I'm hoping someone can help me.  I left on vacation last week, and when I got back, an entire war was missing.  I've looked for it on all the major networks and cable outlets (excepting Fox News), as well as all the major newspapers.  Although I've found hints that it still exists somewhere, President Obama's Libyan War is officially missing in action.

The President actually set the stage for this vanishing act in his speech defending our involvement in Libya.  Trying desperately to find a way to distinguish his overseas military operation from the ones he had vociferously condemned as a candidate, the President explained that our role in Libya was pretty much done already.  "Our most effective alliance, NATO," he said, "has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone...This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday.  Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners."

So transparent was his attempted charade that even liberal comedian Jon Stewart couldn't pass up the opportunity to chide Obama's silliness, exclaiming on The Daily Show in trademark fashion that in essence we are NATO.  His frustration was echoed by other leftists like Brian Becker of the anti-war coalition ANSWER who explained, "That's a fraud.  When the U.S. hands the mission to NATO, it's handing the mission over to itself."  They're both right in the sense that from its inception, NATO has been a U.S. led organization.

And even if parading underneath the NATO banner rather than the Stars and Stripes, it still largely remains American might, American forces, American bombs, American firepower, American resources, American tax dollars, and American resolve that is fueling action there.

So why the deception?  Because for Obama, far more delicate than even the decision to commit to military action in Libya in the first place is the potential for a drawn out affair.  His powers of persuasion will be useless in motivating his liberal base during the 2012 presidential election should the conflict linger.  The president was apparently so panicked about such a reality that he uncharacteristically telegraphed this unmistakable message to his allies in the American media: "I'm declaring that there's nothing to be seen in Libya, you make sure to ignore it and talk about other things."

And proving the sorry state of the once independent press, they have willfully submitted to the president's template.  For the last couple weeks, as Americans have been bombarded with news stories about the budget debate, statues, museums, zoos, and even Bob Dylan concerts in China, the war rolls on.  And to be blunt, it isn't going well.

According to the boots on the ground (who aren't really on the ground, of course, because the president promised they wouldn't be), the Libyan conflict is headed for a deadlock.  Carter Ham, the American General who led the coalition air campaign has said not to expect the NATO supported rebels to be able to defeat Khadafy.  As the New York Daily News reported, "Asked at a Senate hearing about the chances that the rebels could reach Tripoli and oust Khadafy, Ham said, ?I would assess that as a low likelihood.'  He said the situation was becoming a stalemate."

A stalemate?  If that doesn't convince you of the chronic incompetence currently plaguing the Oval Office, nothing will.  As Mark Steyn recently observed, "The Tunisians got rid of Ben Ali in nothing flat, Mubarak took a couple of weeks longer to hit the road, and an exciting new ?Islamic Emirate' has just been proclaimed in South Yemen. But, with his usual unerring instinct, Barack Obama has chosen to back the one Arab liberation movement who can't get rid of the local strongman even when you lend them every functioning NATO air force."

What is unfolding in Libya is simply this: perpetual American military engagement, excessive spending of taxpayer dollars, abject refusal to articulate a clear and pronounced objective, and the unnerving absence of any apparent exit strategy.  It seems like not that long ago we were hearing such a scenario described by the American media as a quagmire, weren't we?

In Iraq they trumpeted every death, every setback, every struggle as part of their ongoing effort to defeat President Bush.  But now, confronted with the perfect example of American presidential ineptitude, a flailing Commander-in-Chief leading a confused, bizarre military operation with no real purpose, they wag the dog.

And though flagrant media bias comes as no surprise, this sin of omission is particularly galling given the indignant drumbeat of negativity that defined their coverage of previous military conflicts.  It is the clearest example yet of how desperate the leftist media is to get President Obama re-elected. 

Already committed to white-washing his glaring flip-flops on closing Guantanamo, military tribunals and renditions, spinning his miserable economic record, candy-coating his abysmal performance on job creation, they have now devoted themselves to wiping an entire war (or, as the administration prefers to call it, "kinetic military action") from the American conscience.  If he can't win with the unprecedented advantage of having the mainstream press ransoming their credibility for four more years, it will put an exclamation point on how out of his league Barack Obama truly is.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

During President Obama's Libyan War address, I was listening for one thing.  While most Americans were already aware of what a madman Gaddafi was, as well as the evil he was committed to perpetrating against his own people, what we weren't clear on was how a man who persistently derided the Iraq War as "dumb" could justify intervention in a less dangerous state like Libya.

Like any good professor, President Obama didn't just come out and explain the distinction.  He made us work to find it.  And there, buried beneath a few extra helpings of his trademark verbosity, I heard eleven key statements that, when compared to former President Bush's justification for the invasion of Iraq, explain the conundrum "Iraq Bad, Libya Good" perfectly.

First, President Obama reminded us that America should always be hesitant to take up arms.  He counseled, "Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges.  But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act."  Contrast that with Bush's 2003 address when he said, "This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost...we strive for peace.  And sometimes peace must be defended." 

