The time for pretense has passed.  As a nation, we are on the cusp of an economic cataclysm if immediate steps are not taken to correct our unbalanced national checkbook.  As our debt already spirals out of control, the specter of the unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, looms ominously on the horizon.  When the retirement of the baby boom generation hits with blunt force, our economic state will be in shambles and our country will default.

These problems do not appear lost on President Obama.  Congratulating himself for bringing us out of a recession, he has touted a new era of fiscal sobriety.  But after telling Tea Party Americans that he was going to "call their bluff" and propose "difficult choices" to get our runaway deficits under control, what did the president offer in terms of a budget?  He put forth a plan that would see the federal government borrow more money in his four years than under the previous 43 presidents combined.  And what tough choices did he recommend to rectify the massive unfunded liabilities that are preparing to devour our economy?  None.

The president's budget is such a disgrace that even Evan Thomas, the Newsweek writer who once compared Obama to God, called it a "profile in cowardice."  Obama has called for a scalpel to be taken to federal spending when a fleet of jackhammers and buzz saws are in order.  Knowing the calamity that awaits us, he prefers to mortgage our children's future in order to avoid the necessary cuts that might jeopardize his own re-election bid.  That's not hope.  That's not change.  That's not leadership.

But all is not lost.  Despite the miserable failure in the Oval Office, there are leaders among us.  They are emerging in Midwestern states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio.  Indeed, while most political analysts were focusing on the historic turnover in the U.S. Congress, the most significant impact of the 2010 midterm elections is proving to be what happened in statehouses and governor mansions around the country.  There, the people handed the machinery of government over to the Republican Party with one demand: stop telling us what we want to hear simply to get elected, and start telling us what must be done to save our Republic.

That's precisely what Governors like Wisconsin's Scott Walker and New Jersey's Chris Christie are doing.  At a recent town hall event, Governor Christie bluntly told the audience, "We have big problems in this state. And it's time to deal with them."  Christie later went on to explain how state benefits were "too generous" and had to be reprioritized.  These are not things that the recipients of those benefits are going to greet warmly.  But they are things that true leaders must be willing to say.

The same is true in Wisconsin.  No one could make the argument that it was a politically easy decision to take on the state teachers' unions.  But Governor Walker recognized that his state was broke, and the exorbitant and unparalleled benefits going to state employees like teachers were largely responsible.  Consequently, he made the tough choice to call for modest cuts in those benefits only to incur the wrath of union activists and opportunistic Democrats throughout the country. 

Angry teachers walked off the job, lied to their employers by calling in sick, and paraded around with signs demanding that the Governor relent to their demands to continue shackling the children of Wisconsin (ironically the same children these teachers supposedly committed their lives to serving) with the cost of their full pension and healthcare costs.

Seizing upon this opportunity to choose cheap political points over leadership, Minnesota Democrat Representative Keith Ellison called Walker a dictator, liberal columnist Paul Krugman labeled him a third-world oligarch, and Massachusetts Democrat Representative Michael Capuano rallied the union mob equipped with signs touting crosshairs over Walker's face to "get a little bloody when necessary."  That's apparently the new era of civility they've been preaching. 

For his part, Obama dispatched senior adviser Valerie Jarrett to tell MSNBC, "The president thinks...we should sit together with the unions...We're all having to tighten our belts, but we ought to be able to do that in a constructive way."  Pray tell, how do you tighten your belt in a "constructive way?"  This is political hackery and rhetorical rubbish coming from an administration that is scared spitless at the thought of having to deny anyone their taxpayer funded goodies.

Democrats around the country are employing a new strategy of "No temper tantrum un-pitched, no pouting fit un-thrown," by fleeing the legislatures in Indiana and Wisconsin in order to obstruct the democratic process.  Yes, the same party that recently chided Republicans as the "Party of No," now resorts to hiding in neighboring states to avoid doing their jobs.

The Preamble to the Constitution charges us with the solemn responsibility to "preserve the blessings of liberty" not just for ourselves, but to our posterity.  Democrats from the White House to the statehouse have chosen to use their moment in history to cushion their own blessings at the cost of our children's liberty.  History will judge them harshly for their selfishness.  In the meantime, thank goodness there are men like Christie and Walker to lead us past them.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

In a recent tirade preposterously trashing the right for not "loving freedom," liberal Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson suggests that conservative criticism of Barack Obama's response to the Egyptian uprising is unwarranted.  Accusing conservatives of adhering to the juvenile creed that "Obama Is Always Wrong," Robinson chides, "heaven forbid that the president get any credit."

