Most campaigns have a musical theme. Rick Santorum, who “suspended” his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday, might have selected the song “The Impossible Dream.”

Santorum’s dream seemed improbable, if not impossible, from the start. He lost his last Senate race and had been out of office—and out of mind—for the last few years; not exactly a platform on which one usually runs for president.

Political “experts” believed his chief foe, Mitt Romney, was unbeatable. Santorum played an important role by exposing some of Romney’s weaknesses, but early enough that it will help Romney in the general election campaign.

Santorum was forced to “bear with unbearable sorrow” the health struggles of his daughter, Bella, and he did it with a grace that allowed others who are struggling with physically and mentally challenged children to identify with him. No one could credibly accuse him of being an elitist and out of touch with average Americans.

The former senator ran where others would not, or could not, go successfully.

Santorum is a decent man in an indecent age, preaching to a largely hedonistic culture about old-time values abandoned by many, perhaps even a majority of Americans. At the very least, too many are indifferent to them. In doing so, he attempted to “right the unrightable wrong” and encourage others to be “better far than you are,” even when their “arms are too weary.”

Rick Santorum’s greatest contribution to the Republican campaign may have been to force the now presumed nominee, Mitt Romney, to the right. Romney claims he has always been a conservative, but he has had a difficult time convincing voters who were attracted to Santorum, whom they believed to be the true conservative in the race.

If Santorum ends up campaigning for Romney and brings his religious and conservative values voters with him, Romney will owe him in a big way and that might make him an important powerbroker. He could also serve as a useful attack dog, snapping at President Obama’s heels. Should Romney choose to use him in that role, he could be an effective counter to Vice President Joe Biden, who has been engaging in demagoguery against Republicans in recent speeches.

Though Santorum did not mention Romney in his campaign suspension announcement, Romney mentioned Santorum in a brief statement. Romney said of his now former rival, “He has proven himself to be an important voice in our party and in the nation. We both recognize that what is important is putting the failures of the last three years behind us and setting America back on the path to prosperity.”

If Santorum reciprocates, maybe not immediately, but eventually, the healing of the divisive primary campaign will have been achieved. If Santorum does the job well enough, he could find himself in a Romney Cabinet, say, secretary of Health and Human Services, where he could focus on those moral and cultural issues about which he cares so much. Or, he might even be Romney’s choice for vice president. There have been stranger bedfellows in American politics.

Santorum as vice president really would be an impossible dream, but if elected he would have come very close to almost reaching “the unreachable star.”

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

The late Dr. D. James Kennedy was approached once by a fellow believer who questioned the pastor’s call for Christians to enter government and transform secular culture: “Politics is such a dirty business, shouldn’t we stay out to avoid temptations?” Dr. Kennedy answered with his own question: “Do think that you, the Church, and the nation will be better off if Christians abandon the governing of our society into the hands of atheists and moral relativists?” Politics needs the salt and light of Christ’s message as much as any other area of our lives.

God made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that gave Israel the honor and responsibility to be His chosen people. The Lord was patient for centuries with His stubborn children—sending messengers to rebuke them for their evil deeds, sending enemies to discipline them when they refused to listen, sustaining them in trials, comforting them in exile, healing their wounds when they repented. Israel was promised every blessing and all they had to do was be God’s priests among the nations.

Then God sent His Son to be among His people, but Christ was crucified, the gospel rejected, the Church persecuted. The temple was destroyed, the nation of the old covenant was scattered, the priesthood was taken away from the Jews, and the Christians became the new chosen people in the risen Christ. Now, every one of us is charged with the same mission as those who descended in flesh from Abraham through Isaac—to be “salt of the earth” and “light of the world.”

Many blame Rick Santorum’s primary losses on his lack of focus. A recent commentary at WORLDmag.com noted that the public has perceived him as “unprepared for the office” because he had “took up the religion-in-politics topic.” The argument is that people care more about current economic hardships than social issues and the role of faith in the public square, with many conservative commentators scolding candidates who get “distracted” with perennial issues like abortion and sexual immorality. I understand the argument on a pragmatic level, but I have to disagree that Santorum is getting fruitlessly entangled with a question from a political philosophy course.

