Counterpoint

Subscription test

2008-07-30T17:17:00.001-07:00

Let's see if this works for new subscribers.

Tacking to the center

2008-07-27T15:20:00.000-07:00

In the glowing months of run-up to the U.S. presidential elections, political pundits speak with a knowing smirk of candidates who have begun "tacking to the center." They tell of a candidate who has taken positions favored by the most extreme elements of his party in order to secure the nomination thereof, and then, recognizing that average Americans are not extremists, starts to say things that effectively negate what he said to get nominated so as to be acceptable to them. Freely translated, "tacking to the center" means saying things one does not in any way believe so as to get elected so that he can effectuate policies in which he does believe, all the while hoping that the voters are too stupid or indifferent to the whole thing to notice the deception.

It is a very sad this that this maneuver works, since it encourages candidates to be deceitful. How then does one find out which candidate is the least deceitful and thus, assuming other things seem largely equal, probably the best bet to be president?

And it is deception, regardless of the euphemisms that the pundits and media apply to it. Both the candidates of the Democratic and Republican parties have things which they strongly believe in; they could not be credible players upon the political stage without them. Giving speeches and talking to reporters without revealing what you actually believe is one thing; talking to donors and power brokers who expect a return upon their investment of millions of dollars and months of effort to get you elected is quite another. Operators and fundraisers are neither stupid nor indifferent, and will engage in hard questions and careful investigation of a candidate before putting either resource into a campaign. Obama and McCain's major backers know exactly where each one stands or they would not be major backers.

But they don't let us in on it, because that would make it public, and once the real specifics of what you want to do goes public it enrages your adversaries and motivates them to stop you as well as, more importantly, giving you no place to run when talking to the vast sea of moderates and independents who don't really follow this stuff closely but know what they don't want to hear. Hence, weasel words, generalities, euphemisms, "it will depend", "we're studying that very carefully" - tacking to the center. Even better, if you can get away with it, is saying one thing to one group of potential backers and saying the exact opposite to another group which is at odds with the first group. This generally only works if you can be sure that there will be no real scrutiny from the media about the contradictions.

How then to discover what a candidate actually thinks? Here is the answer, and it is almost invariably true. The candidate tells the truth the first time, when he is seeking his party's nomination. Anything a candidate says after having secured that, if it contradicts what he said to get nominated, is almost invariably a lie. A liberal like Barack Obama who starts making conservative noises once nominated is saying what must be said to get elected - he doesn't believe a word of it. Same thing for a conservative like John McCain. Now, since both candidates will play this game because it does work, the task of a person who considers himself or herself neither liberal nor conservative is to discern which one of them is the least blatant of a liar. Who does this "tacking to the center" thing the fewest times, or on the fewest issues; and if those are largely equal who moves to the center the least, since the one who moves furthest to the center is by definition telling the biggest whoppers.

The only time this kind of a move is really legitimate is when the facts surrounding an issue have changed obviously and dramatically between when the candidate was wooing the base voters of his party and when the nomination was largely secured (neither Obama nor McCain are actual nominees since the conventions haven't occurred, but everyone knows they are anyway). McCain could make this argument regarding drilling for oil because of the huge increase in the price; Obama could do likewise regarding the strategy for the Iraq war because of the increased level of security there. Both will, as candidates do, spin the events to their advantage.

It is up to the voters who actually care about the future of the country to determine which candidate is making the most honorable case. Keeping these guidelines in mind is a good start.

The 21st century energy crisis - and how to solve it

2008-07-18T21:37:00.000-07:00

When a commodity that is the lifeblood of the nation rises to double its usual price in a year, that is cause for alarm, particularly when it was expensive to begin with. I refer, of course, to oil and it is amazing how much nonsense has been spoken about this, usually from the leftists who secretly pine for $10/gallon gasoline to make the Europeans and the animals feel better.

If it were not so tragic, it would be comical to watch Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic Party's nominee for president, speak of solving this problem by investing in energy ideas that might - a big might - bear fruit in ten years, while refusing to even consider the idea of investing in energy ideas - like drilling for oil that we know is there - that could bear fruit in three years. It's fascinating to watch Democrats howl that drilling for oil won't bring the price down immediately, and then in the same breath propose government subsidies for wind and solar power that are in the research stage at best. Interestingly, President Bush rescinded the executive order that forbade oil exploration in certain coastal areas and northern Alaska and the price of crude oil dropped $15 a barrel in two days. Nobody is quite certain how much his action had to do with that, but Democrats assure us that it was irrelevant.

