In recent years I had found myself warming up to the intrepid representative from Texas, Ron Paul.  His rigorous devotion to fiscal restraint and the Constitution preceded the Tea Party movement, and his ability to motivate young people toward the cause of liberty is endearing.  But for all the good that Dr. Paul has done in helping shift the focus of the Republican Party back to one of limited, smaller government, his fervent allegiance to a radical brand of libertarianism is nonetheless concerning.

Consider the dust-up he had with former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum at the recent Republican presidential debate.  On the day after the 10th anniversary of the horrific attacks of September 11th, 2001, Ron Paul let loose with his mindless trope about how interventionist U.S. foreign policy was what brought the vile hatred of radical Muslims to our shores. 

Regardless of whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that our military shouldn't be spread all over the globe, or whether you agree with Paul (as I do) that nation building is a quagmire waiting to happen, the idea that a few decades worth of American imperialism (as Paul would call it) provoked radical Islamists into violent actions they would not have otherwise taken is beyond absurd.

For him to even intimate as much reveals that Paul's rigid devotion to libertarian dogma (including strict military isolationism) arrests his ability to consider any other cause of anti-American aggression beyond, "we brought it on ourselves."  It also demonstrates an embarrassing lack of understanding of the danger radical Islam poses to Western civilization.  We already have one president who suffers from such delusion; we certainly don't need another.

In a column posted to his website, Paul suggests that the "real motivation behind the September 11 attacks," was American occupation of foreign, Muslim lands.  Even if we grant that Muslim jihadists do not distinguish between American military presence and "occupation," this argument falls woefully short in diagnosing the problem. 

Islamic scholar Ibn Warraq explained why, observing, "It is extraordinary the amount of people who have written about the 11th of September without once mentioning Islam.  We must take seriously what the Islamists say to understand their motivation, [that] it is the divinely ordained duty of all Muslims to fight in the literal sense until man-made law has been replaced by God's law, the Sharia, and Islamic law has conquered the entire world."

That is precisely what al-Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden conveyed in his infamous 2002 open letter to the American people, where he wrote, "What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?  The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam...It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme."  Of course, "reigning supreme" means an international, worldwide caliphate where Sharia is forced upon all resisting non-Muslim nations.

Paul's assessment of the cause of 9/11 then, is incredibly short-sighted.  This war against Western civilization is something that has been going on for a thousand years - long before American troops ever occupied a square inch of the Middle East.  And withdrawing every single soldier from that part of the world will not pacify those who believe it to be their historic, divinely inspired quest to subjugate all infidels under the banner of jihad.

If Ron Paul struggles to grasp that, he should consider the words of Mullah Mustapha Kreikar, the leader of a radical Islamist group known as Ansar al-Islam who confirmed, "The [Muslim] resistance is not only a reaction to the American invasion, it is part of the continuous Islamic struggle since the collapse of the caliphate."  The operative words there are "continuous Islamic struggle;" words not conditioned upon the location of American military personnel.  It is sad that a man who speaks so eloquently about the benefits of human liberty like Dr. Paul fails miserably to acknowledge the existential threat it faces from global jihad. 

As much as Dr. Paul may firmly believe that U.S. foreign policy is responsible for the merciless slaughter of those innocent people ten years ago, he is embarrassingly misguided.  Their murder had little to do with our global military presence, and much to do with the words of the Hadith of Bukhari, the text from which the hijackers drew their inspiration: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

As long as our country continues allowing for the rights of conscience and freedom of religious expression, we will remain the targets of the radical Islamists who despise such liberty.  Our next president must understand that.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Despite the left's self-assured predictions that Obama's reelection was inevitable as Osama bin Laden's body slipped beneath the brine, just about every reputable polling agency now shows the president up against history in his bid for a second term. 

The internals of the polls are even more alarming for the White House.  It seems that Republicans could actually dress up a mannequin from Sears to lead their ticket, and the soulless, inanimate, plastic creature would outperform Obama in the realms of jobs, economic growth, foreign affairs, health care, and national defense amongst virtually every demographic.

So to make this election a little more interesting for those of us who watch and observe politics, let me make a strategic suggestion to the eventual Republican nominee, whoever he or she may be: don't play Prevent defense in this campaign.  Don't play not to lose, but rather imitate Obama in 2008: attack your opponent where he thinks he is strongest. 