In the case of Gaddafi, Mr. Obama stressed that he is a "tyrant," and that "He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world."  Bush, meanwhile, only called Saddam Hussein a "dictator" who had, "already used [the world's most dangerous weapons] on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."

Obama reminded us that Gaddafi had been given, "a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences.  Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance."  Bush merely said that Saddam had been given, "his final chance to disarm.  He has shown instead utter contempt for the...opinion of the world."

And while our current President was able to tout, "a strong and growing coalition" of support that included 11 countries, our former President could only point to, "more than 35 countries [that] are giving crucial support."

Let's also not forget how inconsistent President Bush was during the Iraq War.  Standing in front of a "Mission Accomplished" banner, he declared that "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."  This just before adding that, "Our mission continues," and, "now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country."  Obama had no such dissonance as he announced with finality that, "the United States of America has done what we said we would do," before immediately following up with, "That is not to say that our work is complete."

And what work remains?  President Obama carefully outlined, "The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task," promising that, "the United States will do our part to help."  President Bush never gave such an up-front assessment, saying only, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq...The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but...our coalition will stay until our work is done."

President Obama was careful to point out that our involvement in Libya was critical to protect, "the democratic impulses that are dawning across the region [that] would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship."  This while President Bush had only suggested that our involvement in Iraq could help by, "inspiring [democratic] reforms throughout the Muslim world."

What's more, President Obama wisely understood that without taking action against Gaddafi, "The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security."  Bush, of course, was disinterested in UN integrity, challenging, "Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance...Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced or cast aside without consequence?"

And while Bush offered an inconclusive, "We do not know the day of final victory," before patronizingly reassuring us that our enemy's "cause is lost," President Obama did nothing of the sort.  He quite bluntly told us, "The day when Gaddafi leaves power...may not happen overnight," before promising us that, "history is not on his side."

We all remember Bush's ignoble guarantee that we would be welcomed by the Iraqi people as heroes, even thanking Iraqis who, "welcomed our troops and joined the liberation of their own country."  President Obama threw out no such jingoistic red meat as he recounted how our downed airman parachuting into Libya, "did not find enemies.  Instead, he was met by people who embraced him."

Finally, President Bush delivered a frighteningly open-ended promise to involve the United States in the internal affairs of sovereign nations around the world by suggesting, "American values, and American interests, lead in the same direction: We stand for human liberty."  Thankfully, President Obama didn't do anything remotely similar when he declared, "Wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States."

You see?  Two diametrically different defenses of two remarkably dissimilar conflicts.  One was dumb, the other is obviously brilliant.  If, after reading those quotes, you're still perplexed by the Professor-in-Chief's logic, let me give you the CliffsNote version: military intervention is dumb only when it's started by a Republican.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Talk radio kingpin Rush Limbaugh has repeated for years his belief that as a political party, the Democrats feel entitled to power.  When they are denied it by the results of an election, they react as though they are the victims of a grave injustice, thereby at liberty to engage in whatever tactic is necessary to retrieve what is rightfully theirs.  Beginning with the Wisconsin walkout and now embodied in the temper tantrum of Indiana Democrats, the self-professed Doctor of Democracy has once again been proven right.

Statehouse walkouts are not without precedent.  In fact, they are a reasonably common occurrence.  But they are largely symbolic gestures - an attempt to demonstrate the minority's outraged disapproval of the majority's agenda.  Seldom do they go on for days, and until now, never have they been legitimate attempts to undermine the entire democratic process by grinding the operation of government to a halt.

Yet that is exactly what the Wisconsin Democrats attempted, and what their Indiana counterparts are still shamefully perpetrating.  What is taking place in the Indiana Statehouse is far from a mere regional or petty statewide issue; it is a direct assault on the democratic process that deserves national attention and collective, bipartisan scorn.  For while the Wisconsin constitution allowed the Republicans a procedural recourse to rectify the stalemate (something they employed when it became apparent the Democrats could not be lured back by compromise), Indiana Republicans have no such option.

For those who may be unaware, Indiana Statehouse Democrats staged a walkout a month ago to deny the large Republican majority the ability to enact legislation opposed by public and private union bosses - specifically right-to-work and public education reform laws.  The Democrat caucus fled across state lines to Illinois (where else?), and have been holed up in a hotel demanding concession after concession to earn their return.  But even after capitulating to their juvenile fit and pulling the right-to-work law off the table, Republican leaders have been unsuccessful in luring the Democrats back to work.

Indiana House Speaker, Republican Brian Bosma, acknowledged as much when he lamented, "We can't do the Madison shuffle that Wisconsin legislators were able to accomplish."  The consequence of that reality?  Given that Indiana has a part-time legislature, the stalemate will most likely cease only when the session adjourns and Governor Mitch Daniels calls the Assembly back into special session to pass a budget and new redistricting maps - the only items the legislature is required by law to pass.  This special session may give Republicans some wiggle room, but the likelihood is that the Democrat temper-tantrum will have killed the passage of virtually every bill introduced this year.

