"Here ruining people is considered sport," so concluded Vince Foster in what many believe was his suicide note. "Here" is Washington D.C., and the instrument of ruination is the politics of personal destruction.

Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin is the latest person to find herself in the crosshairs of those aiming for her ruination. Her offense? She accepted Senator John McCain's invitation to be his running mate for the 2008 Presidential election. This historic milestone of a woman running on the Republican ticket was soon transformed into histrionics. Any real analysis of Governor Palin's public record was jettisoned in favor of digging up dirt about her personal life, real or concocted.

First came the snide comments on Governor Palin's looks. Most of those comments came from feminists, the same women who decry sexism and complain that too much attention is paid to how a woman looks. Nevertheless, they are the same women who keep us abreast of Hilary Clinton's changing hair styles and her preference for pantsuits. Who can forget the vitriol aimed at Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris during the 2000 Florida recount? How she applied her makeup became more important than how she applied the law. We may have come a long way baby, but cattiness persists among the feminists.

Next, Governor Palin was attacked for being a bad mother. Suddenly the crowd who proclaims women can only find fulfillment working outside the home have become homebodies. Crocodile tears were shed over whether Governor Palin would be abandoning her children if she became Vice President. It's ironic that feminists now complain that she should be at home with her kids.

But let's not kid ourselves. Many of the folks now supporting Governor Palin's bid for Vice President would be casting similar aspersions upon her if she were Senator Obama's running mate. Their unconditional support for Governor Palin, notwithstanding her family circumstances, is, for many, an abandonment of the notion that motherhood is a woman's highest calling.

Then came the attacks on Governor Palin's family. Her husband's DUI when he was 22 years old (over twenty years ago) was trotted out to see what kind of reaction it would receive. It didn't receive much of one but hey, it was worth a shot.

The most despicable attack was directed at Governor Palin's 17 year old daughter Bristol. One columnist tried to fabricate a scandal that Trig, Governor Palin's 5 month old son, was actually Bristol's and that Governor Palin claimed to be the mother in order to avoid embarrassment and save face. The scandal was replete with pictures of Bristol from 2006, claiming she was then pregnant with Trig, a mere eighteen months prior to Trig's birth. The columnist—not one to let the facts stand in the way of a good story—still demands a note from Governor Palin's doctor before he will be satisfied.

All of this microscopic scrutiny did lead to the Palin family's acknowledgement that Bristol is indeed pregnant (five months) and that she and her boyfriend plan to marry. This, of course, led to more aspersions on Governor Palin's fitness as a mother and provided a chance to extol the virtues of condom use as the centerpiece of sex education. You see, Governor Palin believes children should not be having sex and, thus, abstinence is what they should be taught. No doubt Bristol's circumstances have reinforced her belief.

Congressman Barney Frank joined in the mud slinging by commenting that Governor Palin's home is "in great turmoil." That's the same Barney Frank who claims he didn't know that a homosexual brothel was being run out of his Georgetown townhouse some years ago.

Thankfully, the one adult in all of this has been Senator Obama. He reacted to the attacks by saying, "Let me be as clear as possible. I have said before, and I will repeat again, I think people's families are off limits. And people's children are especially off limits. This shouldn't be part of our politics. It has no relevance to Governor Palin's performance as governor or her potential performance as a vice president." The Senator went on to remind everyone that he also was born to an eighteen-year-old mother.

One blogger got it right when he wrote, "In our politics today, we don't just debate people, we destroy them." Both the left and the right are guilty of this bloodlust. The casualty count is high. No doubt many good people—people that would be of great service to the country—are reluctant to serve in public office because of the politics of personal destruction.

America will be better served if voters stay focused on the issues that face the country. Tabloid political coverage takes our focus off the important issues, and diminishes our electoral process. We can do better.

Ken Connor is a lawyer and author of "Sinful Silence: When Christians Neglect Their Civic Duty" He is also Chairman of the Center for a Just Society.

The poison peddled by the euthanasia movement here in the United States continues to take its toll. Assisted suicide was legalized in Oregon in 1997, and pro-death advocates are now pushing hard to make it legal in the State of Washington. Initiative 1000 would allow any competent adult suffering from a terminal illness to make a written request for medication that the patient may self-administer to end his or her life.

The average reader would interpret Initiative 1000 as helping terminal patients commit suicide, plain and simple. But the euthanasia movement has tried to mask that plain truth with soothing euphemisms. Rather than acknowledging that the initiative promotes assisted suicide, the text states the "request" will allow the patient to end their life "in a humane and dignified manner." Then, in a classic example of double speak, the text goes on to state, "Actions taken in accordance with this chapter do not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing, or homicide, under the law. State reports shall not refer to practice under this chapter as 'suicide' or 'assisted suicide.'" Funny, these "actions" sound just like the dictionary definition of suicide: "the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind."

If passed this November, Initiative 1000 will transform the legal landscape of the State of Washington. The change would parallel Oregon's decade-long acceptance of assisted suicide, a practice that has given rise to a myriad of problems. According to a fact sheet from National Right to Life, Oregon "conducts no independent reviews of assisted suicide deaths." Further, physicians who prescribe lethal drugs "only file required reports about 80.2% of the time." Incredibly, in "76.1% of these cases, physicians said that they had not perceived their act as the ending of life."

Not surprisingly, stories of abuse abound.

In 1998, an Oregonian psychologist decided that 85-year-old Kate Cheney was "cognitively impaired" because she suffered from dementia and, therefore, was not qualified to pursue assisted suicide. Her family then found another psychologist who authorized the suicide. That psychologist did so despite noting the undue influence of Cheney''s family on the decision and that Cheney was so mentally impaired she did not even realize she had cancer.

In 2007, two nurses in Oregon gave Wendy Melcher a lethal overdose. Though this was illegal (Oregon only allows physicians to prescribe lethal drugs), one of the nurses said she provided the overdose "because she believed [Melcher] to be in uncontrollable pain." However, the nurse had never noted such pain prior to the day she administered the overdose.

Recently, 64-year-old Barbara Wagner was suffering from cancer, but the Oregon Heath Plan would not cover a $4000 drug that could have helped her. Instead it offered her comfort care, including assisted suicide through drugs that would cost the state far less money than those requested by Ms.Wagner. As the only state that "both allows assisted suicide and tries to ration health care," the state's motivations in this case are highly suspect.

The truth is that the euthanasia movement's ultimate goal is death on demand for everyone. "A dignified death for the terminally ill" is just the first step towards this goal. Philip Nitschke, a well known pro-euthanasia leader and President of the Voluntary Euthanasia Research Foundation in Australia, said in a 2001 interview, "My personal position is that if we believe that there is a right to life, then we must accept that people have a right to dispose of that life whenever they want." Nitschke's view is typical of pro-death advocates. Their belief in a right to commit suicide is based on a hyper-individualism that sees every person as completely autonomous. They ignore any duties a person has to society or to their family as well as the wider social impact of such low regard for human life.

Wesley J. Smith points out in a National Review article, "[Nitschke] has not limited his 'death counseling' to the terminally ill. A case in point involved Nancy Crick who made headlines when she announced on Australian television that she would commit assisted suicide because she had terminal cancer. When her autopsy showed she was cancer free, however, Nitschke admitted that he and Crick had known all along that she wasn't dying. Nevertheless, he deemed that medical fact 'irrelevant' because she wanted to die."

Acceptance of euthanasia in select cases leads inevitably to an ever-expanding circle of those considered "killable." In 30 years of unpunished (and eventually legalized) assisted suicide in the Netherlands, the circle of accepted killings has been broadened to include the depressed, the disabled, and infants born with birth defects. Once a society accepts the right to commit suicide to prevent suffering, the right to kill to prevent suffering follows.

