A Crystal Ball Into The Future

Here is a futuristic glimpse at a newscast from lets say, um, 2021. Although the clip is comedy, I see it as a possibility, so let me go with it...

Imagine if you will; it's the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. The wacko conspiracy folks along with the Hollywood "I pledge crowd" have continued propagating their lunacy over the past 20 years until a vast majority of the country actually believes the 9/11 attacks were committed by the U.S. government and not Al Qaeda terrorists. Al Qaeda, which is now the governing authority over the new nation of The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine. The Islamic Republic of Iranaqseria Al Palestine came into power after all US forces were removed from the middle-east in late 2009 and after the nuclear attack on Israel. Well Al Qaeda is now upset because they want credit for attacking the US, but the Socialist pig-dog Americans are taking all the credit!



"A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin

The Fairness Doctrine - You Have Been Warned

If you have not heard about the Fairness Doctrine, I hope you will look into it and learn exactly what it is. For me, I am shocked that something like this would even be contemplated in the US.

Here are the basics:

1. "Progressive" (aka liberal) talk radio has no audience to speak of. Again and again every attempt at successful liberal radio programs have left the airwaves because sponsors stop sponsoring the shows, not because of content, but because listenership is so low.
2. Conservative talk radio is very popular. Talk radio such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Laura Ingram and a host of other local radio shows have enjoyed long running success.
3. Democrats don't like the truth of the matter; that because of the poor ratings of liberal talk radio, their message isn't getting out to the folks.

So what's a Democrat to do? Introduce legislation called "The Fairness Doctrine". If you want the full explanation click here. But in short, the Fairness Doctrine forces radio programs to allow the opposite side equal air time to state their side. So, if a network plays Rush Limbaugh's show, they would be forced (yes, forced!) to have another show that poses the opposite view as Rush, no matter if no one listens and causes a net-loss in profits for the station.

Don"t think this is real? Below is just one radio clip of a Senator saying the legislation needs to be introduced. This is real! Democrats try and convince us that they are the party of all views and the ones who are really inclusive. The truth is they can't stand you if you have a different opinion than what the party line is.

The same would be true with the "Freedom of Choice Act", or FOCA, that I've written so much about. FOCA will remove all state legislation intended to limit and protect people where abortion is concerned, like parental notification. If FOCA is signed by the President, it will FORCE doctors to perform abortions even if they disapprove as a matter of conscience. A Catholic, Presbyterian, or Methodist hospital who may have chosen not to perform those services because it violates their Christian creed, would be FORCED to perform abortions or face fines and penalties.

No Liberal Bias Here!

Reporter Helen Thomas make me sick. The last time she was relevant was back in the Lincoln administration. She represents the most liberal anti-Christian, anti-Israel, Pro-Palestinian, PRO-TERRORIST arm of our nut bag filled country. It makes me sick.

Here is her question from last nights press conference, Obama's first press conference since becomming President:

Mr. President, do you think that Pakistan and -- are
maintaining the safe havens in Afghanistan for these so-called terrorists?

"So-called TERRORISTS" !!!!! That's what I yelled out when I was watching on TV. Those people hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan would kill you and me AND HER in a second, given the chance. But she can't see it because all she knows is hate for Israel.

The second part of her question took me awhile to decode....

And also, do you know of any country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons?

At first I thought the question was an attempt to see if the President would say that one of those America hating, Godless countries had a weapon. But what she is really trying to get the president to say is "Yes, Israel". She's actually defending and promoting Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon simply because Israel has them!!! OMG! She should be hung in the town square.

One last thing on Helen Thomas; here is the first question she asked George Bush at his first press conference:

Mr. President, why do you refuse to respect the wall between the church and state? And you know that the mixing of religion and government, for centuries, has led to slaughter. The very fact that our country has stood in good stead by having this separation -- why do you break it down?

Our Future Is In Good Hands

A classic case of man meets Messiah.....all other words fail me.

Real Stimulus Idea Will Be Ignored

In the spirit of fairness I wanted to write about a very good alternative economic stimulus idea I came across. It was offered up by Rep. Walt Minnick, a House Democrat from Idaho. Minnick devised a stimulus plan that limits itself to real stimulus, rather than bloating itself into a package of pure “Porkulus”. It costs only $170 billion, and self-terminates when the economy recovers. Genius!

