In a January visit to the Vatican, American bishops were warned by Benedict XVI that “radical secularism” posed “grave threats” to their Catholic faith. Your religious freedom is being circumscribed, said the pope. The U.S. government may seek to force you to collaborate in what are “intrinsically evil practices.”

No sooner had the bishops returned home than President Obama instructed them that, under Obamacare, all Catholic schools, hospitals, orphanages, nursing homes and homeless shelters must provide the “morning after” pill, contraceptives and sterilizations for all employees, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

The Church was given 18 months to comply.

Should Obama’s order stand, the Church will be forced by the state to adopt practices that it has always taught are immoral and to engage in acts it believes are intrinsically evil. Welcome to Obama’s America.

Last week, the Komen Foundation, which funds breast cancer research, sought to extricate itself from the country’s culture wars by severing ties to America’s No. 1 abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

As professor Robert George writes, in 2010, Planned Parenthood sold 300,000 abortions at $500 each, earning $164 million. Nine of 10 pregnant women who come into its clinics are sold an abortion. Moreover, the organization is “under congressional and criminal investigation … for allegations including failure to report criminal child sex abuse, misuse of health care and family planning funds, and failure to comply with parental involvement laws regarding abortions.”

In the 1950s, such an institution would be regarded as organized crime and its officers and employees would be up on felony charges or sitting in a penitentiary. We live today in a different America.

Thus, the media-political-cultural elite came down on Komen with both feet, berating the foundation for abandoning women suffering from breast cancer, until Komen caved and restored the $650,000 it contributes annually to Planned Parenthood, though that sum is not one-tenth of one percent of PP’s annual budget.

The Komen officer who advised the foundation to sever ties was cashiered on Feb. 7.

Also on Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals overturned, two to one, the democratic decision of a majority of Californians who voted in 2008 to outlaw homosexual marriage.

The people of California, said the Jimmy Carter judicial appointee and the Bill Clinton appointee, violated the 14th Amendment, which mandates the equal protection of the law.

That the Congress that took office in 1865, the year Richmond fell, meant to elevate homosexual unions to the same moral plane as matrimony when it enacted the 14th Amendment is an absolute absurdity.

What has happened to America in half a century seems, to many raised in that other America, like something out of Orwell.

Can it be that Californians must now wait on the U.S. Supreme Court — make that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote — to tell them whether they can or cannot write their own marriage laws?

How did it come to be that we Americans must all wait for nine judges on the Supreme Court to tell us whether homosexual marriage is or is not a constitutional right?

Where did justices get the power to decide whether laws enacted by the people or their elected representatives will be allowed to stand in this republic? Where did these nine justices get the right to be sole and final arbiters of what the Constitution and the laws say and do not say?

As law professor and author William Quirk muses, in introducing the new book “Judicial Monarchs” by William Watkins, Jr.: “‘Notes of the [Constitutional] Convention do not record Ben Franklin standing up and saying: ‘I’ve got a good idea. Let’s find nine really bright people and turn over most of our important decisions to them.’ Would the Convention authorize an institution that defines its own powers?”

Not the convention our Founding Fathers attended.

Yet since the Warren Court came into being six decades ago, the Supreme Court has usurped that power — to remake America. And the American people have meekly submitted to its tyrannical rule.

The justices used the Ninth Amendment to declare homosexuality and abortion constitutional rights, though both were crimes when the Bill of Rights was adopted. They used the First Amendment to purge Christianity from our public schools and public life and reduce our cradle faith to the same level as Santeria and Scientology.

Now the radical secularists in Obama’s entourage are so puffed up with success, so confident the future belongs to them, they have crossed the line between church and state to impose their values directly on Christian institutions.

This time they have overplayed their hand. Traditionalist Christians and their allies have been given a glorious opening to inflict a stinging defeat and humiliation on these arrogant intruders on God’s turf.