There's a phrase for what is occurring in Indiana; it's called the "tyranny of the minority."  In Federalist #10, James Madison warned against the tyranny of the majority by proposing that a republican form of representative democracy would best protect the rights of the minority.  What he apparently didn't count on was that in an effort to appease their union masters, the minority would one day use those protections to obliterate the democratic process.  And that is precisely what is unfolding.

It's telling that the phrase "tyranny of the minority" has been employed in recent years by Democrat apologists angry at the Republican Party's use of the filibuster to stall Democrat-sponsored legislation.  Watching Republicans require a supermajority of 60 Senators to pass some of Barack Obama's most controversial policies (thereby slowing his left-wing revolution of government), Democrat consultant Peter Fenn thundered, "This is the tyranny of the minority...This acceptance of a supermajority to get anything done in America has gotten way out of hand...There is a place for a supermajority: impeachment, eviction of members, veto overrides, votes on treaties and constitutional amendments.  But we should not have such requirements for the regular conduct of legislative business, especially at times like these, when action is required to move the country forward."

One must wonder where Mr. Fenn and his counterparts are now.  After all, while both parties' overuse of the filibuster to obstruct legislation is a fair topic of conversation, it pales in comparison to the unseemly tactic of a group of lawmakers who hold representative democracy itself hostage by refusing to show up for work.  Because while a filibuster is levied to obtain critical changes and adjustments to pending legislation, these walkouts are a brazen attempt to thwart the will of the people expressed in an election.

As Bosma explained, "We've offered a number of concessions on substitutive matters on issues of concern to the Democrats. What we have not agreed to do is to meet their demand to remove issues for the remainder of the legislative session in both chambers, which is their continued demand, that these issues just go away, really nullifying the election results of November 2."

And that's why reasonable and fair minded individuals from around the country and from both sides of the aisle should be outraged at this stunt.  The dangerous precedent being set here is that whatever party loses the election should just flee the state to prevent the winners from passing any laws.  This un-statesmanlike chicanery annihilates the very republican form of government our Constitution guarantees.

In his article, Fenn complained, "We have seen the rapid evolution of a nation that covets the concept of majority rule to one where the tyranny of the minority threatens to paralyze the country."  Indeed it does.  Nothing less than the democratic process is at stake.  And ironically, it's the group of folks who euphemistically and now wholly inappropriately refer to themselves as the Democratic Party who have the gun to its head.
*

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Professing Muslim Representative Keith Ellison (D, MN) has taken full advantage of the recent Congressional hearings on the radicalization of Islam to market himself as a prophet of tolerance amongst an embittered and ignorant mass of bigots.  But for those paying attention, Ellison's current avalanche of public appearances has demonstrated not only a dangerous naiveté about the threat posed by radicals within his own faith, but has also unintentionally provided the best arguments in favor of the very hearings he condemns as intolerant.

Take Ellison's own testimony before the Congressional panel assembled by Representative Peter King (R, NY).  Emotional from the opening sentence, Ellison referenced the number of Muslim Americans who died on September 11th before concluding with the anecdotal, yet heroic story of Mohammed Salman Hamdani, a Muslim American who lost his life that terrible day as a first responder.

Squeezing tears from his eyes and with voice cracking, Ellison lectured, "Mohammed Salman Hamdani was a fellow American who gave his life for other Americans.  His life should not be defined as a member of an ethnic group or a member of a religion, but as an American who gave everything for his fellow citizens."

Agreed.  And it will be, thanks in no small part to the hearings Mr. Ellison found so objectionable.  Yes, though Hamdani's heroism had already been chronicled in the New York Times and permanently enshrined in the Patriot Act (a part of the story Keith Ellison curiously omitted in his testimony), it is now forever preserved in the Congressional record as a result of these very hearings.

And that, despite the left's allegations of a bigoted, xenophobic witch hunt, is precisely the motivation behind having such inquiries.  There is no questioning the fact that a great many Muslims living in the United States appreciate the blessings of Western society rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  To them, their allegiance to the Islamic faith does not compel them to war against non Muslim cultures.  But only fools would fail to acknowledge the cancerous strand of Islam taught and propagated around the world by radical clerics and Imams hell-bent on the destruction of Israel and the West.

While acknowledging its presence, Ellison blames this phenomenon on radical fanatics who take the Koran out of context.  "They're not getting it from the Koran," he told Bill Maher.  When Maher - an equal opportunity antagonist of organized religion - countered by asking where these fanatics were finding their mad inspiration, Ellison explained, "Like any ideologue, they will take things out of context to do what they want to do.  If you listen to terrorist rhetoric, Bill, what they do is they cite politics, they cite political grievances.  They don't really use too much religion."

Fair enough.  Of course, the problem in Ellison's defense is that unlike other world religions, Islam is simultaneously a political and religious order.  Sharia Law stands in stark contrast to the concept of separation of church and state.  After all, the Prophet Mohammed didn't have much success as a preacher.  Only when he became a warrior and turned to subjugation and conquest did he see any substantial growth in Islamic conversions.

