Let's get one thing straight.  The government and its misguided housing policies caused our current financial mess.  And, as a result, the government should help fix it.

That said, exactly "what" should have been fixed, "how" and for "how much" are the right places to focus our attention.  But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make sure everyone knows exactly how we got in this mess.

The origins lie in the Clinton Administration's misguided attempt to raise the percentage of homeowners in America by forcing banks to give loans to people with, shall we say, less than stellar credit, (those "sub-prime" mortgages you keep hearing about).

So how did they do this?  With two government (read: taxpayer) sponsored companies called Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  As the Clinton Administration leaned on banks to loosen credit restrictions, (even having Janet Reno threaten lawsuits), Congress forced Fannie and Freddie to buy the sketchy loans as soon as the banks and mortgage companies wrote the loans.  So the lenders made the loans (hey, why turn down a commission?), and everyone made bonus at the end of the year.

So what went wrong?  More bad loans meant more houses being built, which meant more houses being sold and inflating property values - including those houses owned by people with shoddy credit.

All fine and dandy until economic nature takes its course and the people who ordinarily shouldn't have gotten loans did what most people who shouldn't get loans tend to do, failed to pay.  Suddenly, the system is partially resting on a foundation of "bad paper", (now there's a euphemism) - so as soon as the housing market cooled down (hey, they can't loan everybody money!) and property values started to decline, no one really knew (or knows) what all that "bad paper" representing all those sub-prime mortgages on over-inflated property was really worth.

As a result, banks began to tighten up on their credit in order to maintain their cash reserves, so they've got your money if you show up to close your account.  Not good in an economy that has come to be built on credit.

It's an easy money phenomenon that's spread all through our economy for over a decade.  The 1980's, (which the media loved to refer to as "the decade of greed", simply because the economy was good and Ronald Reagan was President), have nothing on the recent years of "bad credit, no credit, no problem".  (Remember those 110% mortgages and stated income loans?).

So where should we go from here?  First, we shouldn't abandon our principles and pass the most expensive bill in history without hearings and, in effect, nationalize failure.  Seems to me that forgetting our principles, (remember thrift?), got us into this mess in the first place.  Instead, we really needed a solution that focuses on free-market principles and reforms the policies and agencies, such as Fannie and Freddie, that caused the problem to begin with.

Just one month from Election Day, it's difficult to imagine that a more high-profile and defining moment will present itself between now and November 4^th.  And the public, especially the half that actually pays taxes, were overwhelmingly against this bailout.

In fact, one thing that was under-reported in all the hand-wringing surrounding the House's initial rejection of the bailout was that the American public got exactly what they wanted.  So, on the rare occasion that government works the way it's supposed to, the media and the markets get upset.  Go figure.

This provided a great political opportunity for Republicans.

They should have stood shoulder to shoulder along with John McCain and announced their own counter-proposal.  One that relied on more free-market style solutions, such as insurance, tax credits, regulatory changes and bridge loans - not a bailout.  This was a big missed opportunity.

How insane is it to dole out hundreds of billions of dollars in a bailout and leave the cause of the problem in place - not to mention waste the momentum that can be used to force reform?  As soon as the check clears, there will be zero will among Democrats to do any real reform.

The point of all this is that the chickens, as Obama's pastor would say, are coming home to roost.  In this case, liberal housing policy chickens.

The game has changed.  In an election of McCain vs. Obama, the race was all about Obama.  Not anymore.

Win or lose, picking Sarah Palin will go down as the greatest single thing McCain has done for his own campaign, as well as for the conservative movement.  Conservatives are rallying like never before to her presence on the ticket.

She’s a fiscal conservative who favors tax cuts and has actually used a veto pen.  She’s a born-again Christian, pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun…she hunts, she fishes, baits her own hook, has five kids and doesn’t look like a member of the NOW gang.  What’s not to like?  Indeed, that, plus a record of conservative reform and demonstrated political skills on the stump and I’d say we’ve got ourselves a star.  And at age 44, one with a potentially long future at that.

While attending the convention, one of my fellow delegates remarked that his young daughter, after seeing her speak, said that she was glad McCain picked a “regular” woman, and not one of those “angry women” – presumably teen-speak for an angry feminist.

She’s a conservative reformer with a smile, which makes it harder to morph her into a snarling Grinch, as the media prefers to do with conservatives.

For McCain, this was a pick that made sense in so many ways.

• First, up until his picking Palin, conservatives were focused not on him, but on their opposition to Obama’s liberal issue positions and their hopes for conservative nominees to the federal bench.

• Picking a pro-choice running mate would have divided the Republicans at worst (and guaranteed a loss this November), or left conservatives voting, but not working for McCain at best.

