A longer version of the Republic piece can be found at this link.

An even longer and more detailed critique of the "Principles of Just Immigration Reform" White Paper prepared by the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention is available here.

She came back and wrote about it, and the response to her writing confirmed her desire to be a journalist. She realized that stories of real people needed to be told, accurately and compassionately, and that she wanted to write those stories.

Today The Dallas Morning News publishes on its front-page a series of stories following up on its Pulitzer Prize winning Katrina photos -- and the team that put the stories together was led by Leigh Munsil:

The newspaper's editor wrote the introduction:

As part of our Hurricane Katrina five-year anniversary coverage at The Dallas Morning News, we revisited several of the people we had photographed after the storm hit in 2005.

Staff photographers Tom Fox and Irwin Thompson did the photography and video for the package Faces of Katrina, which included several photos from our 2006 Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News Photography.

DMN staff writer Leigh Munsil wrote the following introduction for the photo package, which will be published in the Saturday edition of The Dallas Morning News, on the eve of the date the Hurricane hit five years ago. Many thanks to Leigh and her team, along with DMN senior research librarian Angelica Cortez, for helping us track down the people in these photographs.

Seems like lots of folks remember getting our Christmas cards and are asking for an update on our family. The photo is from Laura’s high school graduation in May. Here is the latest:

• Tracy joined the ASU faculty as a full-time lecturer, teaching four courses in “Current Issues in National Politics” and “American Political Thought” to undergraduates in ASU’s School of Politics and Global Studies. She is midway through her doctoral dissertation.
• Will is beginning his second year of law school after a summer with the Alliance Defense Fund’s Blackstone Fellowship, where he had the chance to work with a pro-life group in Texas. He is also the head high school football coach at Scottsdale Preparatory Academy, and a columnist for ASU’s State Press.
• Leigh graduated from ASU in May and is now a full-time reporter for the Dallas Morning News, where she has had three front-page stories.
• Anne is a junior at Southwestern College majoring in Biblical Studies, where she is involved as a student leader and captain on the NAIA basketball team.
• Michael is a sophomore at Southwestern College majoring in Education, and is the junior high football coach at Scottsdale Prep.
• Laura graduated from BASIS Scottsdale as valedictorian and leaves next week for Wesleyan University, a top liberal arts college in Connecticut, where she will double major in English Literature and Film Studies.
• Ellen is a high school junior, and competes in volleyball, basketball and track. She works as a gymnastics coach, and this summer was selected for the Governor’s Youth Commission for Arizona.
• Kaye is a high school sophomore, and traveled to Portland, Seattle, Los Angeles and San Diego this summer to compete for her club basketball team.
• Matt is a freshman in high school, and plays football, basketball and baseball. Matt was the winning pitcher and hit a long home run to give us the lead when our 13-14 year-old All-Star team (I was a coach) won its district tournament by defeating the defending Little League World Series champions.

There is much more to report about all of our family, but that’s a brief overview with a heavy sports emphasis. Suffice it to say I am truly a blessed man. I hope all of you are well and thanks for asking.

We live in the information age. The amount of information about candidates readily available to every voter is enormous. (Go to azvoterguide.com for a non-partisan survey of important issues.)

If possible, voters should take the time to meet candidates, listen to them, gauge their integrity, determine their position on issues and then make their own decisions about who to support.

Four years ago I won a statewide Republican primary for Governor, and since then I’ve been asked for endorsements by many candidates. At the same time, a bunch of voters have been asking me who I support for various offices. I have made a few public endorsements that I wanted to let you know about.

If you don’t care, feel free to stop reading and have a nice day. If you’ve already voted, that’s great. But I am not a fan of early voting, in part because so many things can happen in the last month of the campaign that might cause you to change your mind.

If you do care but don’t like my choices, that’s fine. I forgive you.

But one cautionary note -- particularly during the primary season, it is possible (even likely) that committed conservatives will disagree about the best person for a job.

That’s OK. What we shouldn’t do is begin questioning each other’s motives, character, commitment to “the cause”, or parentage. That’s destructive and unhelpful because we need to come back together to defeat more liberal opponents in the general.

Make the case for your candidate, and then trust the integrity of other conservatives who may have reached a different conclusion.

This cycle I have been particularly distressed by the tone of several Republican primaries. Many races have deteriorated well beyond fair comparisons of voting records and credentials. It seems like many millions of dollars more have been spent destroying reputations than providing vision and leadership. That’s a shame, and hurtful to our ability to make conservative gains in November.

All of the endorsements I will list are for candidates who specifically asked me for support, and who I have publicly endorsed.

GOVERNOR -- JAN BREWER

When we flew around Arizona the night before the 2006 election with Sen. Kyl and other statewide candidates, then Secretary of State Brewer told me she expected that to be her last campaign.

Instead, Gov. Napolitano’s resignation took Gov. Brewer to the 9th floor. After a bit of a rocky start, she has absolutely earned the right to serve her own four-year term.

I disagreed with her push for a sales tax increase and believe that contributed to her early and largely unnecessary conflicts with conservative legislators. But now the voters have spoken and that issue has been resolved.

Overall, Gov. Brewer has been a spectacular conservative success. She has eliminated much wasteful spending, though more cuts are needed. She has signed pro-life, pro-gun, pro-marriage, pro-school choice and pro-religious freedom bills, among other things.

And she secured her nomination by not only signing SB 1070, but vigorously defending the sovereign right of the people of our state to protect themselves against the threats posed by illegal immigration and the federal government’s failure to secure our border.

I therefore enthusiastically support Gov. Brewer's election to a new, four-year term.

U.S. SENATE – J.D. HAYWORTH

This race has been disappointing on so many levels.

I have never been a McCain hater. I was thankful for his endorsement in 2006 and wish he had defeated Barack Obama in 2008. I admire not only his heroism during war, but also his many decades of public service.