On this one, Obama ought to be forced into a public retreat.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Copyright 2012 Creators.com

Yesterday I attended a debate hosted by the American Enterprise Institute and the America’s Future Foundation with the timely named motion, “Are Libertarians Part of the Conservative Movement?” Speaking for the case that libertarianism is a distinct political philosophy from conservatism was Matt Welch, editor in chief at Reason. Speaking for the case that libertarians are part of the conservative movement was Jonah Goldberg, author of the New York Times bestseller Liberal Fascism and columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

Before the debate started I suspected that I would be more sympathetic with Matt Welch’s view. While the two groups are in broad agreement on economics, there are important differences on a number of social issues. As well as pointing out the differences between the two philosophies Welch made the important point that the number of people labeling themselves as Independents is rising, and that this rise is not only an indication of the level of dissatisfaction with the two major political parties, but a reflection of how more inclusive both Democrats and Republicans will have to be in order to achieve electoral seats. Welch jokingly said that the title of the debate could well have been “Are conservatives part of the libertarian movement?”, as the conservative movement began as one which sought to preserve liberty and individual rights, two of the foundations of the modern libertarian movement.

Although Welch mentioned the alternate title of the debate, Goldberg took it further and shifted the debate in an interesting direction. Goldberg said that Welch was right, and that conservatives could be viewed as part of a wider libertarian movement. After all, classical liberalism predates conservatism by centuries and defended principles that the Republican Party, and conservatives more generally, have adopted. As well as the historical and philosophical ties between the two movements Goldberg argued that there were two other areas where there is a huge amount of overlap between the two movements; practical and political.

Practically, Goldberg argued, conservatives already adopt many libertarian economic arguments. Major conservative think tanks and policy groups employ libertarian economists, and it is through groups like these that libertarian economic arguments can reach the widest audience.

Politically there is a good case for libertarians belonging to the conservative family. Ron Paul, the most libertarian GOP candidate in the nomination race, is comfortable to speak about the abolition of the Federal Reserve and the privatization of social security, something that could never be done in a Democratic primary.

What both Welch and Goldberg agreed on was that the level of government spending is the most important contemporary political issue. The country is bankrupt and social security is on track to dominate the federal budget. While this remains the case, it makes as much sense for libertarians to work their way into the conservative movement as it does for conservatives to accept them. Once spending is under control we can argue over whether to legalize meth and prostitution.

Images: shutterstock/ Mark Pockrocki

Readers of The American Conservative might be interested to hear that we will be at this year’s CPAC. Some of our staff will be at booth 1915 with subscription information and copies of this month’s magazine, as well as some past issues — plus exclusive TAC pens and notepads.

Some events of note sponsored by our friends at the Committee for the Republic include the following;

Thursday

- 9am in the CPAC Theater: Eisenhower’s Farewell to the Nation, a presentation of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, introduced by his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower, with Q+A to follow.

- 10am in the Truman Suite: More Defense For Less, featuring COL Douglas Macgregor, USA (Ret.).

- 2pm in the Virginia Suite: Too Big to Fail: A Quadrillion Dollar Exposure!, featuring Peter Wallison, The Honorable Boyden Gray, John Henry, and John Prout.

Friday

- 2:30pm in the Jackson Suite: Founder Roundtable: Where did we go Wrong?, featuring Mark Skousen, Bruce Fein, Bill Nitze, Tom Whitmore, John Henry, and James Henry all portraying a selection of our Founding Fathers.

Saturday

- 10am in the Truman Suite: America & Its Wars: John Quincy Adams vs. James K. Polk, featuring Bruce Fein and Roberty Merry as John Quincy Adams and James Polk.

Image: Shutterstock/razihusin

Still, Santorum’s success shows the tectonic plates of the GOP are still in motion: social conservatives and the establishment aren’t completely fused, the establishment looks weaker than it has in 20 years (thanks to the lingering contamination of the Dubya debacle), and although all of this augurs ill for the party’s November prospects, it suggests there could be a reckoning before 2016 that will reshape the GOP’s identity. I’m not optimistic: Middle American militarism may once again prove the GOP’s lowest common denominator, but there are alternatives.

