Democrats have been trying to make the case that the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate should immediately hold hearings so that they can confirm another justice to the Supreme Court. Their arguments would be more convincing if it weren’t for the fact that their previous actions contradict what they are now saying.

You can watch the video of Senator Joe Biden arguing in 1992 that the Senate Judiciary Committee should not schedule confirmation hearings on any nomination by President George H.W. Bush “until after the political campaign season is over.” Justice Byron White delayed his retirement until the next year. That allowed newly elected president Bill Clinton to nominate former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the court.

In a previous commentary, I talked about how in July 2007 Senator Schumer promised to block any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President George W. Bush. He encouraged his fellow Democrats to “not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

When Democrats ran the U.S. Senate from 2001 to 2003, they denied hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee to 32 of President Bush’s nominees. It included Priscilla Owen (a woman), Janice Rogers Brown (a black woman), and Miguel Estrada (a Hispanic). It is worth mentioning that Miguel Estrada waited 28-months before he withdrew his nomination.

When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito, Democrats supported a filibuster against him. Some of the Senators included Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, and Chuck Schumer. Harry Reid even argued that the Constitution does not require the Senate to give a presidential nominee a vote. It does make it hard for the Democrats to now argue that Republicans must give the president’s nominee a vote.

Brian Thomas points out that the eastern two-thirds of the country have little federally owned land. By contrast, the federal government owns most of the land in the western states. Henry Lamb asks why the federal government owns 65 percent of the land west of Denver and only 2 percent of the land east of Denver.

These questions are beginning to be asked by various commentators especially as citizens in western areas of America would like to develop property in their states. Originally the government only needed land to fulfill its basic duties. Land was needed for federal buildings, roads, and parks. The rest of the land was available for private ownership.

When the western regions of America became states, government philosophy was changing. Progressive reformers wanted to expand the size and scope of government. And they were also convinced that the government could do a better job of managing the land than individual private landowners.

Brain Thomas writes about the contempt progressive had for what they called “individualism” and their desire for an expansive government based upon the “living and evolving” Constitution. Add to that an ecological mentality that argues that developing land is bad for the environment, and you have the situation we find today.

Henry Lamb reminds us that the Constitution originally delegated certain powers to the federal government. This would include acquiring land for specific governmental needs (e.g., building post offices). The Tenth Amendment declared that powers not granted to the federal government were reserved for the states and the people.

Unfortunately, the states are no longer on an equal footing with the federal government. That is one reason why the federal government owns 98 percent of the land in Alaska and 86 percent of Nevada land. It also illustrates why the federal government is still working to confiscate the private property of ranchers and other private citizens.

More and more states are passing voter ID laws in part because of undercover videos that show how easy it is to compromise the voting process. That was the case four years ago when James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team showed how easy it was to commit voter fraud in various state elections.

Since then, the New Hampshire legislature passed a bill mandating that voters show some form of identification. Many types of IDs are acceptable. But even if a person does not have the proper ID, he or she can signed an affidavit so that their vote will be counted. The law does not place too heavy a burden on anyone who wished to vote but still provides some level of security so that no citizen’s vote is stolen.

James O’Keefe had a great idea. Why not go back to New Hampshire and see how well the state’s voter ID law is working? The videos are a reminder that as important as voter ID laws are, you still need poll watchers to make sure the law is followed.

The video shows people working at the polls actually encouraging citizens to skirt the rules. A campaign staff worker for Bernie Sanders tells someone to claim a false address in order to vote in the primary election. Another one of the Project Veritas people said she was not living in New Hampshire, but just wanted to vote in New Hampshire. The helpful poll worker suggested she just say she was staying with a friend.

James O’Keefe points out that without proper identification, anyone could vote with a counterfeit name and address. Four years ago, his video showed Project Veritas people obtaining ballots for people who had died but were still on the rolls. Later that year, one of them in Washington, D.C. was able to obtain the ballot for then-attorney general Eric Holder.

Voter ID laws are a positive first step, but these videos illustrate we need poll watchers to make sure they are properly implemented.

The more we are learn about the Zika virus, the greater the concern. There is no cure for the virus, so containment is the best solution. But the Rio Olympics are less than six months away. Nearly a half million people will travel to Brazil to participate in or watch the Olympics. Then they will return to their countries, and some of them will no doubt be infected with the virus.

Two years ago we saw how unprepared the world was for the Ebola pandemic. The Zika virus is not lethal like Ebola, but the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared that it is a “public health emergency of international concern.”

Those most affected by the virus are the unborn. Pregnant woman infected with the virus are at much greater risk of giving birth to children with microcephaly, which is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by a smaller than average head size. Many countries have advised women not to get pregnant. Pro-abortion advocates have used the threat of the virus to argue for more liberal abortion laws in many countries.

The Zika virus is similar to dengue fever and is spread by mosquitos. Controlling the mosquito population would be an appropriate response to the Zika virus, but many of these countries have banned the insecticide DDT. Currently there is a massive effort to eradicate the breeding grounds for mosquitos.

The problem is massive for Brazil and other countries where the Zika virus is found. Millions of people already host the virus, and it appears to be spreading rapidly. Hundreds of thousands of tourists coming to Brazil for the Olympics will certainly spread it further.

