It is extremely unlikely that money will ever be removed from the political process as all campaigns require funds, and the expense of running for office increases with each election cycle. In addition, the central role of private donations in campaigns allows for voters to have a greater say in the electoral process.

However, there is a venue in which the union of politics and money turns toxic; judicial elections.

Currently, 80% of states select judges by election; these elections are subject to manipulation by a myriad of interest groups seeking to purchase a sympathetic hearing from the bench in legal matters pertaining to their activities.

The Wall Street Journal has noted that "the U.S. Chamber of Commerce got involved in 13 judicial races in 2004 and won 12."[i] This involvement has translated into rulings which are favorable to donors.

Some may wonder how this is measurably worse than the exchange of funds for political favors which takes place in Congress and state legislatures. The answer is, quite simply, that there will always be a number of bad apples in any legislative body--however, they cannot forge policy on their own. Consensus is still required to create law, and the competing interests and diverging opinions tend to minimize the impact of any one interest, however corrupt.

Judges, on the other hand, do not hand down rulings after a grueling process of compromise with hundreds of colleagues. This is well and good; while making law requires consensus, interpreting the law requires expertise. An elite few are responsible for defining that which many men and women come together to create.

The uniqueness of the judicial system also underscores the necessity of impartial judges, for the law must be viewed only through the lens of proper jurisprudence. To read the law in the pursuit of meaner interests benefits a few to the detriment of all.

In states such as Wisconsin, where Justice Louis Butler, infamous for his judicial activism and his campaign contributions, the voters have a chance to send a clear message to American jurists: remain true to the law. All other interests are unwelcome.

It follows then, that if unborn life were to be strictly defined and quantified in law, the Courts would be bound to protect, rather than devalue the unborn.

"When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, "He saved others; let him save himself if he is the Christ of God, the Chosen One."

 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, "If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."

 There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.

 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"

 But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

 Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

 Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

 It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, "Surely this was a righteous man.""[i]

We've all heard the story so many times; it's easy for the events to lose their impact through sheer familiarity. From the moment He stepped onto this earth, Jesus was marked for death. Though He could have turned away from this path at any time, Christ was compelled by love to offer His life as payment for our sins.

One way we can continue to honor His sacrifice is by doing likewise. What can each of us sacrifice? What are we willing to give up in order to help our fellow human beings and glorify God?

More recently, the line which has separated cable fare from network offerings has become blurred as a result of instances such as Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" and the usage of four-letter words by Cher, Bono, and Nicole Richie during awards shows which were broadcast on the major networks in 2002 and 2003.

These "fleeting expletives" caused the Federal Communications Commission to re-evaluate existing policy; it is for this reason that the FCC can now fine the broadcasting companies which allow such cursing on-air.

Unhappy with the FCC's change in policy, the broadcasting companies of Fox, ABC, NBC, and CBS have taken the matter to federal court in order to have the indecency ruling overturned.

After an appeals court ruling which found in favor of the broadcasters and characterized that the FCC's policy position was "probably unconstitutional," the FCC has appealed to the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court's decision.

The argument of the broadcasting companies is that the FCC is essentially suppressing free speech when it is not necessary to do so, pointing to television settings and other controls currently at the disposal of parents who wish to exercise discretion over their children's television viewing.

Representing the FCC, US Solicitor General Paul Clement replied that court decisions had placed "the commission in an untenable position." Though the FCC is considered responsible for the decency (or lack thereof) of programming, it is being denied "effective tools to address the problem."[i]

There are two rules of thumb which are worth keeping in mind in cases such as this.

First, when the legal question deals with the potential effect existing policies may have on children, we strongly believe that it is better to err on the side of safety; children must be adequately protected--in this case, from inappropriate content. Adults are free to watch whatever they like, and are fully cognizant of what may flash across their screen when flipping channels. Children are not.