But he has never been a consistent conservative. In fact, he seemed at times to relish poking conservatives in the eye. And in a year when the nation is clamoring for conservative change, I concluded that we are not likely to get it by sending back someone who has been in Washington for three decades.

I made the decision early to support a more conservative alternative. J.D. Hayworth made some mistakes in Congress, but still had a 98 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, compared to 82 percent for McCain.

But Hayworth has weaknesses, and Sen. McCain spent nearly $20 million magnifying those weaknesses into major character flaws. That has not allowed Hayworth to run a campaign based on the issues, where he is more aligned with most Republicans. J.D. deserves credit for having the courage to get into the race knowing what would happen to his reputation, and for holding Sen. McCain's feet to the fire on conservative issues.

It appears Sen. McCain conceded the point of a conservative alternative campaign – that his accommodation and even sponsorship of big-government programs favored by liberal politicians and the media made his record indefensible in a Republican primary. Thus his campaign has been about two things:

1) “JD Hayworth is worse.”
2) “I’m not really an independent-minded maverick. Actually, I’m more conservative than J.D. Hayworth, and there is no conservative position I won’t take to prove it.”

This approach is pretty cynical for a campaign with the tagline: “character matters.” While it appears to be working, it has not been Sen. McCain’s finest hour, as the national media is beginning to notice. If Sen. McCain does prevail, here's hoping we will see more opposition to Obamacare and illegal immigration, and no more votes for bailouts and other big government programs.

SECRETARY OF STATE – KEN BENNETT

Sec. Bennett is a solid conservative who is unopposed in the Republican primary. But he needs strong conservative support in the general election against a potentially tough Democratic opponent. As we learned again in 2008, it is important to keep the next-in-line to the Governor’s job in conservative hands.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – JOHN HUPPENTHAL

John Huppenthal is a long-time leader on educational reform that empowers parents, and is a solid, consistent conservative.

ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION –
BRENDA BURNS AND GARY PIERCE

I have known Brenda Burns and Gary Pierce for decades, and throughout their very impressive political careers I have watched them consistently operate with high standards of integrity, ethics and commitment to conservative principle.

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY – BILL MONTGOMERY

I was honored to develop a close friendship with Bill Montgomery when I was running for Governor and he was running for Attorney General. No matter who has endorsed him, he will be his own man in office. And there is no question that he is a solid conservative, committed to a tough approach to illegal immigration and sensitive to the rights of crime victims. I believe Bill has the ability to rise above the disputes that have embroiled Maricopa County and focus on keeping us safe and putting lawbreakers in jail. That's what we should want from a county attorney.

The truth is this – negative campaigning will never go away. (Indeed, it has been around in every election since shortly after the founding of the American Republic. George Washington won his first election without anybody really attacking him, but since then it’s been pretty much a free-for-all.)

Frankly, not all of what is lumped into the category of “negative” campaigning is actually problematic. But it is hard for the average voter to differentiate between ads that focus on genuine policy disagreements, versus those that dishonestly seek to distort, exaggerate or unfairly impugn someone’s character.

Sadly, the overwhelmingly negative tone of most campaigns breeds cynicism about all candidates and discourages voter turnout.

Negative campaigning will always be with us in part because it is effective.

A few years back I got to talk to Steve Largent, NFL Hall of Famer, former Oklahoma Congressman and one-time Republican nominee for Governor of Oklahoma. Largent had a great reputation for integrity and political courage, great name ID, and took a huge lead in the polls into the general election campaign for Governor.

But Largent made a commitment to run a positive campaign, focusing only on what he would do for Oklahoma. His opponent battered him with a series of attack ads. Largent didn’t respond, staying completely positive, and went from a huge lead to a narrow loss in the 2002 election – an otherwise good year for Republicans. Subsequently, he was faulting for running a “weak” campaign.

Quite simply, voters want to know why they should choose you. Part of the answer is about why you would be good, and part of it is about why your opponent would not be.

The important thing for voters to understand is that not every “negative” attack is equal.

Candidates are obligated to differentiate their experience, record and views on issues from opponents. But I believe they should do so without exaggeration, distortion, or resort to focusing on extraneous personal issues that have nothing to do with the office.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a hard-hitting, factual mailer or TV ad that truthfully compares your views and your record with your opponent’s, or that simply points out deficiencies or inconsistencies in your opponent’s campaign.

At the same time, there is no excuse for a trumped-up, phony, dishonest mailer or advertisement that distorts your opponent’s record, falsely demeans his or her character, or otherwise misleads the voter about your opponent.

Given that negative campaigning will always be with us, it does no good to rail against it and punish yourself by refusing to allow your voice to be heard at the ballot box. Voters need to do the hard work of investigating claims and counter-claims.

Sometimes, the candidate of character will become obvious when you evaluate the way he or she campaigns, and the validity of the candidate's critique of his or her opponent.

But upon gaining power, he seemed to lose sight of the conservative principles that got him there, and ultimately was weakened by ethics charges and then dethroned by a conservative revolt.

Out of power, he returned to what he does best -- being one of the most articulate, innovative and enthusiastic spokesmen for conservative ideas. But there has always been a disconnect between his private life and his public pronouncements, brought into sharp contrast by recent statements from his ex-wife, as she described a conversation in which he admitted to an affair and asked her for a divorce:

He'd just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he'd given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, "How do you give that speech and do what you're doing?"

"It doesn't matter what I do," he answered. "People need to hear what I have to say. There's no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn't matter what I live."

As someone who usually likes what Newt says, he is very wrong about this -- it does matter how you live. In fact, it matters more. We don't demand perfection in our leaders, but we do demand authenticity and transparency.

These evangelicals are planning to lobby Republican Senators in Washington for “comprehensive reform.”

I know many of these leaders, and respect all of them. We agree on many biblical essentials, including fervent opposition to racism and racial profiling and the importance of recognizing the dignity of every person and treating all people with respect and compassion.