Uh...my question to Mr. Robinson is simply, "credit for what?"

Sure, the Egyptian military has - to this point - prevented the revolt from devolving into a state of utter chaos.  Sure, there's the possibility that democratic rule will emerge in Cairo.  But it strains credulity to its breaking point to suggest that if it does, President Obama had anything to do with it.  Based on CNN's man-on-the-street interviews with Egyptians, they sure don't think he did.  So, Mr. Robinson, what exactly has the President done to be worthy of praise?

I suppose we could give him credit for dusting off the campaign trail clichés and proclaiming that any new Egyptian government should help young people, "fulfill their highest aspirations, and tap their boundless potential."  Perhaps in his next public statement he could assure the Egyptians that, "they are the ones that they've been waiting for?"  And yes, in the midst of the upheaval, he did express hope that the United States would be able to partner with the new Egyptian government.  But as Rudy Giuliani's now prescient admonition warned us during his 2008 Republican convention speech, "Hope is not a strategy."

And that, Mr. Robinson, is why the criticism is appropriate.  It isn't so much about what Obama's position was, but rather his inability to decide and articulate what his position was.  The truth is that the president has largely played the role of a confused spectator in this entire scenario.  And given that the American people hired him to anticipate crises and navigate the country through the sometimes treacherous waters of international unrest, his uncertainty is cause for great concern, not adulation.

If the left is really curious what the seemingly unending barrage of criticism being heaped upon President Obama is about, I'd be happy to inform them.

It's about the glaring paucity of leadership that currently characterizes the Oval Office.  In announcing his presidential candidacy a little over four years ago, Obama declared, "What's stopped us is the failure of leadership...our chronic avoidance of tough decisions."  To anyone paying attention, those were ironic words coming from a man who had made a habit of avoiding tough decisions by voting "present" on 129 bills during his short stint in the Illinois legislature.  On some of the most controversial and divisive topics, Obama refused to exhibit the courage of conviction to take a position, not wanting to be held accountable for his decision.  Commenting on this incongruity at the time, columnist Nathan Gonzales remarked, "As president, Obama will be faced with countless difficult decisions on numerous gray issues, and voting ?present' will not be an option."  As Egypt demonstrates, someone apparently forgot to mention that to Mr. Obama.

It's also about a dangerous naiveté when it comes to changes in the strategic situation.  Harvard History professor Niall Ferguson explained, "The only thing that seems to not be getting pointed out is that this completely took the administration by surprise, and I mean completely.  They admitted that they had not planned for this scenario.  I find that absolutely astonishing."  When you consider that Mubarak was old and sick, and that Israel had been gaming out this very potential a year ago, Ferguson's bewilderment is understandable.  Excoriating the administration for essentially running two different policies concurrently, he lectured, "You cannot make the foreign policy of a superpower up as you go along."  And that indictment represents the sum of conservative angst.

More broadly, the criticism of Obama is about a disconnected indifference to all matters relating to national security.  Speaking to the Defense Forum Foundation, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and foreign policy guru John Bolton concluded, "the most significant aspect of the president's approach to foreign and national security policy is that he basically doesn't care about it."  That may seem crass, but any fair minded evaluation of the apparent priorities of Mr. Obama reveals foreign policy to be an inconvenient distraction that he is uncomfortable dealing with.  Bolton appropriately surmised that Obama is, "different from the long line of American presidents since Franklin Roosevelt beginning on December the 7^th 1941, virtually all of whom got up every morning worrying about threats to American national security policy."

How different?  Far worse than just failing to think about such threats over the breakfast table, his Egyptian bungling reveals (as his incoherent stances on China, North Korea, Israel, Iran and Russia previously demonstrated) Obama doesn't even think about them in foreign policy meetings.

If Eugene Robinson and the left really want to know the impetus behind conservative criticism of Mr. Obama, they could start by heeding the unlikely wisdom of the man Mr. Obama picked to share a ticket with, Vice President Joe Biden.  During the campaign, Biden warned, "The presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."  Precisely.  Perhaps Mr. Robinson thinks Joe doesn't love freedom either?