Granted, the president's narcissism may make it initially difficult to pinpoint which area he believes himself to be most gifted; but that vain conceit actually provides the answer.  Make this election about intelligence...and not the kind that is measured by letter grades (that would be impossible anyway, given that for some reason our scholar president won't release his grade transcripts).  No, I'm talking about working intelligence -- the kind of street smarts that history tells us is far more useful in a chief executive than a high verbal SAT.

Now, this suggestion may seem counterintuitive, given that George Clooney has recently declared Barack Obama to be "smarter than anybody you know."  But I think the 2012 election is a perfect time for Republicans to remind the American people of the wisdom of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does."  And as Bret Stephens accurately confirmed to readers in the Wall Street Journal not long ago, "[t]he presidency of Barack Obama is a case study in stupid does."

Current Republican frontrunner Governor Rick Perry of Texas seems up to this challenge.  After being the recipient of the left's typical playground taunts that he's too dumb to be president, Perry responded, "What's dumb is ... to put fiscal policies in place that were a disaster back in the '30s and try them again in the 2000s.  That's what I consider to be the definition of dumb."  In other words, if Obama's economic record is the epitome of "brilliance," and the Perry years in Texas have been the result of a "dumb" executive, those two words officially have no meaning.

But Perry isn't the only Republican who should be willing to take on the supposed intellectualism of this administration.  Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, also taking the brunt of the left's condescending jabs, has every right to engage the brain debate.  After all, how intellectual is it to demand, as our current president does, that upper wage-earners pay "their fair share" of taxes when the top 50% of wage-earners -- which includes primarily middle-class taxpayers -- already shoulder 97% of the income tax burden?  While that absurd definition of fairness may score high on the class warfare scale, it is far more intellectual to observe, as Bachmann has, that it is fundamentally unfair when more people are riding in the wagon than pulling it. 

And should the sycophantic Obama media continue obsessing about how Bachmann's mistaking Elvis's birthday with his date of death, or confusing which Iowa town was John Wayne's home, are proof of her ignorance, Michele could always invite them to one of the 57 states President Obama claimed to have visited, and offer them an alcoholic breathalyzer like the kind Obama prescribed for asthmatic kids.

And this strategy will work for every other Republican presidential contender.  Let voters compare the wisdom of Obama's war on business with Mitt Romney's understanding that those evil corporations the president is trying to destroy employ a lot of people.

Let them gauge the intellect of a president who demands that Israel continue to make concessions to foster peace versus Newt Gingrich's recognition that peace will never be achieved so long as one of the two sides is represented by a terror group, Hamas, that has as its sole reason for existence the annihilation of Israel.

Let the voters who are losing the health care plan they prefer, facing fewer options in their coverage, all while seeing their premiums increase to offset the massive costs of ObamaCare, choose between the intelligence of a man like Ron Paul (who predicted each of these consequences the night of the health care vote) and the president who told them to shut up and take their medicine.

And the list keeps going and going, from Rick Santorum to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin (should she run) to yes, even Jon Huntsman.

Surveying the uninhabited wasteland that just a few short years of Obamanomics has made of the American job market, and considering the monumental task that faces them in piecing together the shattered fragments of our once-envied economic engine, there are many things to intimidate the Republican field.  Having to face off against the intellect of the author of this malaise, however, should not be one of them.

This column first published at The American Thinker.

Just a year ago, the Washington Post's "On Faith" blog scolded Americans for apparently caring too much about President Obama's religious practices and beliefs, or lack thereof.  In a piece rhetorically asking the question they were more than happy to answer, "Does Your President's Faith Matter?," Post writer Elizabeth Tenety opened by citing the left's favorite Constitutional clause: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" (Art. VI, sect. 3).

It was the same refrain Americans heard during the 2008 presidential campaign when Sean Hannity went public with some revealing information about President Obama's spiritual adviser and minister of 20 years, the racist, anti-American radical named Jeremiah Wright. 

Liberal commentators and leftist media types around the country fell all over themselves in an attempt to downplay any significance or relevance Obama's spiritual views might have on his character or leadership.  In his movie "Media Malpractice," independent filmmaker John Ziegler hilariously exposed CNN's Anderson Cooper dismissing the importance of the Wright controversy 12 times in one short segment.