If we want to find a solution to our current economic troubles, we need all professing Christians to focus on the main issue—just as the Founding Fathers of the nation did at the beginning. When Benjamin Franklin participated in the debates at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, he pronounced the following:

“We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

Whether you are a butcher, a baker, or a policymaker, this is the attitude that every Christian leader should exhibit regardless of current political circumstances and cultural norms.

Jesus set an example for us to stand for the truth regardless of its repercussions. He wants us to be His disciples 24/7 and to boldly proclaim His Lordship over all aspects of our lives. The world around us is in darkness, and if we hide God’s light because of peer pressure or for political gain, we become as useless as the priests in the temple on that first Easter Sunday.

Politicians and presidents of both parties have occasionally suffered from open-mic syndrome, saying something when they thought the microphone was turned off they wished had not been made public.

The latest to fall prey to that amplification of the mouth is President Obama. The president told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during their Monday meeting in Seoul, South Korea, that once reelected, he would have “more flexibility” to deal with missile defense. The president asked Medvedev to relay to incoming President Vladimir Putin his request for “patience” and “space.”

The comments sent shivers down conservative spines. Conservatives believe the president is a not-so-closeted socialist. They recall his criticism of the Founding Fathers for putting too many restraints on presidential power in the Constitution, limiting a president’s ability to unilaterally bring about change. Unconstrained by the need to run again, they fear a political version of Girls Gone Wild with the Constitution shredded and America transformed beyond recognition.

Dick Morris believes that an unleashed President Obama would cause even more damage to the country. The former adviser to Bill Clinton appeared on Fox’s Hannity Monday night and delivered a Nostradamus-type prediction of what an Obama second term might look like.

“I believe that he’ll proceed to a single-payer system on healthcare,” said Morris. “I think Obamacare was just an intermediate step in his mind. If he’s reelected, particularly if there’s a Democratic Congress, he will eliminate the private health insurance industry and all insurance will be from the government and it will all be according to one plan.

“Secondly, I think that he will completely reverse the initiatives of the Bush 43 administration in opening up vast new forms of oil drilling in the U.S. And will eliminate this incredible opportunity we have to dominate the global oil markets and put the terrorists out of business.

“But thirdly, I think that his big focus will be to make the United States a vassal state to a globalist entity.”

With another president, this might sound like blather from the extreme right, but consider the new book by Van Jones, Obama’s former “green energy czar” who was forced to resign for past extremist views and statements, including signing a 2004 petition from 911Truth.org, a group that claimed George W. Bush allowed the 9/11 terrorist attacks to happen. In Rebuild the Dream, Jones claims President Obama could have done more to yank the country leftward had he not been “determined to be bipartisan at all costs.”

What would “more” look like in an Obama second term? Again, Dick Morris thinks he sees the future: “The G-20 and the IMF will acquire sovereignty over our economy. I think that he will sign the International Criminal Treaty that would oblige the United States to get UN approval, which is to say Russian and Chinese approval before going to war. I think he will sign the ‘Rights of the Child’ treaty, which would create a legal basis for suing to increase foreign aid to poor countries.”

Morris was not finished: “I think that he’ll sign the global ban on small arms, back-door arms control in the United States. I think he’ll sign away royalties for offshore drilling by going along with the Law of the Sea Treaty. I think that he’ll ban U.S. weapons in outer space, which will eliminate an anti-missile capability.”

The most important thing the president will do, according to Morris: “He’s going to transform America into two countries, a small number of people who pay taxes and a large number of people who don’t work and are dependent upon the government to create a permanent leftist socialist base in the United States.”

If that is not cause for alarm, even panic, what is? In the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to fundamentally transform America. Given a second term and especially with a Democratic Congress, he will. Just give him some space.

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

A rescue mission for the homeless might not be the most conventional campaign stop for a candidate for Congress. But former U.S. Rep. David McIntosh sees a good alternative to big government at the Kokomo Rescue Mission in Kokomo, Ind.

McIntosh is a leading Republican candidate for the 5th District seat that Rep. Dan Burton is leaving. The district ranges from Indianapolis’ Northside into Howard and Grant counties.