Second, the downsides to further regulation must be weighed dispassionately, without hyperbole or exaggeration. In the worst case scenario, if this regulation is indeed an infringement upon free speech, then what? It does not hinder adults from availing themselves of indecent content--there are cable stations, video stores, and the internet. Furthermore, in no way can this be construed as the beginning of a slippery slope, whereby government regulation has a "chilling effect" on free speech in general.

Fortunately, the FCC seems to have the proper perspective in matters such as these. Kevin Martin, the chairman of the FCC summed up his duty thus: "Protecting our children is our greatest responsibility."

This victory, however, does not obscure the fact that the elections which took place were anything but free and fair. While Iranian citizens were indeed allowed to cast their votes for candidates running for office, their choices were severely constrained by the mullahs, or religious leaders of Iran. Though somewhat removed from the day-to-day politics, the Revolutionary Council, headed by the Supreme Ayatollah Ali Khameni, is the ultimate power in Iran. The Guardian Council, an arm of the government under the mullahs, has veto power over the slate of candidates in national elections.

Anyone wishing to run for public office in Iran must first be vetted by the Council for loyalty to the current regime.[i]

As one might imagine, this makes internal political change a near impossibility; the system is set up to sideline politicians interested in reform and reward hard-liners who favor keeping Iran isolated from the outside world.

A similar system is in place for presidential elections, which has been characterized as A chance for voters to choose between a hard-liner, a radical hard-liner, and an extremely radical hard-liner.

Under this system, the mullah-guided Guardian Council stripped hundreds of reform-minded candidates from the parliamentary ballot. Aside from Ahmadinejad supporters, the only factions which benefited from the elections were other hard-line politicians.

Despite the corrupt and authoritarian system, over sixty percent of Iranians--millions of people--participated in the elections, a testament to the Iranian people's desire to govern themselves. Unfortunately, while the people desire participatory democracy, their leaders are unwilling to relinquish their hold on power.

At this point, the stage has been set for a power struggle between Ahmadinejad and other hard-line factions in Tehran. Despite increasing criticism over his tendency to direct oil revenues towards public projects in an attempt to direct attention away from the Iranian economy, the anti-American demagogue remains in power.

Meanwhile, the reformists have once again, been marginalized by the very system they are attempting to overhaul. While reform-minded politicians vow to continue the "struggle toward a further open society," [ii] for now it seems that once again, the mullahs have succeeded in sealing the regime off from outside influences--most especially the influences of its citizens.

In recent years, the Episcopal Church has been rocked by religious and political explosions as the bishops, priests, and dioceses have grappled with the issue of homosexuality. Things came to a head in 2003, when the Episcopal Church ordained Reverend V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man in a homosexual relationship as bishop of New Hampshire.[i]

In response to the Church's embrace of homosexuality, the San Joaquin diocese seceded from the Episcopal Church in December 2007. Bishop John-David Schofield, who presided over the diocese's vote, wrote that the Episcopal Church leadership "ought not to expect everyone to follow teaching that serves only to undermine the authority of the Bible and ultimately leads to lifestyles that are destructive."[ii]

For this reason, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops voted on Wednesday to remove Bishop Schofield for his purported rejection of Episcopal doctrine. In response, Bishop Schofield replied that he had not abandoned Episcopal doctrine; rather, the Church's leaders were advocating teachings which were not consistent with Scripture or Church Doctrine.

This marks a significant flashpoint in the Episcopal Church's split on homosexuality. While dozens of congregations have seceded since 2003, never before has an entire diocese left the Episcopal Church.

The bishops who voted to depose Bishop Schofield do not see their action as "punitive,"[iii] but it is difficult to interpret the move otherwise. The Church meant to make an example of the first bishop to lead his diocese away from Episcopal leadership. And yet, this will not make the issue or the controversy go away.

The leaders of the Episcopal Church are gravely mistaken if they believe that split over the Church's acceptance of homosexuality can be papered over by silencing the Church's internal critics. So long as Episcopal leaders ignore the concerns of their congregations and the guidelines of the Bible, the Church will continue to be wracked with discord.