But fast-forward to today, introduce a handful of conservative Christians into the Republican primary, and be amazed at how relevant spiritual beliefs can quickly become.

Just one year after touting the constitutional prohibition against religious tests for federal officials, the Washington Post's "On Faith" feature was wondering if Texas Governor Rick Perry should be, "judged by the religious company he keeps."  Daily Beast/Newsweek writer Michelle Goldberg took time to alert the country to the possibility that both Perry and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann might subscribe to, "a theocratic strain of Christian fundamentalism known as Dominionism."  Yes, no doubt the man who recently proclaimed his desire to make "Washington, D.C. as irrelevant in your life as possible" will be instituting federally mandated baptisms in the National Mall's reflecting pond if elected.

But perhaps the most glaring example of the left's Damascus Road conversion on the issue of religious tests comes from the New York Times' Bill Keller, who actually produced a physical questionnaire for candidates (well, the Republican ones anyway) to fill out.  After suggesting that a belief in Christian doctrine was equivalent to believing that space aliens walk among us, Keller attempted to justify his religious exam by writing, "This year's Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life -- and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans."

And though I do wonder where this spiritually inquisitive side to liberals like Keller was when Obama's ears were being filled with black liberation theology, I have little interest in merely focusing on the hypocrisy.  There's just no sport left in pointing out the inconsistency of the left.

More importantly, I think this is an opportunity to find common ground.  I actually agree with Mr. Keller and all these newly awakened, faith-conscious liberals: a person's religious beliefs do matter when they run for public office.  Those beliefs tell us more about their judgment, values and integrity than perhaps anything else.  Somehow pretending they are to be off limits for voters seeking to make an informed choice about who they want to lead them is, and always has been, absurd.

It's one reasons I have been so agitated by the contextual abuse of the "No Religious Test" ban by liberals for several decades.  The point of the ban was never to bar the people from considering the spiritual merits of a candidate before casting their vote.  Indeed, several of those who endorsed the ban had authored religious test oaths for their own state governments.  The federal ban was enacted, just like so many other prohibitions in our founding documents, to prevent the encroachment of the national government into affairs belonging to the states or the people.

In other words, the job of judging whether a candidate's spiritual health is acceptable for them to hold office is yours, not the feds'.  In the late 18th century, Theophilus Parsons, Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, explained it this way, "No man can wish more ardently than I do that all our public offices may be filled by men who fear God and hate wickedness; but it must remain with the electors to give the government that security."

What that means is that Mr. Keller, Michelle Goldberg, Anderson Cooper, as well as you and I, can each have our own completely constitutional religious tests for candidates.  If Keller denies his vote to someone because they believe in a literal 6 day creation of Earth, it's his right.  And if you deny yours to someone because they worship Allah or embrace black liberation theology, it's your prerogative. 

This has always been the appropriate understanding of religious tests.  It's nice to see the left finally getting it.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

The time has come to repeal the president's signature legislative accomplishment.  The monstrous bureaucracy that was created by this thousand page beast is unproductive, mismanaged, and an onerous and cumbersome weight on the innovative designs of creative professionals. 

Incidentally, for those who might be mistaken, I'm not referring to President Obama's unconstitutional healthcare takeover, though I'm all for repeal there as well.  No, the marshy swamp of big government micromanagement to which I refer is the previous President Bush's signature law, the No Child Left Behind Act. 

For starters, though enacted and championed by a Republican president, this piece of legislation is about as far from conservative policy as you can get.  It is a massive intrusion of the federal government into an area (education) that the Constitution gives the feds absolutely no authority over whatsoever.  As a general rule of thumb when evaluating a law: if it was authored by the Senate's "liberal lion," Ted Kennedy, and received more votes from House Democrats than Republicans, it's safe to assume that it's not overly bathed in conservative ideology.

But more pressing than properly identifying the ideology that spawned it, No Child Left Behind is not working.  To those who have studied the 1,100 page law, that comes as no surprise.  The policy hinges around a measurement gimmick known as "Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)."  In order to meet AYP, a school must show that a larger percentage of its students are "proficient" at reading and math than were "proficient" the year before.  But after establishing harsh penalties for failure to meet AYP, and tying federal education dollars to success, the law allows states to establish their own definitions of what "proficient" means.

