The stage is set and the players are in motion, as Politico reports:

After months of buildup, the historic debate on health care reform opens on the Senate floor Monday — but the C-SPAN cameras won’t see the real action. The next phase in the Democrats’ health care push will be waged in the privacy of the Senate leadership office, where Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will attempt to do something that has eluded him all year: negotiate a compromise on the public insurance option that can garner 60 votes and win over a public still leery of reform.

“There is the inside fight and the outside fight,” said Jim Kessler, a former top aide to Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and vice president for policy at Third Way. “The inside fight is getting to 60, and the outside fight is winning the battle of public opinion.”

The debate starts at 3 p.m. Monday with each side offering one amendment — a sign of how difficult the debate will be, since the two sides couldn’t agree to terms of the debate beyond the first two amendments.

Republicans want six weeks of debate — which would be enough to push the final vote past Christmas — and have an arsenal of stalling tactics. But Democrats can short-circuit the debate all at once, simply by reaching a deal on the public option and filing cloture on the bill, which would set up the final crucial test vote before final passage.

Why is more debate clearly needed? Well, for one reason, charts like this:

Senate Bill Cost Chart Every American deserves to know what is in this bill.

Even if we do not experience this statistic directly, many of us know individuals who - while technically employed - are not making ends meet. Here are the troubling figures:

As experts debate the potential speed of the US recovery, one figure looms large but is often overlooked: nearly 1 in 5 Americans is either out of work or under-employed.

According to the government's broadest measure of unemployment, some 17.5 percent are either without a job entirely or underemployed. The so-called U-6 number is at the highest rate since becoming an official labor statistic in 1994.

The number dwarfs the statistic most people pay attention to—the U-3 rate—which most recently showed unemployment at 10.2 percent for October, the highest it has been since June 1983.

The difference is that what is traditionally referred to as the "unemployment rate" only measures those out of work who are still looking for jobs. Discouraged workers who have quit trying to find a job, as well as those working part-time but looking for full-time work or who are otherwise underemployed, count in the U-6 rate.

With such a large portion of Americans experiencing employment struggles, economists worry that an extended period of slow or flat growth lies ahead. (CNBC)

With this being the case, it is all the more urgent that Americans demand their elected representatives pursue fiscal responsibility and thereby promote liberty, as our founder Dr. Robert George has recently pointed out in this video. 

Instead, the current administration seems more determined than ever to expand the reach and burden of government on citizens who are already heavily put upon:

Double-digit. That hyphenated adjective has been used most often recently to describe October's 10.2 percent unemployment rate. But it can also be used to describe the federal budget deficit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. That precise number is not yet known, but it may turn out to have a more dire effect on our national life than October's unemployment rate.

In the fiscal year just ended, federal spending was nearly 25 percent of GDP while federal revenues slipped below 15 percent because of the financial crisis and recession. We have not seen a budget deficit of this magnitude since World War II, which surely was a greater challenge than recent economic troubles. (Michael Barone)

Let us start this Monday morning off with a consideration of fundamentals.

Carson Halloway argues at the Public Discourse that "calls for health-care reform confuse the basic right to healthcare and a desire for healthcare that is in all ways equal":

The liberal argument for the Democratic healthcare proposals currently before Congress depends for its force on the claim that healthcare is a right. The case for such reforms begins from the observation that some Americans cannot afford to purchase health insurance, which is important to getting healthcare. These bare facts, however, do little to make the current proposals seem compelling. After all, it can be said of many good things in life that many Americans—and indeed many people in any free economy—cannot afford them. Accordingly, liberals are forced to suggest that this factual situation presents an injustice because healthcare is a right.

[Read on.]

You may follow our ongoing comments on the healthcare debate on the APP blog here.

Dr. Robert P. George of the American Principles Project speaks on the connection between fiscal restraint, small government, and individual liberty: 

Please help us spread the word!

An introduction from Laurie Goodstein at the New York Times:

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

The manifesto, released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.

They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues.

“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”

The document was written by Mr. Colson; Robert P. George, a professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University, who is Catholic; and the Rev. Timothy George, dean of Beeson Divinity School, an evangelical interdenominational school on the campus of Samford University, in Birmingham, Ala.