I also believe it is critical that American Latinos understand that opposition to illegal immigration should have nothing to do with race, and that we welcome them with open arms to the conservative movement, with our shared cultural values and commitment to rewarding entrepreneurialism and hard work.

But the policy proposals set forth by some evangelical leaders are the same unworkable ideas already rejected by Congress and the American people.

More significantly from my perspective as an evangelical – they are largely in conflict with biblical notions of Christian ethics, justice and God’s purposes for government.

In 2006 I won the Republican nomination for Governor of Arizona, and during that primary campaign it became clear that, unlike any previous election, illegal immigration was the only issue most Arizona voters wanted to discuss.

I realized quickly that the issue of illegal immigration is so contentious because it seems to pit two fundamental American values against one another -- our commitment to justice and the rule of law, versus our history as a compassionate and welcoming people. Both of these values are deeply rooted in our nation’s historic Judeo-Christian ethic.

In that campaign I spent more than a year thinking and praying through the moral, legal and ethical issues surrounding this controversy. I heard from people on all sides.

I cried with a group of college-age students who were brought here illegally as children, who have no ability to legally go to college or hold a job in the only country they have ever known.

I also met with friends of a couple who were killed by a runaway van packed with illegal aliens trying to evade the Border Patrol. I met with American citizens forced to abandon their homes and land near the border because they feared for their lives. I toured the border at night with a law enforcement official as he recounted altercations with AK-47 toting drug cartels, and shared his heartbreak at recovering dead bodies of children and pregnant women who tried to cross the desert.

I argued in 2006 that we need to secure the border first, and that a nation that sent a man to the moon and secured the border of Iraq could find a way to secure its own borders. In a post 9/11 world, this is a matter of vital national security.

And yet, almost incomprehensibly, four years later we still have hundreds of thousands of people sneaking into our country every year. We have no idea who they are, where they are going, and what their intentions are. Some are no doubt coming to find work. Others are coming to commit crimes. And some may be planning and preparing horrific acts of terror and violence against our nation.

That we have allowed this to continue is a complete dereliction of duty on the part of all our elected leaders. The first role of government is to protect its citizens, and our leaders have failed year after year.

The result of this ongoing failure is the presence of millions of people who, on a daily basis, knowingly violate the laws of the United States.

Now we are hearing from evangelical leaders who argue that biblical notions of justice somehow require us to provide a “path to citizenship” for those millions who have violated our laws and now live illegally in our nation.

But rather than an even-handed attempt to evaluate how Christian values apply to this weighty issue, we have seen only a one-sided, conclusory presentation of a few biblical principles, mostly misapplied. Principles like “love thy neighbor,” and “show compassion and mercy for the alien,” are true and important instructions for Christians, but cannot be selectively appropriated to make political points.

At the same time, there is no recognition by these evangelical leaders that the admonitions they cite are directed primarily at individual believers, and not necessarily at nations and governments.

Nations and governments are given specific instruction about their duties. At the same time, we receive guidance about our responsibilities as Christian citizens. Yet somehow, when discussing our national response to this crisis, these evangelical leaders manage to completely ignore principles such as these from Romans 13:1-4:

“Everyone is to obey the governing authorities. For there is no authority that is not from God, and the existing authorities have been placed where they are by God. Therefore, whoever resists the authorities is resisting what God has instituted … For rulers are no terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you like to be unafraid of the person in authority? Then simply do what is good, and you will win his approval; for he is God's servant, there for your benefit. But if you do what is wrong, be afraid! Because it is not for nothing that he holds the power of the sword; for he is God's servant, there as an avenger to punish wrongdoers.”

That passage seems to have specific application to those who are here unlawfully, and should instruct all American citizens of faith to recognize that there are consequences for violating the law. Illegal aliens in America tragically live in the shadows because they are afraid “of the person in authority” due to the “wrong” they have done by knowingly breaking the law. And sadly, almost inexplicably, some American Christians want to excuse this unlawful behavior.

These general principles are not absolute, but Scripture provides only two circumstances when defying the law is permissible: when the law requires you to do something God forbids – such as participate in a murder -- or when the law forbids you from doing something God commands. Thus, the Hebrew midwives refused to murder innocent babies at the command of their King (Exodus 1:15-17), while in the New Testament Peter and the apostles, when arrested for preaching the Gospel, responded by saying they must “obey God and not man” and continued to preach (Acts 5:29).

There are many heart-rending, tragic stories of illegal immigrants that tug at the heartstrings of all Christians and people of faith. And there are undoubtedly flaws in our immigration laws. But there is simply no serious argument that our immigration laws force Americans or those from other countries to violate the law of God, and as a result, there is no biblical argument for defending or justifying such mass lawbreaking.

While that passage speaks to the Christian response to those who are breaking our current laws, it does not answer the question – what principles should guide our immigration laws?

Scripturally, we know that the primary purpose of government is to maintain the peace, security and order of a community or nation, and to promote justice.

The whole concept of lawful versus unlawful entry into our nation – also the foundation of Arizona’s new SB-1070 -- is based on principles of property rights that flow from the 10 Commandments. Those who violate our immigration laws by jumping the fence are stealing rights of citizenship (to live and work in America) and, in essence, coveting and stealing their neighbors’ property.

These evangelical leaders also claim we must “think about immigration from the perspective of justice.” Well, that’s fine. Let’s start by considering the enormous injustice of telling those who have followed the legal immigration process that they must wait in line, year after year, while those who have cheated and broken the law to get in are allowed to stay. Where is the justice for these law-abiding aliens who also desire to emigrate? Or do we only have “compassion and mercy” for those who break the law?