The question then of whether Keith Ellison, Mohammed Salman Hamdani and other Muslims who preach religious pluralism are the true followers of the Koran, or whether the true disciples of Mohammed are those radical clerics who preach the message of supremacy and domination is a matter of some debate.  But the importance that distinguishing between the two groups has on our national security is not.

Because those who use Islam as an impetus for mass murder, the ones who would kill us if we do not adhere to their ideology, are the real bigots.  And they are so committed to their crusade that they are willing to murder people of their own faith - people like Hamdani and yes, even Keith Ellison - if they stand in their way.

That is what the King hearings were meant to illuminate.  And it's why we need more of them, asking whether we have a problem in this country (as they do in Europe and around the globe) with the infiltration of radical Islamic teachings into American mosques and Muslim communities.

Given that the killers of Mohammed Salman Hamdani - the 9/11 hijackers - attended and drew inspiration from such mosques right here under our noses, that seems like a question anyone crying over Hamdani's tragic death should be demanding, not obstructing an answer to.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

In a recent on-air debate I had with homosexual activist attorney Andrea Ritchie, I asked her whether, in her estimation, the demands being made by the homosexual lobby could peacefully coincide in our society with traditional, Biblical morality.  After stating her opinion that there is no homosexual or transgender agenda, she explained that her understanding of Jesus' teachings was that we were to love and accept everyone.

When I responded by challenging that those of us who oppose the dangerous lifestyle of homosexuality do so out of a sense of love, she reminded me that when confronted with the woman caught in adultery (another form of sexual indiscretion), Jesus warned only those who are without sin should cast the first stone.  Tellingly, she decided to drop the period right in the middle of Jesus' sentence.  Conveniently missing from Ms. Ritchie's defense was what Jesus went on to lovingly say to the prostitute: "Go and sin no more."

And that was the heart of my question - is it possible for our society to satisfy the cries of "civil rights" for those practicing various forms of recreational sex while still providing for the rights of Christians to proclaim to those individuals, "go and sin no more?"

Though intentionally elusive and non-committal, her response contained enough substantive morsels to deduce the real answer: the two can coexist so long as Christians capitulate by neutering Scripture and accepting sin.

This is the painful reality that our society can continue to ignore, but that will continue pressing uncomfortably against us until we acknowledge its nagging presence.  Our culture is being confronted with the choice of whether we will continue to protect the rights of conscience for Christians and other like-minded religious people, or if we will forsake those protections and instead create a right of sexual chaos where moral disapproval of any consensual sexual activity is forbidden.  We simply can't have both.

As evidence of this truth, consider a recent ruling from the United Kingdom's High Court.  At issue was the foster care parenting rights not of practicing homosexuals, but of practicing Christians.  Eunice and Owen Johns had applied to become foster parents, but were denied that right because of their religious conviction that homosexuality was deviant and immoral behavior.

The High Court saw this belief as discriminatory against homosexuals and thus deemed the Johns' home an improper environment for raising children.  This is the danger in elevating behavior to the status of identity.  By confusing homosexuality as who a person is rather than what a person does, moral disapproval of that behavior is removed from the concept of free opinion and placed in the category of condemnable hate. 

The great irony, of course, is that by protecting practicing homosexuals from such discrimination, the High Court codified and condoned discrimination against practicing Christians.  While they acknowledged the European Convention granted individuals a right to conscience and religion, the judges decided the degree to which Christianity is protected can be "qualified."

Got that?  Religious rights now become "qualified" in order to allow for an unencumbered and unrestricted sexual license.  Despite being built upon the framework of Western-Christian thought dating back to leading legal authorities, like the Scripturally devout Sir William Blackstone, the UK High Court exhibited no hesitation in choosing sides in this titanic struggle between the rights of conscience and the push for sexual anarchy. 

They ruled, "While as between the protected rights concerning religion and sexual orientation there is no hierarchy of rights, there may, as this case shows, be a tension between equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation.  Where this is so...the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance indicate that it must be taken into account and in this limited sense the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence."

Sexual progressives 1, Christians 0.

Though we've seen this imminent face-off between the demands of the aggressive sexual anarchists of the left and Christian rights of conscience brewing for some time - an Indianapolis cookie store threatened with eviction for declining to participate in a homosexual celebration, a New Mexico photography business fined for declining to take pictures of a homosexual "ring ceremony," San Diego doctors taken to court for not providing a lesbian couple with in vitro fertilization, evangelical dating site eHarmony.com bullied by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office into creating and operating a site for homosexuals - this UK ruling is the most alarming development to date.

It indicates the uncompromisingly hostile position the left is taking towards traditional morality: one will win, the other will lose.  The fate of our civilization depends upon the right outcome.

It's more than a feeling.  Events that have unfolded the last several months have convinced me that this will be the generation that brings an end to the practice of legalized abortion in the United States.  Historically speaking, our escape from this draconian and barbaric ritual of child killing was inevitable.  Ours is a country that has always been engaged in a perpetual struggle to live up to the eternal truths of our founding creed: that all men are endowed by God with inalienable rights. 