• McCain had been gaining support among conservatives with promises to pick judicial nominees in the mold of Antonin Scalia and John Roberts.  Had he picked a pro-choice running mate, that promise would have had no credence with conservatives.  The Palin pick gives them more confidence in that promise.

• Palin also helps McCain wrest some of the “change” mantle from Obama – a designation Obama has pretty much bet his entire campaign on.

• Finally, her presence in the race diminishes the novelty of Obama’s candidacy.
Politically, she’s a threat to liberal dominance of the so-called “gender gap”, which has women supporting Democrats over Republicans in past elections by an average of five to ten points.  Palin does nothing if not improve that take, and there’s no chance she loses any of McCain’s share among male voters, (that whole “guy’s gal” thing).

In other words, she’s a dagger aimed right at the heart of the liberal political base, and they know it.  And they’ll do everything they can to take her down.
Dozens of liberal political operatives have descended on Alaska looking to uncover (or invent) any dirt they possibly can on Governor Palin.

Their first line was to attack her experience…until they remembered Obama’s experience.  They attacked her for being pro-life.  They attacked her for having a child with Down syndrome.  They lamented her seventeen year old daughter for her decision to get married in light of her pregnancy.  They have attacked her for supporting the Second Amendment.  And now they are attacking her religious beliefs as a born-again Christian, (she’s a radical!).

The liberal media attacks have been so overboard that even MSNBC had to take two of its leading anchors off of election coverage.  (How over the top do you have to be to get canned by MSNBC?)

The irony of the media’s withering attacks on Palin between the day she was announced and the day of her acceptance speech is that they assured she would have a tremendous (if curious) prime-time audience to speak to.  Worse yet for liberals, the American people liked what they saw, (her approval numbers are higher than either McCain’s or Obama’s) 

The other risk to liberals?  Much like Clarence Thomas did for blacks, Sarah Palin proves to other women that you don’t need liberals, liberalism or government to make it in life.  That being the case, the left has a greater interest in destroying her than any other Presidential or Vice-Presidential pick in history.

Batten down the hatches, Sarah.  We haven’t seen anything yet.

Barack Obama's on the make for evangelicals - specifically the conservative, registered-to-vote variety.  The same type of voters he previously referred to as being "bitter" and who "cling to guns or religion".

A few weeks ago he told such voters that, if elected, he would expand and overhaul President Bush's federal faith based initiatives, announcing his own "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships".  He has begun regular attempts to appeal to evangelicals, speaking to them on multiple occasions in recent weeks as part of what his campaign terms its "Joshua project".

Of course this is all well and good.  Candidates who expect the votes of any Americans should make an attempt to address their concerns.  The reality however is more blatantly political in that, on the fundamental cultural and moral concerns of evangelicals, he has very little in common with them at all.

The differences are greatest on two fundamental issues: abortion and gay marriage.

On abortion, Obama just became only the second presidential candidate in American history to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood, which referred to him in its announcement as a "passionate advocate" for the right to abortion.

In a speech to the group last July, Obama stated that, "...on this fundamental issue, I will not yield...", and that, "the first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act", (an act that would overturn hundreds of state abortion laws, including those regarding parental notification, and would guarantee public funding for abortion).

A hint as to just how "passionate" he is on the subject, as a state senator in Illinois, he actually opposed legislation, (known as "Born Alive Infant Protection"), that would mandate care for infants who were born alive in spite of attempts at abortion.  Not exactly a mainstream American position, much less for evangelical voters.

As for his views on the most fundamental institution in our society, the family, it gets no better.

He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", opposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

That's "change we can believe in" all right.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

He made his position on state marriage amendments known a few weeks ago in a letter to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Democratic Club of San Francisco, saying: "I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states".

Well, that's pretty clear, right?  At least until his campaign went into spin mode, suggesting that he still opposes gay marriage, but supports gay civil unions and domestic partnerships.

In other words, he's suggesting that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, but opposes any attempts to keep it against the law.  Meaning he opposes the right of voters in any state to be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage from being redefined by unelected judges, (as happened in Massachusetts and California).

The truth is that he wants to play the political game of being for something without having to admit it.  Meaning he'll say he's for gay civil unions and domestic partnerships which have all the same rights and benefits of marriage and hope nobody points out that it's gay marriage in all but name - so as not to upset some of those "bitter" middle class voters he'll need in a few swing states this November. 

For all the rhetoric of a new kind of politics, it turns out he's really just a repackaged version of the same old cultural liberalism most Americans have rejected for decades.  He's hoping that they don't catch on before Election Day.

(This column also ran in The State)

Quick history quiz.  Who said the following: “This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens.  We will secure the borders henceforth.  We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this.”?

That was Ted Kennedy on the floor of the US Senate in 1986, pushing for legislation that successfully granted amnesty to several million illegal aliens that year.