The rescue mission features the best of several worlds. Homeless men, women, and children find shelter and food. The court system in Howard County has an alternative to jail or prison for some offenders. Families sometimes find a path to reconciliation, as fathers or mothers leave addictions behind.

Children of homeless moms also can find preschool education at the women’s shelter, Open Arms, which can accommodate up to 25 women and 35 children. The men’s shelter has room for 56 men.

With three young children, Michelle was evicted for not paying her rent in southeastern Indiana a few months ago. “We were pretty much on the street,” she told McIntosh on his recent tour of Open Arms. “I had a friend in Kokomo. She said to call Open Arms.”

The shelter aims to help people find a permanent home. “We call them guests. We don’t call them residents,” said Kem Howell, the Open Arms director. “This is not your home.”

The goal is to develop a personal success plan. “What is the root of the homelessness?” is the key question, Howell said. “It might be domestic violence. It might be a lack of financial management.”

Not everyone succeeds. “Some are runners and don’t want to complete the program,” said Kelly Landrum, a case manager. “A lot of the ladies didn’t have a mother that taught them how to live. A lot of them don’t know their dads. That can make it hard for them to know how to relate to men.”

Jason Camery sees relationship skills as critical for the men. He is associate pastor of the Sycamore Reformed Presbyterian Church in Kokomo, which welcomes guests from the mission. A former policeman, he has seen the homeless problem from several angles.

“A lot of these men have broken relationships on multiple levels, with civil government, jail and restitution—and with mother, father, son, daughter, wife,” Camery noted. “When they understand the vertical relationship with God and reconciliation with Him through Christ, that provides the avenue for reconciliation with their loved ones, neighbors, and society.”

McIntosh sees the mission as a vital alternative, as federal spending must shrink.

“We’ll need more effective cooperation between government and faith-based institutions,” he said. “A faith-based institution is ideally suited for this work because they recognize that each person is uniquely a child of God, created different than others. So each person needs a unique path for healing and restoration.”

From that perspective, a rescue mission is a fitting campaign stop for a candidate for Congress.

While most politics-watchers eyeball the Republican presidential contest, a fascinating GOP primary race is shaping up in Texas, where a U.S. Senate seat is up for grabs on May 29 as Kay Bailey Hutchison retires.

Former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz, with Tea Party support, is taking on Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the establishment-favored candidate. Cruz, without big TV money but with persistence similar to that of Rick Santorum visiting every county in Iowa, has moved from little-known to contender: One recent poll shows Dewhurst with 38 percent of Republicans, Cruz with 27 percent, and two other candidates in single digits.

I spoke with Cruz by telephone this morning and realized once again that he is a very smart guy. He’s also a champion debater (see my interview with him from WORLD’s Nov. 7, 2009, issue). But what makes this race nationally significant is Cruz’s Hispanic ethnicity. George W. Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in the 2004 presidential race, but John McCain’s only garnered 31 percent in 2008. Republicans need to do better, and conservative leaders like Sen. Marco Rubio in Florida and Gov. Susana Martinez in New Mexico are showing the way.

Right now I can say with pundit near-certainty that whichever Texan wins the GOP Senate nomination will gain election in November. (Right now, 29 out of 29 Texas statewide officers are Republicans.) But if the GOP doesn’t win more of the Latino vote, that probably won’t be the case a decade from now, as Texas demographics continue to change. If Texas reverts to Democratic control, so will go the nation—with California and New York easy Democratic wins, it will exceptionally hard for a Republican to be elected president if he starts with the Electoral College votes of the three largest states arrayed against him.

If neither Cruz nor Dewhurst gains a majority on May 29, the two will battle in a runoff, and Cruz’s determined support will give him the advantage in a lower-turnout second round. WORLD will have more on this race over the next two months.

Paul Steuckler instructed, “Watch their belly buttons, not head fakes! That is the key to playing good basketball defense.” We could stand a little of that homespun wisdom in our discernment of political candidates.

Coach Steuckler taught us that where the belly button goes, the body must follow. Not so with head fakes, hip jukes, ball fakes, and shoulder feints. A friend of mine had the dubious distinction of guarding Michael Jordan at a fantasy camp. Steve said, “Michael dribbled a few seconds. I thought I was doing fine. He gave me a head feint left, and the next thing I knew, he wasn’t there—he was dunking. I stood there wondering, ‘What happened?’” While this is understandable when most of us go up against a basketball legend, it should not happen to us with politicians.