It's not tough to figure out how to beat the system, is it?  The lower you set your proficiency bar, the better you look when the results come in.  This is exactly what the New York Times described as happening in South Carolina:

"In South Carolina, about 81 percent of elementary and middle schools missed targets in 2008," they reported.  "The state Legislature responded by reducing the level of achievement defined as proficient, and the next year the proportion of South Carolina schools missing targets dropped to 41 percent."  In other words, kids are scoring just as bad or worse on tests, but states are demonstrating impressive gains in proficiency.

And if that temptation to lower expectations in order to receive more money hasn't dawned on state lawmakers yet, it soon will.  Barack Obama's education secretary Arne Duncan is predicting that over 80% of the country's schools will fail to meet their AYP this year.

It has become clear that this law accomplishes nothing more than challenging state lawmakers and government bureaucrats to come up with innovative ways to manipulate numbers so that it appears we're making progress.  All while more and more children are left behind.

Believe it or not, Arne Duncan seems to have a grasp on this problem, complaining that the No Child Left Behind law is, "forcing districts into one-size-fits-all solutions that just don't work."  Though no one could accuse Duncan of being on the political right, his observation is exactly why conservatives have long believed in abolishing the Department of Education and returning pedagogical decisions to where the Founders intended them: the states and local communities.

Some on the right, like commentator and columnist George Will, are worried that moving in that direction will hand too much control to teachers' unions.  "Most school boards are elected, often in stand-alone elections in which turnout is low and the unions' organization prevails," he writes.  If that is the result of returning sovereignty over educational issues to where it belongs, I say so be it.

The truth is that local teachers' associations should not be feared or resisted like the national unions since they aren't governed by rigid dogma or an aggressive political agenda, but by a collection of concerned teachers who have a vested interest in the well-being of their school and the children who are entrusted to their care. 

Teachers are professionals who don't need nationally elected lawyers and businessmen from California telling them the best way to get the most from their students in Connecticut.  It's time to start treating them that way...something NCLB with its federal mandates, confusing guidelines, intimidation tactics, creativity-stifling measures and inflexible directives certainly doesn't do. 

Schools are different entities than businesses and corporations, and pretending otherwise in our legislation only ensures more failure.  If we truly desire to leave no child behind, it's past time to get the federal government out of the education business and empower those who care most about that child's success: parents and local communities.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

It's a well known political axiom that presidents will often be credited with accomplishments they did not earn and be criticized for failures that were out of their control.  But just as often, particularly in our modern era where we have - against the wise counsel of our Founders - consolidated more and more power in the hands of our federal executive, presidents own the failures that happen on their watch.  The disastrous and nationally humiliating downgrade of our country's credit rating was not an inevitable consequence of uncontrollable misfortune.  It wasn't the result of gridlock or political wrangling between two parties that have bickered over our national debt and credit since the days of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.  It was a remarkable failure of leadership by the man chosen to be the country's economic caretaker.

For a full three days following the unprecedented embarrassment, the leader of the free world remained silent.  Perhaps he was recovering from an exhausting, multi-day birthday bash and political fundraiser that he threw for himself in two separate cities, or maybe his delay was to give his senior staff time to come up with more meaningless platitudes that he could dispassionately read from the TelePrompter, ostensibly to reassure a panicked nation.  But as the president nonchalantly waltzed out to his podium 53 minutes (and 3 days) late, the disquieting sensation had already begun to settle in on even his most ardent supporters: Obama is simply not up to this job.

The substance of his press conference did little to change that increasingly obvious conclusion.  Once again, the man who once campaigned as a visionary of the future retreated behind his now comedic refrain: it's all Bush's fault.  Don't misunderstand, no one would disagree with Obama that the need to reduce our deficit, "was true the day [he] took office."  But why this argument falls flat is because far from reducing the Bush deficits, when it comes to spending more money than we're taking in, President Obama has outpaced Bush by a jaw-dropping trillion dollars a year.  Or consider this staggering reality: "In just four days last week, President Barack Obama's administration increased the national debt by more in inflation-adjusted dollars than the administrations of Presidents Truman and Eisenhower increased the national debt over the entire decade of the 1950s."  This kind of runaway spending makes George Bush look like a penny-pincher.