There you have a good example of why the word “amnesty” is such a hot-button with politicians and the American public.  Because the only thing that bill did successfully was grant amnesty.

Ted Kennedy’s promises of “securing the border” notwithstanding, we’ve since had another twelve to twenty million illegals sneak into our country.  So here comes the amnesty crowd once again, claiming that without it our country will suffer plagues of uncut grass and unpicked cabbage.

The reason there’s such controversy over the use of the word amnesty is because its meaning is clear, and the American people oppose it in overwhelming numbers.  As a result, the politicians duck and dive in trying to avoid using the word, or create a lawyer-like linguistic fog to confuse everyone within the sound of their voice.

Invariably in any conversation with proponents of the proposed amnesty scheme, they inevitably whip out the tired old bromide that the illegals “do the jobs Americans won’t do”.  But are they sure?  Or is it just that they do jobs Americans won’t do for a few bucks an hour cash-under-the-table – and with no FICA payments?

If we’re going to have an open and honest debate about one of the most important issues of our time, let’s all be honest and not try to confuse people.  Be grown up enough to admit what you’re selling.

And speaking of selling, who’s going to pay for this bill?  It has been well documented that low-skilled immigrants receive far more in government benefits and services than they pay in taxes.  A recent Heritage Foundation study puts the number at a net cost of approximately twenty-thousand dollars per year per immigrant, which totals up to between 2.3 and 2.5 TRILLION dollars over the next two decades.  But what’s a few trillion dollars between friends.

I propose that no such legislation be passed until Congress can verify just how much it will cost and where the money will come from.  What happened to that “pay-as-you-go” budgeting we heard so much about – and that the Democrats demand be applied anytime someone suggests a tax cut?  “Where will the money come from?” they cry.  Well, where’s the money coming from to pay for amnesty?

What federal programs are going to be cut in order to offset the massive extra costs to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, subsidized housing and other social welfare programs?  Surely not the newly legalized aliens themselves, since we’re told they’re here to do low paying jobs we won’t do.  It’s hard to pay enough in taxes to cover your own weight on the social safety hammock when you’re at or below the poverty level.

So who’s going to cover the costs?  The Senators and Congressmen who give us this bill?  In a just world, yes, but sadly no.  The correct answer is taxpayers.  You know, those people who already give up about half of their gross income in federal, state and local taxes every year.  The same taxpayers that will soon be hit up to cover the cost of the big I.O.U in the Social Security trust fund once the full force of the boomer generation hits their golden years.

Before Congress passes such a bill and ads several trillion dollars to our tax burden, let’s see some comparative analysis on how much we’d save if consumers had to absorb the increased costs to fruits, vegetables and landscaping if these jobs paid wages that wouldn’t require cheap immigrant labor.

The long and the short of this bill is that those who have broken our laws get preferential treatment in being able to stay – and taxpayers get the bill.  It’s not just amnesty, it’s amnesty plus a massive transfer of wealth.

There’s a tax-revolt on the horizon in this country, and any political party that is on the wrong side when the time comes (or is seen as being part of the problem) will pay dearly at the ballot box.

Don’t’ want to pony up your share of a few extra trillion dollars in the coming years?  Then call your US Senators and Representatives.  Now.

It ain’t easy being Hillary.  As far as the general public is concerned, she’s the single most divisive major political figure in the Democrat party; while the various liberal constituencies that constitute the Democrat’s party base worry that she’s not liberal enough.  Some who consider her too far to the right on the war issue even took to heckling her at a recent speech to the Democrat National Committee.

Poor Hillary.  It’s not as though she’s brought any of these problems on herself.  First, there was her clumsy entrance onto the national political stage in 1992 with that famous reference to “not staying home and baking cookies” or “standing by her man like Tammy Wynette” in vague reference to Bubba’s past indiscretions.

Then there was the attempted nationalized health-care debacle, questionable profits in cattle futures, missing law firm billing records that suddenly materialize in plain sight, suspicious suicides on the part of close friends, Whitewater, and then of course those continued “indiscretions” on the part of her husband.

But after enduring all that she finally got the payoff and made it to the big game in her own right – even if she had to move to another state to do it.  All the while, she’s been biding her time, waiting for the right moment to taker her shot at what she thought should have been hers all along – the White House.

The ground was prepared.  Her US Senate campaigns in New York were used as vehicles to build the national fundraising base she would need, as well as to hire the staffers and consultants that would be needed in preparation of a White House bid once re-election was secured in 2006.  All the boxes were checked.  Nomination seemed like a fait accompli.  She could take her time and make a fashionably late grand entrance when ready.

But some funny things happened on the way to the coronation.  The radical base of the Democrat party grew more empowered, and the more empowered they became, the more they demanded of the woman who would have their support – so much so that many of them see her as their last choice for a presidential nominee.