Now while we need new sources of fossil fuel immediately or as close to it as we can get, the left is right to say that new sources of energy must be harnessed for the future. But the obvious candidate - nuclear power - is anathema to Democrats and even some Republicans are leery. It is as though they are all replaying "The China Syndrome" in their heads when they sleep. (For those of you too young to remember when Jane Fonda was attractive, that was a wholly fictional film from the 1970's about a severe nuclear power plant meltdown. Nothing like it has ever happened in the United States.) Nobody died at Three Mile Island and the terrible events at Chernobyl occurred in the Soviet Union, where people were not of sufficient value to incur the expense of installing safeguards.

Nuclear power has proved itself cheap, reliable, largely non-polluting and extremely safe for over 30 years. While there have been accidents in the past, as there are in all human endeavors of any consequence, the safeguards are so extensive that nobody has ever died or been seriously impacted by radiation as a result of an accident. So, since liberals and Democrats cannot point to any actual facts to bolster their obstructionism toward nuclear power, they resort to the mantra, "the threat if something did happen is so great that we can't take a chance." I expect the average person spending $100 a week on gas for his car would look at the track record of the power plants, then look at the hand-wringers on the left, and opt for energy independence and inexpensive electricity, which would also reduce the cost of fossil fuel due to decreased demand.

Actually, there is significant consensus among ordinary Americans in favor of nuclear power.
The only thing stopping us is the incessant cries from the usual suspects in the "mainstream" media about how horrible the idea is and concomitant obstructionism from Democrats in the House and particularly the Senate. Now, if George W. Bush wanted to really do something significant with his last few months in office, it would not be to try to make peace between the Palestinians and the Jews (fat chance). He would stump for all he is worth, with all the facts he can marshall, perhaps with diagrams the way President Reagan used to do it, to create a groundswell demand for an end to the many roadblocks that the leftists throw in front of anyone who wants to build a nuclear power plant. President Bush should issue any executive order that he can to cut through the years of red tape, the environmental nonsense and the perpetual lawsuits that cause realistic investors to just forget such projects. He must make an unceasing noise about how it is Democrats that have created this energy crisis, it is Democrats who refuse to do anything real to solve it except punish the oil companies, it is Democrats who stand in the way of every practical effort to generate more sources of energy, and more Democrat officeholders at the federal level will mean the problem will never be solved. He needs to let the American people in on the dirty secret - Democrats don't want this problem solved in any real way; they want $10/gallon gasoline because it will make their environmentalist masters happy. If Americans really understood how cravenly and maliciously they have been betrayed by the Democratic Party on this issue, they would hopefully rise up and, in the lovely vernacular of politics, "throw the bums out."

Sigh. George W. Bush, for all his staunchness in the war which the terrorists started against us, is not known as a domestic fighter. Maybe he's afraid of Katie Couric. Whatever it is, he'd better get over it and start to take the Democrats on. If he doesn't, he'll hand his administration over to an Obama royal court, with an unbreakable lock on the Senate so that even filibusters will be closed off, and a 5-4 majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. The Republicans won't even be allowed to speak.

That should give any thinking person nightmares.

JDK

War in Iraq

2008-07-15T16:07:00.000-07:00

As I watch the latest gyrations of Sen. Barack Obama from Illinois as he attempts to produce a coherent presidential policy on the war - one that will not enrage his left-wing base and likewise not alienate the rest of the country - I must conclude that he really has no idea of what is going on.

When you get down to it, this is basically a state senator who got thrown in the deep end of the pool in Washington DC a couple of years ago and, while still learning to swim with no bottom underneath, has been treated to the position where he can learn to swim with sharks in the middle of a typhoon. Some people think he's handsome, he can deliver a strong scripted speech, he alleges to be a Christian and he's a family man. If those are qualifications for the most responsible and challenging job in the world, I have several men in my neighborhood who could say as much. Now, others have said this before and been pilloried for it, but facts exist whether we like them or not. If Obama were not black, he would not even have been supported for the nomination, much less become the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Obama proposes to lose the war in Iraq because this is what his left-wing base, the people who have given him $300 million, want him to do. Absent the flowery language and puff pieces from the "mainstream" media, who make no secret that they want a liberal president, all of his various proposals guarantee this outcome. You do not tell your wartime enemy exactly what you are going to do and when unless you want to lose. Set a timetable for withdrawal, and any person with a functioning brain will know that the enemy merely waits you out, confident of victory when the time comes. How this man, who is supposed to be brighter than most as an Ivy League lawyer, along with practically every Democrat leader in the nation, cannot see this obvious truth boggles the mind. Unless, of course, he and they know it just as well as everyone else and are counting on it to insure our defeat. For some reason, liberals do not like it when America wins wars and work diligently to see that we don't. Viet Nam is a case in point.