…And for that reason it is doomed to oblivion.

Here is the article I read:

While President Barack Obama goes on the road to shore up slipping popular support for the $1 trillion stimulus bill that he ordered up from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Walt Minnick, a freshman Democrat from Idaho, is pushing a better idea: The Strategic Targeted American Recovery and Transition Act (START). Minnick is a member of the Blue Dog caucus of occasionally conservative Democrats. His START plan is a $170 billion “bare bones” pure stimulus approach that would put $100 billion immediately into the pockets of low- and middle-income Americans, then use the other $70 billion for basic infrastructure projects that create jobs. START requires that all funds not spent by 2010 be returned to the Treasury. START also stops stimulus spending when the nation’s Gross Domestic Product increases in two of three previous quarters, and all START payments are required to be posted on a public website.

Minnick introduced START as an alternative – just in case the legislative process stalls out, says press secretary John Foster. As one of the brave 11 Democrats who voted against Pelosi’s stimulus bill, Minnick explained to folks back home that he opposed the speaker’s version because it was so “Christmas-treed up” with wasteful spending, like $300 million for golf carts. Foster told The Examiner that the House leadership encourages members to do what’s best for their districts, so there has been no backlash. We’ll see how long that lasts.

Yet, President Obama in last night’s press conference had the audacity to tell the American public that the stimulus package that is currently on the senate floor has no “earmarks”. Really? I suppose it all comes down to what one’s definition of “earmark” is. To me it’s anything that doesn’t go to either A) cut taxes, B) promote growth in business, and C) create jobs. Here is a short list of some of the items I’ve seen in the so called “earmark free” stimulus package, and honestly it so hard to tell:


$2 billion earmark for FutureGen near zero emissions powerplant in Mattoon, IL
$39 billion slush fund for “state fiscal stabilization” bailout
$5.5 billion for making federal buildings “green” (including $448 million for DHS HQ)
$200 million for workplace safety in USDA facilities
$275 million for flood prevention
$65 million for watershed rehabilitation
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges and libraries
$650 million for the DTV transition coupon program
$307 million for constructing NIST office buildings
$1 billion for administrative costs and construction of NOAA office buildings
$100 million for constructing U.S. Marshalls office buildings
$300 million for constructing FBI office buildings
$800 million for constructing Federal Prison System buildings and facilities
$10 million to fight Mexican gunrunners
$1.3 billion for NASA (including $450 million for “science” at NASA)
$100 million to clean up sites used in early U.S. atomic energy program
$10 million for urban canals
$2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars
$1.5 billion for carbon capture projects under sec. 703 of P.L. 110-140 (though section only authorizes $1 billion for five years)
$300 million for hybrid and electric cars for federal employees
$198 million to design and furnish the DHS headquarters
$255 million for “priority procurements” at Coast Guard (polar ice breaker)
$500 million for State and local fire stations
$180 million for construction of Bureau of Land Management facilities
$500 million for wildland fire management
$110 million for construction for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
$522 million for construction for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
$650 million for abandoned mine sites
$75 million for the Smithsonian Institution
$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth
$412 million for CDC headquarters
$500 million earmark for NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD
$160 million for “volunteers” at the Corp. for National and Community Service
$750 million earmark for the National Computer Center in MD
$224 million for International Boundary and Water Commission – U.S. and Mexico
$850 million for Amtrak
$100 million for lead paint hazard reduction

"Illegal" Only Means Something if You're A US Citizen

Read this article from the Washington Times. I find it unbelievable that it would even make it before a Judge, much less make it to trial.

I'm going to watch what happens with this. If the judge or jury punishes this ranch owner, even in the smallest way, we're done. It's over.

Old Blue Eyes

Are they just making this stuff up as they go along? OK, I’m not a scientist and maybe my analysis is simplistic. But I am a student of responsible language and of logic. This just seems to be completely illogical.

A group called The Innovations Report ran a report called Blue-Eyed Humans Have a Single, Common Ancestor in which Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology made this claim:

Originally, we all had brown eyes, but a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes.