Her primary strength among Democrats at large had been her perceived electability, but a January Gallup poll shows that doubts about her ability to win that have been taking their toll.  When asked if they were voting for presidential nominees today whom they would vote for, thirty-four percent said they would definitely vote for her.  Fifty-two percent said they “might consider” her, while fourteen percent said “definitely not”.  Among the two-thirds that weren’t “definitely” for her, the number one reason given was that they didn’t think she could win.

Then there was John Edwards, free from the constraints of the Senate and even freer to be a bomb thrower.  He’s constantly creating situations that needed or even demanded her response, uncomfortably causing her to put herself on the record when she would rather not do so.  In short, Edwards has kept giving the far left of the party more reasons to be unhappy with her.

Then, to make matters worse, along came the new media darling Barak Obama.  Like the kid who transfers from another school and becomes instantly popular, Obama began to steal much of the oxygen she was used to having all to herself.  Even the young generation is getting in on the act, turning his “Million for Obama” Facebook campaign into a political Internet phenomenon.  To add insult to injury, the new kid is barely two years removed from being a mere state senator, the national political equivalent of grade school.

Even Hollywood moguls like Steven Spielberg, David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg – previously reliable Clinton financiers – have jumped on the Obama bandwagon, recently hosting a $2,300 per plate fundraiser for him.  George Soros sent Obama a check as soon as he formed his exploratory committee.  And worst of all, Barbara Streisand herself is no longer in the bag.  Babs recently announced that she would be hedging her bets, so to speak, by contributing to Clinton, Edwards and Obama.

And in the aftermath of the Democrat’s takeover of Congress, in walked Nancy Pelosi to steal the role of the lead woman in the Democratic orbit, removing some of the novelty associated with having a woman in such a major role on the national stage.  So what’s left for Hillary?

Suddenly, two things she could normally count on, being the primary subject of the media’s adulation and the primary beneficiary of big campaign bucks from the Hollywood elite, are no longer sure things.

And now, here she is, forced to play a game of political hopscotch with John Edwards and Barak Obama.  Forced to actually campaign for support that should have been hers by right.

Poor, poor Hillary.

The jig is up.  We can now officially put to bed the lie that advocates of gay marriage only want equal rights.   According to a Reuters story out of Connecticut, eight gay and lesbian couples are asking that state’s Supreme Court to mandate the legalization of gay marriage.  You should know that Connecticut is a state that already grants the “rights and benefits” of marriage to homosexuals under a civil unions law.

The couples claim they are seeking the right to marry because “a ban on gay marriage violates their constitutional rights”.  They claim not being able to marry is a violation of their equal protection rights under the Constitution.  Oh?  What rights as individuals are they being deprived of?  Surely not privacy.  The Supreme Court covered their rights to conduct their special behavior under the un-enumerated right to privacy several years ago in its Lawrence vs. Texas decision.

What this is really about is their “right” to force everyone else, via the state, by way of the judiciary, to approve of – and officially sanction – their behavior and grant them rights and benefits on the basis of that behavior alone.  It would seem that, if they have the right to everyone else’s approval, then everyone else no longer retains the rights to their own opinions.  Of course, that irony isn’t lost on them, just ignored.

They’re proving that they don’t just want their rights to privacy, and they’re not satisfied with being granted equal rights based on their behavior.  They want it all baby!  They’re opposed to marriage licenses with checkboxes marked “husband” and “wife”.  They’re against the state issuing birth certificates that identify “mother” and “father”.  Essentially, they want the eradication of sex as a distinction.

If they are granted such rights, what happens to the rights of others?  What about the rights of religious groups that provide adoption services and who’s faith will not allow them to place children with homosexual couples?  What about the rights of society to govern itself in a way that protects its future?  What about the rights of children?

Aside from its purpose of creating an entity to foster an atmosphere for the growth and nurturing of the next generation and protecting the family’s resources, there would be no reason for marriage to exist.  What’s left is just a corporation.  The state, as well as many private institutions, offer benefits and inducements to encourage male and female partners to sacrifice their individual rights and freedoms to that of the marriage, for the sake of the next generation.  And if society has an interest in anything, it should be its future generations.

This is a subject that the American people have spoken out very loudly and very clearly on.  State constitutional amendments or similar referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman have passed by an average of seventy percent of the vote in twenty-seven out of twenty-eight states where they have appeared on the ballot.

Bypassing the will of overwhelming majorities of the electorate on an issue that would have repercussions all throughout our legal system will give us what we have in the abortion debate; an unsettled political issue that was never fully aired, thanks to the judiciary.