Let’s do a quick comparison. Two men born in Mexico desire to move to America to work, and hope to eventually become U.S. citizens. One hires a coyote to sneak him across the border. He moves to Phoenix, works in construction, uses a fake social security number to collect his pay, eventually buys a house and raises a family, all the while knowingly breaking multiple laws. Other than the law-breaking, he’s a productive member of American society – though he can never completely relax because he is using a fake name, a fake social security number, and knows if caught he will be prosecuted and deported.

The other man tries to get a work visa, but is unsuccessful. He tries to get U.S. citizenship, but is unsuccessful. Yet he waits patiently, and legally, year after year for the opportunity to come to the land of opportunity.

Under the approach favored by these evangelical leaders, the first man gets a chance to pay a fine, take some classes in English, and become a citizen. By cheating the system, he gets to live here for years illegally, and then eventually become a legal worker or legal citizen. He jumps the line, then never really has to get back in it.

The man who follows the laws of Mexico and the United States – just as industrious, just as hard-working, just as desirous of getting to America, but with a greater commitment to integrity – continues to wait for a legal opportunity to come to our nation.

By what standard of ethics could this be considered a just result?

Most Americans would favor reform of our immigration laws to give the second man, rather than the line jumper, a better chance to legally work and live in the United States. But the so-called “reform” proposed by these evangelicals produces the opposite result.

To summarize, there are serious and principled reasons, consistent with Scripture, that justify evangelical support for enforcing tough laws against illegal immigration. The accusation by some evangelical leaders that opponents of illegal immigration somehow lack compassion or a commitment to justice is simply untrue.

Members of the faith community should despise racism and oppose racial profiling, have compassion and concern for the alien among us, love and appreciate Latinos and the richness of Latino culture – yet still believe in the rule of law and the need for a strong governmental response to illegal immigration.

What we need from leading evangelicals is not a push for “comprehensive immigration reform,” but rather a push for what they have so far failed to provide -- a “comprehensive biblical analysis” of this issue.

Attorney Len Munsil was the Republican nominee for Governor of Arizona in 2006, and has been an adjunct professor of Christian ethics at Southwestern College. A more detailed response to the “Draft White Paper: Principles for Just Immigration Reform” is available at www.lenmunsil.com.

In addition, I highly recommend a thorough analysis by James R. Edwards, Ph.D. entitled “A Biblical Perspective on Illegal Immigration,” -- http://www.cis.org/ImmigrationBible.

**DRAFT ** A White Paper: Principles for Just Immigration Reform
By Richard Land and Barrett Duke

The time has come for our nation to resolve its immigration dilemma. It is imperative that we find an acceptable solution to the disposition of the millions of undocumented immigrants living in our nation. Currently, the two extremes of deportation and amnesty are being played against each other, resulting in a stalemate in Congress.

The stalemate in Congress is not because the two extremes can’t agree. It is because there is no political support for addressing the more difficult issue of how to handle those who are here illegally until we have stopped the ongoing flow of illegal immigration by securing the border. If they are sent back, they can cross again the next day. If we legalize those who are here now, millions more will cross and demand the same rights.

We believe that neither of the two extremes are appropriate, workable solutions. To force those who are here illegally to leave is neither politically viable nor humanitarian.

Many things supported by the ERLC that I support – such as passage of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage – are much less politically viable right now. Yet the ERLC to my knowledge has not used that as an excuse to oppose the federal marriage amendment. This is not a good argument. Whether it is “humanitarian” to require people to follow the law is another question.

To offer blanket amnesty to those who broke the immigration laws of our country and their own countries is disrespectful of the rule of law. What is needed is a solution that respects the rule of law while at the same time treats undocumented immigrants in the nation compassionately. Agreed.

As Christians, we acknowledge that we must think through the question of illegal immigration not only as offended, concerned citizens, but also as compassionate Christians.

This seems like a bit of a cheap shot at opponents of illegal immigration. It’s possible to be concerned about illegal immigration and also to be compassionate. “Offended” is a pejorative term – like we should be bigger than this and not so immature as to be “offended.” We are not off to a very even-handed start.

The Church has a duty to minister to all people in need. Jesus instructed His followers to love all men, even those who hate them (see Luke 6:27-38). He instructed His followers to meet the needs of those who are suffering (Matthew 25:31-46). The writer of the Book of Hebrews instructed his readers to “show hospitality to strangers” (Hebrews 13:2).

Agreed – these are clear and specific instructions to followers of Christ. We should support those Christians in our community who minister to the alien. I have long reminded conservatives that the “all men are created equal” portion of our declaration is not limited to citizens, and that all people are worthy of being treated with respect and dignity, including illegal aliens. But these passages say nothing about what our government policy should be toward those who violate the law. Consider this -- we are also supposed to “look after” prisoners and to visit them and remember them during their confinement. That does not mean we are supposed to spring them out of jail or ask for the laws they violated to be changed. This is the beginning of confusion for many Christians – not understanding the role of individual Christians and the body of Christ, compared to the separate role of civil government.

While we reject the law-breaking practices of the so-called Sanctuary Movement, we recognize that the undocumented immigrants in our midst are in need of our ministry. We acknowledge a two-fold responsibility in this regard. As Christians we must lead the church to engage in multi-faceted, human needs ministry on a massive scale to meet the great spiritual and physical needs of millions of men, women, and children living in the shadows of society. Since they are bearers of the image of God, fellow members of the human race, and people for whom Jesus died we can do no less for them. We pledge to help our churches develop these ministries.

I agree with all of this. We certainly must minister to the illegal alien. Meeting their physical needs is a given. But how exactly do we meet the spiritual needs of those who are violating the civil law? If we had church members in our midst who were embezzling, wouldn’t we have a spiritual responsibility to urge them to grow in obedience to the Lord by repenting? Wouldn’t we urge them to “steal no longer” (Ephesians 4:28)? I will go further -- might we even have a civic responsibility, if they failed to repent and abide by the law, to notify the appropriate authorities? How would we be guiding the spiritual development of a known violator of immigration laws by tolerating and excusing his ongoing unlawful behavior?