The article goes on to explain how this switch turned off in the genes of this ancient person by saying “Nature shuffles our genes”.

Huh? That’s it? It happened because nature suddenly decided to “shuffle” our genes?! Was it a riffle shuffle or the classic hindu shuffle? [that was sarcasm]

A watered down version of the article made it to various major news agencies, like the LA Times which had this to say

For nearly all of human history, everyone in the world had brown eyes. Then, between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago, the first blue-eyed baby was born somewhere near the Black Sea. For some reason, that baby's descendants gained a 5% evolutionary advantage over their brown-eyed competitors, and today the number of people with blue eyes tops half a billion.

What? How do they know that? How can they pin point the location of the first blue-eyed baby. Read the articles for yourself and see if it passes the logic test. It doesn’t for me.

So if I reject this theory; what’s my alternative theory? Good question; and yes, I have an answer. Look for my post called Natural Selection.

Go Where The Evidence Leads? Not In Science!

Today I read that media personality Ben Stein backed out of a previous invitation to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont (UVM). This comes as a result of Stein's 2008 documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", which shines a light on the ugly practice of percecuting scientists that dare question neo-darwinism.

UVM President Dan Fogel said he received hundreds of e-mails beginning Saturday -- including only about a half-dozen from people at UVM -- contending, generally, that Stein's views of science were "affronts to the basic tenets of the academy".

I attended a graduation ceremony at UVM in 2006. The commencement speaker was Gustavo Esteva, a prominent Mexican writer and social activist who promotes government as a more effective way to promote social change; in other words he's a Socialist. Mr. Esteva's qualifications obviously were a better fit for those who guard the sacred tenets of the acedmy. I remember he promoted smoking marajuana during his commencement speach which brought cheers from the crowd (except me. I boo'd him which brought many stares and a sharp elbow from my wife).

Anyway, there is a hostile directive in the scientific community that you can not question the theory of evolution or else. Watch the movie trailer for a quick idea of what this is all about.

All Hail Mother Earth! Kill the Humans!!!

The spiritual person will know who is really behind all of this; and so it continues. In a Feb. 1, 2008 article in the British newspaper the Mail, reports a government official Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development Commission, stating:

Couples who have more than two children are putting an 'irresponsible' burden on the environment. I recommend we divert money away from curing illnesses and more towards contraception and abortion services to limit the country's population and help in the fight against global warming.

I’d like to know which diseases he prefers to underfund so the state can shower the land with more condoms.

Furthermore, Mr. Porritt continues:

We still have one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancies in Europe and we still have relatively high levels of pregnancies going to birth, often among women who are not convinced they want to become mothers.

So the role of the state should be to convince ambivalent mothers to abort them?!

I would hope that this thinking is way out on the fringe. Bur I've learned that it is in fact the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. So many of our policies have been shaped because of the loud (and may I add grating) voice of the minority.

This report comes on the heals of Al Gore appearing before a Congressional committee at which he professed his gloomy news about global warming. Mr. Gore, whose pundits affectionately call him the "Goracle", had this to say:

Current climate trends will bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth -- and this is within this century, if we don't change.

These lawmakers took turns asking Al Gore for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball. I am sure the report telling us of the impending death of human civilization will find it's way into legislation even though a majority of scientific data shows no such trend. As it turns out we don't have to wait long because $400 million of the $800 billion stimulus plan awaiting a Senate vote is for Global warming research.

We better watch out because that $400 million may go towards contraception and abortion. No better way to reduce the country's carbon footprint than to prevent more human footprints from ever appearing.

God help us.

I Couldn't Say It Any Better

I really like this guy. Check him out at Macho Sauce productions:

A Teency-Weency Request

A small request to Catholics (and this goes for certain Protestants too, but I only have the data on Catholics, sorry)... next election, be it Presidential, Congressional, Gubernatorial, Mayoral, Selectman on down to the dog catcher; next election PLEASE pay attention to what the candidates voting record HAS BEEN. Do your homework and discover the facts and truth about the candidates, not the tingly feeling you get when a certain candidate speaks.