And make no mistake about it, we are headed to a lawyer’s dream world when it comes to litigation that would spring from such a radical redefinition of marriage.  The institution is so interwoven into our legal structure that simply changing the definition of the term would call other laws that contain the term into question.  The class actions suits would fly.  Add the fact that people are constantly moving from state to state and the problem gets worse.  The challenges to one state’s laws on the basis of marriages in other states will flood the courts.

Already, the state of Virginia is as odds with Vermont and a lesbian who divorced her former partner in a civil union in that state.  The fight is over a child.  The former Virginia couple went to Vermont to obtain a civil union, then moved back to home.  Thereafter, one of them was artificially inseminated and later gave birth.  The “non-biological” mother (man this gets confusing) never legally adopted the girl under Virginia law.  The couple split up when the biological mother became a Christian.  As a result, she left the union and took her biological, non-adopted child with her.

The result?  The state of Vermont orders the mother to grant parental rights to the non-mother, and Virginia says no.  The case comes down to whether or not one state can impose its same-sex unions law on another state.  We have dueling state courts and will no doubt soon have dueling federal district and circuit courts.  Supreme Court here we come.

Does an individual state have the right to define marriage within its borders, (we have to ask?)?  Is the federal Defense of Marriage Act constitutional?  Or will marriage be covered under the Constitution’s “full faith and credit” clause, causing all states to recognize marriages performed in other states, whatever their nature?

Methinks we may have replaced Sandra Day O’Connor just in time.

As George Bush put it, the Republicans took a “thumpin’” on November 7th.  By the time the counting and recounting is finished, the balance of power in the House of Representatives will have essentially flip-flopped, giving the Democrats approximately the same numerical strength that the Republicans had prior to the election.  In the Senate, they will hold a one vote majority, providing that recently exiled Joe Lieberman makes good on his word to continue to caucus with the party that abandoned him.

That’s the result of what happened on Tuesday, but what actually happened?  Well, a lot of things.  To state the obvious, GOP candidates were paddling up stream, against public opinion infected with the infamous “six year itch”.  There was bad news from Iraq, scandalous lobbyists in black fedoras, a gay congressman that liked to text dirty talk to House pages, and a hostile press (ok, that’s not new) that will no doubt soon begin to discover that the economy is actually in great shape, their previous reporting notwithstanding.                       

Add to that years of allowing themselves to adopt the drunken-sailor attitude towards federal spending, losing their appetite for reform, failing to make real progress on the issue agendas of those who helped elect them in the first place and, more recently, failure to adopt a party-wide strong stance on the immigration issue.  In the end, the Republicans did more to lose the election than the Democrats did to win it.  But the result is the same.

But what kind of Democrats won?  In short, most of them weren’t your garden variety liberals.  In fact, most of them ran as moderate conservatives.  In the Senate you had former Republican military man Jim Webb running in Virginia; gun lovin’, big game butcherin’ John Tester in Montana; pro-life, moderate conservative Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and moderate liberal Sheldon Whitehouse running against moderate liberal Lincoln Chaffee in the blue, blue state of Rhode Island.  Contrast that with far left liberal Democrat Ned Lamont losing out to moderate “Independent” Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.

In the twelve GOP House seats that were open, Republicans held five and lost seven.  Of those seven loses, three were the “scandal seats”, (Ney, Foley and DeLay), which would have easily been held otherwise, (in two cases, the Republican’s name wasn’t even on the ballot).  Among the newly elected House Democrats is Heath Schuler, a pro-life, pro-gun, evangelical Christian, (mark him as a prime GOP target for a future party switch). 

This is not to say that the Democrats didn’t do well, they did.  But they didn’t quite match up to the historical trend of off year gains for an out of power party, and their gains came largely in nationalizing the election around the issue of Iraq.  Generally, they sought to define themselves around what they weren’t rather than what they were – and not as “liberal” alternatives to conservatives. 

Then there were the ballot measures.  According to the latest tallies, state marriage amendments passed in seven out of eight states.  In Colorado, the amendment passed while an alternative referendum that would have created homosexual domestic partnerships failed.  Arizonans made English the official language, legalized marijuana failed in each state it was on the ballot, and voters in the state of Michigan approved restrictions on affirmative action, (something the Supreme Court couldn’t bring itself to do over a year ago). 

Add to that a clean sweep for amendments that would reign in government’s ability to use eminent domain to take private property as a means of increasing tax revenue, (again, something the Supreme Court couldn’t do).  All in all, not a bad day for conservatives.

This is not to say there weren’t disappointments.  The South Dakota abortion ban failed by ten points, but when you consider it allowed no exceptions whatsoever that probably indicates that a similar bill with rape and incest exceptions would pass, setting up a direct challenge to Roe vs. Wade.

The point is that the issue environment wasn’t bad for conservatism, as many moderate to conservative Democrats are now newly minted members of Congress.  It was bad for Republicans.