In the dark moments of our past, we have experienced the betrayal of those timeless principles by the self-serving interests of a few.  The same moral confusion that once paved the infamous Trail of Tears, supported the slave auction block and inspired the angry lynch mobs, now leads some to believe that they can choose to exterminate small, unplanned or inconvenient children. 

So what convinces me that we are arriving at our most recent point of deliverance?  Several factors do.  First, we are finally beginning to address the real issue of whether the infant in the womb is human or not.  This has always been the only question that matters. 

During oral arguments in the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade, Justice Potter Stewart demonstrated as much.  He asked Attorney Sarah Weddington who was arguing for abortion rights, "If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an almost impossible case here, would you not?"  Weddington audibly laughed as she was forced to acknowledge, "I would have a very difficult case."  Stewart pushed further by positing, "This would be the equivalent to after the child was born...if the mother thought it bothered her health having the child around, she could have it killed.  Isn't that correct?"  Weddington sheepishly granted, "That's correct."

This shocking exchange is what prompted the author of the seminal Roe ruling, Harry Blackmun, to write in the majority opinion, "[If the] suggestion of personhood is established, the case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

Yet despite this being the critical linchpin holding the heinous premise of abortion rights together, we have spent years in the wilderness debating ultrasound laws, parental consent forms and taxpayer subsidies - a confused approach that has yielded a 38 year holocaust in the name of convenience.  This finally is beginning to dawn on our elected leaders.  At a press conference last month, U.S. Representative Trent Franks stated bluntly, "Ladies and gentlemen, if abortion really does kill a baby, then in this, the seat of freedom, we are living in the midst of the greatest human genocide in the history of humanity."  That conclusion may be difficult for our American pride to admit, but it illuminates a painful truth that can refocus our attention where it should be: our national commitment to defending the inalienable rights of all men.

In addition to this cultural reawakening, recent events have lifted the veil on the macabre realities of the abortion world.  The horrific stories that emerged from late-term abortionist Kermitt Gosnell's clinic a few months ago may have shocked the conscience of average Americans.  But what was most frightening was that leading "pro-choice" advocates could offer little more than a condemnation of Gosnell's sanitation policies.  After all, the actual practice of mutilating children with scissors is a "procedure" they consider legitimate.  Looking at the images of severed body parts in jars, sane Americans realized there was something amiss far more than just a poor janitorial staff.

Then came the recent billboard wars in New York City.  After a pro-life group put up an ad featuring a little black girl beneath the bold words, "The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb," abortion rights activists came unglued.  While they predictably railed against the campaign as an attack on family planning, astute citizens recognized what they were not doing was denying the truth of the billboard's message.  And there's a reason for that: three out of every five black children in New York City are killed by abortionists.

This systemic refusal to deal in facts is all we should expect from a movement whose standard bearer is Planned Parenthood.  Multiple hidden camera stings have revealed the unbridled deceit that characterizes the organization, further driving a wedge between the abortion crowd and Americans of conscience.  After being caught flagrantly thwarting the law to conceal abusive prostitution rings, statutory rape violations and an underage sex slave operation, Planned Parenthood's leadership didn't demand immediate internal investigations to clean up their act.  No, they mused about suing Lila Rose and her organization Live Action Films who exposed them.

All this trickery, misdirection, obfuscation and corruption within the so-called "pro-choice" movement are causing an increasingly large number of Americans to reassess their position on the issue.  That, coupled with a reinvigorated pro-life movement infused with a youthful energy and a refocused approach that addresses humanness rather than politics, convinces me that the day is fast approaching when our society finds the moral courage to end the killing.

When we do, our generation will have made its most influential contribution to America's 222 year old pursuit of a more perfect union.

The time for pretense has passed.  As a nation, we are on the cusp of an economic cataclysm if immediate steps are not taken to correct our unbalanced national checkbook.  As our debt already spirals out of control, the specter of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, looms ominously on the horizon.  When the retirement of the baby boom generation hits with blunt force, our economic state will be in shambles and our country will default.

These problems do not appear lost on President Obama.  Congratulating himself for bringing us out of a recession, he has touted a new era of fiscal sobriety.  But after telling Tea Party Americans that he was going to "call their bluff" and propose "difficult choices" to get our runaway deficits under control, what did the president offer in terms of a budget?  He put forth a plan that would see the federal government borrow more money in his four years than under the previous 43 presidents combined.  And what tough choices did he recommend to rectify the massive unfunded liabilities that are preparing to devour our economy?  None.

The president's budget is such a disgrace that even Evan Thomas, the Newsweek writer who once compared Obama to God, called it a "profile in cowardice."  Obama has called for a scalpel to be taken to federal spending when a fleet of jackhammers and buzz saws are in order.  Knowing the calamity that awaits us, he prefers to mortgage our children's future in order to avoid the necessary cuts that might jeopardize his own re-election bid.  That's not hope.  That's not change.  That's not leadership.

