Having been there at the birth of CAP, it's amusing and gratifying to me to watch liberals complaining about CAP's budget and influence today. We began with very little -- a few committed board members, an association with Focus on the Family, and little else -- no donors, no network, no influence other than the force and integrity of our arguments.

And ironically, we began because a Republican-controlled legislature was routinely ignoring or giving the back of its hand to social conservatives. We formed CAP so that families and children and people of faith could be heard at the Capitol and in the broader culture.

One thing we did have was faith that tens of thousands of Arizonans would get behind an organization committed to promoting family values with excellence, integrity, and moral principle.

Now the results have been so great that liberals whine about its influence, as if CAP is doing anything other than giving voice to the sensible, common sense pro-family, pro-faith grassroots majority.

I am very proud and grateful for the continued work of The Center for Arizona Policy, and the excellent leadership of its board of directors, and the tireless Cathi Herrod and her entire team.

My interest in public policy is rooted in my sincere belief that conservative principles – limited, constitutional government, the free market, low taxes, a strong national defense, border security, and strong families – will provide the greatest peace and prosperity to our nation.

That is why I chose to pursue a seemingly impossible task -- taking on a hugely popular Governor in 2006 during economic boom-times – to provide principled conservative opposition. I was gratified to receive the nomination of the Republican Party. Sadly, many of my predictions about the effect of then-Gov. Napolitano’s constant push for more and more spending have come true, and Arizona lives with the resulting economic nightmare today.

In recent days I have become increasingly concerned about whether Republicans in Congress are willing to stand unflinchingly and uncompromisingly for limited, constitutional government, national and border security, and an end to corporate bailouts and governmental takeovers of private companies and industries.

I have great respect for Sen. John McCain -- not only for his war record but for the sacrifices he has made to represent Arizona in Congress and the United States for the past three decades.

I was grateful to have Sen. McCain’s support as someone he indicated would be “a Governor we can trust” in 2006, and I was pleased to endorse him for President in 2008.

At the same time, as Sen. McCain would acknowledge, no citizen is entitled to public office indefinitely. To appreciate Sen. McCain’s service to our nation and to Arizona does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is entitled to a fourth decade in Washington.

These are extraordinary times, and the threats to our nation’s security and prosperity are real. We cannot effectively oppose the Obama-Pelosi-Reid big-government takeover with politics as usual.

While I continue to have great respect for Sen. McCain, I also believe Arizona desperately needs conservative change in the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Believing that J.D. Hayworth will provide a consistent, reliable conservative vote and voice in Washington, D.C., I am supporting J.D. Hayworth for the United States Senate in 2010.

JD is on the right side of issues important to conservatives – opposing illegal immigration, ending bailouts, fighting against Cap & Trade and stopping unconstitutional restraints on political speech. He is consistent in his support for the sanctity of life and the institution of marriage. And JD will be an articulate spokesman for conservative principles.

They argue that It is the sense that the election of President Obama represents the culmination of multi-generational efforts among elites to attack the foundation of our national greatness -- the very notion of American exceptionalism. Lowry and Ponnuru explain what it means to be a conservative in America today:

What do we, as American conservatives, want to conserve? The answer is simple: the pillars of American exceptionalism. Our country has always been exceptional. It is freer, more individualistic, more democratic, and more open and dynamic than any other nation on earth. These qualities are the bequest of our Founding and of our cultural heritage. They have always marked America as special, with a unique role and mission in the world: as a model of ordered liberty and self-government and as an exemplar of freedom and a vindicator of it, through persuasion when possible and force of arms when absolutely necessary.

The survival of American exceptionalism as we have known it is at the heart of the debate over Obama’s program. It is why that debate is so charged. In his first year, Obama tried to avoid the cultural hot buttons that tripped up Bill Clinton and created the “gays, guns, and God” backlash of 1994. But he has stoked a different type of cultural reaction. The level of spending, the bailouts, and the extent of the intervention in the economy contemplated in health-care and cap-and-trade legislation have created the fear that something elemental is changing in the country. At stake isn’t just a grab bag of fiscal issues, but the meaning of America and the character of its people: the ultimate cultural issue.

The most obvious assaults on American exceptionalism proposed by the Obama Administration have not been attacks on our religious and cultural heritage, although those have occurred -- they have been on our understanding of the role of government in our economic lives. Government spending and regulation threatens our freedom to choose what we do and how we do it, and our very ability to earn money, while creating larger blocs of people who are entirely dependent on government for their food, shelter, clothing and health care.