Partisan cycles come and go and, odds are, the political environment in 2008 will offer Republicans a chance to contrast themselves with the Democrat leadership in Congress, which will be dominated by liberals.  The conservative members of their caucus are sure to be shown to the back of the bus and the old liberal war horses that have been out of power for a dozen years will take the wheel.  We’ve seen this movie before. 

But in this election, as in elections for well over twenty years, the American electorate continued to demonstrate a general preference for conservative issues and governance.  As the Republican leadership (and Republicans all across the country) conduct their post-mortems and plan for the future, they would do well to keep that in mind.

This Election Day, voters in eight states will go to the polls and decide whether or not to give the traditional definition of marriage, the union of one man and one woman, the protection of an amendment to their state constitutions.  Amendments that are designed to protect traditional marriage from being redefined by radical state and federal judges, and to make sure that voters have a chance to be heard on this fundamental issue.

How has it come to this?  Why do voters have to vote on amendments to state constitutions to maintain the definition of something that has been settled in western civilization for thousands of years – long before our constitutions and laws were written.  Simply put, the answer is judges.

Activist judges in several states have taken it upon themselves to redefine – or demand that democratically elected legislators redefine – the historical and commonly understood meaning of marriage.  All without any input from voters.

A few years ago, four out of seven judges on Massachusetts’ Supreme Court redefined marriage in that state and then ordered their state’s legislature to comply.  Just last week the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that state’s legislature to pass legislation that would either allow gay marriage outright or give all the rights and benefits of marriage under a name other than “marriage”.

For decades, liberal activists have used the judiciary to redefine basic cultural institutions because they know they are unlikely to achieve their goals if voters have a say in the matter.  By gaining the legalization of gay marriages in one state, they will seek to use the federal judiciary to force other states to officially recognize such unions, whether those states allows gay marriage under their own laws or not.

The risk is very real.  Due to a quirk in the Massachusetts state constitution, gays from outside that state are not allowed to marry there if their home states don’t allow such marriages as well.  Currently none do.  But thanks to New Jersey, this will change in 2007.  Will the rest of the country allow itself to be dictated to by judges from other states?

The oldest and most fundamental institution of society is the family, and the basis of the family is marriage.  Over the last several decades, failed marriages, no-fault divorce laws and out of wedlock births have wrecked enough damage on the family, and by extension, society in general.  It hardly seems logical that we should sit by and watch judges inflict further, more fundamental damage.

To suggest that we can suddenly change the definition of marriage and ignore thousands of years of human history without the possibility of negative consequences is to deny reality.  The ripple effect across our legal system involving such issues as insurance, inheritance, child custody, property, etc. would be incredible.  It would hit our court system like a tsunami and please no one but the trial lawyers.

Despite some of the rhetoric you may have heard, this amendment is not a restriction on anyone’s rights.  It is simply a way to codify in our state constitutions the marriage laws we already have on our books, thereby giving them more protection from activist judges and making them more difficult to change without voter approval.

While a constitution should only be amended for the most important of reasons, the protection of the definition of marriage is such a reason.  If we allow the judiciary to rewrite our laws, redefine our families and restructure our society without so much as a vote of the people, then we no longer have a democratic form of government.  Approving such an amendment takes the issue away from the courts and puts it squarely where it belongs – with the people.

Over the past several years, voters in states all across our country have weighed in on the definition of marriage, and the result has been a unanimous and resounding verdict.  In each case, voters approved state amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and put the issue beyond the reach of activist judges.

This Election Day, voters in eight states will be faced with the same question.  They should be mindful that if they don’t settle the issue, they risk having judges do it for them.

Who decided that Republican states would be “red” and Democrat states would be “blue”?  Is this just the result of the colors that network news shows chose to use on national maps in the 2000 election night coverage?  And how did hey all decide on the same colors?  I do seem to recall forty-nine states being colored blue for Ronald Reagan in 1984, so it wasn’t always that way.  On the other hand, I suppose states that have a majority of people that would vote Democrat for President have a right to be blue.

____________________

Why is it that you have to search for the Sunday comics?  Am I the only one who remembers a time when the comics were an actual section of the newspaper that was folded just like every other section?  It was usually the innermost section, which would serve as a wrapper of sorts for all of the sales circulars that were included in the Sunday paper.  No more.  Now it is hidden amongst the circulars, like some sort of buried treasure, to be used as bait to lure us in among the advertisements.

____________________

Why do people who don’t wear boots wear bootleg jeans?  Sometimes with flip-flops no less.  And aren’t flip-flops kind of the opposite of boots, or about as close as you can get from boots without going barefoot?

And while we’re talking flip-flops, why does everyone seem to think that it’s OK to wear them absolutely everywhere?  And I do mean everywhere.  Like that visit to the White House last year by the national champion girl’s lacrosse team from Northwestern University.  There they were on the lawn of the White House, getting their photo-op with the President, with half of them wearing flip-flops.  Don’t’ these people have parents?  What happened to that inner voice people used to come equipped with that make them want to try a little harder before going out in public?