They convened a meeting of Christian leaders in Manhattan in September to present the document and gather suggestions. The 4,700-word document is called the “Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.”

Here is the press kit for the Manhattan Declaration - which includes the full text.

Americans who agree with the declaration are urged to sign it at http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

As of this writing there were almost 7,000 signatures.

Here is the preamble to the statement:

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God's word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages, we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire's sanctioning of infanticide.  We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues, and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture.  It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country.  Christians under Wilberforce's leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible.  And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement.  The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class.

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes - from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good.  In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Here at APP, with your active help and support, we have been working to expose the radical positions held by EEOC nominee Chai Feldlblum.

She is now trying to take back some of her public actions in support of concepts such as government-recognized polygamy (as Politico reports):

A nominee for the Equal Employment Oppportunity Commission has asked that her name be taken off a statement calling for broadening government recognition of relationships in advance of her confirmation hearing [Wednesday].

Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown law professor best known for her work on gay rights and disability law, had signed the 2006 statement aimed government recognition for relationships other than traditional marriage between two people, same-sex or otherwise.

Feldblum wrote in an early November letter to statement organizers:

I am writing to ask that you remove my name as a signatory to the Beyond Same-Sex Marriage statement. I signed this document because it supports societal recognition of relationships between LGBT couples. But the statement was overly broad and there are parts of it with which I do not agree. Because the text of the statement does not reflect my views, I must ask you to remove my name.

... Feldblum's statement doesn't specify which parts she is disavowing, but it moves her more in line with what is becoming the mainstream Democratic Party position, which is support for same-sex marriage between, as she writes, "couples," rather than other units.

In her confirmation hearings on Wednesday, Feldblum tried even more explicitly to distance herself from the statement she signed:

''I do not support polygamy,'' said Feldblum. ''I am sorry I signed that document and I have asked that my name be removed.''

... She said while she agreed with the ''general thrust'' of the overall statement ''about support for the range of caregiving relationships,'' the full statement ''goes beyond what I would have said and it was mistake to sign it.''

Feldblum also, despite her previous statements to the contrary, came out strongly in favor of religious exemptions from ENDA and other government-imposed employment standards:

Feldblum assured the Committee that she is aware of and comfortable with the religious exemptions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and in ENDA.

''I strongly support that exemption,'' said Feldblum, ''…and I would not have a problem at all enforcing that exemption.''

As we here at APP have pointed out before in our extensive coverage of Feldblum's nomination, she has previously come out strongly against religious freedom wherever it would appear to conflict with sexual freedom.

It is evident that these concerns we and others have raised have made it to the ears of those who are helping Feldblum pass her Senate hearings.

This is all the more reason to let your Senator know what you think about Feldblum's nomination. There is still almost a week for Senators to submit aditional information about or questions to Feldblum.

Dr. Miriam Grossman, M.D.:

In the battle over sex education, Planned Parenthood claims the high ground in providing accurate information and protecting reproductive health. Their homepage states, “We deliver comprehensive and medically accurate information that empowers women, men, teens, and families to make informed choices and lead healthy lives.”

As a physician who has spent hundreds of hours with young people with sexually transmitted infections, I’m on a one-woman mission to expose the falsehood of those claims. Planned Parenthood’s sexual health education is not comprehensive or medically accurate; to the contrary, this eminent, federally funded organization endangers lives by withholding critical biological truths.

[Read the full article here.]

Dr. Grossman's work is cited in APP's first Preserve Innocence report (summarized here):

Science sheds a bright and harsh light on [the UNESCO and SIECUS sex-ed] guidelines.  To that end, this report discusses the work of Miriam Grossman, M.D., and her 2009 book, You’re Teaching My Child What?: A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child. 

Doctor Grossman reviews the current state of science on sexually transmitted diseases and on the development of the adolescent brain.  She makes the case that sexuality curricula, such as those advocated by SIECUS, fail to account for these advances, deceive children on the consequences of their decisions, and negate the supportive role of parents at a time when children have a critical need for that support. 