To see how this battle was fought, and lost, once before, be sure to check out “Buchanan’s Revolution” in the current TAC, as well as the book from which it comes, Timothy Stanley’s The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous Times of Pat Buchanan .

The European Commission Vice President Neelie Kroes has told a Dutch newspaper that the Euro would survive a Greek exit from the currency. The announcement comes during a strike endorsed by two of Greek’s largest public sector unions. The Greek government has been seeking foreign investment and additional funds from the IMF, EU and the ECB. These institutions have made spending cuts a prerequisite for additional funds, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that there is the political will in Greece to implement the necessary cuts.

It is refreshing to see Ms. Kroes say what many having been saying for some time. The Greek government has proven itself incapable of taking the necessary decisions that it needs to make in order to keep itself in the single currency. Ms. Kroes expressed the sentiments of many on the continent during the interview:

“The Greeks have to realize that we Dutch and we Germans can only sell emergency Greek aid to our taxpayers if there’s evidence of good will.”

It is well known that numbers were fudged and excuses made in order for Greece to join the euro in the first place, and it is only recently that the full ramification of that decision has been felt.

There is no reason to think that given another bailout the fiscal situation in Greece will improve. There is an opportunity now for some politicians to show that it is possible for the single currency to suffer one casualty. For too long European politicians have tried to keep Greece in the euro. Now it seems that all of the measures taken in Europe have been completely ineffective in getting the Greek government to pass the necessary austerity measures. Even with a Greek default, which will be disastrous for Greece, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe will be far from over.

I hope the realization that the European Commission finally seems comfortable with some countries defaulting will be a wake up call to other countries in the euro. If tough austerity measures are not taken soon the recession in Europe will deepen. All that is needed is more political will.

Image: Shutterstock/kanvag

Today the President signed an executive order freezing all Iranian government assets held or traded in the U.S. This order is the latest in a series of sanctions that have been placed on Iran by the European community and the U.S. The new sanctions include blocks on the Iranian central bank. The move comes quickly after the President said that Israel and the U.S. were “in lockstep” regarding their policies on Iran. These sanctions are an unwise move that will serve only to encourage anti-western rhetoric in Iran, and will damage an already suffering Iranian economy.

The animosity between Iran and the west is escalating. The assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist (almost certainly carried out by Israeli intelligence), economic sanctions from Europe and the U.S., British and American Navy ships in the Persian Gulf, and unconfirmed reports that Israel will strike Iran as soon as April are all kindling to the neoconservatives’ fire.

What seems to be constantly overlooked is the fact that economic sanctions and assassinations will only unite a country that has a legitimate opposition. As has been noted here at TAC before, if there is one issue that will dilute the political opposition in Iran, it is foreign intervention. The backlash against a pre-emptive western strike against Iran would be severe enough without the economic hardship which our sanctions are placing on the country.

The President in his State of the Union said that no option was off the table in regards to Iran, and we should believe that he means what he says. It is a shame that the President who campaigned so heavily on the follies of the Iraq war is now engaging in eerily familiar rhetoric.

Image: Shutterstock/yui

All politicians favor “values,” and when those on the social Left claim to stand for “family values,” as Obama has been doing, they have as much right to that term as anyone else. Indeed I can respect people I disagree with on just about everything, because they act on the basis of their beliefs.

Some of my Republican friends, who make fun of my attitude, ask me whether I really admire Obama as a person of principle. I respond by explaining that to whatever extent he acts on the basis of conviction, Obama deserves my respect. I wish I could say the same about Mitt Romney or other GOP presidential candidates who waffle every time they encounter liberal journalists or think that a hostile reporter may be eaves-dropping. Although I disagree with Ron Paul’s judgments about Iran, I have to recognize that Paul stands up for his constitutional principles. I find the same integrity in John Bolton, whom I have known for many years. Although I would not trust the war-happy Bolton anywhere near Foggy Bottom, let alone as Secretary of State, I’m sure he would never betray his conscience. For me that does count for something.

