say, you can't enforce punishments or penalties against a person or a company that weren't already on the books when they committed the act.   Our Founders regarded such governmental action as abusive and authoritarian.  Our current president sees it as sound policy.

Moreover,  consider that when Obama and others accused President Bush of unlawfully suspending the "rights of the accused" to terrorist detainees on the battlefield, Bush correctly pointed out that these thugs were not American citizens or lawful residents, and therefore not technically entitled to constitutional protections.  The left pilloried Bush for such a defense, accusing him of betraying America's longstanding ideals.  Obama himself scolded, "We must adhere to our values as diligently as we protect our safety with no exceptions."  In other words, according to President Obama, we should extend constitutional protections to our sworn blood enemies who seek to bring this civilization to its knees. 

And yet that same President is encouraging Congress to deliberately deny constitutional protections to companies like BP who, as Mark Finklestein points out, "have supplied untold quantities of energy resources to the American economy and paid out billions in wages and supply purchases to American workers and firms."

Extra-constitutional protections for those that want to kill us...denial of explicit constitutional protections for companies that are critical pieces in our economy...and this from a former constitutional law professor?

I do regret not giving more credibility to those who questioned the constitutionality of some of George Bush's actions as president.  But if those same folks aren't even more up in arms about the flagrant abuse our current president is inflicting on the Constitution, they never deserved it in the first place.

About a week ago, news reports surfaced from Turkey that a team of evangelical researchers had claimed to find the remains of Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat.  The team confirmed that they were "99.9 percent" sure that the wooden structure they found was part of the Biblical vessel that preserved life during the cataclysmic flood approximately 5,000 years ago.

Within moments of their announcement, evolutionary scientists began to cast doubt on the find.  The headline at MSNBC read, "Noah's Ark Found? Not so Fast."  Stories appeared, quoting archaeologists like Peter Kuniholm from Cornell who called the reported find a "crock."  Paul Zimansky, an archaeologist and historian at Stony Brook University who specializes in that region of the world, dismissed the reports as well, stating, "Press releases are not the way archaeology advances."

Though I certainly agree with that sentiment, I have to wonder where Zimansky and these other critics were less than a year ago when another earth-shattering discovery was touted by media reports.  Then, rather than being a potential find that would go a long way to validate the Biblical record of history (and by extension the creationist model), it was the reported discovery of the so-called Darwinian "missing link."

Nicknamed "Ida," this perfectly preserved lemur-like fossil was said to provide the, "final piece of Darwin's jigsaw."  But unlike the supposed Ark discovery, the frenzy that ensued from this press release was far from skeptical.

Sky News called it, "the eighth wonder of the world."  National Geographic trumpeted that Ida was a "branching point on the evolutionary tree."  British naturalist David Attenborough proclaimed, "The link, they would have said until now, is missing.  Well, it is no longer missing."  ABC's Good Morning America showcased the fossil.  Both the History Channel and BBC One aired documentaries on Ida called, "The Link."  A book by the same title was published almost instantaneously.  Even the online search engine Google fell prey to the trap and modified its search page banner to show Ida.  Within a week, over 630 online news sites had covered the groundbreaking story.

A year later, the scientific community is recognizing that there's nothing very special about Ida after all.  Well, perhaps that's not fair.  The remarkable preservation of this lemur-like creature is stunning (something best explained by its rapid burial in sediment...sort of like what would happen in a catastrophic worldwide flood).  But all those references to Ida as a "missing link" were summarily removed from the final scientific paper by the conscientious peer-review process.

So why the two different standards?  Why does the potential find of Noah's Ark generate scorn and immediate skepticism if the potential find of the "missing link" does not?  By the way, though I certainly believe in Noah's flood, I should acknowledge that I think the skepticism over the Ark find is completely appropriate.  Every couple years, it seems, a new group claims to have found it - and usually the evidence is less than compelling.  But how is that any different from the missing link - something that Darwin's modern prophets angrily say has already been found...until a news story like Ida reveals the truth that they are desperately still searching for it?

The truth is that science is supposed to be skeptical of everything.  And yet, so often we see the reality that Darwinists hijack the name of science in an effort to proselytize their own faith, and thereby commit the same offense they condemn creationists for committing.  Think about it:

Kuniholm mocks Ark hunters by saying, "These guys have already gotten the answer worked out ahead of time, and then they go out to prove it."  In other words, if there does end up being a large wooden structure on the mountain, that doesn't necessarily prove Noah's story.it only proves there is something wooden on the mountain.  Creationists then work that structure into a narrative they've already accepted of a worldwide flood.

Fair enough...but what was Ida?  Nothing about her suggested anything other than an extinct, lemur-like creature.  Yet Darwinists took a dead organism and worked it into a narrative they've already accepted of macro-evolution.  They presuppose Darwin's model is correct and then interpret the fossil in a way that helps tell the story.

So how about some intellectual honesty?  Science can prove there's a wooden structure on a mountain, and a dead lemur in the rocks.  But how we choose to interpret those scientific facts is much more about our presuppositions and faith than it is science.  And that's true on both sides.