The euthanasia movement's callous disregard for life needs to be unmasked. Behind euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" lies an insidious assault on the sanctity of human life. Euthanasia advocates view "choice" as the ultimate virtue and "freedom of choice" as the ultimate freedom. Stripped of its gloss, however, their position is that unless one has the freedom to kill himself, he isn't really free. That's a perverse view of freedom and a sad view of life.

"At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?" Most people have a ready answer to this question. A "pro-life" supporter will generally point to conception, while a "pro-choice" proponent will often point to birth. There are a variety of opinions, but the average person does have an opinion. Not Barack Obama. He wouldn't answer this most basic question about human rights. Senator Obama's response to Reverend Rick Warren's question during the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency was, "Well, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade." He went on to state that he is "pro-choice", but that both sides should "find common ground" by seeking to "reduce the number of abortions." Still he refused to answer the question of what constitutes a human being worthy of rights and protections. You would think a man who studied at Harvard and Columbia and who is running for the office of President of the United States would have taken the time to figure out his position on this controversial question. After all, abortion remains one of the most polarizing issues of our time. This single issue is dispositive—one way or the other—for millions of voters. Perhaps that accounts for the ambiguity. If Mr. Obama is ambiguous about the issue, the scientific evidence is not. Science demonstrates unequivocally that life begins at conception. Within 24 hours after fertilization the human egg begins to divide, producing more and more cells. Through this process, the embryo and the outer membranes which nourish and protect it are formed. When the egg is fertilized, 23 chromosomes from each parent join to form the 46 chromosomes of a unique new person. These chromosomes will dictate many of the child's physical characteristics, including sex, eye and hair color, height, and even intelligence to some extent. This process is simple, yet profound, and it occurs at conception. Notwithstanding the uncontroverted scientific evidence, Senator Obama insists he simply is not qualified to form an opinion on when a baby becomes a human. Perhaps his refusal to answer the question is rooted in a desire to hide the implications of his voting record. While in the Illinois Senate, he first voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, and later refused to bring it forward in committee for a vote. This Act would have mandated medical care for babies who survive an attempted abortion (they are "born alive"), and it would have prevented hospitals and doctors from putting these babies aside to die. The national version of this bill—the Born Alive Infant Protection Act—passed through the U.S. House with only fifteen dissenting votes, and it passed through the U.S. Senate unanimously. Even the extremist abortion advocacy group NARAL Pro-Choice America did not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Nevertheless, Senator Obama, proving to be more extreme, opposed the Illinois bill, thereby denying legal protection for these babies. Refusing medical care to babies who are born alive after a failed abortion is infanticide, plain and simple. Barack Obama's rhetoric and voting record indicate he believes otherwise. The Senator, who once equated having a baby to being punished, feels that denying a woman and her doctor the right to kill her newborn child would wrongly burden the woman. He summed up his opposition by saying, "What we are doing here [with this bill] is to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that." Senator Obama's voting record doesn't end there. In the Illinois Senate, he opposed the partial-birth abortion ban, and in the U.S. Congress he co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act which would have removed nearly all state and federal restrictions on abortion. He also voted against legislation in Congress which would have required an abortionist to notify the parents of an underage girl seeking an abortion. If Senator Obama is incapable of determining when a baby gains human rights, why is he capable of making these weighty legislative decisions? Truth be told, Senator Obama appears to have preferred bobbing and weaving to offering a straight answer. A straight answer was inevitably going to alienate at least one group of voters who hold strong views. But is that the kind of leadership America needs? Ambiguous answers in the face of hard questions? Please Mr. Obama. Tell it to us straight. At what point does a baby get human rights? Lives depend on the way you answer that question.

"Greed is good."

Thus declared Gordon Gekko in his speech to the stockholders of Teldar Paper in the 1987 blockbuster movie Wall Street. Gekko, a Wall Street raider played by Michael Douglas, assailed the company's management for underperforming for its shareholders. He offered a better way:

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed—for lack of a better word—is good.

"Greed is right.

"Greed works.

"Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.

"Greed, in all of its forms—greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge—has marked the upward surge of mankind.

"And greed—you mark my words—will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA."

Greed in the Marketplace

Have Gekko's ideas taken root in the American marketplace? Some would argue they have. There is much to suggest that the organizing mechanism of the marketplace is "the evolutionary spirit" of which Gekko spoke. A few names come to mind: Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Lay, Ebbers, and Koslowski. Many others could be added to the list.

Old fashioned virtues are out. Economic Darwinism is in. It's all about "the survival of the fittest" and "let the buyer beware." Greed is good. He who dies with the most toys wins. Six thousand dollar shower curtains, fancy Persian rugs, golden parachutes—those are the signs of success in Corporate America. Self denial, integrity, hard work—that's for suckers. Grab all the gusto you can get. Carpe diem! The smart guys are cutting deals on their laptops and cell phones while lounging at the pool. Value is in the eye of the beholder. Let's not get hung up on who gets hurt. Casualties are a part of life. Business is not beanbag. Stuff happens!

These attitudes don't just circulate in executive penthouses anymore. They have "trickled down" to the ground level. They can be found in all the strata of the market place. The current housing debacle provides a good example.

Greed and the Housing Debacle

Eager to cash in on quick profits to be made in the housing market, many couples bought more house than they could afford. The market was booming; the price of housing was escalating; profits seemed quick and easy. The goal wasn't to establish a permanent residence. The goal was to "flip that house." They were speculating, plain and simple. From Wall Street to Main Street, "flipping" was becoming a way of life—real estate, stocks, commodities, you name it. The economy was booming. Prices kept going up and up. Only a fool would miss out on the ride.

In many instances, home buyers overstated their income to lenders. Not to worry, they expected to unload the property before the payments on their "interest only" loan ratcheted up. They were aided by greedy lenders who weren't worried about whether their borrowers were creditworthy. The lenders didn't expect to assume the risk of the bad loan. They planned to flip the loan to companies like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac who would bear the risk of default. In the meantime, the lenders would be paid a fee for "originating" the loan and receive a portion of the interest for "servicing" it. (Servicing the mortgage meant collecting the payments and remitting the net proceeds to the purchaser of the mortgage, a.k.a. the "flipee.") Freddie and Fannie guaranteed the loans (thereby assuming the risk of any bad loans), kept some of the interest for themselves, bundled the loans together and sold them as "securities" to investors who were to receive the balance of the interest.

The Roof Caves In

The rest is history. The economy slowed, jobs were lost, and inflation went up. The price of gasoline and food went through the roof. People couldn't pay their bills. They began defaulting on their home mortgages. Foreclosures went up and home prices went down. Homeowners owed more than their houses were worth. Lenders ran into financial trouble and the value of their stock plummeted. They called on Fannie and Freddie to make good on the loans. But Fannie and Freddie had bitten off more than they could chew. They couldn't deliver. Congress came to their rescue with the inevitable "bail out" and now the taxpayer is stuck paying the tab.

Greed is good?

Lessons Learned

Capitalism is a powerful economic system and free and open markets can produce great prosperity. But unless market decisions are informed by Judeo-Christian values, rapacious greed and chaos are likely to prevail in such a system. Here are some simple principles of Biblical stewardship that we will do well to keep in mind when making decisions in the marketplace:

We're all in this together. Our decisions have ripple effects. They don't just affect us. We have obligations to our fellow man. The Apostle Paul reminds us, "Let each of you look out not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:4 ESV) Caveat emptor, notwithstanding, the Bible doesn't give us license to deceive or defraud our fellow man.