The users of the value-word are mostly hack Republicans, trying to avoid mine fields. Value-talk typically consists of phrases intended to reassure one’s base while revealing nothing that could get hurt the speaker. In the current presidential primaries several Republicans have departed from this script by telling us what they would do to oppose gay marriage and restrict abortions. I applaud this honesty, which for me is far less distasteful than hearing someone announce that he or she is the candidate of values. The only “value” that I find in such politicians is the priority of getting elected.

But standing for principle may not be enough. I also wish to hear from the advocates of traditional social positions how they intend to implement them. It seems that even those with whom I agree in principle have sometimes held questionable views about constitutional matters. It is state legislatures, not courts or federal bureaucrats, which should be dealing with abortion and gay marriage. Congresswoman Bachmann and former Senator Santorum both misstated this procedural matter during primary debates, although Santorum later corrected his mistake. All attempts at end-runs around state governments in order to have the feds decide social issues is not only constitutionally wrong but also dumb. Do social traditionalists honestly believe that the federal government is more likely to ride to their rescue than the state legislatures of our more conservative states? It is mostly the federal administration that has steered the country leftward throughout my life. I see no reason to believe this will change in the foreseeable future.

The beginning of the GOP’s value-noises coincided with two developments. One, after the resounding defeat of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964, it became clear that any politician who suggested that he would substantially cut back the welfare state was destined to lose. This became particularly evident after Lyndon Johnson introduced extensive entitlement programs after his victory against Goldwater. Thereafter the GOP decided to run as the party that would protect a steadily expanding bundle of entitlements.

Two, the country veered politically and socially to the left with the civil rights and feminist revolutions. But some Americans thought these developments went too far and resented the role of unelected judges in bringing them about. The reaction against abortion rights and other consequences of a revolutionary epoch allowed the GOP to find a new lease on life. The GOP would be for “values” and in an even fuzzier way for “getting government off our backs.” But electoral interests trump these sound bites. Although presidential candidates are rhetorically for “trimming government waste,” Republican presidents fill the federal administration with their hangers-on—and even create new ones for the overload.

The same presidents have appointed federal judges who are less radical than their Democratic counterparts, but this has hardly changed the scope of judicial governance. Except for recent proposals by Newt Gingrich for Congress to oversee federal judges, Republican presidential contenders have called for nothing that would weaken the federal judiciary or limit its ability to shape social policy. Blasting activist courts in campaigning may be more profitable than trying to make the problem go away for social conservatives.

Not going to do it, said Dr. Paul to cheers. And why should he?

Observing developments in U.S. foreign and defense policy, Paul’s views seem as far out in front of where America is heading as John McCain’s seem to belong to yesterday’s Bush-era bellicosity.

Consider. In December, the last U.S. troops left Iraq. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now says that all U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan will end in 18 months.

The strategic outposts of empire are being abandoned.

The defense budget for 2013 is $525 billion, down $6 billion from 2012. The Army is to be cut by 75,000 troops; the Marine Corps by 20,000. Where Ronald Reagan sought a 600-ship Navy, the Navy will fall from 285 ships today to 250. U.S. combat aircraft are to be reduced by six fighter squadrons and 130 transport aircraft.

Republicans say this will reduce our ability to fight and win two land wars at once — say, in Iran and Korea. Undeniably true.

Why, then, is Ron Paul winning the argument?

The hawkishness of the GOP candidates aside, the United States, facing its fourth consecutive trillion-dollar deficit, can no longer afford to sustain all its alliance commitments, some of which we made 50 years ago during a Cold War that ended two decades ago, in a world that no longer exists.

As our situation is new, said Abraham Lincoln, we must think and act anew.

As Paul argues, why close bases in the U.S. when we have 700 to 1,000 bases abroad? Why not bring the troops home and let them spend their paychecks here?

Begin with South Korea. At last report, the United States had 28,000 troops on the peninsula. But why, when South Korea has twice the population of the North, an economy 40 times as large, and access to U.S. weapons, the most effective in the world, should any U.S. troops be on the DMZ? Or in South Korea?