As citizens, we also have a responsibility to help our nation respond to the plight of these millions of people in a manner that respects their dignity and value as well. This document is our effort to help our nation address the plight of the millions of human beings living here illegally.

There is a saying in the law that “hard cases make bad law.” The most difficult aspect of the illegal immigration crisis – the hardest case – is what to do with those who have lived openly in America for years, working hard and presumably not violating other laws. And this is where this “White Paper” starts, rather than starting by asking, from a biblical perspective, what principles should guide a nation’s relationship with foreigners who desire to live in the United States? Starting with the hardest case is exactly what leads to the “bad law” proposals that follow.

Their current experience is neither good for them or for our nation. They suffer as outcasts, without access to all this country has to offer to empower them to fulfill their God-given potential. Our nation suffers as it reels under the division caused by their dilemma and by the loss of their vast capacity to contribute more fully to the life of our nation.

Normally we speak of someone’s “plight” when we consider them a victim of circumstances beyond their control that are unfair. But aren’t we speaking of those who have knowingly violated our nation’s laws? Isn’t everything they are suffering in America a direct result of their decision to not “obey the governing authorities”?

As Christian citizens, we believe God has something to say to us about how our nation deals with this issue. We have turned to the Bible for spiritual principles to guide our thinking and policy suggestions. The result of that search has brought us to the place where we believe our nation must think about immigration from the perspective of justice. The kind of justice we are talking about, however, considers the impact of decisions from the perspective of all parties affected. We believe that God sought to teach Israel to think about justice in this way as well. He told His people, “You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly” (Leviticus 19:15).

I agree with this. The problem is that this “White Paper” does not consider “all parties affected” from the position of justice. If we are to “judge our neighbor fairly,” given the clear teachings of the 10 commandment, then “justice” would require us to consider penalties for a “neighbor” that breaks into our home and steals from us.

In our thinking about immigration policy, we believe the Old Testament provides some very clear guidance about how a nation should treat those who come to live within its borders. The Old Testament has two principal words, one mainly positive or neutral in its perspective and the other mainly negative, to refer to non-citizens living within the nation of Israel. The primary positive word is ger, commonly translated as “stranger” or “alien.” The term speaks principally of one’s civil standing. It refers to someone who has no inherited civil rights. In other words this person is not a citizen by birth. He has not inherited through any genetic relationship the rights and privileges of the descendants of Jacob who entered into covenant with God at Mount Sinai. Despite this lack of family connection, God gave many explicit instructions about appropriate treatment of these “aliens” or “strangers.”

These were spiritual instructions given to a nation based on its unique relationship with God. The modern-day parallel would be that these instructions provide guidance to the church and to Christians generally, not to a civil government that is not a theocracy like Old Testament Israel.

The Old Testament uses a different term to speak about non-Israelites from a negative perspective. In these instances, it typically uses the Hebrew term nokri, often translated as “foreign” or “foreigner.” This is the term used in Ezra 10 and Nehemiah 13 to speak of the “foreign women” or “foreign wives” some of the Jewish men in post-exilic Israel had married (e.g., Ezra 10:10, 17, 44; Nehemiah 13:23-27). Nehemiah also used the term to refer to the “foreign women” Solomon married who led him astray. It also refers to the “foreign” things Nehemiah removed from Israel (see v. 30). In these instances, the concern is clearly with threats to the cultural or religious purity of Israel. It appears, then, that the Old Testament distinguishes between non-Israelites who are not a threat to the spiritual or cultural vitality of the nation and those who are. In this context, the ger is welcomed; the nokri is not.

This is interesting, but I’m not sure how enlightening it is given the special spiritual relationship existing between God and the people of Israel.

When we bring this Old Testament perspective together with our nation’s historic attitude toward immigration, it is clear that we should think of the undocumented immigrants in our nation as ger (i.e., positively) not nokri (i.e., negatively).

There is absolutely no logical nexus between this conclusion and what was written above.

It would be inappropriate to think of them from either a theological or cultural perspective. Given that the United States is not a theocracy, nor does it apply a theological test for entrance into our nation or for citizenship, we should not apply a theological test to immigrants. Furthermore, our nation has not stated that cultural similarity is a prerequisite for immigration. Indeed, if cultural difference were used as a criterion for denying entrance into the United States, most of the world’s peoples would not be candidates for admittance. Of course, a nation has a right to expect that those who enter its borders would not seek to undermine its culture, and that those who seek citizenship would adopt its core cultural values.

I agree with this, but it seems to contradict the previous statements that we don’t need to be concerned about cultural similarities. A significant percentage of those who cross into the United States from Mexico are not from Mexico or Central or even South America. Some are from the Middle East and the Far East, and some may be tied to terrorist groups who want to disrupt and ultimately destroy our nation. I think we can agree that it’s not in our national security interest to assume that our unsecured border is only being crossed by hard-working Latino families.

Rather than taking a negative attitude toward the vast majority of undocumented immigrants in our nation, there is plenty of reason to take a positive perspective toward them.

Again, this is a conclusion without any basis in Scripture or reason. I would think we should take a welcoming but neutral perspective toward immigrants, until we know whether they are abiding by our laws or violating them.

The majority of them have proven their desire to work hard, provide for their families, and obey the law, except of course for immigration law. The main point is that the majority of these immigrants have proven their desire to live among us in peace.

Unfortunately, this statement is undermined by its lack of factual foundation. In order to work or receive other benefits in the United States, those who are here unlawfully have to daily deceive everyone around them and usually also violate other laws. Many of these “hard working” illegal immigrants also commit identity theft in order to have a fake Social Security number, through which they lie to their employer and violate employment laws. Many others collect pay in cash through a black market economy in violation of our state and federal tax laws. Almost never will an illegal alien “only” break immigration-related laws.