Work creates wealth. Speculation leads to poverty. There is a work/wealth connection which is at work in the natural order and which should not be ignored. When it comes to wealth creation, there is no substitute for hard work and diligence. Speculating in the markets is no different from rolling the dice or spinning the roulette wheel. Proverbs 21:5 (TLB) reminds us, "Steady plodding brings prosperity; hasty speculation brings poverty."

Ill-gotten gains don't last. We should resist the temptation to act dishonestly. The fruit of deceit leaves a bitter aftertaste. Proverbs 21:6 (NIV) cautions us, "A fortune made by a lying tongue is a fleeting vapor and a deadly snare."

Don't presume upon the morrow. Be careful not to assume that today's conditions will necessarily prevail in the future. Life is not static. We have good times and bad. Markets aren't static either. They go up and down. Presumptions are dangerous. The Bible exhorts us, "Now listen, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.' Why you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes. Instead, you ought to say, 'If it is the Lord's will we will live and do this or that.'" (James 4:13-15 NIV)

Greed is not good. In fact, it's dangerous. In the Parable of the Rich Fool, Jesus warned against becoming greedy. He told the story of a rich man who hoarded his possessions thinking that he could take it easy and eat, drink, and be merry. Having taken his ease, God demanded his life. Jesus said, "This is how it will be with anyone who stores up things for himself but is not rich toward God." (Luke 12:21 NIV) Small wonder then that Jesus warned the people, "Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." (Luke 12:15 NIV)

Conclusion

Greed is most assuredly not good. It is a destructive force in our lives, individually and collectively. Gordon Gekko was wrong. Those who desire to achieve real prosperity will do well to heed basic principles of Biblical stewardship. These timeless principles made our capitalist economy the envy of the world. They will continue to serve us well as we move forward into the future.

Change!

It's the mantra of the political season. But what kind of change—from what to what?

Will taxes go up or down? Will we stay in Iraq or get out? Will marriage be protected or abandoned? Will we get restrained judges or judicial activists? Will our children have fewer or more educational choices? Will we go nuclear or stay with coal and oil? Will our foreign policy be interventionist or isolationist? The list of questions goes on and on, and voters should demand concrete answers.

"Change" can't be evaluated in a vacuum. Before voters can make an assessment of the wisdom of change, they have to know what's on the table. What are they giving up and what can they expect to get in its place?

And let"s face it—it's easier to talk about change than produce it. There are lots of people who talk the talk, but only a few who have walked the walk.

Wilberforce: An Agent of Change

One of the most effective agents of change in his time was William Wilberforce. A member of the British Parliament from 1780 to 1825, Wilberforce is a model for anyone who wants to change their culture and create a more just society. Through bold leadership, tremendous personal sacrifice, and unflagging effort, Wilberforce changed not only his world, but ours as well. His leadership led to the elimination of the slave trade in the British Empire, a change that had enormous social and economic repercussions. His achievements spurred the abolitionist movement in our own country and the rest is history.

Sadly, Wilberforce is little known in contemporary society. Heroes are out, pop tarts are in. Britney and Paris are household words but Wilberforce is not. When people say "May the Force be with you," they aren't talking about William Wilberforce. Yet, in the annals of history, Wilberforce is a shining example of a man who lived out his convictions and, in the process, transformed his culture. But, as great as his achievements are, perhaps even more impressive is how Wilberforce did what he did.

A devout Christian, Wilberforce believed that all men have equal standing under God and that neither race nor ethnicity diminishes human worth. He was convinced that Christ died for the slave and the free, and that slavery was not only a terrible tragedy, but also an affront to both God and man.

How He Did What He Did

In his endeavors to cure the evil of slavery, Wilberforce employed a multi-pronged approach, attacking the problem on a variety of fronts. His theaters of engagement included the political, legal, social, and religious arenas. He engaged both the elites and the common folk in each arena in pursuit of his goals. In doing so, he marshaled the consensus necessary to bring about seismic change.

The recently-released book, Creating the Better Hour: Lessons from William Wilberforce, contains a wonderful collection of essays focused on Wilberforce's life, his principles, and the implications of his work for today. Wilberforce saw slavery as a great injustice, but he realized that it could not be cured merely by passing a law.

So Wilberforce focused on changing the moral climate of society. He developed a strong core of friends, known as the Clapham Circle, who supported his ideas and worked with him to advance his twin causes of abolishing the slave trade and reforming morals in Britain. They published books, poems, and pamphlets in an attempt to persuade their fellow Britons. Wilberforce convinced King George III to issue a "Proclamation for the Encouragement of Piety and Virtue and for the Preventing of Vice, Profaneness and Immorality." Wilberforce understood that the reformation of morals required changing the mindset of both the upper and lower classes. He realized that he could achieve his goal of abolishing slavery only if morality became "fashionable" and if it produced authentic virtue over time.

In their essay within Creating the Better Hour, Mark Rodgers and Bill Wichterman explain Wilberforce's understanding of cultural change: "Compliance with a particular law presupposes a particular kind of civilization. Once that civilization morphs into something new, old laws fall into disuse. In short, cultural mores dictate which laws pass and are obeyed, and which laws are defeated or ignored. There is a tendency on the part of many to overstate the importance of politics in shaping culture."

According to Rodgers and Wichterman, Wilberforce thought, "Creating a just society is only partially a function of law, and much more a product of other institutions—family, religion, education, entertainment, journalism, civic associations, etc.—institutions that help us to shape what we love and what we hate." Wilberforce held a traditional conservative view of society. He believed government could not be the savior of a society and law could not form a culture. He understood that only the people themselves could maintain a moral culture and a just society. If the people became corrupt, there was no saving society.

Wilberforce also understood the importance of substantive, respectful discussion for changing minds and hearts. According to Kevin Belmonte and Chuck Stetson in their essay in Creating the Better Hour, Wilberforce recognized "the difficulty of judging right in complicated cases, which should teach those who think differently on political subjects, mutual moderation, forbearance, and candor." He understood that proper Christian conduct requires humility and love even when speaking harsh truths. Wilberforce wrote, "Walk charitably. Wherever you are, remember that your conduct and conversation may have some effect on the minds of those with whom you are."

Wilberforce did not limit his arguments to the Bible. While he employed explicitly religious arguments, he did not hesitate to employ "secular" arguments based on statistics and pragmatism. Wilberforce pursued his goal on all possible levels and with all possible arguments, while maintaining humility and respect for his audience.

One particularly impressive instance of Wilberforce's creative tactics is explained by Chuck Stetson: The abolitionists made a wood cameo featuring a slave kneeling in shackles and the phrase, "Am I Not a Man and a Brother?" This cameo became a public symbol worn by pro-abolitionist women as jewelry and was integrated into other goods, including snuff boxes. A single picture became the symbol for a movement.

While Wilberforce understood the limitations of laws, he worked as hard in the political realm as any other. Wilberforce was politically savvy and willing to work with those who had vastly different agendas as long as they advanced his cause. Wilberforce understood that legal change and cultural change are co-dependent, so he worked incessantly for both. His twenty years of work within Parliament led to the passage of the Abolition Bill on February 23, 1807.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Wilberforce saw his goals as God-given. He began his strong quest for the abolition of the slave trade and the reformation of manners after coming to a strong faith in God. As a fervent Christian, he based his quest to abolish slavery on biblical morality. He exhorted Parliament, "Never, never will we desist till we have wiped away this scandal from the Christian name, released ourselves from the load of guilt, under which we at present labour, and extinguished every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times, will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."

Lessons To Be Learned

There are lessons to be learned from Wilberforce's great efforts. He understood better than most that it is not just what you say, but how you say it that convinces others of the truth. He held steadfastly to his Christian convictions in the face of demagogues of all types and, while he spent twenty years waging war over a controversial issue, charity always tempered his passion.