Barak Obama's voting record both as a State and U.S. Senator showed him to be pro-abortion. Every opportunity to vote went the way of supporting abortion and against every opportunity to oppose legislation limiting it, which includes voting NO on banning partial birth abortion and the Infant Born Alive Act. During the Presidential campaign he said repeatedly he would reverse the Mexico City policy and said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as one of the first things he does as President. Yet, 2008 poll data shows between 53% to 56% of Catholics voted for Barak Obama, 13% to 16% more than John Kerry, a Catholic, got in 2004.

Now I read that the Very Rev. David O'Connell, president of the Catholic University of America said every Catholic he's spoken to in recent days has expressed disappointment in Obama for reversing the Mexico City policy, and Catholic voters wonder if FOCA will be passed into law.

I've got news for you; over the next few weeks, Obama will most likely undo several more pro-life regulations, such as the ban on the use of federal funds for embryonic-stem-cell research and the “right of conscience” ruling (which allows medical personnel to refuse to participate in practices they object to, such as abortion). In addition, when he committed to expand Bush’s faith-based initiatives, Obama indicated he would curtail religious groups’ ability to hire based on religious considerations—a decision that would tear the soul and the effectiveness out of these groups.

You know the old saying, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it PROBABLY IS A DUCK!!! For crying out loud!..what does a stroke feel like?

PREDICTION: The next big "dissapointment" will come from all of those left leaning Jewish people who voted for Mr. Obama only to find out he's really anti-Israel and pro-Palestine. WHAT?! I never knew that!

Donkey Economics

I read these two stories just minutes apart. Click the title to be brought to each article

Pelosi: Contraception is Good Stimulus for the Economy US News January 26, 2009

[Japanese] Workers urged: Go home and multiply CNN International January 26, 2009

So which is the best economic policy? At the time of my writing this we are fast approaching 45 million abortions since 1973 and now the left is promoting contraception! (Check out my abortion counter on the right to see the current repulsive number).

More than just promoting contraception, they want it funded with our tax dollars! I just don't get this unabashed anti-life agenda of the liberals. It makes no sense. Even if you do not agree with my staunch pro-life stance, surely you can see the benefit of having more tax payers in the system. If you do the math there are roughly 25 million less tax payers today because those babies were aborted. And now phase II is launched; government sponsored contraception.

As I was writing this an idea dawned on me. The reason the liberals see contraception and abortion as "good" for the economy is because they all share the same socialistic economic policies. If there's less people then that equates to a savings because liberals all believe in the "ask what your government should do for you" mentality promoted by the Democratic party and famously endorsed as a fundamental "right" by Barak Obama.

Here We Go (sigh)

In just the third full day of President Obama's administration, he begins making good on his promises to push his radically liberal agenda concerning abortion. Just today:

-President Obama lifts a ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions, reversing a policy of his predecessor, George W. Bush. (Note to the President: waiting until late on a Friday evening to recind the previous Presidents order really says a lot)

-First Embryonic Stem Cell Trial Gets FDA Approval (this is not directly the action of the President, but it is penultimately a result of his policies and the Democrats being placed in power)

Next up I am sure he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into law. If you are not familiar with FOCA, read my post on Oct. 31, 2008 called "Obama the Abortionist". Click this link if you want to sign the Fight Against FOCA petition.

Even if you are not staunchly anti-abortion as I am; even if you are in the camp of "It's a woman's right to choose", do you really want YOUR tax dollars going to fund abortions? Why do my tax dollars need to go to ANY organisation that funds abortions anywhere? Planned Parenthood already receives about $300M dollars per year in federal grants and last year posted a reported $51M profit! I don't get it!! This is so upsetting to me!!!

The fact that many in this country CELEBRATE this supposed "right" makes me sick.

Killing Potential

Future Shock

I came across this article by Dick Moriss and thought it was right on the button:

The Obama Presidency: Here Comes Socialism

The article, I think, hones in on exactly what we can expect based on Mr. Obama's voting record and through his campaign speeches and debates. It may not come to pass, but based on Obama's past, I think Mr. Morris takes it to it's most logical conclusion. You may be ok with this change, which is why you voted for Obama. That's ok. I personally do not like the writing on the wall.

Change We Can Believe In?