And this does not consider the high percentage – 20 percent of illegal immigrants have criminal records – of illegal aliens who are here not to work but to steal or to smuggle and distribute illegal drugs into the country. (Jack Cafferty, CNN.)

More importantly, how do we have any idea how many of them ‘desire to live among us in peace”? We are talking about between 400,000 and a million people per year! We don’t know who they are and where they are going. Almost certainly, a percentage of them want to commit crimes, and some of them may actively be seeking to attack the United States. This is an incredibly audacious and unwarranted assumption to make about our unsecured border. And it puts innocent lives at risk – maybe not the lives of members of the ERLC who live in the deep South or on the East Coast – but certainly the lives of those of us who live in Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

If God instructed His covenant people to make careful distinctions between people in their midst, we would be wise to do the same.

We DO make careful distinctions – between those immigrants who are lawfully in the process of becoming U.S. citizens, those who are permanent legal residents, those who are temporary workers, and then there is another category – those who are here illegally. In many cases, we have no ability to make any distinctions with this group because we don’t know who they are or where they are. We just know they are here. We don’t even know, within 5 million people, how many illegal aliens are in the country, because they are hiding to avoid detection.

We acknowledge that the United States is not Israel. The nation of Israel was a theocracy. Its civil and religious components were intermingled. Many of God’s instructions were intended to help the Israelites maintain religious purity. God has not structured any other nation in this way. Therefore, the United States is not obligated to adopt the civil laws God laid down specifically and uniquely for Israel. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that these laws often reflect universal principles that God expects any nation to honor. Indeed, we find the New Testament, including many statements by Jesus, often reiterating and reapplying these principles to a broader context.

As we have sought biblical guidance on how to address our nation’s current immigration dilemma, we believe some core biblical values speak clearly. The recurrence of these values in the teachings of Jesus, assure us that they transcend Israelite national polity and are indeed universal in scope. The values we identify below apply to the civil relationships between any people living together in community, and so they apply in our nation’s context. Regarding the undocumented immigrant, we urge our nation to take the following core Biblical values into consideration.

• Neighbor love. God told the Israelites, “The stranger (ger) who resides with you shall be as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself” (Leviticus 19:34). He instructed them, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus taught that everyone is our neighbor (Luke 10:25-37). Again, there is no argument that followers of Christ are called to love their neighbor, including illegal aliens. But how does that translate into “government policy must change to accommodate mass lawbreaking?”
• Compassion and mercy. We should treat the weak and vulnerable with kindness (Micah 6:8, Malachi 3:5-6, Matthew 12:7). Agreed.
• Provision. Finding ways to meet the needs of others is a core Christian value (Leviticus 23:22, Matthew 25:31-46). Agreed.
• Dignity. God said, “You shall not wrong a stranger (ger) or oppress him” (Exodus 22:21). We are to “do justice” (Micah 6:8). We should treat all people as persons of worth and treat them in a way that respects their status as bearers of God’s image. This is the essence of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12). I completely agree with this. We must repudiate any injustice, which would include any element of racism or racial profiling, directed toward any person.

Once again, with all of the above principles, there is a complete failure to recognize the difference between the role of individual followers of Christ, and the role of the God-ordained institution of government.

More importantly, here are basic biblical principles that are mostly ignored in this White Paper:
• “Obey the governing authorities” – Romans 13:1-4 – you have nothing to fear if you do good. Government is there to punish wrong conduct. Those who are here illegally live “in the shadows” not because they are being victimized, but because they fear legitimate justice.
• “Do not steal” – when violators of our immigration law take the benefits of U.S. citizenship – education, health care, welfare, etc. – without legally contributing to our society, it would appear they are violating this most basic requirement of the 10 commandments. The commandments as they relate to coveting and stealing from neighbors seem to have application here. If we consider those who cross illegally as our “neighbors,” one could argue that in many cases, they have come into our house uninvited, as trespassers, and begun to eat our food, use our facilities, sleep in our bed and in some cases borrow our identities and steal our jobs.

The issue of immigration must also be considered from the perspective of the core values of the welcoming nation. God ordained civil government (Romans 13:1-7). Here is a brief reference to Romans 13 with no explanation and no mention of how this passage is being ignored and violated. He charged it with the responsibility of providing for the security, wellbeing, and protection of the people under its authority. As such, the civil authority has a responsibility to assure that its policies honor this charge from God. From this perspective, we must consider the following core values, at a minimum.
• Constitutional obligations. Citizens have a right to expect the civil authority to fulfill its constitutional obligations. Including providing security and order in a community.
• Covenantal obligations. The civil authority has a responsibility to make sure that its citizens are free to pursue the blessings of life, liberty, and happiness. This has been impossible for many of our citizens who live along the border.
• Fiduciary obligations. A civil authority should not take on more financial obligations than the citizens can afford. Everyone suffers if a nation experiences financial collapse. The law enforcement, health care and educational cost of millions of illegal aliens is well documented.
• Cultural obligations. Nations tend to thrive when the citizens share a certain set of core cultural values. These values should be honored and followed by incoming people to help maintain the values of the welcoming nation. In America’s case those core values are embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Those who legally emigrate are required to learn these principles and swear allegiance to the United States. Those who sneak across illegally are not.

While we are certain that many details must be addressed, we offer below what we consider to be the primary features of a just immigration policy. We believe these features incorporate our nation’s core values and God’s guidance for the treatment of immigrants in a way that respects both the rule of law and the dignity of the millions of men, women, and children who are currently living here illegally.

Secure Borders. This is indispensable for any immigration policy to succeed. We must be able to control who enters this country. To simply address the situation of the millions who are here illegally without securing our borders is inviting another repeat of our dilemma. Border security must be actively maintained. We do not require fencing the entire borders north and south, but we expect any system that is put in place to be able to prohibit illegal entry. Many of us have emphasized this point for years. Those who have been pushing “comprehensive immigration reform” typically shortchange this requirement. Indeed, this is the first principle upon which all should agree. This should be the starting point, rather than this paper’s starting point of addressing the “hard case” of what to do with millions of illegal aliens.