This is particularly interesting given Spitzer's reputation as a crime fighter and a crusader for law and order. His tenure as attorney general of New York was marked by highly publicized prostitution and money laundering busts, as well as the arrest and prosecution of a number of Wall Street executives for business practices of questionable legality.

It is on this reputation that Spitzer was elected, and he promised to act in similar fashion as governor as he had while attorney general--that he would take on corrupt institutions and actors in an effort to clean up New York.

Perhaps the supreme irony of the incident is that Spitzer appears to have been caught by the same tactics he used to break up money-laundering ring; following the trail left by suspicious financial transactions.[ii] When federal investigators noticed that thousands of dollars of cash were being transferred to an account used by a prostitution ring, they took a closer look; this led to the wiretaps which implicated Spitzer in the act of hiring a prostitute.

It is clear that Governor Spitzer has abdicated any moral authority he held as the elected leader of New York; no matter how much corruption he may have ended in New York, he is now known for abetting and engaging in corrupt practices rather than fighting to bring about their end.

In Judges 13-16, Samson was ordained by God to stamp out the tyrannical practices of the Philistines and united the children of Israel as one people. In the end, however, his moral failings were his undoing, and eclipsed his victories against Israel's enemies.[iii] 

At the same time, it is important to view the incident in the proper light. Many of Spitzer's legal and political foes see his fall as the well-deserved comeuppance of a man who was overzealous and self-righteous during his time as state attorney general.

Whether or not this is true, to rejoice at the downfall of a hypocrite is to miss the point entirely. Focusing on the perceived hypocrisy rather than the wrongdoing runs the risk of excusing the sin that Spitzer committed and the laws which he broke.

It is right and proper that there are consequences for leaders who do not live up to the moral standards they are elected to uphold. At the same time, it is important to remember that we are all flawed and sinful; God's moral standards are by their very nature difficult to uphold. To denigrate the standards is to excuse the sinner. We are called to hold our leaders to account for their moral failings, which can only be done if we remain focused on the One who holds all of us to account.

There is also another factor which makes 2008 unique: the degree to which religion has played a role in the electoral process thus far.

Mike Huckabee, a Baptist minister, campaigned on his faith in Christ, attributed his Iowa win to Jesus, and openly discussed Christian ideals with voters.

Mitt Romney, an avowed Mormon, ran as a "man of faith" and portrayed himself as the candidate of family values while attempting to win over voters who were turned off by his adherence to the Church of Latter Day Saints.

Barack Obama has addressed crowds of churchgoers and speaks often of his faith. At the same time, his campaign has had to debunk rumors which allege that he is a Muslim, and other questions have been asked about the "afro centrism" espoused by the pastor of Obama's home church.

The fact that religion is such an important component in the electorate's search for the country's next leader is encouraging, and is also a sign that more work needs to be done.

The Judeo-Christian tradition under-girds and reinforces America's founding, identity, and principles. The importance of religion in the minds of voters as they search for a candidate to support indicates that most Americans instinctively know that a connection between the two exists.

And yet, there is cause for concern. Though over 78% of Americans consider themselves Christians[i], the percentage of Christians in America is shrinking; many Americans are converting to other religions or to nothing at all.

That is why we must make it our mission to not only educate voters on the enduring connection between Judeo-Christian values and the American way of life, we must also show them why the Judeo-Christian tradition is worth subscribing to and maintaining. In order to do that, we must speak directly to citizens' fears and concerns, by providing answers which are both relevant and true.

Then--and only then--can we begin to make strides towards becoming one nation under god, indivisible.

This is sobering news, for government action of this kind would almost certainly prolong the current housing market crisis, in addition to weakening the long-term health and prospects of the market.