Doctor Grossman’s book and the facts underlying it show an immediate need for CDC and other government agencies to thoroughly re-evaluate government-supported sexuality programs. 

[To read the full report, click here for the full PDF version.]

As always, please assist us in disseminating this important information.

Thank you for all of your efforts to let your Senators know about David Hamilton's record.

Yesterday the Senate indeed voted to confirm him 59-39, with only one Republican crossing over. 

More from LifeNews:

Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest said Hamilton should have been defeated because "judges should uphold Constitutional restrictions on abortion."

"As a District Court judge, Hamilton promoted his radical pro-abortion agenda. His promotion to the Seventh Circuit" is a "serious concern to the pro-life community," she told LifeNews.com.

More about David Hamilton's judicial philosophy and previous practive in the APP archives.

The second installment of our Preserve Innocence project is now online. It focus on the activity of Kevin Jennings and the efforts of his organization GLSEN.

Here is the executive summary (the entire report can be found here):

The October 2009 Innocence Report focuses on the use of Safe Schools programs to achieve certain non-heterosexual (i.e., lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and trans-sexual) social and political agenda.  Kevin Jennings --the founder of The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and presently the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education-- pioneered that tactic in Massachusetts the 1990s.  Now, several school districts have implemented or are in the process of testing Safe-School programs based on that model.  In addition, several other advocacy groups have developed similar programs.

The GLSEN model suffers from several defects.  It is deceptive in that its dominant purpose is not school safety but to propagate acceptance and affirmative support for LBGT lifestyles.  It often denigrates the dignity of students by asking them to reveal deeply personal experiences or views.  And it interferes with the associative rights of parents to direct the spiritual and values formation of their children; it raises concepts to children that go to the heart of the family and that include fundamental religious views, and it does this far before parents could reasonably be expected to have introduced such concepts to their children.

GLSEN has been highly effective in propagating its views.  In varying degrees, it has garnered the support or acknowledgement of much of the relevant professional elite.  Professional teachers, school administrator and counseling organizations have endorsed one or more GLSEN programs or initiatives.  It has laid an imposing infrastructure for its future and continuing activities --an infrastructure that has all the more elite heft with its founder now in a senior position at the U.S. Department of Education.

Please help us spread the word about this important project to preserve the innocence of our kids in school, as well as the rights of their parents.

From today's WaPo Capitol Briefing:

The Senate convenes at 9:30 a.m. ET. Following morning business, the Senate will resume post-cloture debate on the nomination of David Hamilton to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit.

The twitter feed of updates which include a reference to "David Hamilton" tells us that Hamilton will be voted on today a little before midnight.

This means today is the last day to tell your Senators what you think of Hamilton's nomination over at American Principles in Action.

The most recent contribution to the Public Discourse:

To practice what he preaches, to respect laws passed by Congress, and to support Muslims who advocate for peaceful pluralism, President Obama needs to take action in support of religious freedom. Here are specific suggestions to move this effort forward.

While in China this week, President Obama said, “freedom of expression and worship…should be available to all people…” Yet one might question his administration’s seriousness about freedom of worship when one considers its track record so far on religious freedom.

Ten months have passed since the inauguration of President Obama for a four-year term. However, President Obama has not so much as even nominated a candidate to fill the vacant position of U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom.

[Read the whole article here.]

Related APP stories:

• Thomas Farr: Still No Obama Nominee for Religious Freedom Ambassador
• APP Video: In Defense of Religious Liberty (with Robert George)
• Thomas Farr: Obama Chides Chinese on Religious Freedom But Do His Comments Have Policy Legs?
• Thomas Farr: Will the Obama Administration Advance International Religious Liberty?

As I've discussed before, there are many issues to be concerned about when it comes to the nomination of David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Sen. Jeff Sessions - who has been holding up the vote to confirm Hamilton up to this point - mentioned Hamilton in a speech he recently gave to a meeting of the Federalist Society:

"Judge Hamilton’s record demonstrates an adherence to a liberal activist, not liberal — that’s not a problem with me or Democratic lawyers who’ve been active in — in Democratic or liberal politics. But the question for our confirmation always is, I think, for the Republican members on our side whether their personal political, ideological views will overcome their commitment to the law."