U.S. forces there are too few to mount an invasion of the North, as Gen. MacArthur did in the 1950s. And any such invasion might be the one thing to convince Pyongyang to fire its nuclear weapons to save the hermit kingdom.

But if not needed to defend the South, and a U.S. invasion could risk nuclear reprisal, what are U.S. troops still doing there?

Answer: They are on the DMZ as a tripwire to bring us, from the first day of fighting, into a new land war in Asia that many American strategists believe we should never again fight.

Consider Central Asia. By pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and building air bases in nations that were republics of the Soviet Union two decades ago, the United States generated strategic blowback.

China and Russia, though natural rivals and antagonists, joined with four Central Asian nations in a Shanghai Cooperation Organization to expel U.S. military power from a region that is their backyard, but is half a world away from the United States.

Solution: The United States should inform the SCO that when the Afghan war is over we will close all U.S. military bases in Central Asia. No U.S. interest there justifies a conflict with Russia or China.

Indeed, a Russia-China clash over influence and resources in the Far East and Central Asia seems inevitable. Let us get out of the way.

But it is in Europe that America may find the greatest savings.

During the Cold War, 300,000 U.S. troops faced hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops from northern Norway to Central Germany to Turkey. But not only are there no Russian troops on the Elbe today, or surrounding West Berlin, they are gone from Germany, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Between Russia and Poland lie Belarus and Ukraine. Moscow no longer even has a border with Turkey.

Why, when NATO Europe has two nuclear powers and more than twice the population of a Russia whose own population has shrunk by 8 million in 20 years and is scheduled to shrink by 25 million more by 2050, does Europe still need U.S. troops to defend it?

She does not. The Europeans are freeloading, as they have been for years, preserving their welfare states, skimping on defense and letting Uncle Sam carry the hod.

In the Panetta budgets, America will still invest more in defense than the next 10 nations combined and retain sufficient power to secure, with a surplus to spare, all her vital interests.

But we cannot forever be first responder for scores of nations that have nothing to do with our vital interests. As Frederick the Great observed, “He who defends everything defends nothing.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?

Copyright 2012 Creators.com

It was reported today that Greece needs an extra 15 billion euros in order to bring its debt down to a workable level. Greece is currently in negotiations with private investors, which could end in a deal that could reduce the Greek debt burden by up to 100 billion euros. It was hoped that a deal would make a bailout from the Eurozone bailout fund and the IMF more plausible, however a European Union official has suggested that such a deal would not restore enough confidence in the Greek economy to secure additional funds. 

The main challenge for the Greek government is to somehow find a way to cut spending and implement a feasible debt reduction program while the domestic economy is struggling and the recession is worsening. There are a number of political obstacles that must be overcome before fiscal decisions are considered. The EU and IMF will not consider a bailout unless the Greek government is able to make labor market reforms, which of course involves talks with unions. At this time, these talks are still ongoing. The negotiations will be difficult, especially considering the fact that lowering of the minimum wage is being considered.

It has not been a good last few days for Europe. A fiscally binding treaty that would give power to the unelected European Commission to scrutinize the budgets of constituent nations has strong support despite objections from the Czechs who are concerned that some of the treaty’s obligations conflict with its own constitution, and the British, who have not had their concessions considered. Sarkozy, who is up against a strong socialist opposition in the upcoming French elections, has announced a financial transaction tax due to be implemented in August.

Whether it is for political gain or to dismiss accusations of idleness, the actions being taken in Europe are only prolonging the economic crisis Europe finds itself in. The powers that be in Europe are taking the chance to consolidate power and make a mockery of democracy in the name of solving a crisis largely of their own making. Even were Greece to reform its labor market and collect all of the extra funds it needs through private investment and another bailout, its stability would still be far from guaranteed.

Image: Shutterstock: zimmytws

Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren — the standard-bearer for a combative new progressivism — made the case to MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell last night that members of the Senate shouldn’t own stock.