Whether America continues to be exceptional hangs in the balance. Everyone should read this article, as we re-dedicate ourselves to fighting the political battles necessary to maintain the greatness of America for our children and their children.

At the time, Arizona had the highest crime rate in the nation following her four years as attorney general and four as governor. Our borders remained completely unsecure, she had failed to improve our poor educational outcomes as promised, our transportation system was still in gridlock and we were an economic downturn away from fiscal disaster due to her constant overspending.

In a Bush fatigue year that turned into a national Democratic landslide, with Clean Elections funding restrictions preventing us from communicating with most Arizona voters, and with the opposition of most of the mainstream media, there was no way for a non-incumbent to make that message be heard in 2006.

When the economy started to turn, and the fiscal crisis she created came home to roost, she abandoned Arizona. Unfortunately, her failures here were not exposed by Republicans who were happy to have her out of Arizona, and she was easily confirmed for a job she is proving to be unqualified for.

After a series of gaffes, she is now demonstrating her cluelessness on the national stage. Even Andrew Sullivan has turned on her. Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit is wondering about her future. And Mark Steyn, filling in today on the Rush Limbaugh show, had the most brutal two-word description: "Janet Incompetano."

As the pressure increases, it is only a matter of time until we see the famous Napolitano temper. Meanwhile, who can we trust to keep our nation secure?

Paul Johnson is an outstanding historian and has done an excellent job sketching Churchill's life in a readable presentation that is especially instructive for young adults. His summary of lessons that can be drawn from Churchill's life is tremendous. Here is my summary of his summary: -- (1) aim high, (2) work hard, (3) don't be discouraged by adversity or failure or mistakes, (4) don't get caught up in petty pursuits like blame-shifting or revenge, and (5) laugh a lot and have fun along the way.

Having lived through the Age of Reagan and read many Reagan biographies -- (a high school senior, the 1980 campaign is the first campaign I followed closely) -- I still learned a bunch, and was reminded again of how politics don't change much and that history often repeats itself.

While Reagan clearly believed it was his destiny to occupy the Oval Office and come to America's rescue, the blow-by-blow account of the ups and downs of the 1980 campaign makes it clear that the outcome of that election was not pre-ordained. Although it turned into a blowout, President Carter still led in most polls until the final week of the campaign.

The parallels between our current Republican wilderness period and the late 1970s wilderness are hard to miss. Having taken disappointment with Republican failures as a liberal mandate, Democrats are overreaching in the same way they did in the late 1970s. Once again, they are reminding the American people that big government not only can't solve our problems, it often IS the problem. The cost of that big government is once again devastating our economy and running up huge deficits. At the same time, the Obama impotence in responding to belligerence from Al Qaeda, North Korea, Russia and Iran is eerily reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's pathetic response to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and Iran's taking of American hostages.

Once again, the American people are being reminded of their skepticism about big government and their optimism about their own ability to work hard, create jobs and grow the economy.

At the same time, the American people are remembering that peace comes through military strength and a willingness to confront the enemies of liberty and the bullies and tyrants of the world.

The way is being prepared for a return to leadership for those who unapologetically advance common sense conservative principles.

Arizona provides some unique opportunities to give in a way that actually costs you nothing – by allowing you to re-direct some of your existing tax liability to charities that are important to you.

PRIVATE SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS

You are allowed to take a full credit up to $1,000 per couple or $500 per individual to organizations that provide scholarships to children who attend private schools. I serve as Advisory Board Chairman for Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, one of the largest such organizations in the state, and an organization with a 4-star rating from Charity Navigator.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

You can also give up to $400 per couple and $200 per individual to public schools for extracurricular programs. We have appreciated the tremendous educational opportunities provided by public charter schools, including Scottsdale Preparatory Academy and BASIS Scottsdale, which was recently featured on CNN. But you can easily give to your kids’ school or the public school in your neighborhood through their website.

CHARITIES THAT HELP THE POOR

You can give up to $400 per couple and $200 per individual to organizations that work with the poor. Four tremendous organizations I am familiar with that qualify for this credit are Neighborhood Ministries, Crisis Pregnancy Centers of Greater Phoenix, Women's Pregnancy Centers (Tucson), and the Arizona Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired.

CORPORATE GIVING TO PRIVATE SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS FOR POOR FAMILIES

If you own a “C” corporation, you can re-direct your Arizona tax liability to scholarships for poor children to attend private schools, through an organization called School Choice Arizona. Like the individual scholarship tax credit, this donation costs a corporation nothing.