Funny how ever since the announcement that Rick Warren would give the invocation at the presidential inauguration, that the buzz was how the Obama constituency was offended by the choice. Warren, an evangelical pastor, is "guilty" of supporting traditional marriage and even has the audacity to pray in the name of Jesus! No doubt Pastor Rick would say something offensive if not offend some by his very presence.

On the other end of the spectrum was Rev. Joseph Lowery who rendered the benediction. No issues there; no buzz about anyone being offended by this choice or possibly having the Reverend say something that would be offensive, right?

My opinion:

Pastor Warren delivered a prayer and did it in Jesus name. He called for God's blessings upon the President, his family, the V.P. and all elected officials. He called for God to forgive us when we fall short and brought light on the need for us to unite even in our differences.

Rev. Lowery delivered a speech disguised as a prayer and every fair minded person in the nation should be offended by what he said, regardless of skin color. Oh, there were homily-like sentences in the speech, but the meat of the message was down right racists and anti-white. Hmmmm, sounds like the flavor of the week as delivered even more venomously by the Reverend Wright, the spiritual leader to President Obama for 20 years.

Here is the part I am talking about. It starts:

Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back,…

Sorry Reverend, those days ended long ago, and if not, it certainly ended when we elected the messiah President! (but I digress...)

…when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; …

At this point I began to think "Where is this heading, and what rhymes with 'white'?" Then it came...

… and when white will embrace what is right.

Am I mistaken or did the Reverend just go all "White-Devil" on me? I guess being white means I don’t have any moral sense. And, if I’m not mistaken, I think he just put together a construction that lines up the browns, the blacks and reds and yellows on one side and the unrighteous white man on the other.

The he finished with:

That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.

The crowd loudly responded with a great "AMEN!" Not just once, but three Times to the call of AMEN from the Reverend.

Is this the "Change" we are to expect? Honestly I do not think President Obama thinks this way. But I do believe that many people of color see the election of a black man as an excuse to air their racist ideology. Racism is not limited to one people group.

Close Only Counts With .....

Ok, the timing on this one is so perfect, it needs a little set up. How do I decide what to write about? It could be something I experience, I heard or read. But typically I don't know what to write until I think about it for awhile. Back on Jan. 8, I was taking my after lunch walk and as I walked I started thinking about DNA and how much of a miracle it is (...it's not weird for me). The result was my posting on Jan.8, the one just before this one, so go read it, then come back and finish this one.

Then, today I read an article that proves my point. It doesn't prove my opinion, but does prove just what I'm talking about. The link to the article is below, but to give you a snap shot, here is the opening paragraph:

One of life's greatest mysteries is how it began. Scientists have pinned it down to roughly this: Some chemical reactions occurred about 4 billion years ago - perhaps in a primordial tidal soup or maybe with the help of volcanoes or possibly at the bottom of the sea or between the mica sheets - to create biology.

Here is the link to the article. Judge for yourself: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab

Even though we all analyze the same data, why is that we come to different conclusions? It's called presupposition; these scientists WANT their inquiry to support what they already believe to be true. The same is true for ME! When I look at science I look at it from the point of view that there is a Creator God. Yet, in a world where we all bring our own presupposition to the table, we need to allow logic to rule. Starting with the fact that it is impossible to get something from nothing. See my other posts on this ( July 11, 2007 and July 23, 2008).

Upside-Down and Backwards

The thinking in this world really is upside down and backwards when it comes to the wisdom of God versus the wisdom of men. Take DNA; even the most basic definition of DNA screams the necessity of a pre-existent creator (aka the “Cause”). Here is a basic definition:

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms. The role of DNA molecules is the long-term storage of information. DNA is like a set of blueprints since it contains the instructions needed to construct other components of cells. The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes.

Let me summarize; DNA stores information needed to create a living organism. Meaning when conception occurs a single cell containing DNA will begin to divide. With each division the cell becomes more and more specific to its intended purpose. All of the immense intricacies that make a living organism and especially that which make a human being; organs, skin, teeth, hair, eyes, ears, blood, nerves, brain, and on and on and on are made so by the instructions contained in our DNA!

Yet, a majority of scientists; mind you scientists who know so much more about how incredible DNA is than I do and therefore should understand at an even higher level of amazement how incredible DNA is, these scientists can look at DNA and say that it is created by blind forces of chance. By cosmic accident.