The housing market hit a slump in late 2007, when over 100 lending companies filed for bankruptcy, as a result of borrowers defaulting on mortgages. These borrowers had taken on adjustable rate mortgages at a time when the housing market was doing well; the borrowers signed for the ARMs with the intention of refinancing later at rates more advantageous to them.

These "subprime" mortgages, so named because of the higher risk involved on the side of the lender, have interest rates which start out low but quickly increase as a way to compensate the lenders for the increased risk. As it turns out, many of the borrowers were unable to make their payments when the interest rates went up; they defaulted, and the lenders were forced to declare bankruptcy.

How did this happen? A variety of factors were at play in the bursting of the housing bubble, but it appears that two key variables were dishonest borrowers, and overeager lenders. BasePoint Analytics, a firm which tracks and studies fraud, determined that many people who applied for subprime mortgages and later defaulted simply lied about their income. This deception went undiscovered because the lenders did not vet the applicants thoroughly enough before approving the mortgages.[i]

The economic repercussions of the housing slump are serious enough that President Bush and the chairman of the Fed are both considering some kind of bailout in an attempt to alleviate both consumers and investors; however, that would be a serious mistake.

Our economy runs largely off of trust that we extend towards millions, even billions of strangers--people we have not met and probably never will. When a consumer orders a book off Amazon.com with his or her credit card, there is no face-to-face meeting with the book manufacturers, the shipping service, the webmaster who maintains Amazon's online portal, or the bankers who manage the electronic transfer of money. Yet, the consumer is confident that his or her book will arrive in the mail, and the bank account in question will be debited for the proper amount.

This kind of automatic trust is what sustains our economy and allows it to grow; it cannot exist in an environment where actions do not have consequences, where rules do not matter. The iron law of economic trust is cause and effect; this means that irresponsible behavior by consumers and investors alike must carry a penalty. This acts as a negative incentive for irresponsibility and reinforces smart lending and borrowing.

A government bailout not only overturns the balance of cause and effect, also encourages lenders and borrowers to act in the knowledge that the government is waiting to step in and fix their mistakes once the pain threshold is high enough.

The housing market will undergo a period of short-term pain, but that is better than a loss of long-term viability. If the Fed is thinking of pumping Reserve dollars into the ailing housing market, they might do well to heed the words of Jesus in the parable of the talents. A master entrusted three of his servants with varying amounts of money to invest.

Upon returning, he found that two had chosen wisely and turned a profit; the third had chosen foolishly and put his money in a hole in the ground, wasting any opportunity for investment. The master had these words for the faithful: "'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'"

To the servant who had acted foolishly, the master replied, "you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest. Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.'"[ii]

The state of California and pro-family groups are co-defendants in this case; the state argues that as the existing law is valid, the Court has no reason to alter the definition of marriage and has no legal basis for granting homosexuals the right to marry. The conservative organizations argue that the purpose of procreation is intrinsic to marriage.

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, are intent on demonstrating that California's constitution grants gay couples the right to marry; laws which say otherwise are unconstitutional.

As the Court pointed out, however, homosexuals are free to engage in domestic partnerships throughout the state of California, and at one point, Justice Ming Chin asked "Aren't the rights and responsibilities of domestic partners and marriage partners substantially the same?"[i]

The plaintiffs replied that a definitional difference remained, which constituted discrimination on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

This exchange between plaintiff and jurist was particularly revealing, for it showed that the "gay rights" movement is not overly concerned with rights in [JRB1] the strict sense of the word, for they already have them. Gay Americans are free to engage in whatever practices they desire without outside interference, even to the point of forming civil unions.

However, that is not enough.

The gay movement desires something more than mere acceptance; they require approval--governmental endorsement of their lifestyle. This is the point upon which the gay marriage debate turns.

Americans have an exceedingly high tolerance for deviant and even immoral behavior, so long as it is out of sight, but of course, that does not equate to approval of such behavior.

As long as the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, the implication is left hanging that gay marriage is wrong and unnatural. And that is precisely what the gay rights movement cannot stand.