Once debate on Hamilton has ended, the Senate only needs a simple majority to confirm him. So the only real possibility of halting Hamilton's nomination is on the vote to end debate, which requires 60 votes, as the LA Times reports. 

Ken Klukowski has written a concise op-ed for the Wash Examiner explaining his reasons for opposing Hamilton's nomination.

Our sister-organization APIA has setup a page under their current "hot issues" for you to use if you want to contact your Senators about the Hamilton nomination.

Even Politico has doubts:

President Barack Obama plans to announce in next year's State of the Union address that he wants to focus extensively on cutting the federal deficit in 2010 – and will downplay other new domestic spending beyond jobs programs, according to top aides involved in the planning.

... On the practical side, Obama has spent more money on new programs in nine months than Bill Clinton did in eight years, pushing the annual deficit to $1.4 trillion. This leaves little room for big spending initiatives.

... The big question for Obama – and the country – is whether the sudden concern about deficits will be more rhetoric than reality once his first State of the Union address concludes.

All presidents promise deficit reduction – and almost always fall short. There is good reason to be skeptical of this White House, too, on its commitment. 

It does not appear that the President values fiscal responsibility over his domestic entitlement programs or his big-government solutions to the economic crisis.

Also, it is impossible to envision the President being able to make a dent in the deficit as long as his congressional agenda includes Cap & Trade as well as the obscenely-expensive health care reform bill.

Samuel Gregg's short essay points out that "If we are to restore confidence in free markets, we need a robust explanation of their moral value."

He writes at the Public Discourse:

In his recent book The Creation and Destruction of Value, Princeton University’s Harold James observes that the 2008 financial crisis resulted in more than the devastation of economic value. It also facilitated a collapse of values in the sense of people’s faith in particular ideas, institutions, and practices. Among these, few would question that economic Liberalism’s credibility was significantly undermined.

As time passes, more people may recognize that the financial crisis owed much to factors that had little to do with markets as such. As several scholars illustrated in the 2009 monograph Verdict on the Crash, the causes included regulations that encouraged irresponsible behavior by banks, imprudent central bank policies, not to mention outright collusion between politicians and government-sponsored enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Unfortunately for promoters of free markets, knowledge of these facts will take time to counter the widespread perception that economic liberalism—manifested in financial liberalization, privatization, deregulation, and increased competition—contributed significantly to the 2008 crisis. [Read on.]

Dr. Gregg has also written for us: "Government Mortgage Relief: Economically Flawed and Morally Dubious."

Our founder Robert George will be on the air again with Hugh Hewitt at around 6:20PM EST this evening. Depending on where the conversation goes, Professor George may talk about our APP efforts to inform citizens about the nominations of David Hamilton and Chai Feldblum.

Please take a couple moments to visit our homepage, subscribe to our blog RSS feed and follow us on Twitter. We're also on Facebook! 

Finally, our sister organization American Principles in Action is the place for you to take action on important current issues and legislation. Together we can continue to preserve and propogate America's founding principles.

President Obama's most controversial judicial nominee yet is set to be confirmed by the Senate next Tuesday.

Citizens who are concerned about preserving the principles of America's founding in our nation's courtrooms have a real opportunity here to education themselves about another problematic nomination.

Consider some of Hamilton's past judgments and activities:

• When President Clinton nominated David Hamilton to the district court, he was rated "not qualified" by the American Bar Association.
• The same circuit court that Hamilton has now been appointed to, before overturning a decision of his, issued a statement chiding Hamilton for his "abuse of discretion" over a period of seven years for his activities opposing an Indiana informed consent law.
• "In 1994, the 7th Circuit rebuked Judge Hamilton for denying a Rabbi the right to display a Menorah as part of an Indianapolis holiday display."
• "In 2005, Judge Hamilton prohibited the Indiana House of Representatives from praying if Jesus’s name was mentioned, but said praying in Allah’s name was ... fine."
• He is one of the most lenient judges in America when it comes to criminal sentencing.

Notable individuals to oppose Hamilton include: Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America, Mathew D. Staver of Liberty Counsel, Marion Edwyn Harrison of Free Congress Foundation, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, and Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition.