While it is true, and is being duly noted in survey after survey, that Americans are getting fatter, when did it become fashionable to accentuate it?  Specifically, why do some people tend to wear clothes that highlight every jelly roll and love handle?  Other than their purely utilitarian purposes, clothes are normally used to help make the wearer look good, or at least better.  So what gives?

And what about the steady downward progression of unspoken societal dress codes that lead people to go about their everyday public business dressed like they just finished cutting the grass?  On the other hand, it does tend to make those who actually dress presentable more likely to stand out from the crowd.

___________________

We have no shame in society anymore, at least partly due to the fact that  we have too many people shaming those who are inclined to shame others.  In other words, the only shameful practice is that of judging other people’s behavior based upon one’s own values, or even collective societal values.  And the only intolerance that’s tolerated is that which is directed at, well, intolerance.

____________________

For all of the complaining that people and politicians do about the cost of prescription drugs, you would think someone would seriously propose reinstituting the ban on advertising such drugs on television, (unless of course I am missing something and those ads are free and don’t influence drug prices).  It’s the same logic for banning cigarette ads.  More people smoke, get sick, use health care, drive up insurance, etc.

For that matter, we could propose the same ban on attorney advertising.  More ads equals more lawsuits equals higher costs to society, etc..  And is it a coincidence that we are the most litigious society in the world as well as the most medicated?

And is it just me, or do those pharmaceutical ads seem to be getting more and more descriptive with each passing day?  Is there any bodily function that we can all agree we would rather not have advertised during dinner or when children may be watching…or even at all?  Can’t any areas of our lives be roped off as being an “uncouth-free zone”

____________________

Why is it that you can’t find shoelaces to exactly match the one’s that just broke at the same store where you bought the shoes to begin with?  And is this just a conspiracy to get you to go ahead and buy new shoes?

Why are so many drivers brave enough to tailgate another vehicle at high speeds, but not brave enough to pass?  Or do they enjoy impatiently fuming, while only a continual half-second from flying through the windshield?

Where have all the hot airline stewardesses gone?  And what’s with the escalating number of dudes pushing the beverage cart?  And does this explain the existence of Hooters Air?

I see Alec Baldwin has a new TV show now.  Isn’t he supposed to be living in Canada somewhere with Michael Moore?

And do some people seriously believe that Karl Rove secretly conspired to bring down the price of gas just in time for the election?  And if so, can we get them all identified and put into a special national database for sales leads?

The 2006 elections are fast approaching, but mid-term elections are rarely as interesting as presidential races, so let’s take a look at what’s on deck for 2008.  For this column, we look at the Democrats.

Given that the nomination process consists of multi-candidate primaries and caucuses where it is only necessary to win a plurality of the vote in order to “win”, the candidate with the organized support of the radical, internet-centric “new left” will have a big head start over the competition.

If the radical left can gin up interest among its adherents for a US Senate primary in a state like Connecticut on behalf of a no-name guy like Ned Lamont, and deny the nomination to an incumbent Senator, then doing the same to help get a plurality of the vote in a few states early in the nomination process won’t be a stretch.

I think it’s fair to say that in 2004 Howard Dean only scratched the surface of what was possible in terms of marshalling such support and focusing it in targeted states via the internet.  Now imagine the same scenario, but on behalf of a politician that has more established credentials, or who is already accepted by more segments of the party base as well as the national media.

Also, as Dean proved, they can be an invaluable source of money, no small fact when one considers the cost of being competitive in the rush of early primaries where it’s likely a majority of delegates will be chosen in the first six weeks or so.  To say nothing of being said to have “momentum” by the press, or “Big Mo”, as George Bush, Sr. once referred to it.

Yes, Hillary has a lot of money and a lot of support, both in the Democrat party and in the press, but does that mean she will be the nominee?  Especially when you consider that she’s extremely polarizing, with a pre-existing national image that gives moderate Democrats the willies, (no pun intended).  And she also has problems with the Democrat base, specifically the “new left” variety that provided the muscle to beat Joe Lieberman in Connecticut.  They don’t like her stance on the war in Iraq, or her overtures to moderate how she is perceived on some issues, such as abortion.

So how about the rest of the field?  Al Gore’s a no-go.  He’s seen as even more liberal than Hillary by the general public as well as a bit of a sore loser.  John Kerry’s just a loser, and not well liked by the Democrat base (that used Dean as their vehicle against him), or the financial base (such as the Hollywood types) that feel their 2004 investment in him was wasted.