OTHER WORTHY ORGANIZATIONS

I teach and serve on the Board of Trustees for Southwestern College, a non-denominational Christian college with full accreditation that is growing and gaining influence rapidly: Advance the cause of cultural conservatism through The Center for Arizona Policy and limited government through The Goldwater Institute. Advance the cause of life by ordering a Choose Life license plate or donating to the Arizona Life Coalition.

Finally, we would welcome your support for a new non-profit dedicated to preserving the values of Western Civilization and to equipping leaders to engage and climb the 7 Mountains of cultural influence by making a tax deductible donation in support of The Institute for Cultural Influence.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

We are thankful for all the cards and letters we get at this time of year with family updates. Here is a brief update on the Munsils:

Matt Munsil (13) – 8th grade at Scottsdale Prep, enjoys baseball, basketball, football and PlayStation, not necessarily in that order.
Kaye Munsil (14) – 9th grade at Scottsdale Prep, loves basketball, baking, volleyball, softball, and taking care of little kids.
Ellen Munsil (16) – 10th grade at Scottsdale Prep, likes science, working out, the Food Channel and her first job -- coaching gymnastics.
Laura Munsil (17) – 12th grade at BASIS Scottsdale, busy with college applications, standardized tests and working at Harkins.
Michael Munsil (18) – freshman at ASU, loves pick-up basketball, offbeat humor and teasing Matt, not necessarily in that order.
Anne Munsil (20) – sophomore at Southwestern College, enjoys playing college basketball, majoring in biblical studies and coming home on weekends.
Leigh Munsil (21) – senior at ASU, loves editing the State Press at ASU, filling out job, internship and grad school applications, and singing on church worship team.
Will Munsil (22) – first-year law student at ASU, likes torts, writing columns for the State Press, coaching baseball and football at Scottsdale Prep, and Jared Dudley.
Tracy Munsil – doctoral candidate at ASU, loves being done with classes, comps and dissertation prospectus, looks forward to writing dissertation and graduating, while continuing as vice chair of Republican Legislative District 8.
Len Munsil – is the only one not in school! Loves his family, his country and his God. Busy with law practice, a small consulting business and helping build a new non-profit with a big mission of promoting cultural reformation.

We are thankful for this season that reminds us of the birth of our redeemer, the One through whom God and sinner can be reconciled. We are thankful that in the midst of economic turmoil, governmental overreach and corruption, moral confusion and public despair, there is a peace that passes understanding and a hope that transcends politics.

From our family to yours, Merry Christmas!

Examples: "All Americans would be required to have VEGETERIAN DIETS or eventually face fines." Or "All Americans would be required to have BICYCLES INSTEAD OF GAS GUZZLING AUTOS or eventually face fines." Or "All Americans would be required to have FEWER THAN THREE CHILDREN or eventually face fines."

We are picking up speed on the road to serfdom.

Now, in one simple step, you can make a statement to our community about the importance of human life, and also can provide funding that will help women find positive, life-affirming solutions in difficult circumstances.

As a pro-life leader, I was involved in the formation of the Arizona Life Coalition, and strongly supported the lengthy court battle that culminated in final victory earlier this year in the U.S. Supreme Court. This victory helped establish a nationwide precedent that governments may not discriminate against the pro-life message.

Now we need to take advantage of this historic pro-life victory!

You can add to the momentum by letting your own voice be heard -- influence friends, neighbors, co-workers and others with a positive, pro-life message. In addition, your “Choose Life” license plate provides critical funding to the Arizona Life Coalition -- out of your $25 fee for a specialty plate, $17 will go directly to the Arizona Life Coalition to raise visibility for pregnancy resource centers!

These pregnancy resource centers are doing the work our opponents falsely claim pro-lifers neglect – providing support, counsel and encouragement to mothers and their children through difficult circumstances.

No matter when your plate is up for renewal – please go to servicearizona.com TODAY and convert all of your plates to “Choose Life” plates! (If your plate will renew soon, the website will automatically allow you to renew early.)

The process is simple. To get your plate TODAY:
(1) Go to www.servicearizona.com. If you are within three months of renewal, go to “Vehicle Registration Renewal.” If your plate won’t renew for at least 90 days, then go to “Personalized/Specialty Plates.” Begin the process by entering your license plate and the last 2 digits of your vehicle identification number.

(2) When you have a chance to “Select Plate Style”, simply click on “View Available Plate Styles” and you will go to a screen with various specialty plates – including the “Choose Life” plate!