Paths to legal status. A one-size fits all legal status is not constructive. The nation should offer multiple forms of legal status with appropriate requirements for each. Some undocumented immigrants likely desire citizenship. Others may only desire to remain here for a while and then return to their home countries when they have achieved certain goals. Others may desire to work here indefinitely but retain citizenship in their countries of origin. We see this as especially true, but not exclusively true, for highly skilled workers. We propose that our nation pursue all these avenues simultaneously, such as citizenship, permanent or temporary legal residency, temporary worker, etc.

Why and how is a path to legal status required by biblical ethics? We seem to have skipped over that argument. How do you get from “government is ordained to provide order” to “we need to provide a path to legal status?” This seems to be a pre-ordained political conclusion, not a well-reasoned application of biblical principles to reach a policy conclusion.

We recognize that applying this approach to those who have come here illegally is not fair to those who have followed the law and have been waiting for long periods of time to gain legal entrance into our nation.

Finally! We have finally come to a real issue of “social justice.” And the conclusion – what we are proposing is “not fair.” Or to use another term – what we are proposing is “unjust.” And remember, “justice” is the main issue, according to the authors of this White Paper.

We regret the additional frustration this creates for them.

What is our solution to this obvious injustice? “We’re sorry.”

But we would point out that our proposal puts those who are here illegally behind those who have already applied for permanent legal status to enter or remain in this country.

How does it do that?

The primary benefit undocumented immigrants will derive is the opportunity to remain in the United States while they wait for their legal status to be conferred.

But that’s the whole point – getting to live in the United States! That’s like saying – we recognize that the thief made off with $1 million, and under our proposed reform will get to keep the $1 million and the victims won’t get their money back. We are sorry about this.

Of course, this is a considerable benefit. No kidding. Nevertheless, we currently have millions of people who are already here and we must find a just way to bring them out of the shadows.

So here is the logic: we must consider immigration issues from the perspective of justice. Letting people who cheated stay here while those who have followed the law wait in line is unjust. We are sorry about that. But at least their paperwork will be behind yours.

Appropriate and adequate penalties and requirements. Those who are here illegally broke our laws and those of their own nations to get here. These laws were put in place in order to help the nations adequately manage the flow of people in and out of their borders. Immigration law in the U.S. is driven primarily by the national interest in assuring the ability of our nation to absorb and assimilate the influx of people.

Yes! And this national interest has been completely violated by millions of people who ignored our right to adequately manage the flow of people in and out of our borders.

These laws are necessary. Those who came here illegally were aware that they were circumventing the process. If they desire to remain here, they must undergo a criminal background check, pay a fine, agree to pay back taxes, learn to speak, write, and read English and get in line behind those who are legally migrating into this country in order to apply for permanent residence after a probationary period of years. They must also acknowledge and pledge allegiance to America’s governmental structure, the duties of citizenship and our core values as embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

This is not amnesty. Amnesty is what President Carter gave the draft dodgers who came home from Canada with no penalties, no fines, and no requirements whatsoever.

Financial penalties must be just, not only from the perspective of our nation’s sense of justice but also for those who will be required to pay them. In other words, the penalties should seek restitution, not retribution. People who fail background checks or who refuse to comply with this generous opportunity to earn legal status, should be deported immediately.

Here is where an analogy paints a better picture. You and your family are waiting in a long line to get into Disneyland. The line is moving very slowly. You may not get in at all today. Meanwhile, a bunch of families snuck in through the back fence. They are riding the rides, eating the food, watching the shows while you wait in line. At some point during the day, the owners of Disneyland learn that dozens of families are in the park without paying and waiting in line. Their solution? “We probably can’t find them. So here’s what we’ll do. We will make an announcement in the park that everyone who snuck over the back fence needs to step forward, admit they were wrong, pay a small fine, and promise not to do it again. In the meantime, they can keep riding the rides while others wait outside the gates.” Now, keep in mind, these people are terrified of the possible consequences of coming forward. They have been hiding from park security all day. Some of them don’t even get the message. But, no worries, no one is really chasing them and besides, they can still ride the rides, eat the food and watch the shows! So most of them decide to just stay quiet and keep enjoying Disneyland. Meanwhile, the people who want to pay their fee and get into the park by following the rules and standing in line, continue to wait outside.

Cut-off date for application for legal status. The offer for legal status for those who are here illegally must have a cut-off date. We recommend that this be one year after the passage of appropriate legislation. After that, anyone who is still here illegally will be deported and any employer who hires someone here illegally will suffer stringent penalties.

At this point, the White Paper launches from confused and inconsistent to downright silly. Why is this silly? Because we were told at the beginning that it is not possible to deport the millions of people who are here illegally. There are too many, and they are too hard to find. Now we are hoping they will all come forward, even though they fear immediate deportation, even though they are terrified of law enforcement. Plus they will have to pay a fine. If they have any other criminal offenses, they will be deported. How many do you suppose will come forward under these circumstances? Out of 15 million, I would be shocked if anywhere near 1 million took this deal. So what do you do with the other 14 million after the one-year cutoff date? Deport them! We can’t deport 15 million, but if they don’t take our generous offer to pay a fine and learn English within a year – while we are filing lawsuits to make sure we can’t really pursue and find them if they don’t come forward – then we will suddenly develop the ability to find and deport all of them … which we already said we couldn’t do. Oh, and by the way, we were also told, rather self-righteously, that deporting millions of people was inhumane. But now it’s OK.