As always, concerned citizens are welcome to contact their Senators through American Principles in Action.

Sources:

• Senate Will Vote on Obama Pro-Abortion Judicial Pick David Hamilton Next Week
• Reasons to keep up pressure on David Hamilton
• APP: Obama appoints another empathy judge

Brian Darling gives us some clues:

The Senate bill will be far different from the liberal dream bill that Pelosi ushered though the House. The Senate’s unique and sometimes arcane rules allow for unlimited debate and the opportunity for members to raise points of order against measures that violate the annual budget.  Reid will need 60 votes to get it passed in the Senate. Once passed in the Senate, the House and Senate will have to convene a conference committee to work out difference between the two bills before both bodies vote again on Obamacare. 

... One of the dirty little secrets in the Senate is that Sen. Reid has purposefully made it impossible for the American people to read the bill.  Reid has yet to release to the public his plan.  The American people have the right to know what is in that bill and Sen. Reid has done his best to make it virtually impossible for the American people to participate in the Senate consideration of Obamacare. 
This debate most likely will commence after Thanksgiving with the goal of completing Senate work on a bill before Christmas.  If the bill passes the Senate, then the next step is for both the House and Senate to vote on the version of Obamacare that the leadership agrees to submit in the House and Senate as the final version of the bill.  This process will run into next year. What happens in the next few weeks in the Senate is critical to the prospects for Obamacare. (Human Events)

William Saletan in Slate with some (needed) honesty about what health care reform will do:

"There's something poignant about the last-minute outrage of the pro-choice groups. The complaints they're leveling—that people had more choices in the private market, that the House bill radically upsets this market, and that it violates Obama's promise not to deprive anyone of their existing coverage—are hardly novel. Republicans have issued such warnings all year. But liberals didn't pay attention until the coverage in jeopardy was abortion.

I'm not saying we shouldn't socialize health insurance. I'm pretty comfortable with the House and Senate bills. But let's give up the two lies we tell ourselves about such legislation. One is that it won't cost us much money. The other is that it won't cost us much choice. When you throw in your lot with other people and agree to play by the same rules, you surrender some of your freedom and risk losing some of your options. Sometimes it's coverage of an MRI or a hip replacement. Sometimes it's coverage of abortion. If that's the price of health care reform, are you willing to pay it?"

Back when abortion funding was in the health care reform bill (protestations from the White House to the contrary notwithstanding), President Obama told Katie Couric that the abortion issue was a "distraction" from his larger project to promote health care reform. Rep. Patrick

Kennedy later attacked the US Catholic bishops for using the "red herring" of abortion funding to oppose the overarching "pro-life" goals of health care reform (mark my words: it's going to be one of the biggest mistakes of his political career).

The message of both the White House and Democrat leadership was clear: to get hung up on the abortion issue, they claimed, was to needlessly fritter away precious time at the grave human expense of those without medical insurance. Pro-life Democrats and their Republican allies were holding health care reform "hostage" over abortion, it was said.

Then, two things happened. First, Rep. Bart Stupak's eleventh-hour abortion-neutrality amendment passed with the support of 64 Democrats. A couple days later, forty Democrats reportedly wrote to Speaker Pelosi threatening to vote "no" on a final bill unless the Stupak amendment is stripped in conference. They are, essentially, threatening to hold health care reform "hostage" over abortion.

Reporters, pundits and talking heads, meanwhile, are all buzzing about this new battle over abortion funding. It's the talk of the town. Legislation which advances the abortion agenda is evidently a non-starter, but arguments over the legitimacy of attempts to preserve the status quo - now that's something to talk about.

(Random aside: Chris Matthews in particular spent a lengthy segment on his program Hardball discussing the abortion funding problem with Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards. I had to raise my eyebrows when Matthews, discussing the abortion disagreement, asked Richards: "Can you cut this in half?" Her response was chilling to all King Solomon fans: "Sure.")

But what does all this new buzz about abortion funding have in common?

No one is saying this debate about abortion funding is a "distraction" or "red herring."

I, for one, welcome this newly-discovered common ground.

In honor of our brave veterans: