How is it that prayer in schools constitutes a violation of the "establishment" clause of the Constitution today when holding church services in the chamber of the US House of Representatives did not represent an "establishment of religion" to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution?

It is incorrect to say that religion is playing a greater role in politics, but rather that religious Americans are becoming more likely to base their electoral choices on their values. This is probably the result of more education and information as well as that they increasingly feel that fundamental issues are under attack, such as marriage, the Ten Commandments, abortion, prayer in schools, etc.. They are becoming more aware of political differences between candidates and political parties and are beginning to align their views with their electoral choices.

How have we let the immigration problem get to a point in this country where we have foreigners entering our country illegally, then holding mass rallies demanding their "rights"? Or that we change our laws to accommodate them.

When did "undocumented workers" become "guest workers" or just "immigrants"? And when did illegal immigrants become "undocumented workers"? For that matter, when did "illegal aliens" become "illegal immigrants"? When did the nomenclature of this debate change? And who sent out the memo?

We're lulling ourselves to sleep with language that attempts to gloss over our problems or make them appear more fuzzy and less clear-cut. Sort of like the pro-abortion crowd refusing to call an unborn baby anything other than a fetus.

People who complain about political parties as being too extreme or not representative enough are those least likely to either have been and/or get involved in politics, thus becoming prophets.

American consumers have benefited from one de-regulation after another, such as telephone service, airlines and banking. In light of no evidence to suggest otherwise, what logic do opponents of choice in education rely on to support their claims that de-regulation or at least de-monopolization of public education would prove less beneficial?

One thought to consider is that the very laws being proclaimed by activist judges as not specific enough as to what defines a marriage (or married couple) lack such specificity primarily due to the fact that, when they were written, everyone was quite sure they knew what a marriage was.

Note that we're not having this debate over the legal definition of marriage as the result of legislative action, much less public demand for such changes, but rather due to a series of actions by a handful of liberal activist state judges in a few states. And the potential impact of those actions on the rest of us by way of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution.

The ultimate strategy is to use the "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution as a loophole through which to drive a new definition of marriage and force it upon the entire country without so much as a debate or vote on the matter. They intentionally use sympathetic courts in liberal states as a vehicle for this strategy.

For those who are curious, or happen to be members of Congress, the definition of "amnesty" is: n 1: a period during which offenders are exempt from punishment 2: a warrant granting release from punishment for an offense [syn: pardon] 3: the formal act of liberating someone [syn: pardon, free pardon] v : grant a pardon to (a group of people). Not that facts should matter to members of Congress.