Even more amazingly, other scientists can spend billions of dollars to construct super-sensitive equipment that “listens” for faint signals from the furthest reaches of the universe. When they hear some signal that goes “bzzzzz-bz-bz-bzzzzzz” they cry out “INTELLIGENCE!!”

God has made it plainly clear for all peoples, in all places, in all times to know that He is God. Yet, as we are told in scripture, man has exchanged the truth of God for a lie. To uphold that lie as scientific "fact" takes more mental gymnastics than to just admit that a Creator, a Supreme Cause to all known effects, is behind all of this.

Ties

Sometimes I have to wear a tie. I like the way they look, but they are not comfortable for me to wear and I only wear them if I have to.

A new fashion trend has women wearing ties. But, when it comes down to it, I think it looks terrible on a woman. Am I a chauvinist?

Wake Up America

I wanted to re-print an article from NRO. It's right on and worth sharing:

Soul Survivors
The meaning of Mumbai.

By Thomas Sowell


Will the horrors unleashed by Islamic terrorists in Mumbai cause any second thoughts by those who are so anxious to start weakening the American security systems currently in place, including government interceptions of international phone calls and the holding of terrorists at Guantánamo?

Maybe. But never underestimate partisan blindness in Washington or in the mainstream media where, if the Bush administration did it, then it must be wrong.

Contrary to some of the more mawkish notions of what a government is supposed to be, its top job is the protection of the people. Nobody on 9/11 would have thought that we would see nothing comparable again in this country for seven long years.

Many people seem to have forgotten how, in the wake of 9/11, every great national event — the World Series, Christmas, New Year’s, the Super Bowl — was under the shadow of a fear that this was when the terrorists would strike again.

They didn’t strike again here, even though they have struck in Spain, Indonesia, England, and India, among other places. Does anyone imagine that this was because they didn’t want to hit America again?

Could this have had anything to do with all the security precautions that liberals have been complaining about so bitterly, from the interception of international phone calls to forcing information out of captured terrorists?

Too many people refuse to acknowledge that benefits have costs, even if that cost means only having no more secrecy when making international phone calls than you have when sending e-mails, in a world where computer hackers abound. There are people who refuse to give up anything, even to save their own lives.

A very shrewd observer of the deterioration of Western societies, British writer Theodore Dalrymple, said: “This mental flabbiness is decadence, and at the same time a manifestation of the arrogant assumption that nothing can destroy us.”

There are growing numbers of things that can destroy us. The Roman Empire lasted a lot longer than the United States has lasted, and yet it too was destroyed.

Millions of lives were blighted for centuries thereafter, because the barbarians who destroyed Rome were incapable of replacing it with anything at all comparable. Neither are those who threaten to destroy the United States today.

The destruction of the United States will not require enough nuclear bombs to annihilate cities and towns across America. After all, the nuclear destruction of just two cities was enough to force Japan to surrender — and the Japanese had far more willingness to fight and die than most Americans have today.

How many Americans are willing to see New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles all disappear in nuclear mushroom clouds, rather than surrender to whatever outrageous demands the terrorists make?

Neither Barack Obama nor those with whom he will be surrounded in Washington show any signs of being serious about forestalling such a terrible choice by taking any action with any realistic chance of preventing a nuclear Iran.

Once suicidal fanatics have nuclear bombs, that is the point of no return. We, our children, and our grandchildren will live at the mercy of the merciless, who have a track record of sadism.

There are no concessions we can make that will buy off hate-filled terrorists. What they want — what they must have for their own self-respect, in a world where they suffer the humiliation of being visibly centuries behind the West in so many ways — is our being brought down in humiliation, including self-humiliation.

Even killing us will not be enough, just as killing Jews was not enough for the Nazis, who first had to subject them to soul-scarring humiliations and dehumanization in their death camps.

This kind of hatred may not be familiar to most Americans but what happened on 9/11 should give us a clue — and a warning.

The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center buildings could not have been bought off by any concessions, not even the hundreds of billions of dollars we are spending in bailout money today.

They want our soul — and if they are willing to die and we are not, they will get it.

© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.