Then there’s former VP candidate and NC Senator John Edwards, who’s seen as somewhat of a moderate.  He’s also a southerner with enough mainstream appeal that he may do better in the south in a general election.  Ditto that for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner.  Very similar are Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack.  These four will essentially be competing for the mantle of the “moderate who can win”.

There’s Joe Biden, the Democrats most prominent voice on foreign policy, but who loves the sound of his own voice a little too much, has a bad comb-over and keeps getting caught suggesting that the Democrats should write off the south – and then denies he suggested it.

Finally, there’s Russ Feingold, a real liberal’s liberal.  He’s the anti-war guy, the reform guy, liked by big labor, the enviro-radicals and anti-capitalists.  And unlike Howard Dean, he’s managed to win a general election in a state that doesn’t elect socialists.

So how do things shake out?  I see a showdown looming between the new left and the hopeful moderates, which will ultimately have the effect of squeezing Hillary out of the race.  (Memo to Harry Reid: your days leading Senate Dems may be numbered).

This presupposes that one of the moderates can raise enough money to be competitive but, granted that, the Democrats could have a real knock-down, drag-out fight for control of the party.  And not just among competing personalities, but between competing visions.

Get out the pop-corn, this will be entertaining.

Congress is back in session and the battle over immigration reform has resumed.

For the past month or so, GOP House members have taken the issue on the road and held town hall meetings discussing the topic in congressional districts all across the country.  What has been confirmed by such meetings is that a true consensus of public opinion does exist on the immigration issue.  More specifically, that the majority of the American people want better enforcement of our borders and our current immigration laws.  Further, they are opposed to laws that reward illegal behavior.

Some pollsters and politicians have attempted to confuse the issue by combining various reform proposals in their presentations to the public.  They cleverly propose amnesty oriented versions of reform combined with nods toward better documentation and border enforcement.  And they make such combined proposals as though they are necessary in order to build a majority consensus on how to approach the issue.

What they neglect to point out however is that there already is a stand alone majority of public opinion on how to approach the immigration problem, and that it favors a border enforcement approach.  For example, the latest Fox News poll suggests that 77% of Americans think our border security is too lax, a healthy majority by any definition.

Further, when the additional aspects of the “comprehensive” proposals (which is code for providing amnesty to illegal aliens) are accurately described, the public is decidedly opposed.

When the public learns that the comprehensive approach would mean legalizing those who have come to this country illegally, they’re opposed.  When they learn if would mean pardoning those that have committed Social Security fraud, they’re opposed.  And when they learn that it would mean allowing illegal aliens to legally collect government benefits, they are opposed.

The proponents of comprehensive reform know that the only way they can enact amnesty related proposals is to piggy-back them along with a healthy dose of tough talk, or an enforcement related bill.  And the only thing standing in the way of the success of that strategy is the House Republican leadership.

Fortunately the Founding Fathers saw fit to have at least one chamber of our legislative branch elected in its entirety every two years, ensuring that members would constantly be exposed to public sentiment and hopefully be more inclined to represent it, given that they would likely wish to keep their jobs.

This fact is not lost on a House leadership that would like to remain in leadership.  And they are keenly aware of what the White House and some in the Senate seem to have missed (or just ignore) – that the party’s core constituency is opposed to anything that resembles amnesty.

At a recent GOP leadership meeting reporting on the results of their immigration field hearings, Republican Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King stated, “I have never seen such a disconnect between the American people and the elite”.  Michigan Republican Peter Hoekstra highlighted the issue’s national security implications, saying “There is a simple reason why we need border security.  We are a nation at war.  We face a dangerous enemy that is intent on attacking us again.”  Exactly.

The House Republicans have resolved to propose and pass several border and immigration law enforcement measures in the coming weeks, attempting the put the Democrats on the political defensive as well as on the wrong side of public opinion just prior to the November elections.  At this point, it seems each of the bills will focus on a single aspect of the immigration problem in order to focus attention, create more recorded votes and prevent opponents (or amnesty supporters) from watering things down with a comprehensive bill.

The fact is that illegal immigration is out of control, and the number of aliens entering the country has been increasing every year.  They’re beginning to show up in large numbers in states and rural areas where people didn’t expect them, and where the infrastructure is unable to accommodate them.  Education, law enforcement and health care systems are heavily effected, and the result is a great burden on taxpayers.

Then there is also the issue of the fairness of proposals which would grant amnesty to those who have broken our laws.  Not to mention the fact that such a proposal was tried before in 1986 and helped create the illegal immigration problems we have today.  To make it worse for conservatives, it’s being supported by a Republican President and Republican Senators.

The result is the crystallization of a major political issue that the majority of Americans are beginning to see as relevant to their everyday lives.

For an issue to “cut it” in politics, it must be salient and relevant to large numbers of people.  This issue has that in spades, and then some.  And the House Republicans understand.