Perhaps realizing that pointing his finger at his predecessor wasn't going to cut it, President Obama also dispatched his underlings to start spreading the deranged talking point that this is a "tea party downgrade."  Let's see if I understand...the only group of people in the country who have, for the last two years, been warning of the need to make drastic spending cuts to avoid a catastrophe like this are responsible for the fact that our political leaders didn't make drastic spending cuts to avoid a catastrophe like this?  That the left is attempting such a delusional accusation is a clear indication of the level of desperation they feel.

And why wouldn't they?  The man who once promised to turn back the rise of the oceans and heal the planet was there on national television actually saying, "No matter what some agency might say, we've always been and always will be a AAA country."   The irresponsibility of that statement is difficult to fully grasp.  Obama is two and a half years into the job and is yet to realize that the full faith and credit of the United States is not something that can be maintained with juvenile taunts towards "some agency," or that our AAA rating can be regained just by a presidential pronouncement.

His mindless press conference in which he offered no ideas or plans on how to regain our superior credit rating, and in which he exhibited a bizarre lack of urgency reflective on someone fundamentally unserious about the gravity of the moment, left even sycophantic supporters like Chris Matthews questioning whether he was up to the task.

Matthews isn't alone.  Obama supporter Drew Westen wrote in the New York Times, "Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago...and that...he had voted ?present' (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues."

It's sadly apparent he's still dodging difficult issues.  Which is why after bond rating agencies warned us in July that we must come up with a plan to get our borrowing and spending under control or risk a credit downgrade, Obama offered no such plan, instead asking Congress to allow him to borrow and spend another 2.5 trillion dollars.

The conclusion is incontrovertible: Obama owns this downgrade, and the country is undeniably worse off due to his failed stewardship of our nation's finances.  At a time begging for leadership, America has found itself a leaderless nation.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

During their breaking news coverage in the shocking and confusing moments immediately following the tragic Arizona shooting that took the lives of six innocent people and seriously wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, CNN interviewed Arizona Daily Star columnist and cartoonist David Fitzsimmons, who seemed to have it all figured out.  Fitzsimmons concluded the horrific scene was inevitable because the "rabid right" that had been "stoking the fires of a heated anger and rage" had come to dominate Arizona politics.

Thus began an unfolding mainstream media template that violent rhetoric fulminating solely from conservatives was producing a toxic and dangerous political atmosphere.  President Obama sought to capitalize politically from that media narrative during the campaign speech he tactlessly delivered at the Arizona memorial service, posturing as the great arbiter of civil dialogue.  "But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized," he lectured, "it's important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we're talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds."

Initially skeptical of the President's interest in and devotion to holding his own political allies accountable to this newly minted barometer of civility, I must say that after watching the recent debt ceiling debate, it is clear that the liberal left has become the gold standard for virtuous dialogue.

How else can you characterize the eloquent description Bloomberg's left-wing writer Margaret Carlson gave of conservative Republicans, whom she growled had, "strapped explosives to the Capitol?"  Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer challenged her by asking, "I thought that post-Tucson we weren't supposed to accuse our political opponents of being terrorists?"  Carlson seemed bewildered by his query.  After all, she had merely used the imagery of terrorism to describe her opponents...not actually called them terrorists.

Not that there would be anything wrong with that, of course.  Just ask MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who publicly declared his belief that, "The GOP has become the Wahhabis of American government."  And moments after that astoundingly civil indictment of his political opposition, Matthews listened as his equally well-mannered liberal guest, Joan Walsh of Salon, accused Tea Partiers of "hostage-taking" in the debt talks. 

Now, you might think that Matthews, a man who once trashed conservatives for "ugly sounding talk" that demeans their opponents as "not just disagreeable, but evil," would chastise his guest for committing the same offense.  Not quite.  Instead he responded by affirming, "I agree. It's terrorism."  And let's not forget, this would be the same Chris Matthews who soured the universally triumphant and unifying return of Congresswoman Giffords to the floor of the House just days ago with a partisan condemnation of the "violent level of the right-wing."  Physician, heal thyself!