Limits on chain migration. Chain migration, the process of bringing extended members of one’s family to the United States once one family member is settled here, is a significant concern to us and many people in the nation. If we are to allow millions of people to remain here, we must find a way to limit the influx of extended family members so that we leave room in our nation for future immigrants who have no family here. We propose that chain migration be limited to spouses and their natural or adopted children. We recommend that hardship exceptions be part of the limits to enable children to bring elderly parents to the U.S. who have no means of support in their home countries. In order to maintain our commitment to bringing in additional immigrants, we recommend that the number of family members who can be united with family members in the U.S. be subject to an annual cap.

We are now so far removed from anything relating to biblical ethics that this proposal could be coming from anyone. These may or may not be good ideas. But to pretend these specific proposals are somehow biblically-based, rather than anything other than warmed-over congressional talking points, is laughable.

Incentives for highly skilled immigrants. Our nation is in a competitive situation in a growing worldwide economy. In order to remain competitive and maintain our economic leadership in the world, we must encourage immigration of highly skilled workers in needed fields. This number should also be capped, but it should be sufficiently high to enable businesses to attract these highly skilled workers to the U.S.

Again, it is hard to find a clear biblical principle in the notion that we should encourage highly-skilled immigrants to come in, subject to a cap, so we can remain economically competitive.

Adequate penalties for those who hire undocumented immigrants. Businesses that hire workers illegally do so for profit. They think of undocumented immigrants as vulnerable and exploitable. Consequently, they give them lower pay and fewer, if any, benefits. Such businesses should be penalized for their own participation in the encouragement of illegal immigration and breaking the nation’s employment and labor laws. Penalties should be sufficient to remove any financial incentive to hire people illegally.

We have that law in Arizona, and most supporters of “comprehensive reform” opposed it and said it was racist.

A dependable worker verification system. Businesses are not the only ones to blame for their hiring of undocumented immigrants. Our nation has not provided any dependable worker verification system. Undocumented immigrants with false or stolen social security numbers can easily subvert a company’s safeguards. The government must provide businesses with a responsive, up-to-date system that enables them to verify a worker’s status within one week. If the system fails to notify the employer in that period, the employer should no longer be held liable for hiring an undocumented immigrant if it has taken appropriate steps to verify the legal status of its employee.

Again, these are interesting policy ideas. They have nothing to do with biblical principles, and don’t pretend to.

And that's how it ends -- with a laundry list of generic policy proposals that don't even pretend to be rooted in any biblical ethic. I understand that it is just a draft, but here's hoping the ERLC will go back to the drawing board and provide a more balanced and comprehensive analysis of this issue. While I admire the ERLC and agree with many of its policy proposals, this White Paper is not only disappointing, but fundamentally flawed in its analysis.

There is at least one thing that unites all of humanity – every person to ever live on this earth (since Adam and Eve) has a Mom.

And let’s face it – most Moms, even before Roe v. Wade – had a choice about whether to bring you into the world.

This Mother’s Day, do something special to say “thanks” to your Mom for choosing life – purchase a “Choose Life” license plate at www.servicearizona.com. And if you can, let her know you did it in her honor.

Not only do you help build a culture of life in your community, but $17 of the special plate fee of $25 goes to the Arizona Life Coalition to promote the work of crisis pregnancy centers in Arizona!

Since the plate became available in 2009, already more than $17,000 has been raised for the Arizona Life Coalition.

Visit www.arizonalifecoalition.org for more information and instructions on how to order your “Choose Life” license plate!

Bennett is unopposed in the Republican primary, but faces a tough general election battle. This is a critical office overseeing our state's elections that we cannot afford to ignore, and Secretary Bennett is a solid conservative who is worthy of our support.

Remember, three of the past five Governors were promoted from Secretary of State. We need conservative Ken Bennett in that office.

If you can't make it to Wednesday's event with Luis Gonzalez, you can donate up to $140 through his website. At a minimum, please fill out the $5 donation form so Ken Bennett can qualify for funding under Arizona's Clean Elections law.

Lately I’ve been watching liberals defend their new health care bill by talking about how popular it will be to force insurance companies to cover more people and to expand their coverage to include pre-existing conditions, among other things. And in the abstract, these things will indeed be popular.

But in the real world where most of us live, when the government requires that insurance companies cover more people and provide more coverage, adding tremendous costs to their bottom line, these “evil” companies -- who after all employ millions of people, most of whom buy homes and take care of families and pay taxes -- are required to do one of two things -- 1) raise rates through the roof, or 2) go out of business, thus adding to Barack Obama's amazing record of job elimination.

In the first case, as prices rise, fewer people can afford health insurance without government help, so more of us are dependent.

But in the second case – when insurance companies go out of business -- their former workers lose their homes, lose their health insurance, and no longer pay taxes so government revenue falls.

(Of course, these rules apply to every evil, corrupt business that the government decides makes too much money and needs to "share" more. And as more businesses close due to draconian taxes, states go broke - hello California and New Jersey – and can’t provide a quality education or basic social services.)

But in this case, at least the liberals feel good about providing universal health coverage - except there will be fewer insurance companies left and they are making less money, so there is less competition and as a result, rates increase even more.

Simple economics are a lot like gravity. You don't have to like the rules of gravity, but it's really foolish to step off a cliff in the belief that, just this time, the rules don't apply. You may not like the economic truths of the real world, but they exist.

This does NOT mean insurance companies are all good, or that they should not operate under a moral framework that includes compassion for the insured and for employees.

But if you really want to provide more access to health care, you work on reducing costs - by allowing more competition - across state lines, for example. You promote tort reform, and stop letting charlatans like John Edwards get rich suing doctors over mistakes, which raises malpractice rates for physicians and adds to health care costs.

You trust the American people -- the same people who chose VHS over Beta, the Mustang over the Edsel and Kris Allen over Adam Lambert -- to choose insurance companies that are fair and treat their members decently, and to punish companies that are rotten and ruthless and mean and incompetent.

But those choices didn't exist much already, thanks to current governmental intrusion, and now they exist even less. And that's really sad, and real people are going to be hurt by this.

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?