The world still contains many grave affronts to human dignity. Men, women, and children are still enslaved around the world through forced labor, bonded labor, and sex trafficking (at least 12.3 million according to Beth Herzfeld's essay in Creating the Better Hour). Women are forced into marriages, widows are burned to death, some people are discriminated against because of their skin color, and others are starved to death by tyrannical governments. Here at home we give license to the powerful to exterminate the young or old or handicapped whenever we find them inconvenient. Wilberforce's pursuit of human equality and freedom is certainly far from finished.

We would do well to remember Wilberforce's work and emulate it. We must advocate ceaselessly for the equality and dignity of all human beings, even as we retain a spirit of charity toward our opponents and those whom we are trying to persuade.

"Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others." (Philippians 2:4 ESV)

Think you're in good hands with your insurance company? Think again.

A recent research study by the American Association for Justice, "The Ten Worst Insurance Companies in America," makes it clear that one of the main reasons the top insurance companies are doing so well is that they have consciously embarked on aggressive policies to avoid paying out claims, whether the claims are justified or not. In other words, they will take your money, but when it's time for them to pay you, watch out.

Bottom line: insurance companies are more interested in collecting premiums than in paying claims.

The AAJ report notes that U.S. insurance companies annually collect over $1 trillion in premiums, and today the industry is sitting atop $3.8 trillion in assets (more than the GDP of every country in the world, except the United States and Japan). Their executives are handsomely compensated with C.E.O.'s receiving multi-million dollar annual pay and benefits packages. Without a doubt, the industry is doing well.

There is nothing wrong with insurance companies making a profit, but businesses that operate on the basis of contracts with their customers ought to live up to those contracts.

The number one offender on the AAJ list is Allstate, which employs a "3 D" strategy in dealing with its customers: deny, delay, and defend. Allstate's policy appears to be to litigate every claim—including meritorious ones filed by their policyholders—in the hope that it can wear out its opponents and get them to accept a minimal payment or drop their claim altogether. The result is the policyholder who paid the company a premium in good faith is left to twist in the wind. Former Allstate adjusters say they were rewarded for keeping claims payments low, even if they had to deceive their policy holders. So much for being in "good hands"!

Second on the "Ten Worst" list is Unum, one of the nation's leading disability insurance carriers. The multi-billion dollar company is headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee, not a place from which you would expect "sharp" practices to emanate. Debra Potter learned otherwise. She filed a disability claim because of her multiple sclerosis. Her claim was repeatedly denied even though her doctor backed up its legitimacy and the Social Security Administration concluded she was totally disabled. Unum denied her claim for three years, and only paid after she retained a lawyer.

Ironically, Potter spent years selling Unum disability policies as part of a financial services package. Potter said, "People need safety and that's what I thought I was selling them. But here I am with all my knowledge of insurance, and I couldn't make it work for me." Former employees are on record saying that Unum ordered them to deny claims to meet cost savings goals.

AIG, the nation's largest insurance carrier with assets valued at over a trillion dollars, ranks third on the AAJ's Ten Worst List. The company has a reputation for being extremely stingy in paying out claims. According to AAJ, "Former AIG claims supervisors have alleged in litigation that the company used all manner of tricks to deny or delay claims, including locking checks in a safe until claimants complained, delaying payment of attorneys' fees until they were a year old, disposing of important correspondence during routine 'pizza parties,' and routinely fighting claimants for years in court over mundane claims." Numerous other tactics are described in the report, including price-gouging strategies developed to cash in on the tragedies brought about by Hurricane Katrina and the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The report is replete with documentation about the very disturbing practices of some of America's best known insurance companies. These companies built their businesses by cultivating the public's trust. Now, however, that trust is being betrayed as the companies put profits over their obligations to policy holders.

People in quest of a just society should decry business practices that are rooted in fraud or trickery or deceit. The doctrine of caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware") does not justify lying, cheating, or dissembling. And certainly those who call themselves Christians cannot justify such practices. The writer of Proverbs warns against unscrupulous conduct: "A worthless person, a wicked man, goes about with crooked speech, winks with his eyes, signals with his feet, points with his finger, with perverted heart devises evil...." (Proverbs 6:12-15 ESV) His fate, the writer warns, will be sudden "calamity" (Proverbs 6:15 ESV), for the Lord hates and finds abominable "a lying tongue," "a heart that devises wicked plans," and "a false witness who breathes out lies." (Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV)

Five hundred years ago, Martin Luther admonished his parishioners, "Everyone should conduct his trade, craft and business in such a way that he overcharges no one, cheats no one with false wares, is satisfied with a fair profit, and gives people something worthwhile for their penny." How different America's insurance industry would look today if its CEO's heeded the venerable preacher's advice.

There they go again!

Notwithstanding the adverse ruling the District of Columbia received from the U. S. Supreme Court for its unconstitutional ordinance restricting the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, bureaucrats in the Federal City continue their efforts to gnaw away at the Second Amendment.

That amendment is elegant in its simplicity: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Nevertheless, it took over 150 pages for the Court to expound upon its meaning. (Surely the justices have too much time on their hands!) Bottom line: "...the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Court also directed the District to allow the complainant, Mr. Heller, to register his firearm and to issue him a permit to carry it in his home.

The Court ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual one and that it includes the right to use handguns—the weapon of choice for most people—for self-defense. The Court recognized that the right to self-defense is inherent, and it is in the home where the "need for defense of self, family, and property is the most acute."

While D.C. is no longer the "murder capital" of the country, it is still seventh on the 2006 list of major cities with the highest murder rates in the United States. Nightly newscasts catalog the long list of violent acts that occur in the city—home invasions, carjackings, gang-related violence, drug deals gone bad, muggings of the elderly, the shooting of children—the list goes on and on. At the time of this writing, one metropolitan neighborhood has been cordoned off, with limited access in and out, because of the murder of a 13 year old boy who was in the city visiting his ailing grandmother.

Washington, D.C. is Exhibit A to the proposition that "where guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns."

You would think that Mayor Adrian Fenty would want to ensure that the District's residents would have the means to protect themselves. After all, as professor Gary Kleck explains in his book Targeting Guns, 25 to 75 lives are saved by guns for every life lost to a gun. But, think again!

Within a month after the ruling came down, the District passed a new set of draconian regulations restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in the nation's capital. According to USA Today, the new laws require residents of the District to jump through multiple hoops to own a handgun. They must get a permit from the city, keep the gun in their homes only for self-defense purposes, pass vision and written exams, provide the weapon for ballistic testing, and prove they are a resident of the District. Securing the permits could take weeks to months. Most astounding in light of the Court's decision is the new requirement that guns be kept "unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks" unless there is a "threat of immediate harm." The Supreme Court has recognized that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to establish the individual's right to keep a weapon for self-defense, yet the new D.C. law practically destroys the ability to exercise that right by forcing an individual to load, unlock, or assemble their weapon only after a threat is already present. Advantage, criminal!

America's Founders were willing to pay the ultimate price to secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. They well knew the danger of being defenseless against forces intent on harming them. Thus, in the Second Amendment, they secured the right of every citizen to have the means by which to protect themselves. The D.C. Council continues to trample upon this right leaving the District's law-abiding citizens defenseless in their own homes. And, because these bureaucrats fail to respect the Constitution, it is the citizens who pay the ultimate price.

Since racial hatred has animated some of the worst atrocities in history, one would think that an opportunity for nations to come together and seek solutions to racial tensions would be welcomed.

Think again.

The upcoming United Nations Durban Review Conference in Durban, South Africa—billed as an international effort to achieve racial reconciliation—is likely to make a mockery of any bona fide attempt to overcome racial discrimination.

The Conference, scheduled for 2009, will review the international progress made in response to the "Durban Declaration and Programme of Action" released by the first Durban conference in 2001. This earlier conference was initially billed as an attempt to bring together representatives from fifty-three nations in order to proclaim the equality of all men and to condemn racial hatred and discrimination around the world. Rather than producing a clear statement against racism, however, the conference crumbled under the weight of the racist impulses of the countries involved.

Among those countries attending the 2001 conference were China, Columbia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Two of these countries (Syria and Cuba) are on the U.S. State Department's top ten list of worst human rights violators, and China was only just dropped from the list in 2008. It became clear early on that the first Durban conference would not achieve any great leap forward in racial equality. The United States and Israel quickly saw that they were going to be the scapegoats of the conference, as delegates from the Middle East sought to condemn Zionism and the Western slave trade as the prime examples of racism in human history. Not surprisingly, the United States and Israel withdrew their delegations a few days into the conference.

Then Secretary of State Colin Powell explained the withdrawal of the U.S. delegation: "I know that you do not combat racism by conferences that produce declarations containing hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of 'Zionism equals racism'; or supports the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust; or suggests that apartheid exists in Israel; or that singles out only one country in the world, Israel, for censure and abuse." The lofty goals of the conference were quickly reduced to unilateral finger-pointing and name calling.

The tone of the final declaration of the conference was edited to remove direct condemnations of Zionism, but its unevenness is still evident. Anti-semitism is only mentioned twice in the document, and both times it is grouped next to "Islamaphobia," suggesting that a fear of Islam has the same historical significance as the persecutions suffered by the Jewish people. Moreover, one of the worst cases of racial hatred in human history, the Holocaust, was only referenced once in the document, without commentary or explanation.

These brief references to anti-semitism would perhaps be adequate if the Declaration and Programme of Action were not over sixty pages long and did not go on for innumerable pages about the injustices suffered by Africans, migrants, and indigenous peoples. These injustices are real and every country needs to take responsibility for the wrongs it has done, but pointing to one set of injustices while essentially ignoring others is simply a variant of the very racism that the declaration was intended to end.

The reality is that many countries—particularly those in the Middle East—are not interested in condemning anti-semitism, because their own people persist in their hatred of Israel. These are countries where many still deny that the Holocaust ever occurred.

The Durban Declaration also neglected to make any mention of racial genocide. The word "genocide" is only used six times in the document, and no specific cases of genocide are ever discussed. Some of the worst cases of racial hatred in the past century involved massive genocide, including the millions of Jews slaughtered by Nazi Germany in the Holocaust, the ethnic genocide waged by the Bosnian Serbs, and the murder of nearly one million Tutsi people by the Hutu militia in Rwanda. Refusing to address these events and others like them erased the credibility of the Durban conference.

Racism has plagued the history of every country at some point in time, and admitting prior wrongs is a good first step towards reconciliation. An international declaration of the equal rights of all men, regardless of race, is an admirable goal, but achievement of that goal requires participating countries to admit their past mistakes, prevent further discrimination, and foster racial equality within their own borders.

Some of the recommendations of Durban I were beneficial. The Declaration recommended that individual States educate their populace about the natural equality of all men and the rights of all to life, property, and freedom. The Programme of Action included an encouragement to all States to involve poorer and struggling countries in the world economy. These recommendations were good, yet the conference ultimately failed because not all of the delegations took seriously the past injustices they had committed. They refused to admit their own wrongs and diverted the focus of the conference to a small portion of the timeline of history.

As the Durban review conference (or "Durban II") approaches, many are wondering whether the United States will participate at all. The U.S. voted against holding the review conference, but has not yet taken an official stance on whether or not it will attend the proceedings. Since the conference will take place after a new President is elected, the current administration is likely to leave that decision to its successor, but hope that Durban II will be any different from the first conference is practically nonexistent. Canada and Israel have already stated that they will boycott the proceedings, because they are convinced that the conference will be another exercise in anti-Israel propaganda.

Casting a further shadow over Durban II is the new U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC) which is planning the conference. Among the members of the council are traditional human rights violators China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. The HRC has been a disappointment since its inception in 2006. Its stated purpose is to "[promote] universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all" and to "address situations of violations of human rights." Yet, as Brett D. Schaefer explains in his Heritage Foundation piece, "While the council has passed relatively mild condemnations of Sudan and Burma, it has saved its strongest criticism for Israel, condemning it in 19 separate decisions and resolutions." All signs so far indicate that Durban II will be no better than Durban I.

In a New York Times opinion article, released shortly after the United States and Israel walked out of the first Durban conference, author Bob Herbert argues that "the conference was doomed to irrelevance from its conception." Herbert believes that the problems of intolerance "are much too big and much too complex and intractable to be seriously addressed by a U.N. conference." Such pessimism is understandable, yet there is a place for international condemnations of racial hatred. Such statements may not have the teeth of their own international enforcement mechanism, but they can serve as moral support for individual nations who wish to pressure an abusive nation to change its policies. The importance of such proclamations should not be underestimated.

A well-framed international condemnation of racism has the potential to transform the global discussion on race and discrimination. Human rights abusers may yet dominate this upcoming conference, but the United States and other western countries should not relent in their efforts to overcome racial hatred. Racial hatred is a great evil, and it has adversely affected virtually all countries at one time or another. All countries ought to acknowledge their own shortcomings as we work to overcome racial hatred at home and around the world.

Secularists have exploded over the passage of the "Louisiana Science and Education Act". The Act was recently signed into law by Governor Bobby Jindal after having been passed by an overwhelming majority of the Louisiana legislature. The Act protects the freedom of “teachers, principals, and other school administrators” in elementary and secondary schools to promote “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of a variety of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”

In other words, the act provides for the freedom and support of teachers and school boards to present varied analyses on these and other scientific issues. So why are the denizens of blogs like the Huffington Post in such a huff? Because “science” is their “truth,” and it is blasphemous to question their beliefs.

Secularists are unwilling to have their orthodoxy challenged. Just as Galileo had to fight against the church and government of his day, those who dare to question today"s “settled” theories are banished by scientific and political Inquisitors. The implications of being wrong are too much to fathom; therefore, the secularist worldview must go unchallenged.

Academic freedom and the pursuit of scientific knowledge are laudable goals and are often parroted by secularists in defense of their pursuits. But, when those pursuits veer from politically correct orthodoxy into the exploration of a differing opinion or analysis, secularists will not reciprocate that freedom. Their usual response is not to critique the substance of the opposing opinion or analysis, but to transmute any opposition out of the realm of science and into religion. Thus, any analysis that calls into question any aspect (no matter how small) of the theory of evolution becomes an educational and/or constitutional crisis.

The blog Little Green Footballs raises a typical response to the Louisiana law by referring to it as a “creationist bill” that will make “American educational standards take a huge step backward.” In following the secular script, the author dutifully transmutes the issue and predictably warns of impending educational doom. One would think that “logical analysis” and “open and objective discussion” when applied to any subject matter would enhance educational standards. Not this author. The only step possible is backward so, therefore, we must stand still.

Editors of the New York Times join in the fray by calling the law “Louisiana"s latest assault on Darwin.” The New York Times goes as far as to state that the “critical thinking” and “objective analysis”, which the law promotes but does not require, will have a “pernicious effect” on the theory of evolution by “implying that evolution is only weakly supported and that there are valid competing scientific theories when there are not.” Why are the editors at the Times so sure that critical thinking and objective analysis will have a pernicious effect on evolution"s claims? If there are no valid competing claims, wouldn"t rigorous scrutiny reinforce that conclusion? If the editors are so sure of themselves, what are they so afraid of?

The Louisiana Science and Education Act clearly states that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine” or “promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs.” Moreover, the act includes an added check by giving the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education the authority to prohibit any supplemental materials they do not deem fit for the proper education of the state"s students. But these safeguards, no doubt included in an attempt to allay the hysteria of the hysterical, are of no matter. Secularists see any contrary hypotheses to their coveted issues as a direct threat to science itself. Somehow, in the minds of the so-called enlightened, allowing for the presentation and critique of differing views is unscientific (not to mention their fears that it could bring into dispute things they claim are “indisputable”).

The conflict over Louisiana"s new law is just another battle in the war over the truth and who gets to control it. In Galileo"s day, the Church reigned supreme. Today, it"s the anti-Church. But a funny thing about the truth is that no one can control it because sooner or later it reveals itself. No matter how many times Al Gore says the “science is settled,” more information arrives to unsettle things. Even Albert Einstein, a celebrated secularist, was not afraid of what the truth might be. He declared, "By academic freedom I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true. This right implies also a duty: one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true. It is evident that any restriction on academic freedom acts in such a way as to hamper the dissemination of knowledge among the people and thereby impedes national judgment and action."

Secularists maintain that they put their faith in science. If so, one wonders why they resort to demagoguery to defend their so-called scientific positions. Undoubtedly, it is because they fear what “critical thinking,” “logical analysis,” and “open and objective discussion” might reveal.

No society has ever overcome poverty. In the US today, the question of how to help the poor is particularly controversial, with two partisan sides struggling vigorously to promote their own answers. The liberal camp argues that government is the best entity to help the poor at home and abroad. They think that it is the responsibility of the nation, through the mechanism of government, to care for its people and to help the poor in other countries. Libertarian conservatives, on the other hand, believe that government has no place in helping the poor and needy. They think that the responsibility to care for the poor rests on the shoulders of individuals. The two camps are dramatically opposed. Both think that the other's solution cannot work.

Christians have an obligation to serve the poor and needy. Indeed, their service to the poor is a reflection of their respect for God. Proverbs 14:31 (NIV) declares, “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." The question is, “How should they help?” Which of the two competing political solutions is the most "Christian"?

Michael Gerson recently wrote a column denouncing the idea of "The Libertarian Jesus." While he admits that government can be a flawed instrument for helping the poor, he goes on to declare that "the scale of these needs is sometimes overwhelming." He argues, "Private compassion cannot replace Medicaid or provide AIDS drugs to millions of people in Africa for the rest of their lives. In these cases, a role for government is necessary and compassionate..."

Gerson is trying to strike a balance between the liberal and libertarian solutions. His effort to induce compassion into the sometimes cold-hearted conservatism is to be commended, but he overreaches a bit in his assumptions.

Private citizens, churches and charities have more capacity to provide for the poor and needy, both at home and abroad, than is currently being utilized. Sadly, too many Christians have neglected their personal and corporate obligations to help the poor. They have not heeded the admonitions of Scripture to help the poor and they have lost sight of the implications of their failure to do so. There is no ambiguity in the Scripture about these matters: “He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done.” (Prov.19:17 NIV) “If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered.” (Prov. 21:13 NIV) “A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor.” (Prov. 22:9 NIV) “He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses.” (Prov. 28:27 NIV)

Many Christians fear their resources will be diminished by giving some of them away. God"s economy, however, does not operate on a zero-sum principle, but rather on the principle of sowing and reaping (i.e., you reap what you sow). Furthermore, the Scriptures make it abundantly clear that our service to the poor is service to God himself (“... whatever you do for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40 NIV). The converse is also true (“... whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.” Matt. 25:45).

Christians need to be reminded of their responsibility to help the poor. Too often in America, Christians view private charity as an optional use of their money. As a result, many members of the Body of Christ choose not to give. Consequently, government steps in and coerces charity by levying taxes to help the poor. The government, of course, is notorious for its inefficiency. Government charity programs are scarcely ever as effective as well-run private charities or church programs. Moreover, all too often, government uses charity as a political device to “buy” constituencies for politicians or their parties.

Marvin Olasky examines the contrast between private and government aid in his book, "The Tragedy of American Compassion." Olasky identifies seven principles which undergird any successful charity: charity should encourage affiliation with the needy person's local community, church and family; it should form a bond between the needy and the charitable; it should organize the needy into different groups depending on their type of need; it should seek to establish the needy person in a long-term job; it should emphasize the freedom of being able to provide for oneself; and it should recognize the spiritual and not just material needs of the poor. These principles require the kind of personalized, individual, local and spiritual care which the government simply cannot provide.

Gerson admits that private charity is often superior to government charity, but he still maintains that government is necessary. While there is merit to what he says, Gerson misses the immense potential of private giving to meet the needs of the poor. Government has had to step into the role of provider because private citizens, and particularly the church, have failed to help the needy. Instead of passively accepting expanded government to fulfill charitable needs, we ought to aggresively encourage private giving and call ourselves, our churches and our neighbors to account for our lack of charity to the poor and needy.

Make no mistake about it, however: government does have an obligation to the poor. There are poor people in our midst and a government of the people, by the people and for the people should not ignore their needs. Government should not be merely an instrument for the rich and powerful. The tension is finding the right balance between public and private charity. That tension will be more easily resolved if Christians will step up and meet their obligation to help the poor.

A group of prominent, self-proclaimed evangelicals, including Os Guinness, Dallas Willard and John Huffman, is attempting to clear up this ambiguity with the recently released "Evangelical Manifesto." They argue that evangelicals need to define themselves for themselves, rather than letting the media or politicians define them. They then go on to provide a definition of what it means, in their collective opinion, to be an evangelical, and they invite all evangelicals who agree to sign the Manifesto.

The document seems to have two primary purposes: to define evangelicals theologically and to call us to retake our proper place in the public sphere. The three-year effort that went into the Manifesto should be an encouragement to all evangelicals, even those who disagree with the stance of these writers. They are seeking to set theological limits on evangelicalism, and they are trying to correct the sometimes harsh voices of the culture wars by urging evangelicals to present their arguments civilly.

Rather than spending time finding nits to pick with the lengthy document, it would be better for evangelicals to think long and hard about our relationship to culture. Most of us would admit that evangelicals on both the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum sometimes fail to maintain the proper relationship to culture. Conservatives often err by rejecting culture and trying to isolate themselves from it rather than putting in the effort to reform culture from the inside. Liberals, on the other hand, often err by embracing culture to the point where they "politely" hide their beliefs.

Evangelicals need to remember the importance of both what we say and how we say it. We need to be bold and firm in proclaiming our beliefs, while simultaneously presenting these beliefs civilly and respectfully. The authors of the Manifesto reference Augustine's understanding of the relationship between the City of God and the Earthly City. Christians have a higher end in sight than the present world, but we do have a duty to work with the citizens of the Earthly City for the common temporal good. This balance between the present and eternity is difficult, and it is all too easy to ignore the Earthly City or to try to establish the City of God on earth, but Christ left us with no illusions that our tasks would be easy.

It is important to recognize that the authors of the Manifesto are not so much commenting on the specific political positions evangelicals should take, as on the relationship evangelicals should have to the general public sphere. The authors are calling evangelicals back towards a careful, charitable and respectful public discourse with those with whom we disagree, including atheists, people of other faiths, and even our fellow believers. Such careful discourse is the duty of every evangelical, regardless of their political opinions.

Evangelicals are called to be respectful and charitable in the public sphere, but we are also called to be firm in preaching truth. Both can be achieved, but we should not be surprised when presenting the truth, even respectfully, sometimes stings the ears of those who listen. Evangelicals will continue to be called judgmental or mean-spirited, regardless of their approach to politics, but our attempts at respectful civil discourse are not to please other men, but to please our heavenly Father.

The Evangelical Manifesto presented a clear call to evangelicals to define themselves and their place in the world. We ought not bristle at such a call, for it is our duty to examine ourselves humbly when we receive the admonition of fellow believers. We would do well to examine the theology preached from our pulpits and the principles we advocate in politics, to ensure that both are presented truthfully and civilly. We ought to be, after all, people of good will. Nevertheless, let no one confuse our good will with a lack of will. Truth matters, whether people acknowledge it or not.

The state's high court struck down a ban on same-sex marriage passed by a whopping 61.4 percent of voters in 2000. By a slim 4-3 majority, the court nullified the vote of the citizens of California and substituted its own judgment for that of the people. The court ruled that the ban violated the equal protection clause of the constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation. Never mind that, since time immemorial, marriage has represented the union of one man and one woman. And never mind that the California Constitution does not create an exception to the rule for same-sex couples.

The American people have become all too familiar with the drill. The legislature passes a law banning abortion and the court overturns it. Children try to pray in school and the courts forbid it. The citizenry takes a stand for heterosexual marriage and the courts undercut it, branding them "bigots" in the process.

Activist judges are substituting their judgment for that of the American people and undermining the right of the people to govern themselves. In doing so, they are misrepresenting the requirements of the Constitution, and the American people are standing idly by as if there is nothing they can do about it. The other two branches of government—the legislative and executive branches—are standing idly by as well. Indeed, they have aided and abetted the judicial usurpation of authority by cowering at the feet of judges who are misrepresenting the provisions of the Constitution. The elected branches have done nothing to implement the checks and balances available to them to rein in a runaway judiciary. They simply furrow their brows and wring their hands while judicial activists run away with our democracy. In its place, these activists are substituting a judicial oligarchy.

Some believe that the solution to the problem is to pass constitutional amendments aimed at overturning the court decisions. They believe that adding new words to our state and federal constitutions will solve the problem. They are wrong!

There is nothing wrong with our existing federal and state constitutions. What is wrong is that judges are wrongly misrepresenting the requirements of these documents. Indeed, they are rewriting the documents by misconstruing them in order to satisfy their own social and political agendas. Through remarkable powers of extrasensory perception they divine new meanings in the words of the foundational documents and perceive rights that are not to be found in the texts themselves. Newly-found rights to privacy are gleaned from existing documents and those rights are translated into the right of women to kill their innocent unborn children and of venal husbands to starve their disabled wives to death. Equal protection of the law means that same-sex couples have a right to marry regardless of how noxious that notion is to the majority of our citizens and notwithstanding the destructive impact of such a ruling on the family, the foundational unit of civilization. These are judges who view words as wax to be shaped and fashioned to suit their own agendas. Is it reasonable to think they will be constrained by new words when they have failed to heed the meaning and intent of the existing ones? Do we really expect that these judges will fall prostrate at the feet of the new words and submit to their plain and ordinary meaning?

This contest is not about words, it is about wills. It is about the wills of activist judges intent on fashioning a society to fit their own vision, and it is about the will of the people and their elected representatives who used to cherish and believe in the right to self government. Do we still have the will to govern ourselves? Or will we submit like sheep to judicial elites who think they know what's best for everybody else? Will the executive and legislative branches, acting like co-equals, step up and rein in these errant judges, or will they blindly submit like a subordinate stepchild to a higher authority? Will legislators impeach judges who fraudulently misrepresent the requirements of our foundational documents? Will executives refuse to carry out the decisions of judges who make hash of the Constitution? Will voters refuse to retain judges who are unfaithful to the language and intent of the laws and constitutions? Will they insist on electing executives and legislators who will go nose to nose with the courts on the language and meaning of the laws of our states and our country?

Americans have not always had the view of judicial supremacy that prevails today. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged that judicial review included review of the acts of the President and Congress, but he thought those branches had a right to decide for themselves whether to accept the high courts' ruling. Andrew Jackson, disagreeing with a decision of the high court on an Indian removal issue spotlighted the differences between the role of the judiciary and the role of the executive when he remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Abraham Lincoln, in the aftermath of the Dred Scott decision, acknowledged the danger of judicial despotism in his First Inaugural Address. Lincoln stated, "The candid citizen must confess that, if the policy of the government upon the vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decision of the Supreme Court... the people will have ceased to be their own masters, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

Judicial tyranny by any other name is still tyranny. Do Americans still have the will to resist it? Only time will tell.

Proponents of euthanasia understand the power of language in shaping debate. Therefore, instead of using the term "physician-assisted suicide" to describe the practice they advocate, they use euphemisms like "death with dignity" and "end of life choices" to sugar coat the reality of the killings they have in view. They know the term "physician-assisted suicide" does not poll well, so they try to disguise the real nature of what it is they are championing. Since people are inherently uncomfortable with the notion that those trained in the healing arts would aid and abet the killing of their patients, euphemisms are used to conceal the true nature of what's involved. Everyone wants to die with dignity. Thus, like abortion, killing oneself with a doctor's assistance becomes just another "choice."

Many in the medical community are complicit in this deception, and, although doctors were once trained to "do no harm," they are now fostering it through the deceptive use of rhetoric. A recent New York Times article, written by Jane Gross, describes one such deception. The article explains that a new practice called "slow medicine" has gained support in medical communities in recent years. The goal of slow medicine is to encourage "physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limited rewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses...." [emphasis added]. Thus slow medicine seeks to aid doctors, families, and patients in resisting medical efforts to cure treatable illnesses.

When first confronted with the slow medicine approach, patients understandably find it offensive. The New York Times article reports that Kendal at Hanover, a retirement community which encourages the slow medicine approach, "begins by asking newcomers whether they want to be resuscitated or go to the hospital and under what circumstances." Brenda Jordan, a nurse practitioner at Kendal, explains, "'They give me an amazingly puzzled look, like "Why wouldn't I?"'" This reaction is completely natural and in keeping with any patient who values their own life. Even Dr. Tom Rosenthal, UCLA's chief medical officer and a believer in slow medicine, admits, "The culture has a built-in bias that everything that can be done will be done."

To overcome that instinctive cultural bias, the Kendal staff steps in to explain things to its patients. While the explanation is couched in quality of life terms and foreboding statistics, underneath lies a utilitarian concern never overtly addressed. In her article, Gross explains, "The costliest patients—the elderly with chronic illnesses—are the only group with universal health coverage under Medicare, leading to huge federal expenditures that experts agree are unsustainable as boomers age." Thus, there are financial benefits that flow from every elderly person's decision to "die with dignity."

Recent experience in The Netherlands illustrates where deceptive language about euthanasia can lead. When The Netherlands first legalized euthanasia, it was only allowed in rare cases of "intolerable suffering." "The guidelines were designed specifically to keep assisted suicide occurrences few and far between by establishing demanding conditions that had to be met, at the risk of criminal prosecution." Yet doctors soon began interpreting these guidelines broadly, and the government and the courts did almost nothing to prevent it. Now the Netherlands, under its euthanasia law, allows the killing of infants with non-life threatening birth defects. Additionally, Dutch doctors are euthanizing patients without their permission. Repeated studies have demonstrated that 900-1000 patients experience "termination without request or consent" every year. The Dutch government usually turns a blind eye to this illegal practice as well.

If The Netherlands is any indication, the citizens of the United States ought to guard aggressively against the rhetorical gyrations of euthanasia's proponents. No matter how flowery their language is, they promote the killing of human beings. They propose a "right to die" but, in actuality, they want the right to kill.

In our postmodern world, however, many scholars are learning the hard way that "academic freedom" has become an Orwellian term meaning "academic tyranny." Today, in the academy, one is free only to advance notions that are consonant with the prevailing politically correct orthodoxy. Challenges to that orthodoxy are often met with denials of tenure, refusals to renew contracts, or expulsion.

Nowhere is this more evident than when the notion of Darwinian Evolution is questioned. And nowhere are the limitations of academic freedom more in evidence than in the debate over Intelligent Design. In his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein chronicles the fate of scholars who dared to proffer the theory of Intelligent Design (ID) as an explanation for the origin of life. Their efforts were rebuffed with Gestapo-like tactics carried out by the politically correct police who brooked no challenges to Charles Darwin's theories. The heterodox were deemed unworthy of membership in the academy and were expelled. Tenure was denied and their contracts were not renewed. Challenges to the existing "academic consensus" are simply not allowed. Thus, a scholar's freedom of inquiry has been transmogrified to freedom from inquiry.

History is replete, however, with great advances made by scholars who challenged the existing "academic consensus." Names like Galileo and Kepler and Einstein come to mind. Progress, after all, often requires thinking outside the box.

Stein's documentary contains interviews with some of the world's leading atheists who are also proponents of Darwin's theories. Of course, they do not acknowledge Darwinism to be merely a theory; to them it is settled science. Yet their notions of the origin of life can hardly be called "scientific." Michael Ruse posits in the film that life on earth evolved on the backs of crystals and Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, hypothesizes that life was planted on earth through space aliens. Men such as these are deemed "leading lights" in the academic community, but Stein's cross-examination makes them appear to be rather "dim bulbs." Intelligent Design seems eminently plausible compared to the ravings of these scientists who appear educated beyond their intelligence.

In Expelled, Ben Stein also interviews Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, a spokeswoman for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). The NCSE's mission is "defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools," and Dr. Scott is the self-appointed Chief of the Politically Correct Thought Police. Although a putative proponent of academic freedom, she maintains that there is no room for discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom. She comes across as Darwin's Eva Braun in the film.

Instead of encouraging free inquiry, the scientists interviewed in the documentary mock ID as "pseudo-science" or "religion masquerading as science." These barbs are based on their assumption that the notion that God (or a designer) created life somehow contradicts rational thought. They argue that ID is based on belief—not rational science—but they neglect to mention that their theories on the origin of life are also based on an element of belief. Indeed, the acceptance of any theory of origins necessitates belief (or faith) in that theory.

The NCSE's dogmatic dismissal of alternative theories of our origin in an attempt to preserve "science standards" smacks of the censorship Galileo suffered at the hands of the Church when he defended the theory that the Sun, not the Earth, was at the center of our solar system. Perhaps most telling is Dr. Scott's claim that the NCSE will not rest until the last brushfires of controversy over evolution are put out. These efforts to extinguish controversy and to mute dissenting voices are antithetical to traditional notions of academic freedom. But that doesn't bother the scholars who are interviewed in the film. In the academy, it's 1984 and, in their world, freedom is tyranny.

Sadly, Mr. Obama's views are not uncommon among the elites who walk the corridors of power in the Federal City. These are the people who think Washington knows best. They think they are smarter than everybody else. They believe they can spend your money better than you can. And they know more about raising their children than you do.

Rural folk are seen as uninformed and unrefined. Their values are antiquated and their beliefs are passé. If one worries that they are going to be displaced in their job by someone who doesn't speak English and who will work for a cheaper wage, they must necessarily harbor some form of animus against those who are foreign-born. The idea that guns would be used for recreation is a foreign notion to the elites. Why on earth would you need them for protection, when big government exists to take care of you?

Senator Obama's comments are indicative of the lack of understanding many politicians have about the middle and lower classes. Democrats and Republicans alike speak of promoting the values and livelihood of the middle class, but few of the candidates seem to know what really drives these people's lives. Mayhill Fowler, a Huffington Post blogger who first leaked Obama's comments, argued that Obama's approach emphasized stereotypes instead of providing his wealthy audience with a window into the lives of blue collar workers.

Obama's remarks show the increasing distance between small town conservatives and those who control our government, media and major businesses. Obama says that the simple ideas of small town people are merely a result of their under-privileged economic status. As David Paul Kuhn of Real Clear Politics explains, however, this misunderstanding of rural culture has undercut liberal efforts for decades. In reality, the middle and lower classes in middle America are not "clinging" to their beliefs because they're poor or struggling. Their beliefs are fundamental to how they live their lives, and until liberals begin to understand this, they will not attract middle-America voters.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have long appealed to the moral concerns of these middle-state voters prior to each election, but their failure to come through on their promises (because their real agenda seems to be to advance the interest of the moneyed elites) has undercut much of their previous support among the small town conservatives. These voters are truly conservative, believing in the importance of limited government, low spending, local control and public morality. Their understanding of faith, morality and liberty informs their daily lives and political beliefs. These ideas compose the core of small town conservative communities—they are not merely a result of lost jobs.

The view of the middle class presented by Obama is not new or unique to him—it traces back to the prominent American progressives of the early 20th century. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, "Not only our future economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions depends on the determination of our government to give employment to idle men." Progressives have long thought that the fundamental factor determining cultural virtue was the economic stability of the American people.

Unfortunately, many Republicans have come to share this misunderstanding of rural conservatives. While they hold to different economic principles than Democrats (though increasingly less-so), Republicans today see culture in terms of dollars and cents. They believe culture will function smoothly and virtuously if everyone is allowed to participate freely in the market. While these economic principles are important, they still miss the true cultural foundation of America.

Wilhelm Röpke was a firm believer in the free market, but he also saw the vital importance of principles of morality in society. He said in A Humane Economy, "The free world will prevail only if it succeeds in filling the emptiness of the soul in its own manner and with its own values.... What we need is to bethink ourselves quietly and soberly of truth, freedom, justice, human dignity and respect of human life and the ultimate values." Röpke understood that economic standing is not the basis of a sound culture. Ultimate values are far more important to the well-being and success of a nation than the condition of its markets.

Sadly, neither Mr. Obama nor the elites of the dominant political parties grasp these traditional conservative truths. Obama lumps together religion, xenophobia, the right to bear arms and prejudice—thereby displaying his liberal view of culture. The political elites, on the other hand, ignore traditional small-town conservatives in favor of their big donors whose primary concern is their own personal economic gain. The real hope for America, however, lies in the deeply-held faith and moral principles of these "simple" small-town folks. That faith and those principles will enable them to remain steadfast in their ways despite the politicians and the media who treat them so dismissively.

Science is unquestionably a worthwhile pursuit, but many have come to view science as an end unto itself. The unbridled pursuit of science and technology is glorified, and any who suggest constraining science within limits of morality or propriety are condemned. Raising the simple question of whether something should be done is considered taboo. Radical science advocates are only interested in whether something can be done.

Central to the "science without limits" view is the notion that man is merely an animal, the product of random chance. God is removed from the creation equation and the notion of moral truth is abandoned. Notions of right and wrong are relegated to the spheres of theology and philosophy and do not constrain the consciences or actions of radical scientists.

The latest example of the results of radical science is the blending of human DNA and animal cells in Britain. There scientists extracted the DNA from a human embryonic cell and injected it into a "emptied" cow egg. This process, it is argued, produces a 99.9% human embryo from which scientists can harvest stem cells for further research and analysis. A group at Newcastle Uni