PHOENIX — Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Deer Valley Unified School District after school officials prevented a Christian student club from inviting students during morning announcements over the PA system to attend a non-instructional time prayer meeting. School officials prohibited the announcement, a privilege that all other clubs enjoy, because it contained the word “prayer.”

“Christians shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their religious beliefs since they have the same constitutional rights as everyone else,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. “In this case, these students simply wanted to use the same official school communication channels that other clubs are allowed to use to promote their events. The Constitution specifically prohibits government officials from singling out religious groups for censorship.”

On Jan. 14, a student representing the Common Cause club at Mountain Ridge High School submitted a request to announce their weekly prayer meeting, held before school at 7:20 a.m. at the school flagpole, during morning announcement time. The next day, the assistant principal told the student that the announcement would not be permitted because it contained the word “prayer.” When the student asked for the return of her announcement, the assistant principal allegedly ripped it up and discarded it in front of her.

“Denying Christians their constitutional rights simply because they choose to exercise them in a public place is unconstitutional,” said Cortman. “These students simply wanted to pray before school and to invite others to join them. We hope that the court will affirm the right of these students to do so.”

Unfortunately, he doesn’t do that; but then, neither do we. The Sam I Ams of the world demand control of our eating habits, and we don’t even take out a restraining order, let alone actually fight back. A relatively small group of emaciated curd-eaters has got the robust, carnivorous American majority bullied, to the point that we’ll eat their green goo, in hopes that they’ll be satisfied and leave us in peace. Well, they won’t.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has decided that her congressional colleagues aren’t eating right, so she’s forced the House cafeteria to expunge from its menu those foods for which there’s a strong consumer demand. In particular, red meat has been all but eradicated, and replaced with such items as mahi-mahi, couscous, and probably Boutros Boutros before much longer. A lot of the other representatives and their staffers are unhappy with the changes, but who cares what they think? They’re just the consumers.

If there’s a cafeteria where you work, you’re probably going through a similar experience, or else you soon will be. In the name of “wellness,” employers are phasing out all menu items that are recognizably edible. That’s because few people will resign themselves to eating bear barf on balsa wood, when cheeseburgers and fries are just as readily available.

When you resist these efforts, you can count on the Sons of Sam I Am to start nagging, “Have you ever triiiiiiiied bear barf?” If you accept this “don’t knock it ’til you’ve tried it” argument, you will have fallen right into their trap, because you’ll have accepted the premise that you do not have the right to unilaterally determine the contents of your own stomach. Instead, you’ll have established yourself as the weaker of two parties in a negotiation.

So, what’s the big deal, you may wonder. If people don’t want to eat petting zoo food, let them go somewhere else for lunch. The free market will solve the problem as usual, right?

As long as we truly have a free market, the answer is yes. The problem is that the Sons of Sam I Am know this, and they have powerful weapons with which to combat these market forces. In New York, for example, they’ve passed a ban on trans fats in that city’s restaurants, which must be in compliance by July 2008 or begin paying substantial fines. Several states have considered levying punitive taxes on foods they consider to be unhealthful. Elsewhere, the Sons of Sam I Am are filing nuisance lawsuits against fast-food restaurants, holding them responsible for their plaintiffs’ obesity.

Partly due to the implicit threat of judicial and legislative force, they have managed to mau-mau Burger King into adding a veggie burger to its menu. (Speaking of which, isn’t mau-mau one of the entrees at the House cafeteria?) There isn’t much demand for the meatless patty, but just wait until federal, state and local burger taxes have been enacted. Once you’ve had to finance a Whopper on an installment plan, an inexpensive oat puck will start to look pretty good by comparison.

What makes it all the more galling is that most of the Sons of Sam I Am are of the same political persuasion as those who employ the slogan “our bodies, our choice” when they want to do things to bodies that aren’t really theirs. Conversely, they disdain the concepts of privacy and individual choice when it comes to one’s own digestive tract. Moreover, the older, hippier types among them (see: Hillary) fail to grasp the irony of imposing their new conformity, by which individuals must bend to the demands of “the health care system.”

Come to think of it, Sam I Am lacks a sense of irony himself. These days, if he went around foisting fatty pork products and cholesterol-laden eggs on people, he would get his pants sued off. If he ever wore any, that is.