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

The debate over whether or not those practicing homosexuality should be eligible to obtain the legal status of "married" for their same-sex relationships is persistently mischaracterized by activists on both sides as an attempt to redefine marriage.  For those opposing such a move, this is most likely an error of ignorance, while for those favoring, it likely is an intentional tactic of misdirection.  To be clear, in order to "redefine" anything, there must be an alternative definition being advocated.  To this point, no such proposed substitute has emerged.

In truth then, what is being pursued is not any redefinition of marriage, but rather the "undefinition" of it -- an attempt to obliterate any fundamental parameters for what is to be perceived as moral and immoral sexual partnerships.  To anyone paying attention over the last several decades, this effort should come as no surprise.

The debate over homosexuality in our culture, after all, is nothing more than the current manifestation of a much larger crusade for sexual anarchy that has been raging since Alfred Kinsey's fraudulent sex studies of the 1950s.  Engaging in nothing short of institutional pedophilia and sexual abuse of children as young as Kindergarten, Kinsey's "research" contended that average Americans commonly were engaging in all sorts of sexual activity.  He and his acolytes urged the culture to act on his revelations by shedding their fears and shames about such behavior and embracing all forms of sexual activity as acceptable expression.

The Kinsey cause morphed into the free love movement of the 1960s with its focus on breaking down societal barriers against almost any sexual expression.  And ever since, we have experienced a relentless campaign from these forces of sexual anarchy to normalize previously forbidden recreational sex.  When Kinsey started the fire, most resisted the idea that sex should be entertainment, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that divorce should be easily attainable, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that promiscuity should be celebrated, until pop culture normalized it.  Even then, most resisted the idea that homosexuality and cross-dressing should be accepted, and now pop culture is normalizing it. 

If my assessment is accurate, we should be seeing the next stage in the crusade for sexual anarchy beginning to take shape.  And right on cue, a news story emerges from the Salt Lake Tribune to validate as much.

As columnist Lindsay Whitehurst explains, the nearly 38,000 polygamists in Utah are closely following a case in Canada where a court is now weighing a decision that could upend the country's ban on polygamy.  What is astounding about the story is how frighteningly similar the polygamists' arguments are to those we are currently hearing from the homosexual and transgendered crowd in America. 

Calling the proceedings "historic," polygamy advocate Marlyne Hammon proclaimed, "If Canada were to drop that law, it would send quite an important message out to the world.  They can see [polygamy] is not what everyone says.  It's about people."  Hammon added that the decriminalization of plural marriage in Canada would be a huge motivation to those fighting for its legalization in America.  "We've established ourselves in our homes," she said.  "We want to continue fighting for our civil rights."

Utah's Attorney General's office spokesman Paul Murphy has said of the case, "I think it will inform us.  Canada is tackling the same issues we have, in that we have this law but for the most part it hasn't been enforced by any law enforcement agency."

Notice the similarity in language and sentiment being utilized: civil rights, anti-discrimination, self-fulfillment, personal happiness, don't judge, constitutional rights, personal expression.  The very catch phrases currently employed by the sexual anarchists to achieve the acceptance of homosexual behavior are already being used to advocate for the next rung in their ladder.  It should come as no surprise then that Tom Hanks, a vocal proponent of gay marriage is currently the executive producer for the HBO series "Big Love," documenting (and normalizing) a polygamous family in Utah.

Once the trail has been forged by homosexuality activists, polygamy is nothing but the next logical step.  Paul McCormack, a law professor at the University of Utah, confirms that if the Supreme Court takes up the question of same-sex marriage, it will open the door to other forms of personal sexual preference.  "That would resuscitate the interest in polygamy," he stated.

In light of all this, I simply ask those who support the legalization of "gay marriage" how they plan to deny marriage rights to those who advocate for polygamy?  This has now gone beyond a "slippery slope" hypothetical question and has entered the realm of reality.  The question deserves an answer, and any sane culture would demand one before proceeding further down the Kinsey path.

If we remove the current moral guideposts defining marriage as the God-intended union of a man and woman, declaring them to be a violation of the civil rights of those who want to engage in homosexuality, how do we reposition those posts to reject the civil rights claims of polygamists?

