Very good. I think. The author appears extraordinarily intelligent (for a "Christian") though what she does not explain is how she derives conservative constitutionalism from biblical principles. Or, for that matter, how she identifies the principles underlying the US Constitution as "conservative" when in fact the founding documents were written at the cultural height of the Enlightenment and classical Liberalism (libertarianism). This dualism of westernized Christianity, I find puzzling. This dualism is not exactly Platonic, in the sense of two realities, one of phenomena and the other of circular ideas. This Christian dualism seems to contemplate a universe that integrates rationality and perception, while at the same time it cheats.

Rachel, your comments are ignorant and embarrassing. Two years in a Russian prison could easily be a death sentence (because of overcrowding, poor conditions, and the spread of antibiotic-resistant diseases). Trespassing is more appropriately addressed by misdemeanor charges. But the rioters did not really violate property rights. The church in question was paid for by the Russian government, and actively supports Putin.

Allow me to mirror your comments. Religion is something that may have been helpful in early human history, and for young people. But advanced societies and mature persons can cast those crutches in the can. Let us face reality with the best of our humanism, not the superstitions of our past. Let us cleanse our pimples with Clearasil, and our culture with reason. And walk into the sunlight, from the dark ages; into enlightenment, from the dark recesses of our evolutionary past.

Gerson has been acting as a self-appointed guardian of conservative/libertarian orthodoxy. First he would excommunicate Ayn Rand (posthumously), now Donald Trump is to be drummed out. Unfortunately Gerson's credentials in this regard are missing in action. Gerson has a way with words, but is disdainful of serious research that discredits Obama's alleged birth certificate. Asking for college records is a perfect riposte to Obama's obsession with getting Romney's tax records. Gerson: seriously, get a grip. I recommend reading Atlas Shrugged while toking pot. Mellow out and give space to others in the movement, particularly since it's not clear that you are part of this movement.

Buchanan--one of the bad things that has happened to America, is that some self-styled "conservatives' have gone over to the dark side, and embraced the inevitability of surrender to Islamism. If Pat had bothered to do any research, instead of subjecting Americans to a psycho-drama based on his father's goofy support for the fascist radio personality, Father Coughlin, he would know --a single nuke exploded at high altitude over America could produce an EMP that would take out most of the electrical grid over the continent and millions of devices with electrical components. Like vehicles, computers, electrical transformers, and water treatment plants.

A "defense only" military strategy is a recipe for failure and increased costs. Rather, we should minimize defensive postures and maximize attacks on the enemy centers of power. Here Stossel conflates two entirely different and distinct things: destroying government through invasion, and creating a substitute government through nation-building. The military should be run in accord with free enterprise principles. This is not a new idea, but apparently it is new to Stossel.

Chapman here seems to be not only from a different century, but a different planet. The specter of Islamism is a far more serious threat than communism was, and has a far bloodier history (over a much longer period of time).

Judge Napolitano is trained in law, not foreign policy or ideology. He hasn't even been following current events. As a matter of fact, Iran has attacked America many times, starting with nationalization of western-owned oil infrastructure, and continuing with embassy hostage seizing, embassy destruction, barracks destruction, attempted terrorist assassination on US soil, and attacks on US soldiers. Not to mention, threats of nuclear holocaust. Drone attacks in a war zone do not violate the US constitution. During WWII, non-Germans joined the SS and did not receive any special immunity from their native country.

To raise the bar so high, encourages US soldiers to kill terrorists, not capture them. Protections of the constitution apply only to US citizens, not illegal combatants. To have tried the mastermind of 9/11 in Manhatten, would have cost a billion dollars. Military tribunals for captured spies, and others who are not unformed soldiers, has precedence. Captured Nazi spies were given a military trial, and executed.

Any strike on Iran should target their oil export facilities, in addition to nuclear and regime targets. I don't think the Iran gov't welcomes these prospects, the "realists" think they can weather any actions likely to be taken, and the fundamentalists are willing to sacrifice Iranian interests for the sake of bringing on the final battle and the hidden immam. To suppose that America interests would not be threatened by the conflict, or the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, would be delusional. One airburst at high altitude could take out most of the N. American electrical grid. George, your analysis was brilliant, until you got to these points, and you really missed them.