Finding a vaccine to stop Zika may be in the future, though one manufacturer appears to have given up trying. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough, but is doubtful it will come before thousands descend on Rio and unintentionally spread the virus

Now that the U.S. Senate is back in session we are going to hear even more noise about the urgent need for senators to confirm a nominee to the Supreme Court to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. Senator Chuck Schumer has been on talk shows accusing the Senate leadership of obstructionism. He even predicted that “this kind of obstructionism isn’t going to last.”

Some critics have pointed to the hypocrisy of his statements. After all, back in July 2007 Senator Schumer promised to block any Supreme Court nominee put forward by President George W. Bush. He rallied his fellow Democrats saying: “that we should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The argument for waiting until the next election could also be summarized with one name: Judge Robert Bork. In 1987, the Democratic Party leadership brought out the rhetorical heavy artillery and vilified a qualified nominee to the Supreme Court. The lies and character assassination shocked political observers of both parties.

Confirming another liberal justice will merely guarantee a reliable liberal vote. The Wall Street Journal reminds us that: “Not since Byron White retired has any Democratic appointee broken with the liberal lockstep on issues that truly matter to the left.” By contrast, many Republican appointees like “Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts all broke with conservative political preferences on major legal issues.” From this statistical comparison, it is easy to see which side apparently makes up its mind before the high court even hears oral arguments.

These are just a few reasons why the U.S. Senate need not be in any rush to confirm someone to the Supreme Court.

What would the crucifixion and resurrection look like through the eyes of an unbeliever? That is the question answered in the new movie, Risen. Last week I was able to interview Rich Peluso, who is the Senior Vice President of AFFIRM Films (a division of Sony Pictures). That night I was able to attend an advance screening of the film.

The movie takes a familiar story to all of us who are Christians and helps us see it through the eyes of Clavius, a Roman tribune who is second in command to Pontius Pilate. He is charged with confirming the death of Jesus Christ and then releases the body for burial in a tomb. He is then called back to check the tomb and guard it. We learn that it takes seven men just to roll back the huge stone in front of the entrance. He then places ropes and the official Roman wax seal on the tomb. And he posts guards at the tomb.

When the tomb is reported empty, Pilate demands that Clavius find the body. The guards lie about what happened. They say they fell asleep and that the disciples stole the body. Clavius is skeptical about their report given the physical evidence at the tomb and continues to look for the body by tracking down the disciples. This part of the film has the elements of a first century detective story.

The acting and production values are well done. Joseph Fiennes (Shakespeare in Love) plays Clavius. Tom Felton (Harry Potter) plays his aide, Lucius. Christians and non-Christians should enjoy the movie. The film also provides a context for an evangelistic and apologetic discussion of the resurrection. We see and hear elements of the biblical narrative strung together along a story line of historical fiction.

I think this film will provide Christians with another resource to present the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you fly with any regularity, you probably have at least one or two “horror” stories about your experience with the TSA. For nearly all of us, it is a minor inconvenience. Sometimes it could be quite a bit more serious.

Months ago, the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security wrote that the vetting process used in hiring TSA workers is faulty. The inspector general found that the TSA did not identify 73 individuals with terrorism-related category codes. This is a nice way of saying that these 73 were probably on a terrorist watch list. Sleep well, America.

Part of the problem is the stunning fact that the TSA is not authorized to receive the information vital to do a thorough vetting. The report also talked about the fact that the transportation bureaucracy did not have an effective way of checking on crimes that were committed that would disqualify them from having unescorted access to “secure airport areas.”

Lest you think this is not a major problem, consider what happened in Africa. A bomber boarded an airplane with a device that exploded. He was sucked out of the airplane, and two other passengers were injured. Intelligence officers have now produced video footage from the airport showing airport employees handing the terrorist bomber a laptop before he boarded the airplane.

All of that raises the obvious question. Agents working for the TSA are supposed to be screening us, but who is screening them? This thought crossed my mind in the London airport last week, when a Muslim woman wearing a hijab was the official checking me in order to determine if I would be allowed to board the plane to Dallas.

Some of these concerns go beyond the stories you can find on the Internet when you type phrases like “TSA abuse” or “TSA nightmare stories.” We need TSA to screen passengers, but who is screening the TSA?

When Bernie Sanders won the New Hampshire primary last week, one of the commentators talked about how the senator believes there is a conspiracy afoot. He argues that the reason we have so much income inequality is due to the fact that the billionaire class has “rigged” the economy.

He makes it sound like this is a uniquely American problem. It is not. You can find similar gains by the “one percent” in places like Canada, the U.K., and some other European countries. And we might mention that most of the increase in income inequality over the last quarter century took place when fellow Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were president.

His conspiracy is rather paranoid, don’t you think? There are only a few hundred billionaires in America. We are to believe that this small, secretive cabal rigged the system so they can get ahead, but you cannot.

These billionaires made their wealth by designing software you use on your computer, by buying land and developing it, by building stores that sell goods at the lowest possible price, and by developing new and more efficient ways to extract oil and gas from the ground.

Bernie Sanders ignores most of these billionaires but talks about people and banks on Wall Street that speculate. As I mentioned in the previous commentary, that is why a movie like The Big Short helps his campaign. It tells the story of some investors who bet against the housing market because they concluded it would fail.

So far the opponents of Bernie Sanders (Hillary Clinton or the future Republican nominee) have not critiqued his billionaire class conspiracy. The response has generally gone like this: “That’s fine Uncle Bernie. No go back to your bed in the basement, and we will call you when dinner is ready.”

It’s time for some candidates and some pundits to address his billionaire class conspiracy with some facts and common sense. The voters need to know the flaws in this conspiracy.