Politicians’ belly buttons are their actions, which reveal what they really believe. What they have done will tell us what they will do. We do well to avoid their head fakes. Their words are often feints. Hitler, early on, pandered to Christians, because it advanced his power base. Bill Clinton spoke passionately about women’s rights, and then abused women.

Politicians attend dinners and prayer breakfasts they care nothing about because it is politically expedient. Smiling, they visit organizations they abhor. They learn to use any part of the body politic to shoulder feint into a beneficial position.

How can we make sure that we watch their belly buttons? It’s not easy. It is impossible to read motivations of men’s hearts (only God can), and politicians are often gifted with an extraordinary ability to passionately and sincerely speak? So what can we do?

First, recognize that politicians seldom intend to do wrong from the start. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, “Few men set out to do evil.” Hitler convinced himself that he was best for Germany. He might have said to himself, “I know best. I can help this country the most. If this furthers my goals, it is good!”

Second, look at actions instead of words. This is difficult and easy: Difficult in that we must look at entire careers and not just random points highlighted by political opponents, and easy because of the plethora of information available today. This means considering not only competence, but also character. Newt Gingrich’s competence as a doer, his knowledge of history, and his willingness to do the unpopular speak well of him, but his character, displayed in his failed marriages, brings proper pause.

Third, look for substance, not style. We live in a culture of emotionalism. Sincerity, image, and passion are often valued above all else. One cannot question the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s passion and sincerity, but one can say he is sincerely wrong and his passion is misplaced.

Fourth, become clear biblical thinkers. To watch a politician’s belly button we must know what to look for. Opinion will not do. Nothing can replace complete, thorough, deep, biblical thinking.

God grant us the ability to watch belly buttons.

Rick Santorum deserves credit for his impressive primary victories in Mississippi and Alabama. Newt Gingrich led us to believe he would win both states. He didn’t, but he has vowed to fight on as the “real” conservative candidate, as opposed to Mitt Romney who only “says” he is a conservative.

Romney still has a substantial lead in delegates, but lags in one vital category: enthusiasm. If candidate Barack Obama gave his supporters the political equivalent of a sugar rush in 2008, Mitt Romney is broccoli. It’s his Mormon faith; it’s his perceived liberal tendencies while governor of Massachusetts; it’s his inability as a very wealthy man to connect with average voters; it’s all of the above and probably more.

Rick Santorum is the Latin Mass in an age of contemporary Catholic worship. He is an Underwood typewriter, not an iMac computer. He is the U.S. Postal Service, not email. Santorum believes deeply in God when many others either do not, or focus more on themselves than on any higher power. He is a family man in an age of divorce, cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock births. In short, he may be too good for us, too picture-perfect, too religious and too much of a scolder.

Voters want to know where the country has gone wrong, but they don’t want to believe they are responsible for steering it in that direction, or that they made a mistake four years ago in putting so much faith and trust in President Obama. They want more of John F. Kennedy’s 1960 slogan “We can do better” and less of “You could do worse than elect me.”

President Obama’s latest slide in the polls—from 50 percent approval to 41 percent, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll—presents a delicious opportunity for the eventual GOP nominee. But if the candidates continue to squabble and divide the vote, the president could eventually get his act together, perhaps approving a slightly diverted Keystone pipeline, causing gas prices to lower, or producing a stunning foreign policy success, though that is less likely given that so much of the Middle East seems beyond his control.

Nothing is predictable this political season and what seems true today may flip and become less true, even untrue, tomorrow.

Santorum’s latest victories tell us nothing about the general election. Any Republican can expect to win Alabama and Mississippi. Equally, Romney’s victory in Hawaii tells us nothing, because that state is mostly Democratic and can be expected to vote for Obama in November.

Gingrich vows to fight on until the Republican National Convention in Tampa, but he can only be a spoiler now. The calendar does not favor him and the voters seem to have decided that while he may have some great ideas among the flood of them he regularly disgorges from his fertile mind, for him, there appears to be no clear path to the nomination. Gingrich hasn’t won a primary since Georgia, the state he represented in Congress, and he probably won’t win another.