But all is not lost.  Despite the miserable failure in the Oval Office, there are leaders among us.  They are emerging in Midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.  Indeed, while most political analysts were focusing on the historic turnover in the U.S. Congress, the most significant impact of the 2010 midterm elections is proving to be what happened in statehouses and governor mansions around the country.  There, the people handed the machinery of government over to the Republican Party with one demand: stop telling us what we want to hear simply to get elected, and start telling us what must be done to save our Republic.

That's precisely what Governors like Wisconsin's Scott Walker and New Jersey's Chris Christie are doing.  At a recent town hall event, Governor Christie bluntly told the audience, "We have big problems in this state. And it's time to deal with them."  Christie later went on to explain how state benefits were "too generous" and had to be reprioritized.  These are not things that the recipients of those benefits are going to greet warmly.  But they are things that true leaders must be willing to say.

The same is true in Wisconsin.  No one could make the argument that it was a politically easy decision to take on the state teachers' unions.  But Governor Walker recognized that his state was broke, and the exorbitant and unparalleled benefits going to state employees like teachers were largely responsible.  Consequently, he made the tough choice to call for modest cuts in those benefits only to incur the wrath of union activists and opportunistic Democrats throughout the country. 

Angry teachers walked off the job, lied to their employers by calling in sick, and paraded around with signs demanding that the Governor relent to their demands to continue shackling the children of Wisconsin (ironically the same children these teachers supposedly committed their lives to serving) with the cost of their full pension and healthcare costs.

Seizing upon this opportunity to choose cheap political points over leadership, Minnesota Democrat Representative Keith Ellison called Walker a dictator, liberal columnist Paul Krugman labeled him a third-world oligarch, and Massachusetts Democrat Representative Michael Capuano rallied the union mob equipped with signs touting crosshairs over Walker's face to "get a little bloody when necessary."  That's apparently the new era of civility they've been preaching. 

For his part, Obama dispatched senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to tell MSNBC, "The president thinks...we should sit together with the unions...We're all having to tighten our belts, but we ought to be able to do that in a constructive way."  Pray tell, how do you tighten your belt in a "constructive way?"  This is political hackery and rhetorical rubbish coming from an administration that is scared spitless at the thought of having to deny anyone their taxpayer funded goodies.

Democrats around the country are employing a new strategy of "No temper tantrum un-pitched, no pouting fit un-thrown," by fleeing the legislatures in Indiana and Wisconsin in order to obstruct the democratic process.  Yes, the same party that recently chided Republicans as the "Party of No," now resorts to hiding in neighboring states to avoid doing their jobs.

The Preamble to the Constitution charges us with the solemn responsibility to "preserve the blessings of liberty" not just for ourselves, but to our posterity.  Democrats from the White House to the statehouse have chosen to use their moment in history to cushion their own blessings at the cost of our children's liberty.  History will judge them harshly for their selfishness.  In the meantime, thank goodness there are men like Christie and Walker to lead us past them.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

In a recent tirade preposterously trashing the right for not "loving freedom," liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson suggests that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's response to the Egyptian uprising is unwarranted.  Accusing conservatives of adhering to the juvenile creed that "Obama Is Always Wrong," Robinson chides, "heaven forbid that the president get any credit."

Uh...my question to Mr. Robinson is simply, "credit for what?"

Sure, the Egyptian military has - to this point - prevented the revolt from devolving into a state of utter chaos.  Sure, there's the possibility that democratic rule will emerge in Cairo.  But it strains credulity to its breaking point to suggest that if it does, President Obama had anything to do with it.  Based on CNN's man-on-the-street interviews with Egyptians, they sure don't think he did.  So, Mr. Robinson, what exactly has the President done to be worthy of praise?

I suppose we could give him credit for dusting off the campaign trail clichés and proclaiming that any new Egyptian government should help young people, "fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential."  Perhaps in his next public statement he could assure the Egyptians that, "they are the ones that they've been waiting for?"  And yes, in the midst of the upheaval, he did express hope that the United States would be able to partner with the new Egyptian government.  But as Rudy Giuliani's now prescient admonition warned us during his 2008 Republican convention speech, "Hope is not a strategy."

And that, Mr. Robinson, is why the criticism is appropriate.  It isn't so much about what Obama's position was, but rather his inability to decide and articulate what his position was.  The truth is that the president has largely played the role of a confused spectator in this entire scenario.  And given that the American people hired him to anticipate crises and navigate the country through the sometimes treacherous waters of international unrest, his uncertainty is cause for great concern, not adulation.

If the left is really curious what the seemingly unending barrage of criticism being heaped upon President Obama is about, I'd be happy to inform them.

It's about the glaring paucity of leadership that currently characterizes the Oval Office.  In announcing his presidential candidacy a little over four years ago, Obama declared, "What's stopped us is the failure of leadership...our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."  To anyone paying attention, those were ironic words coming from a man who had made a habit of avoiding tough decisions by voting "present" on 129 bills during his short stint in the Illinois legislature.  On some of the most controversial and divisive topics, Obama refused to exhibit the courage of conviction to take a position, not wanting to be held accountable for his decision.  Commenting on this incongruity at the time, columnist Nathan Gonzales remarked, "As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting ?present' will not be an option."  As Egypt demonstrates, someone apparently forgot to mention that to Mr. Obama.

