Thank you Daniel Pipes for having the integrity to tell the truth. Too many people today have short memories and forget the facts.

Why do so many of you think that all atheists think alike? Do all Christians believe the same things? Can one speak for all? People do not even agree with one another about what they mean by God. How can you determine what an atheist is if you don't agree with what God is? No one knows another person's pain in any exact way, we only know what we might feel in the same situation. We do not know what others mean by their theological ideas, we can only guess. I suspect most folks have only a vague idea what they themselves mean by them. It is one thing to judge the words and actions of others and another to demonize them based on what you think they might think. And that works both ways. Whatever happened to the right to one's beliefs?

For those countries that are not out to destroy or loot us, trade is the best policy. Even with China, trade has made them less of enemies. That would not have worked with Mao or others who cared more for their ideas than prosperity. Likewise, our freedom will ultimately lead to prosperity, but beware of trading it for what appears to be more wealth.

Very good article. One error however is to think that Iran should be dealt with as if they were actually a free economy. They are not even a free speach place, they imprison and kill people for thinking or acting in personal ways. One deals with deception and force with smarter force and deception. Yes, it is easier and generally better to tell the truth, but one does not owe truth to those who want one's destruction. Iran's government has openly acted for the destruction of us and our allies. I have wondered for decades why the other mideastern countries (and the Palestinans) don't trade with Israel rather than attempt to destroy the most free and prosperous nation in the area who would like nothing better than to export technology.

who is? Nothing in this article speaks to the issue of multiple partners. She is only recommending the separation of church and state in regard to marriage. In fact, if you are patient the trends are in your favor and more so if the churches are not forced to deal with what should be personal matters.

no one would stop any atheist group from using the word marriage. What would happen is that atheists can have civil unions without the issue being involved.

You left out the most important reason. The alternative is socialism which will eventually control everything in our lives. Do we want to be free individuals who choose what we want or to be cogs in a machine and be forced to do what the authorities want? It eventually comes down to this choice. Do we have a capitalist system with a free market run by the free choices of consumers and producers or a socialist one where decisions are made by authorities enforced by guns and penalties? Add that without market prices, it is impossible to determine what the consumers want on a timely basis if the power seekers actually wanted to.

Mr Gingrich is surely the best teacher out there if he can remember to not get lost in details. I enjoy them but not everyone has the patience. I wish he would teach the basics of economics and reasoning that did not depend on either claims to being obvious or religion to explain why we need liberty to prosper and life well. While he is at it, expain why freedom is liberty of action not free stuff or the idea that we all should have equal results.

I think it is her choice. This does not mean to wait too late to safely abort or to act with no responsibilty but it is not your place to dictate her choice. It is the woman's decision as to whether the growing fetus is more dangerous or painful to her than aborting it. It does not mean you should pay for the abortion or that a doctor must perform it. You also have rights. Don't confuse the issues or dictate whether the woman is one who will regret the abortion or be grateful for it. It is a difficult individual decision.

There are several issues involved. First the second life and the fact that the woman must make the decisions since it is her body that carries it. Second, there is a difference between legal and moral - the legal restricts her, the moral is up to each of us to decide even if we choose badly. Third, who pays - it is one thing to to say a woman has control over her body, but another to say that each of us should not have similar control over our wealth that we earned. Fourth, a doctor has a right to say what procedures he/she will do for the same reasons that the woman wanting an abortion has a right to decide to have or not have it - it is his/her body and mind that do the work and have control over it.