It’s down to Romney and Santorum and with no new debates scheduled—the last formal debate was Feb. 22—voters are likely to remain divided, which delights the Obama campaign.

As of now—and one must always qualify—Romney still seems the likely Republican nominee. But the real question for Republicans is this: If Romney is having such a difficult time beating Santorum—and to a lesser extent Gingrich—how will he marshal the forces necessary to beat President Obama in the fall? Next week’s Illinois primary will say a lot about Romney’s rebound strength. If he doesn’t win there, he could be in serious trouble.

Republican opposition to the president could be enough to overcome their lack of enthusiasm about Romney, but it’s a poor campaign strategy and it could well backfire. At least the Obama campaign is hoping it will.

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Listen to Cal Thomas comment on this topic on WORLD’s radio news magazine The World and Everything in It.

You’ve got to hand it to Democrats and the Obama reelection campaign. Like a quarterback who looks left to draw the defense away from his intended target on the right, Democrats have managed to divert our attention. Instead of debating President Obama’s dreadful record on just about everything, Democrats have managed to get Republicans talking about sex and morality. Rather than figuring out what to do about Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Democrats have put Republicans on the defensive over the use of vulgar words applied to liberal women. For their use of equally offensive or similar words applied to conservative women, they mostly get a pass, because this isn’t about the words; it’s about politics.

The strategy seems to be working. After a week of debating, discussing, and deploring what Rush Limbaugh said about Sandra Fluke, the Democrat-friendly Washington Post ran a front-page story last Saturday announcing “GOP gains dwindling among women.” They must be toasting each other at President Obama’s 2012 national headquarters in Chicago.

How did Republicans allow themselves to be outmaneuvered like this? Why do they think that talking about sex, much less trying to regulate it (some might start with regulating themselves) is going to gain votes for the party in a hedonistic age where worship of the Dow Jones Industrial Average and pleasure trumps a Higher Authority? The public has little faith in the ability of politicians to run the country. The approval rating for Congress just hit an all-time low of 9 percent, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll. That’s lower than the approval rating for pornography, polygamy, and human cloning, as cited in Gallup’s 2011 Values and Beliefs poll.

Republicans are missing an opportunity to outmaneuver Democrats. Instead of playing the Democrats’ game, Republicans should embrace a positive and optimistic vision. It worked for Ronald Reagan—the president whom Republicans so revere and wish was still around. Does anyone believe if Reagan were alive today he would be happy with the way the party is destroying itself?

I have made this argument before in different ways and with different analogies and I will continue to make it until someone takes it seriously. Stop arguing about philosophy and morality and instead feature people who have embraced Republican principles and whose lives are better as a result. These would include a single mother who is now independent of government assistance and either has a job or operates her own small business, thanks, perhaps, to a microloan.

Show me people who were brought up on “the wrong side of the tracks” with an alcoholic father, or absent mother, but because someone took an interest in them (a teacher, a mentor), managed to make something of themselves.

How about an example of a man who was mired in debt but decided to stop spending money he didn’t have, paid his bills, and is now debt free with a good credit rating? He could provide an example for what government should do.

America has always been a storytelling nation. We love stories of people overcoming through hard work and personal integrity. The late radio broadcaster Paul Harvey made a career of telling inspirational stories. Why aren’t Republicans telling positive stories, instead of so often labeling and condemning people? The smallest light can pierce the darkest room. Hope dispels despair. Confidence builds strength. “You can do it” beats “you’ll never amount to anything.”

Republicans should find people in small towns and big cities who would tell their stories. That’s what voters want to hear and see. It’s called leadership. It inspires people to believe in themselves and, ultimately, in America. It’s what Reagan did. Watch that 1984 campaign commercial “It’s Morning in America” (see video clip below).

For too many Republicans, the sun is setting on America. The return of Daylight Saving Time isn’t going to help.

© 2012 Tribune Media Services Inc.

Rick Santorum took a double-digit lead in Michigan and turned it into a single-digit loss because he let himself get off message and took up the religion-in-politics topic.

He complained in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that Sen. John Kennedy’s speech during the 1960 presidential campaign on the separation of church and state—or perhaps personal religion and policy-making—makes him want to throw up. People of faith, he said, should be able to bring their faith into “the public square,” borrowing John Richard Neuhaus’ phrase (in the video clip below, the religion question comes at the 13-minute mark):

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country. … What kind of country do we live in that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Of course, he raises a serious question with a long history. The problem is that though churches can be disestablished and kept out of direct political involvement, religion—especially Christianity— cannot simply be separated from politics. The Christian gospel centers on a living Lord, Jesus Christ, who claims lordship over every aspect of a Christian’s life. That claim extends also to Christians who serve in government, even in liberal democratic governments. For a Christian, a dichotomized life, a life that is divided between what is religious and what is supposedly secular, is a compromised and unfaithful life. And it is good for public officials to be under that lordship. Given that Christ’s moral law can be summarized as “love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:30-31), His lordship over His disciples in government is a public benefit.

That means that unless you change Christianity (which political philosophers have been attempting to do for the last 400 years) or legally exclude Christians from civic participation, believers will necessarily bring a distinct moral framework into the voting booth and present it to the electorate when they stand for public office. Of course, committed secularists, Marxists, feminists, and anyone else who has a worked-out ideology does the same thing, if they are honest about it.

These are serious questions, and Rick Santorum has a lot of wisdom to contribute to the discussion. But the heat of a political campaign, especially in the midst of a financial and economic crisis, is not the time to be raising perennial questions of political philosophy. The public is in no mood. A candidate who raises such questions just comes across as unfocused and unprepared for the office. I suspect that was the perception in Michigan.

When I was in fourth grade there was a presidential election going on: Kennedy vs. Nixon. Though it seems quaint now, the Democratic candidate’s religion was held against him, especially in Southern cities like mine. The rumor going around the lunchroom was that if Kennedy was elected, he’d make us go to school on Saturdays. I’m not sure what Saturday school had to do with democracy or Catholicism, but it sounded scary. Almost as scary as the current rumor going around that if Rick Santorum is elected, he will somehow enforce his church’s view of birth control on the nation at large.

The issue of contraception, which retreated to intermural church debate long ago, has mysteriously developed into a perfect storm. First, the Susan G. Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle, then the Health and Human Services mandate requiring religious groups to provide reproductive services to female employees. Out of those controversies rose a public concern about women’s access to contraception in general, and female U.S. representatives stormed out of a congressional hearing, and a Santorum backer made a joke about aspirin (which I remember from high school—we thought it was funny then), and a respectable left-of-center journal like The New Republic began furrowing its brow over “The Increasingly Disturbing War Against Women’s Rights.” What? How did a discussion about private contributions and government coercion become a campaign to force women back into the kitchen?

We’ve been framed. It might have been an elaborate setup, as Dick Morris suggested: a strategic retreat by the left, backing away from the abortion battle (which they’re losing), in order to rally around an issue with almost universal support. Such universal support, in fact, that it isn’t even an issue.

Whether deliberate or not, this development is extremely unfortunate. Santorum hasn’t helped himself, either, by his earlier public musings on the morality of birth control, or his wordy defense in the current crisis. When running for president, you must speak to the broadest possible constituency and keep your message to a few easily understandable points. The people don’t want philosophy unless it hits them where they live.

Contraception hits a significant voting bloc where they live. And even though the present controversy is laughably transparent, it could do a lot of harm. Back in the 1850s, hyper-nativism and anti-Catholicism gave rise to the Know Nothing Party, which enjoyed considerable success in New England during its brief heyday. The anti-Catholic side of Know-Nothingism seems to be staging a comeback, with this vital difference: The part played by hysterical Protestants in 1850 has been taken over by cynical, media-savvy secularists in 2012.

We’ll have to say this over and over and over again: The current controversy is not about women’s access to birth control at all. It’s about an unconstitutional abridgement of religious freedom. It’s about making people pay for something they never had to before, even when it goes against their religious beliefs. It’s been observed that the only freedom the left will defend to the last ditch is sexual freedom. When that’s all we have, we’ll all be slaves.