But it's not just Matthews, Walsh and Carlson who have seemingly mastered the left-wing art of tolerantly tempestuous talk.  Newsweek editor-in-chief Tina Brown publicly stated her belief that Congressional conservatives are, "the suicide bombers in all of this."  And the liberal pen of distinguished New York Times columnist Tom Friedman referred to conservative Republicans as the, "Hezbollah faction" of the party, hell bent on a "suicide mission."

But perhaps the most telling examples of just how seriously committed the Democrat left is to sweetening the state of our political discourse come from their elected leaders.  While Democrat Senator Bob Menendez deserves congratulation for his delicate and respectful denunciation of the "tea party tyrants," the real prize for diplomatic dialogue goes to Democrat Representative Mike Doyle.  According to Politico, this liberal healer complained in a two hour meeting with Vice President Joe Biden that, "We have negotiated with terrorists.  This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

And to his eternal credit, obviously remembering his boss's admonition that "we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do," the Vice President reportedly concurred of Republicans, "they have acted like terrorists."

And what do we do with terrorists, you ask?  The answer brings us full circle back to Mr. Fitzsimmons of the Arizona Daily Star, whose most recent political cartoon depicts President Obama giving the order to a team of Navy SEALs to storm the Capitol and assassinate Tea Party Republicans.

Ah, the civility of the left.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

It was one of the most iconic images that emerged from the smoke and rubble of Ground Zero in New York City after 9/11.  Two intersecting steel beams from the once massive World Trade Center structure survived the collapse of the globe's most recognizable towers and rose from the ashes as a fitting symbol not just of lives lost, but of the eternal hope of a better life to come. 

So moving was the sight that rescue workers and clean-up crews - men and women of various faiths, religious traditions and backgrounds - left it untouched, quarantining it off and shining spotlights on it through the night as a reminder of the hallowed presence of the Almighty, even there in the valley of the shadow of death.

I remember visiting Ground Zero the first time over a year after the attacks.  And amidst the emotions of sorrow and grief that at times seemed overwhelming as I looked at the pictures and tributes left by the family members of victims, that steel cross remained as an inspirational reminder that there is a greater spirit that lives inside the human soul that is unassailable by any act of man, no matter how evil or devastating it is.

Yet what the murderous butchers of 9/11 could not bring down with exploding airliners and crumbling skyscrapers, a rabid group of atheists, bizarrely obsessed with destroying the foundation of the very rights they ceaselessly exploit for the sake of self-aggrandizement, are attempting to bring down with a lawsuit.

The organization American Atheists has filed a legal challenge in state court in New York to halt the permanent display of the World Trade Center cross at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum.

It's important to note the distinction that exists between the majority of atheists in the United States and the fanatical anti-God extremists that characterize this militant organization.  Most atheists express little if any outright hostility to organized religion, particularly Christianity.  Indeed they are thankful to live in a civilization founded upon the Western values derived from the Judeo-Christian worldview - values like tolerance, brotherhood, and doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.  They merely seek to exercise their right of conscience (something that they will acknowledge and admit is the product of the country's Christian foundation) to not believe in a Divine Authority.

But not American Atheists.  These are the folks who ignorantly theorize that it is their constitutional right not only to be a non-believer, but to never have to interact with, encounter or be subjected to the beliefs of anyone else.  Therefore, they belligerently proselytize their unbelief, assailing Nativity Scenes, the Ten Commandments, candy canes, Christmas carols, public prayers, and now steel beams that form the shape of a cross.

Complaining that "the WTC cross has become a Christian icon," the group's president, Dave Silverman, issued a press release stating that the, "government enshrinement of the cross was an impermissible mingling of church and state," and thus violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment.  Hogwash.

Expounding on the true meaning of that clause in January of 1853, Mr. Badger issued the reported findings of Congressional investigations into the Founders' intent in writing it.  The Senate committee found that the authors of the First Amendment, "had no fear or jealously of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators."  Therefore, even if American Atheists could prove their accusation that enshrining the 9/11 cross was an intentional expression of religious devotion by lawmakers, it would not run afoul of the First Amendment. 

Interestingly, that Congressional inquiry went on to state that the Founding Fathers, "did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation, the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy."  And make no mistake, there are no better words to describe a lawsuit to obliterate the 9/11 cross than "revolting spectacle."

Maybe, in the end, that's the good that will come of this case.  Though equally irrational, when American Atheists sues a graduating senior for mentioning Jesus or attempts to disbar a judge for allowing a municipal Nativity Scene display, it flies under the radar of the national conscience.  But seeking to dismantle the 9/11 cross is such an egregious overreach of anti-Christian hostility, it offends the entire country's sensibilities. 

Perhaps it will prove to be the wake-up call necessary for people with common sense, be they atheist or Christian, to rise up and finally say to the radical extremists determined to eradicate our nation's heritage, "Enough."

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Break out the pitchforks and light the torches!  The leftist media is in the midst of launching a modern day version of the Salem Witch Trials.  Except this time the target isn't those who blaspheme against the Christian religion, but rather those who practice it.  The inquisition began almost two weeks ago when Diane Sawyer and her ABC World News Tonight team christened a very provocative and alarming "investigation" into the beliefs of Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband, Dr. Marcus Bachmann.

Leading the charge was correspondent Brian Ross, who ominously set the stage, "Operating out of suburban Minneapolis, Dr. Bachmann runs a Christian counseling firm, co-owned with his wife, that at times, according to former patients, has tried to convert gay men into heterosexuals through prayer."  ABC then dug up a disgruntled former patient who confirmed this shocking news by whining, "His path for my therapy would be to read the Bible, and pray to God that I would no longer be gay."

Later that same week, former Clinton aide-turned-CNN contributor Paul Begala appeared on Anderson Cooper's program to crank the hysteria up a notch, demanding, "She should be asked about this theory.  She's a candidate for president.  One out of 10 Americans is gay.  She should be asked if she wants to lead a country where at least 10 percent of us are gay or lesbian, does she believe in this crackpot, bigoted theory that somehow there's something to be repaired in our brothers and sisters and sons and daughters who happen to be born gay?"  Begala may not be much of a political mind, but he's got the demagoguery thing down pat.

Besides the junk research that hacks like Begala use to advance their cause (the outrageous 10 percent number has been debunked for decades), there are three important observations for reasoned minds to take from this media-generated scandal.  First, the hypocrisy. 

Remember, this is the same media that found no interest in investigating the friendly relationship between Barack Obama and domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, the man who apparently ghost-wrote his best-selling "autobiography" Dreams from My Father.  And for a group seemingly so interested in Bachmann's religious views, these same media sources found the fact that Obama sat in the church pew of a racist, anti-American radical named Jeremiah Wright totally irrelevant.

Along with the hypocrisy comes the blatant inconsistency.  Irreligious, or at least humanistic liberals, are always quick to point to the Constitutional ban on "religious tests" for federal office when they are touting one of their godless candidates.  While butchering the context within which this Article VI prohibition was written, liberals tell everyone who will listen that a person's religious beliefs (or unbelief) are immaterial in considering their qualifications.  But then why does Chris Matthews want Republican candidates grilled over whether they believe in a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account?  And why does ABC tout the work of a left-wing group "investigating" the Bachmann family's religious views on homosexuality?  Apparently the left believes in selective application of the ban.

Finally, and most importantly, the hate and discrimination these liberal media types are stoking by their actions cannot be excused or overlooked.  ABC's investigation implies that there is something scandalous about a Christian clinic that seeks to use prayer and Biblical teaching to turn a person away from what the Bible calls sin.  Um...is ABC seriously unaware that this is what Christians do?  The real scandal would be if a supposed Christian clinic like Bachmann's didn't offer this kind of hope for those with unwanted same-sex attraction.

Remember that in 1 Corinthians, God's Word instructs, "Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.  And that is what some of you were.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ."  Notice the operative phrase there: "that is what some of you were."  In other words, change from sexual immorality, including homosexuality, is possible through Jesus.  Thus, when CNN's Begala makes the barefaced accusation that such a belief is "bigoted," we should be sure to understand that he is demonizing not just Bachmann, but 2,000 years of Christian doctrine, and the inspired text of God Himself.  Now, who is the crackpot, Paul?

And don't miss the hostile discrimination this anti-Christian liberal mindset demonstrates against those who have benefited from such redemptive therapy...those who are ex-gay.  One such man, Greg Quinlan, recently addressed this media hate by writing, "The ex-gay community includes thousands of former homosexuals like myself who benefited from counseling. We did not choose our homosexual feelings, but we did exercise our right to seek help to change those feelings. As a registered nurse, I saw hundreds of gay men die of AIDS before I finally left the gay lifestyle."

But if the Christophobic bigots at ABC and CNN have their way, men like Quinlan will have a harder time making that change as the loving Christian leaders of such redemptive clinics are burned at the stake by the modern prophets of "tolerance."

This column was first published by The American Thinker.

Much has been made of the recently released Harvard University study that revealed the celebration of the 4th of July holiday was a boon to Republican Party membership, while doing nothing to stimulate interest in the Democrats.

While sure to stir the self-righteous anger of many on the left, I observed something this 4th of July that makes the reason for this study's results self-evident: Independence Day is a holiday for conservatives, not liberals.  Now, before my Democrat friends lose all control of their bodily functions, let me explain my point.

There are many self-described progressives I know who enjoyed the family cookout, the parades, the fireworks and music associated with the 4th.  They dusted off an American flag and hung it from their porch for a day, and some even popped in a DVD of Independence Day to watch Bill Pullman and Will Smith save the world from alien invaders.  But while this 24 hour surge of patriotic fervor was nice to see from those who find flag-waving too nationalistic and xenophobic the other 364 days of the year, I can't help but note that what they were actually doing was celebrating the pageantry of the day, not its principles.  That's a meaningful distinction.

It's the same reality witnessed during holiday seasons like Christmas and Easter.  Those who reject the divinity of Christ still celebrate the season with chocolate bunnies, decorative egg hunts, gift-giving rituals and even festive music.  But they fail to appreciate the underlying significance of what is being commemorated.

So set aside the trappings of the 4th of July and consider the underpinnings of the document that day honors.  When you do, you'll see why I say it's a holiday for conservatives and not liberals.  The values espoused in the American Declaration of Independence, while still cherished and revered by the former, are scorned and trampled by the latter:

To which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.

The Declaration's claim that there is a transcendent Moral Authority that exists beyond the realm of mortal man, who has established natural, moral laws that man must obey, is still embraced by the right.  Such a concept, however, is now seen as theocratic and arcane by the enlightened left.

We hold these truths to be self-evident.

Self-evident meaning they are true whether you like them, want them, appreciate them, or approve of them.  Contrast this concept with the modern left's relativistic vision of self-determined truth and you find a wide chasm separating the two.

They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Our Founders taught that the rights of man were based on a higher law given by God himself.  That is what made those rights "unalienable."  If government gave man his rights, our Founders reasoned that nothing prevented that government from removing those rights at its pleasure.  Today, as the modern left wars against the existence and sovereignty of God in public life, they facilitate the very destruction of those unalienable rights that our Founders initiated a revolution to protect.

That among these are life.

While the Declaration teaches, and the right still believes, that every human life is inviolable because it bears the image of its Creator, the left has ushered in a culture of death that measures the value of human life not for what it is, but for what it can do for society.  If it's unproductive, unwanted, or inconvenient, it can be legally destroyed.  So much for unalienable.

That among these are...liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Our Founders wisely understood that no central planning agency could manipulate people into happiness.  They reasoned that the happiest, and therefore most productive society, would be one where men were free to self-govern and use their unique gifts and passions to pursue whatever happiness was for them.  They were so convinced of this eternal truth that the majority of their grievances against the King referred to his repeated violations of personal autonomy and individual liberty.  It's not too difficult to imagine how the men who rebelled against "swarms of officers" who were "harassing our people" and "taxing us without consent" would feel about the modern left's bloated federal government seeking to increase an already high tax burden in order to fund new central programs that tell people how to live.

Firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.

The least religious of all the Founding Fathers, Ben Franklin, observed that, "God governs in the affairs of men," and that the survival of our republic depended upon His providential aid and assistance.  While conservative governors like Rick Perry echo those sentiments, the left sues them.

So while it's nice that American liberals take time once a year to celebrate the pageantry of our nation's Independence Day, we'd be a lot better off as a country if they'd join us conservatives in also celebrating its meaning year around.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.