There is nothing that prevents people from choosing sinful lifestyles--the Constitution permits a wide degree of latitude over individual behavior. By the same token, there is nothing in the Constitution that can force us to approve of that which is wrong--no matter what the city of San Francisco says.

Genesis 4:7 tells us "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it."[ii]

True acceptance comes from doing what is right. Without the knowledge of making moral and upright decisions, it does not matter how many states affix the government's stamp of approval to the gay lifestyle.

This view of American politics is little more than wishful thinking; the electorate is composed of individuals, and individuals will always have disagreements with one another. It is the genius of the American political system that allows people to do precisely that, yet in a way that affords everyone a voice in the process. Open, vocal disagreement is a vital part of the American tradition of self-government.

On the other hand, the critics of partisanship are not all wrong when they decry the current political climate. While disagreements over issues and policies are good and necessary, conflict expressed as personal attacks or smear campaigns both cheapen public discourse and alienate voters. The public’s cynical views on politics and lackluster voter turnout can be attributed to such gutter politics.

A sense of unity among Americans is indeed called for; not a feel-good “go along to get along” sentiment that merely papers over the very real divides in the American societal landscape, but a sense of purpose that stems from something deeper.

The source of such unity is the Judeo-Christian ethic that served as the inspiration for America’s founding and undergirds our republic today. There is an important distinction to be made here; to claim that this nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles is not to say that the United States of America was founded upon the Christian religion. Many of the Founders had fled Europe to escape the tyranny of theocracy; America was designed to be different. In fact, prior to the American Revolution, Roger Williams founded the colony of Rhode Island on the precept of religious freedom.

The Founders rightly saw that when government and religion were conjoined, both institutions became corrupt and bereft of purpose. The church became overly occupied with worldly matters and so neglected its spiritual duties, while kings saw fit to cloak their actions in spiritual language, raising themselves above reproach and opening the door to tyranny.

However, the Founders also recognized that liberty was a gift from God, and it is upon this principle that they made their case for independence and later nationhood. To them, “created in the image of God” meant that individuals were gifted with the capacity to reason and determine their own destinies; kings and governments had no right to strip citizens of their free will or constrain them from worshiping God as they chose.

It is for this reason that the First Amendment of the Constitution both enumerates the right to the free exercise of religion while prohibiting government from meddling in religious affairs. Because of this stipulation, religious practice was able to flourish in America. In 1831, when young Alexis de Tocqueville traveled across the young nation in an attempt to understand it, he was amazed to find that the vibrant religiosity common in American society was not mandated or enforced by the government; rather, it sprang up from the people as a spontaneous outpouring of spiritual devotion. Americans counted themselves religious devotees because they wanted to worship God.
Upon this realization, Tocqueville made the observation that in America, religious freedom was closely linked to the other freedoms enjoyed by the populace. According to Tocqueville,
“When there is no longer any principle of authority in religion any more than in politics… the constant agitation of all surrounding things alarms and exhausts them. As everything is at sea in the sphere of the mind, they determine at least that the mechanism of society shall be firm and fixed; and as they cannot resume their ancient belief, they assume a master…I am inclined to think that if faith be wanting in [man], he must be subject; and if he be free, he must believe.
Furthermore, Tocqueville observed that though America was composed of many diverse groups, it nonetheless remained a unified nation. He reasoned that the multitude of social functions and organizations such as churches, clubs, charitable organizations, and civic groups helped knit the various subsections of American society together as a whole.
In much the same fashion, Americans today have a powerful tool with which we can reforge our national unity: the principles upon which this nation was founded and the source for those beliefs. The Founding Fathers drew from the Judeo-Christian ethic in order to enunciate our “inalienable rights”—the right to govern ourselves, the right to worship freely, the right to protect our loved ones and our belongings.
These God-given rights unite all Americans of all creeds and from all walks of life, whether they be Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, or irreligious. The ideals enumerated in the Constitution—which stem from the Judeo-Christian tradition—are the source of American nationalism.
When we use our currency (which displays the words “In God We Trust”), recite the Pledge of Allegiance, or even engage in the act of free speech, we are reinforcing the national myth that makes us whole. These actions connect the abstract ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to a concrete reality: one nation under god, indivisible.
Organizations such as the ACLU ignore Tocqueville’s prescient words above when they attempt to chip away at the Judeo-Christian ethic that is the underpinning of American liberty. Uniting on the basis of that underpinning cannot fix all our problems overnight, but it is an excellent point upon which to re-open political dialogue in America. In order to tackle the challenges that lie ahead, it is essential that we remind ourselves and one another that no matter our disagreements, we enjoy the freedom to disagree for one reason: it was given to us by God.