It's also about a dangerous naiveté when it comes to changes in the strategic situation.  Harvard History professor Niall Ferguson explained, "The only thing that seems to not be getting pointed out is that this completely took the administration by surprise, and I mean completely.  They admitted that they had not planned for this scenario.  I find that absolutely astonishing."  When you consider that Mubarak was old and sick, and that Israel had been gaming out this very potential a year ago, Ferguson's bewilderment is understandable.  Excoriating the administration for essentially running two different policies concurrently, he lectured, "You cannot make the foreign policy of a superpower up as you go along."  And that indictment represents the sum of conservative angst.

More broadly, the criticism of Obama is about a disconnected indifference to all matters relating to national security.  Speaking to the Defense Forum Foundation, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and foreign policy guru John Bolton concluded, "the most significant aspect of the president's approach to foreign and national security policy is that he basically doesn't care about it."  That may seem crass, but any fair minded evaluation of the apparent priorities of Mr. Obama reveals foreign policy to be an inconvenient distraction that he is uncomfortable dealing with.  Bolton appropriately surmised that Obama is, "different from the long line of American presidents since Franklin Roosevelt beginning on December the 7^th 1941, virtually all of whom got up every morning worrying about threats to American national security policy."

How different?  Far worse than just failing to think about such threats over the breakfast table, his Egyptian bungling reveals (as his incoherent stances on China, North Korea, Israel, Iran and Russia previously demonstrated) Obama doesn't even think about them in foreign policy meetings.

If Eugene Robinson and the left really want to know the impetus behind conservative criticism of Mr. Obama, they could start by heeding the unlikely wisdom of the man Mr. Obama picked to share a ticket with, Vice President Joe Biden.  During the campaign, Biden warned, "The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."  Precisely.  Perhaps Mr. Robinson thinks Joe doesn't love freedom either?

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

The debate over whether or not those practicing homosexuality should be eligible to obtain the legal status of "married" for their same-sex relationships is persistently mischaracterized by activists on both sides as an attempt to redefine marriage.  For those opposing such a move, this is most likely an error of ignorance, while for those favoring, it likely is an intentional tactic of misdirection.  To be clear, in order to "redefine" anything, there must be an alternative definition being advocated.  To this point, no such proposed substitute has emerged.

In truth then, what is being pursued is not any redefinition of marriage, but rather the "undefinition" of it -- an attempt to obliterate any fundamental parameters for what is to be perceived as moral and immoral sexual partnerships.  To anyone paying attention over the last several decades, this effort should come as no surprise.

The debate over homosexuality in our culture, after all, is nothing more than the current manifestation of a much larger crusade for sexual anarchy that has been raging since Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent sex studies of the 1950s.  Engaging in nothing short of institutional pedophilia and sexual abuse of children as young as Kindergarten, Kinsey's "research" contended that average Americans commonly were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity.  He and his acolytes urged the culture to act on his revelations by shedding their fears and shames about such behavior and embracing all forms of sexual activity as acceptable expression.

The Kinsey cause morphed into the free love movement of the 1960s with its focus on breaking down societal barriers against almost any sexual expression.  And ever since, we have experienced a relentless campaign from these forces of sexual anarchy to normalize previously forbidden recreational sex.  When Kinsey started the fire, most resisted the idea that sex should be entertainment, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that divorce should be easily attainable, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that promiscuity should be celebrated, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that homosexuality and cross-dressing should be accepted, and now pop culture is normalizing it. 

If my assessment is accurate, we should be seeing the next stage in the crusade for sexual anarchy beginning to take shape.  And right on cue, a news story emerges from the Salt Lake Tribune to validate as much.

As columnist Lindsay Whitehurst explains, the nearly 38,000 polygamists in Utah are closely following a case in Canada where a court is now weighing a decision that could upend the country's ban on polygamy.  What is astounding about the story is how frighteningly similar the polygamists' arguments are to those we are currently hearing from the homosexual and transgendered crowd in America. 

Calling the proceedings "historic," polygamy advocate Marlyne Hammon proclaimed, "If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world.  They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says.  It's about people."  Hammon added that the decriminalization of plural marriage in Canada would be a huge motivation to those fighting for its legalization in America.  "We've established ourselves in our homes," she said.  "We want to continue fighting for our civil rights."

Utah's Attorney General's office spokesman Paul Murphy has said of the case, "I think it will inform us.  Canada is tackling the same issues we have, in that we have this law but for the most part it hasn't been enforced by any law enforcement agency."

Notice the similarity in language and sentiment being utilized: civil rights, anti-discrimination, self-fulfillment, personal happiness, don't judge, constitutional rights, personal expression.  The very catch phrases currently employed by the sexual anarchists to achieve the acceptance of homosexual behavior are already being used to advocate for the next rung in their ladder.  It should come as no surprise then that Tom Hanks, a vocal proponent of gay marriage is currently the executive producer for the HBO series "Big Love," documenting (and normalizing) a polygamous family in Utah.