(3) Select “Choose Life” and then complete the process. Your new “Choose Life” plates will be mailed to you!

(4) During your next annual registration renewal, again pick “Choose Life” plates and another donation is made to Arizona Life Coalition in support of pregnancy resource centers!

(If you typically renew by mail or by visiting the closest MVD office, we would ask you to go to your local MVD office and order your plates there!)

Visit www.arizonalifecoalition.org, where regular updates will be provided on ALC's progress getting “Choose Life” plates on the streets of Arizona! And check out my op-ed encouraging public support for the Choose Life plates!

That historic event never would have occurred without the moral clarity and bold leadership provided by western leaders, most notably President Ronald Reagan.

After four years of President Carter's policies of appeasement, the Soviets and other totalitarian regimes were on the march. Iran held American diplomats hostage.

It began to turn when President Reagan had the courage to speak with clarity about the nature of the Soviet Union - a nation that subjugated hundreds of millions, occupied most of Eastern Europe, starved and killed its own citizens, violated their rights to free speech, religion and association, and kept them prisoners behind walls of barbed wire - by declaring the world's other superpower to be an "evil empire."

It continued when President Reagan said the goal of the Cold War was simple: "We win, they lose." It culminated in his speech at the Brandenburg Gate, challenging the supposedly reform-minded Gorbachev to "tear down this wall!"

Following the attacks on America on 9/11, President Bush demonstrated a similar clarity by declaring terrorists who promoted Islamic extremism as "evildoers", and by noting that an "axis of evil" made up of Iraq, Iran and North Korea threatened the peace and stability of our world.

Sadly, that clarity is gone today, the victim of an appeasement mindset among our national leaders combined with a heavy dose of politically correct multiculturalism.

So an Islamic extremist in our military attends a radical mosque, makes sympathetic statements and tries to contact Al Qaeda and our enemies during a time of war, and instead of being arrested is told to "lock it down." But rather than locking it down he kills and injures dozens of American soldiers on a military base, an act of Islamic terror described mildly as a "tragedy" by our President. The media seems mystified about what could have caused this to occur -- was he bullied? Did we hurt his feelings?

The Secretary of Homeland Security -- having just suffered a horrific breach in security in our "homeland" that cost multiple American lives -- is mostly concerned about a possible "backlash" against Islam in America. (Now Arizona's 9/11 Memorial makes sense, with its emphasis not on terrorists murdering thousands of Americans but on the occasional and regrettable acts of violence from vigilantes.) You have to wonder -- are these people for real?

Sadly, not only are these folks for real, they are our national leaders - until we elect a new group of leaders who have the ability to once again speak with clarity against the forces of evil in our dangerous world.

Had it been a prize fight, Justice Stephen Breyer would have been knocked out less than halfway through his debate today with Justice Antonin Scalia.

Breyer and Scalia, appearing in Tucson at an event sponsored by the William H. Rehnquist Center, were debating how to interpret the Constitution.

Scalia’s intelligence, energy, clarity and wit dominated the debate just as “originalism” – the notion that the Constitution must be understood to mean what the people of America thought it meant when enacted -- now dominates the jurisprudential landscape of the United States.

And like a prize-fighter who has been knocked out while still standing, leaning against the rope, Breyer was left muttering about all of the really difficult moral decisions he has to make based on his understanding of his role – as the final decision-maker for every difficult question facing the American people.

“I don’t know how you sleep at night,” Scalia said to Breyer, as Breyer complained about the difficulty of deciding whether it was “cruel and unusual punishment” to execute a 16-year-old.

“Where do you draw the line? Is it 18? 16? Is it 14? I don’t think anyone would think it was OK to execute a 12 year old,” Breyer lamented.

But the question for justices of the Supreme Court is not “where do you draw the line,” but who draws the line.

For a legislator considering whether to enact the death penalty for juveniles who commit horrific crimes, these are great questions to ask.

But for a Supreme Court Justice, the only question is whether the text and words of the Constitution prevent a legislature from enacting the death penalty in such a circumstance. If there is no evidence that “cruel and unusual” was understood to prevent such executions, then the matter is left in the hands of the legislatures of each state, in each generation.

As Scalia points out, there are plenty of stupid laws. That doesn’t mean they are unconstitutional.

The Constitution was intended to provide specific exceptions to the general rule that the people decide issues through their elected representatives. Those exceptions were specific, and limited.

At times, they require the application of broad principles to new circumstances. What they don’t allow for is the creation of new principles – which is what the Supreme Court in the judicial activism era of the last half-century has too often done.