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million. [emphasis added]

Warren isn’t calling herself poor, but is saying that she doesn’t own a lot of stock. Buzzfeed put a clarifying update at the bottom of the post, but it requires wading through literally dozens of words to read.

Late last week, SBE Deputy Secretary Justin Riemer confirmed to The BRAD BLOG both the referral to the AG’s office as well as the fact that an investigation into the ballot petition fraud was officially being carried out by the AG.

“This issue has been referred to the State AG by the State Board of Elections, after learning of allegations of fraudulent signature gathering in that case, and a number of others,” Riemer told us by telephone. “My understanding is that an investigation is under way,” he said.

Regarding the dubious signatures, Gingrich has been quoted as saying, “we turned in 11,100 — we needed 10,000 — 1,500 of them were by one guy who, frankly, committed fraud.”

Does Gingrich really expect people to believe “one guy” was responsible for all 1,500? That’s a huge number, and if it was, why why wouldn’t they just name him? Either way, it’s hardly the behavior of an anti-establishment candidate.

Then, on the instructions of Cardinal Archbishop Donald Wuerl, the pastor proceeded to read a letter.

In the letter, the Church denounced the Obama administration for ordering all Catholic schools, hospitals, and social services to provide, in their health insurance coverage for employes, free contraceptives, free sterilizations, and free “morning-after” pills.

Parishioners were urged to contact their representatives in Congress to bring about a reversal of President Obama’s new policy.

Now, not only is this a battle the Church must fight, it is a battle the Church can win if it has the moral stamina to say the course.

In forcing the Church to violate its own principles, Obama has committed an act of federal aggression, crossing the line between church and state to appease his ACLU and feminist allies, while humiliating the Catholic bishops.

Should the Church submit, its moral authority in America would disappear.

Now, undeniably, the church milquetoast of past decades that refused to discipline pro-abortion Catholics allowed the impression to form that while the hierarchy may protest, eventually it will go along to get along with a Democratic Party that was once home to most Catholics.

Obama’s problem today is that not only is he forcing the Church to violate her conscience, he dissed the highest prelate in America.

In November, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, held what he describes as an “extraordinarily friendly” meeting with Obama at the White House.

The president assured the archbishop of his respect for the Church, and the archbishop came away persuaded Obama would never force the Church to adopt any policy that would violate her principles.

Ten days ago, Obama sandbagged the archbishop

He informed Cardinal-designate Dolan by phone that, with the sole concession of the Church being given an extra year, to August 2013, to comply, the new policy, as set down by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will be imposed. All social and educational institutions of the Catholic church will offer health insurance covering birth control, or face fines.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Archbishop Dolan, who went on:

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their health care is literally unconscionable. … This represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”

Where do Obama and Sebelius get the power to do this?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law on March 23, 2010, the colloquial name for which is “Obamacare.”

NARAL Pro-Choice America is celebrating the new policy. Planned Parenthood’s president, Cecile Richards, calls it a “health care issue … based on what’s best for women’s health.” Others have argued that many Catholic women practice birth control.

But that Catholics choose to ignore doctrine does not justify the U.S. government imposing on Catholic institutions a policy that violates Catholic teaching.

Even Washington Post liberal E.J. Dionne, in a Jan. 30 column titled “Obama’s Breach of Faith,” charges that the president “threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus. …

“Speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government … the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings.”

Why did Obama do it?

Facing a close race for a second term, Obama chose not to antagonize his left. Yet he must have known that siding with them meant leaving Archbishop Dolan with egg all over his face. Obama, calculatedly, came down on the side of those he believes to be more crucial to his re-election.

This affront should tell the Catholic hierarchy, if they did not already know, where they stand in the party of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Kathleen Sebilius. And where they sit — in the back of the bus.

Yet if the bishops will look upon this crisis of conscience, this insult, as an opportunity, they can effect its reversal and recapture a measure of the moral authority they have lately lost.

Not only should the bishops file suit in federal court against the president and Sebelius for violation of the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, they should inform the White House that no bishop will give an invocation at the Democratic Convention.