If we accept the arguments espoused by pop culture homosexual activists like Ellen DeGeneres who plead, "People are gonna be who they're gonna be, and we need to learn to love them for who they are and let them love who they want to love," how do we rebuff polygamy activists like Marlyne Hammon who say the same?

The answer is we don't.  That is the consequence of "undefining" marriage -- it becomes a meaningless term, once for all vanquished by the forces of sexual anarchy.  This necessarily opens the floodgates to the legalization of every form of sexual activity, from polygamy to incest to bestiality.  Before we uproot our culture's moral barriers, we might want to pause long enough to consider what awaits us on the other side.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.

Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, the Constitution of the United States lives to fight another day.  With as bloodied and beaten as her carefully articulated prohibitions against the overreach of governmental power had become following years of abuse, America's great charter found a champion in Judge C. Roger Vinson and his stinging rebuke of ObamaCare.  If upheld by the appellate courts (which must be considered quite plausible, if not likely), Vinson's opinion has not only turned back an unprecedented attempt at expanding the power of the federal government far beyond its intended scope, but has also provided a catalyst for a return to constitutional government in the United States.

That is no small feat given where we were just 24 months ago when Barack Obama was delivering his inaugural address and verbally shaking the foundation of constitutionalism by frightfully articulating a governing philosophy far removed from the author of that Constitution, James Madison, who wrote in Federalist 41, "Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it.  This is the first question."  In what should have been a grave foreshadowing of what was to come, Obama dismissed Madison's counsel and decreed a brave new approach, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works."

Years of historical revisionism and benign neglect in our civics and government classrooms allowed that profound dichotomy between the Father of the Constitution and the man we had just hired to be its guardian slip by unnoticed.  Only when Obama appeared poised to break a campaign promise and sign into law a healthcare bill that would compel every American to purchase government-approved health insurance did the dwindling flames of what George Washington called the "sacred fire of liberty" begin to rekindle.

The embers began to glow in Congressional town hall meetings, where lawmakers like Pete Stark (D-CA) preposterously answered constituents that, "The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country."  The smoke began billowing when concerned citizens who were informing themselves on what was happening in Washington were patronizingly told by representatives like Joe Donnelly (D-IN) to, "turn off the TV and listen to a Frank Sinatra record."  And dismissive attitudes about the constitutionality of their actions, like that coming from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) when she responded to such a challenge by flippantly scoffing, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?" firmly ignited a movement dedicated to restoring the lost principles of federalism. 

Enter Judge Vinson, who rightly interpreting his first obligation, set aside all peripheral questions about the uninsured, ObamaCare's potential for success, the debt it will bring or not bring, or the intent of its authors.  In a statement that reflected the wisdom expressed in Federalist 41, Vinson confirmed, "this case.is not really about our health care system at all.  It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government."  Somewhere, upon hearing those words, James Madison was smiling.

Whether the federal government had the authority to take on such monstrous power, after all, was to be the "first question."  Yet, quite tellingly, it had become the one question that the supporters of ObamaCare avoided at all costs.  Well, perhaps that's not fair.  Then House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers (D-MI) did make an effort to address it, explaining to a reporter that Congress got their authority to force Americans to purchase health insurance, "Under several clauses, the Good and Welfare Clause and a couple others." 

Though there is no such thing as the "Good and Welfare Clause," we can assume Conyers was meaning the "General Welfare" clause.  But if so, it appears he bears the same antipathy towards James Madison that President Obama does.  For it was Madison who cautioned, "With respect to the two words general welfare, to take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."  Given that Madison was one of those creators, Conyers might want to defer to him on this one.

Perhaps wanting to avoid that embarrassment, most ObamaCare defenders (including the administration itself) have attempted to excuse their unconstitutional overreach on the basis of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which allows Congress to regulate goods that are exchanged across state lines.  Of course, ObamaCare is an entirely different animal.  It first compels a passive person to engage in commerce, just so Congress can regulate them.

Vinson properly excoriated this rational, reasoning, "If [Congress] has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party...it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted."  That might please Pete Stark, but it doesn't meet Constitutional muster, as explained (once again) by the document's primary author James Madison: "If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money...the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one."

This was the spirit of Judge Vinson's ruling, which is what makes it so significant.  It is a landmark decision for individual liberty and limited government, that very well may prove to be the ultimate undoing of the ObamaCare nightmare.

This column was first published at The American Thinker.