Understanding the difference between the role of a judge and the role of a legislator is important.

Without exception, every moral problem Breyer presented as a perplexing dilemma for the Court to decide, is an issue that elected legislatures can address.

The temptation for judges to impose their policy preferences by distorting the Constitution will always be present. But as one who has watched this issue closely for nearly three decades, it appears to me that the tide has completely turned.

When I started law school in the mid-1980s, Attorney General Edwin Meese created a ruckus by attacking the activist decisions of the Warren and Burger courts with his emphasis on “original intent.” Justice William Brennan responded, and the debate was on. At that point, originalists seemed completely outnumbered politically and were statistically insignificant in the legal community.

The defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork – a leading originalist – in 1986 was a dreadful low point.

But today the evidence is all around us that originalists dominate. Even liberal Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was forced to pay homage to originalism in order to be confirmed. Chief Justice John Roberts explained the judicial role so clearly in his confirmation hearings, he was said by an admiring liberal senator to have “retired the trophy” for confirmation performance.

At the Scalia – Breyer debate, despite several provocations by Scalia, Breyer simply refused to defend the high-water mark of judicial activism – the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, beginning with Roe v. Wade.

I remember my law school professor – a pro-choice liberal – explaining to our class that the Supreme Court “just made it up” when it came to the right to abortion.

So many liberal lawyers agree with the outcome, yet realize Roe v. Wade and its progeny are completely indefensible as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

Finally, the notion of a “living Constitution” has been exposed for what it is – a vehicle through which Supreme Court Justices arrogate to themselves the power to decide whatever they want to decide, based on their own policy preferences.

I founded the first student chapter of The Federalist Society at ASU in 1985, which felt like a subversive act given the fact that not one law professor on our faculty would initially consent to sponsoring the group. Later, I started the first Phoenix Lawyers Division chapter of The Federalist Society. The Federalist Society is the organization more than any other that is responsible for leading originalism to its current place of intellectual and jurisprudential domination.

Assuredly, there will be battles ahead. There will be some who give lip service to originalism but continue to find new ways to place the constitutional seal of approval on their own policy preferences.

But having been present at the birth of the conservative counter-revolution, it was exciting for me to be able to bring the college students in my Supreme Court class – including my own daughter – to a debate that demonstrated the intellectual end of the argument for liberal judicial activism.

Somehow, proponents of government-run health care have tried to portray this as an attack on motherhood. I just thought Rep. Sinema was an odd choice for a spokesperson, given that in 2006 she told 944 magazine that “women and moms who stay at home and don't work are dependent on men and leeching off their husbands."

Upon occasion I have been asked if there is anything I like about the President and his policies. A fair question, and worthy of a genuine answer -- as opposed to the typical back-handed slap such as -- "I like that he is making Republicans popular again."

For one thing, I appreciate both his public comments and his personal example of commitment to fatherhood. Given the statistics on divorce and abandonment -- even given his own experience of growing up without a father present -- he is proving to be a tremendous role model for all American fathers and future fathers, especially in minority communities where the rates of fatherlessness are tragically astronomical. His genuine affection for his wife and children is wonderful to behold.

Given my profound disagreements with the President about the role of government and the nature of man, which are reflected in completely different ways of viewing the world, finding areas of policy agreement is more difficult.

But there is one area where, at least so far, the President has pushed for improvements that would truly be helpful. While I fundamentally disagree with the federal government driving education policy, that is not likely to change, especially in a Democratic administration. So the good news is this -- the President is driving education policy in the right direction in two significant ways, both of which put him at odds with his supporters in the teachers' unions.

First, he is pushing for merit pay for teachers, an issue I championed during my run for office. Rewarding excellent teachers with excellent pay is necessary to attract and keep the best and brightest to the teaching profession, and I am delighted that the President has embraced this idea.

The second area of education reform where I am grateful for the President's leadership is in his push for states to reduce obstacles to the growth of public charter schools, and his effort to increase funds for charter schools nationwide. Charter schools are producing excellent results here in Arizona and around the country, and provide additional choices for parents. Freed from some of the restrictions placed on standard public schools, charter schools have been able to provide innovative education, using non-unionized and non-certified teachers who produce outstanding classroom results.

President Obama's push for excellent schools brought together two polar opposites -- former Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Today they met in Tucson to bring national attention to one of the best performing public schools in the country -- BASIS charter school, which also has a campus in Scottsdale. This tour is showing that liberals and conservatives can agree to celebrate and promote excellent schools, and change policy to support what actually works, regardless of political opposition.