The battle to convince litmus test voters that theirs is a constitutional obligation to vote for the better of the two candidates presented in November is not an easy one. Over the years politicians, both genuine and opportunistic, have pounded the idea into our heads that we must always choose the best candidate. But what happens when the best candidate isn’t offered on the final ballot? What happens when a political faction’s “darling” doesn’t make the cut? Many true Conservatives are in that very position today.

The fact of the matter is that we have never – ever – voted for the best candidate in any election. Each and every politician who has ever run for office has had their weak points and their detractors, whether legitimate or contrived. In reality, each election that our country holds, whether local, county, state or national, is a contest in which the better candidate is selected. This being said, it is understandable why many political analysts recognize that it is easier to get voters to the polls to vote against something than to vote for something.

The truth be told, our national elections should be less about the political parties, complete with their power-hunger candidates, eager to take the reigns of power for four more years of the status quo and more about executing the civic responsibility of constitutional stewardship. The reason the political process of elections has become a parade of Madison Avenue bumper-sticker sound bytes, devoid of substance and only peppered with honesty is because our education system has failed on so many levels that critical thinking skills in the United States are abysmal. I blame this on special interest groups who have moved our education system away from actually teaching the core courses, non-agendized, accurate American history and the skill of critical thinking. But that is a weighty subject for another time.

The US Constitution is a covenant, a contract, between the people and their government. In order to steward the Constitution (we don’t really steward the government in a Democratic Representative Republic – we can petition, redress and impeach but we cannot steward) we must realize that an election is not – and never has been – the validation of the best candidate, it is the acknowledgement of the better candidate.

The primaries are when each individual political party puts forth their arguments for their best candidate, although with the inclusion of cross-over voters in many of the early primary states one must contend that true Conservatives are continually disenfranchised by osmosis. Often times, many will be disappointed in the outcome but the fact remains, the majority has bestowed the nomination. At that point it becomes a contest to select, nationally, the better candidate, not the best.

The fallacy of a national election serving to elect the best candidate is proven so in the fact that a candidate cannot (it is an impossibility) be all things to all people. Reagan didn’t achieve it. Lincoln didn’t achieve it. Jefferson didn’t achieve it. And neither did Washington.

By definition, if a civically responsible person realizes that a certain candidate is bad for the country they have a constitutional duty to vote against that candidate, even if it means voting for someone with which they agree on very few things. To simply “sit out” an election as an ideological protest is to neglect civic responsibility. This makes those who do delinquent as Americans. This makes them – literally – unpatriotic because of their neglect to steward and honor our Constitution. This is a legitimate declaration for the simple fact that the vote is the greatest gift bequeathed by the Founders and the Framers to the citizens of the United States of America.

Ergo, those who sit out the election because their candidate didn’t win are the true RINOs (Republicans in Name Only); narcissistic, self-destructive, litmus-test politicking cry-babies unworthy of citizenship.

As the political cycle lumbers on toward November, each of us must remember that it is more important to keep the lesser candidate from taking office than it is to see the best candidate on the ballot. To deny the constitutional obligation to protect our Democratic Representative Republic – our country – and the Constitution is to deny one’s civic responsibility; to diminish our nation for sheer selfishness and pigheadedness.

Duty. Honor. Country. Civic Responsibility. Constitutional Stewardship.

Frank Salvato is the Executive Director and Director of Terrorism Research for Basics Project a non-profit, non-partisan, 501(C)(3) research and education initiative. His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His organization, Basics Project, partnered in producing the first ever national symposium series addressing the root causes of radical Islamist terrorism. He also serves as the managing editor for The New Media Journal. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O’Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the host of the NMJ Radio show broadcast global on NetTalkWorld global talk radio and broadcast live on BlogTalk Radio. He is a regular guest on The Right Balance with Greg Allen on the Accent Radio Network, syndicated on over 25 stations nationally and on The Captain’s America Radio Show catering to the US Armed Forces around the world, as well as an occasional guests on radio programs across the country. His opinion-editorials are syndicated nationally and he is occasionally quoted in The Federalist. Mr. Salvato is available for public speaking engagements. He can be contacted at newmediajournal@comcast.net.