The results were disturbing.

An actor, posing as a donor, made a call to Planned Parenthood of Idaho, requesting that his donation go towards the elimination of African-American children. "[I]...think the less black kids out there the better."[i]

The Planned Parenthood representative responded, "Understandable, understandable," and accepted the donation without protest. All seven state chapters of Planned Parenthood agreed to process the faux donations which were offered on racist grounds.

While it is reprehensible that Planned Parenthood would willingly accept money from avowed racists, it is consistent with the organization's history.

Margaret Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921 (which later became known as Planned Parenthood). From the beginning, the organization was steeped in the pseudoscience of eugenics, which was popular at the time. Eugenics advocated the sterilization and "culling" of "lesser specimens" from the gene pool, in order to "improve" the human race through selective breeding.

This bigoted and unscientific mindset was engrained into the ABCL by none other than Sanger herself. In 1939, she put forth an initiative to covertly target African-American children. In a letter to the Southern director of the Birth Control Federation of America, Sanger wrote, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."[ii]

Though today, Planned Parenthood's website claims to "welcome everyone -- regardless of race, age, sexuality, disability, or income,"[iii] its history--both recent and otherwise--indicates just the opposite.

The desire to play God and the ability to do so degrades the sanctity of life--it rationalizes the murder of the unborn, and devalues those who are deemed "unfit."

The "service" offered by Planned Parenthood is the cheapening of God's greatest gift. Planned Parenthood says "life is only valuable so long as we consider it to be useful."

Jesus said, "Love your neighbor as yourself."[iv]

Who does America side with?

Mr. Buckley's moral clarity led him to realize that resisting communism would be the defining struggle of the late twentieth century. As a part of this mission, he founded National Review in 1955, in order to "stand athwart History [Karl Marx's definition of progress], yelling 'Stop!'" After 50 years, National Review continues to provide news and commentary while championing liberty, traditional values, and free markets.

As an author, Buckley also wrote a series of fictional novels about a CIA operative who consistently did the right thing--a rebuttal to much of Cold War spy fiction, which portrayed the CIA and the KGB as morally equivalent, corrupt institutions.

This moral clarity did not occur in a vacuum, however; William F. Buckley, Jr. was a devout Roman Catholic whose faith profoundly influenced his words and actions. His first book, "God and Man at Yale" criticized his alma mater for its embrace of a secularist perspective and its growing disdain for Christianity.

Though best known for his intellectual conservatism, Buckley also deployed his erudite wit and formidable intellect in passionate defense of his Christian faith. When discussing faith vs. skepticism, Buckley once wrote "The skeptics get away with fixing the odds against the believer, mostly by pointing to phenomena which are only explainable... by the belief that there was a cause for them."

That was Buckley's way; at his most passionate, he remained thoughtful and polite. For thirty-three years, he engaged guests with wit and civility on his televised debate show, "Firing Line."

Friends and acquaintances also remember his kindness, unfailing cheerful nature, and generous spirit.

There can be no better epitaph for William F. Buckley, Jr. than his own words:

"I mean to live my life an obedient man, but obedient to God, subservient to the wisdom of my ancestors; never to the authority of political truths arrived at yesterday at the voting booth."