Once the trail has been forged by homosexuality activists, polygamy is nothing but the next logical step.  Paul McCormack, a law professor at the University of Utah, confirms that if the Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage, it will open the door to other forms of personal sexual preference.  "That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy," he stated.

In light of all this, I simply ask those who support the legalization of "gay marriage" how they plan to deny marriage rights to those who advocate for polygamy?  This has now gone beyond a "slippery slope" hypothetical question and has entered the realm of reality.  The question deserves an answer, and any sane culture would demand one before proceeding further down the Kinsey path.

If we remove the current moral guideposts defining marriage as the God-intended union of a man and woman, declaring them to be a violation of the civil rights of those who want to engage in homosexuality, how do we reposition those posts to reject the civil rights claims of polygamists?

If we accept the arguments espoused by pop culture homosexual activists like Ellen DeGeneres who plead, "People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love," how do we rebuff polygamy activists like Marlyne Hammon who say the same?

The answer is we don't.  That is the consequence of "undefining" marriage -- it becomes a meaningless term, once for all vanquished by the forces of sexual anarchy.  This necessarily opens the floodgates to the legalization of every form of sexual activity, from polygamy to incest to bestiality.  Before we uproot our culture's moral barriers, we might want to pause long enough to consider what awaits us on the other side.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Constitution of the United States lives to fight another day.  With as bloodied and beaten as her carefully articulated prohibitions against the overreach of governmental power had become following years of abuse, America's great charter found a champion in Judge C. Roger Vinson and his stinging rebuke of ObamaCare.  If upheld by the appellate courts (which must be considered quite plausible, if not likely), Vinson's opinion has not only turned back an unprecedented attempt at expanding the power of the federal government far beyond its intended scope, but has also provided a catalyst for a return to constitutional government in the United States.

That is no small feat given where we were just 24 months ago when Barack Obama was delivering his inaugural address and verbally shaking the foundation of constitutionalism by frightfully articulating a governing philosophy far removed from the author of that Constitution, James Madison, who wrote in Federalist 41, "Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it.  This is the first question."  In what should have been a grave foreshadowing of what was to come, Obama dismissed Madison's counsel and decreed a brave new approach, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Years of historical revisionism and benign neglect in our civics and government classrooms allowed that profound dichotomy between the Father of the Constitution and the man we had just hired to be its guardian slip by unnoticed.  Only when Obama appeared poised to break a campaign promise and sign into law a healthcare bill that would compel every American to purchase government-approved health insurance did the dwindling flames of what George Washington called the "sacred fire of liberty" begin to rekindle.

The embers began to glow in Congressional town hall meetings, where lawmakers like Pete Stark (D-CA) preposterously answered constituents that, "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."  The smoke began billowing when concerned citizens who were informing themselves on what was happening in Washington were patronizingly told by representatives like Joe Donnelly (D-IN) to, "turn off the TV and listen to a Frank Sinatra record."  And dismissive attitudes about the constitutionality of their actions, like that coming from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she responded to such a challenge by flippantly scoffing, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?" firmly ignited a movement dedicated to restoring the lost principles of federalism. 

Enter Judge Vinson, who rightly interpreting his first obligation, set aside all peripheral questions about the uninsured, ObamaCare's potential for success, the debt it will bring or not bring, or the intent of its authors.  In a statement that reflected the wisdom expressed in Federalist 41, Vinson confirmed, "this case.is not really about our health care system at all.  It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government."  Somewhere, upon hearing those words, James Madison was smiling.

Whether the federal government had the authority to take on such monstrous power, after all, was to be the "first question."  Yet, quite tellingly, it had become the one question that the supporters of ObamaCare avoided at all costs.  Well, perhaps that's not fair.  Then House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-MI) did make an effort to address it, explaining to a reporter that Congress got their authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, "Under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others." 

Though there is no such thing as the "Good and Welfare Clause," we can assume Conyers was meaning the "General Welfare" clause.  But if so, it appears he bears the same antipathy towards James Madison that President Obama does.  For it was Madison who cautioned, "With respect to the two words general welfare, to take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  Given that Madison was one of those creators, Conyers might want to defer to him on this one.

Perhaps wanting to avoid that embarrassment, most ObamaCare defenders (including the administration itself) have attempted to excuse their unconstitutional overreach on the basis of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate goods that are exchanged across state lines.  Of course, ObamaCare is an entirely different animal.  It first compels a passive person to engage in commerce, just so Congress can regulate them.

Vinson properly excoriated this rational, reasoning, "If [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party...it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted."  That might please Pete Stark, but it doesn't meet Constitutional muster, as explained (once again) by the document's primary author James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money...the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

This was the spirit of Judge Vinson's ruling, which is what makes it so significant.  It is a landmark decision for individual liberty and limited government, that very well may prove to be the ultimate undoing of the ObamaCare nightmare.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.