Then, they should inform the White House that in the last two weeks of the 2012 campaign, priests in every parish will read from the pulpit at Sunday mass a letter denouncing Obama as anti-Catholic for denying the Church its right to live according to its beliefs.

If Obama loses the Catholic vote, he loses the election.

The White House will come around, fast. Rely upon it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?” Copyright 2012 Creators.com.

How the Church can go on spiritually is clear enough, but what can the institution and way of life mean in such a world? I don’t have an answer, but readers may find the discussion of some interest.

Ron Paul repeated his call to end the embargo against Cuba. Shocking to pundits, who thought it a suicidal move, but the audience cheered. (Cuban politics in Florida has been changing; there’s a segment of younger Cuban-Americans that has been waiting a long time to hear this message.) A question about healthcare from an unemployed woman was Paul’s most difficult of the night and illustrated one of his weaknesses: he gave a thoughtful, historical account of why healthcare costs are so high (largely due to federal involvement, particularly Medicare), but now that costs are astronomical, what are Americans — especially those out of work — to do?

One of the hardest challenges all libertarians face is how to sell the transition from a statist system to a freer one: we’ve seen plenty of examples worldwide, perhaps most appallingly in the former Soviet Union, where a botched transition has discredited anti-statist ideas and exacerbated human suffering. Congressman Paul and his staff have given this some thought — hence his repeated insistence that he won’t end welfare-state programs while people are dependent on them — but his presentation is still long on diagnosis and short on prescription.

Near the end of last night’s debate came a question about how each candidate’s religious beliefs would influence his administration. A trap for Mitt? He gave a bland answer about the importance of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Ron Paul again dared to say something that wouldn’t win him many votes: that his oath to uphold the Constitution would be more important than his religious beliefs.

Newt or Mitt — they were indistinguishably ecumenical — invoked the importance of praying to God for instruction. This brought to mind memories of George W. Bush saying that he didn’t get his father’s advice before invading Iraq, he consulted a higher Father instead. There’s a fine line here: it’s one thing to ask God for the wisdom to make the right decision; it’s another for a politician to believe that his policies are endorsed by the Almighty. Realistically, what leader is going to hear the voice of God telling him anything other than, “Go for it”? Could you imagine a circumstance in which Newt, or Bush, or Obama, hears a voice telling him to call off the war? Cool it with the tax cuts or government growth? Where God and the American president are concerned, the phrase that comes to my mind is the one about hardening Pharaoh’s heart.

Santorum took the occasion to emphasize the Declaration of Independence as the “why” of American government (in contrast to the mere “how” of the Constitution) and ascribed a rather bold theology to a document that, after all, was drafted by Thomas Jefferson, a man not renowned for his orthodox beliefs.

Political Christians today have a hard time understanding the religious configuration of the early United States. The difficulty is that the least conventionally religious Americans of the day were often political allies of people we would now identify as ancestors of the Religious Right. Deists and Baptists alike did not want to be taxed to support established Anglican or Congregationalist churches, and there was a strong strain of anti-clericalism and emphasis on individual judgment among both the philosophers and the extreme Protestants. Total disestablishment and liberty of conscience were policies that appealed to both types; each was absolutely confident that within a generation it would inherit the earth if the marketplace of religious ideas were left free.

Most Americans did not take as hard a line on church-state relations as Jefferson, Madison, and the devout among their allies did; the poles of opinion back then were those who saw establishment in anything less than a “wall of separation” and those who thought that a vague but public Christianity was an indispensable prop to civil order. Even those poles did not always attract the alliances you might expect; a doubting Unitarian like John Adams was quite firmly on the side of a civil — but certainly not established — Christianity.

It’s fair to say that Ron Paul is very much in line with Madison and Jefferson. (Indeed, one suspects a President Paul, like Madison, would have reservations even about declaring a day of thanksgiving and prayer — where does the Constitution say the president should do that?) It would be interesting to see a politician who could articulate the civil Christian point of view in anything other than a rote manner. Alas, instead we have Gingrich, Romney, and Santorum.