I am always fascinated by remarks from liberals that go like, "if we had known that Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, we should not have invaded Iraq." Note the mixed tenses, which is a favorite tactic of theirs. Why not say, "if we had known that Adolph Hitler was going to start the worst war in history, we should have sent someone to kill him when he was doing a painting job during his 20's." It's all nonsense. Hindsight is 20/20 and no ordinary human can use it to create policy, but some can learn from history.

The fact is that there was remarkable consensus among intelligence services from many nations that Saddam Hussein was a threat to world peace, such as it was. We went in with what every invading army always has - imperfect intelligence. Something Democrats never mention, as though it is unworthy of comment, is that some six years later, with the lowest loss of American lives in any war in history, 15 million people are free of one of the worst tyrants ever to subjugate his people and they are on their way, in fits and starts and with great discord and imperfection, toward creating a functioning democratic form of government. If they succeed, and they seem determined to do so, theirs will be the only one in the Middle East, except for Israel and Turkey.

Obama will cheerfully throw all this away. His left-wing base will not allow him to do anything else, and without their help he cannot win the presidency. So what's 15 million lives compared to the Democrats taking full control, all three branches, of the United States federal government? It's a matter of priorities.

I have nothing but the highest respect for Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of coalition forces in Iraq. He is our only generally recognized war hero, although there are many among the troops who are never mentioned by our allegedly impartial press. Now, I don't expect him to do this, but I would love to see the following: One week before the general election, Gen. Petraeus goes on national TV (assuming they would give him any time!) and states that, if Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, he will immediately retire from the U.S. Army. His reason will be simple - President Obama will require that he order his troops to engage in actions that will lose the war in Iraq. He will then have the choice to either disobey his commander-in- chief, quite unthinkable - or issue orders to which he strenuously objects in order to achieve an objective that he strongly opposes. He cannot do the first, so he must do the latter.

Like I say, Gen. Petraeus is a man of great honor. I do not expect him to do this. But, in a way, I'm not sure how a man of honor could do anything else.

JDK

Third Parties

2008-07-14T16:55:00.000-07:00

I saw a recent news article about how Rep. Ron Paul was going to have sort of a competing convention at the same time and almost across the street from the Republican National Convention in August and it got me thinking - why would anyone who actually cares about what he says he believes do something that, by its very nature, will, if successful, produce an outcome that is the exact opposite of what he would want.

Ron Paul is a very principled member of Congress from Texas and has decided to run as a third candidate for president this year. Libertarian in viewpoint, he is a good speaker and takes very consistent positions, most of which are conservative except for the typical Libertarian indifference to abortion and homosexual activism. But, he is an isolationist so he's against the war in Iraq. This may draw some votes from both Barack Obama and John McCain, but not enough to give him the presidency. He has to know this; he's a smart man. He also has to know that while Democrats are determined, Republicans are fickle, so the likely outcome of his effort will be to give the election to Obama, an outcome that he should dread, along with every other person who claims to be conservative.

Elections are not so much about government as they are about power; power over other people. So while Ron Paul is apparently pleased to insure that power goes to those who abhor just about everything he stands for, those who might vote for him seem equally indifferent to the actual outcome of the election. People who vote for fringe candidates, while they may have an argument that they are being true to their principles, are guaranteeing victory to the opponent with whom they agree the least. It is one of the most bizarre phenomena in American politics.

Many countries in Europe have a parliamentary system which can function with numerous parties, everyone having a say. But in America, both the Republicans and Democrats are jealous of their power, and while they may not cooperate on anything much that would do the American people any good, they have together created a system in which it is almost impossible for a third party to prosper to any extent. Yes, there are one or two members of Congress from third parties, and I believe a senator or two, but no third party has ever captured the presidency since Republicans and Democrats became the two major parties. Former president Theodore Roosevelt tried to run as a third party candidate after losing the Republican Party nomination to Robert Taft in 1912. His candidacy doomed Taft precisely because of his popularity, and Democrat Woodrow Wilson took the prize. More recently, H. Ross Perot ran as a conservative third party candidate and gave TWO elections to Bill Clinton. There are those of us who believe that he did us no favors there.

So, my friends, if you intend to vote, please vote responsibly. We have five candidates for president now that I know of who could take a sizable number of votes in this election - the two major party candidates, Ron Paul who will siphon votes from the Republicans, Bob Barr, who will siphon votes from the Republicans, and Ralph Nader who will siphon votes from the Democrats. In addition, if you look carefully at your ballot this November, you'll see a whole line of names of people almost nobody but their relatives ever heard of seeking the presidency.

But this is a two-party system. The Democrats and Republicans have rigged it that way using tactics too arcane to discuss here. There are only two candidates who matter - Obama and McCain. If you are conservative and don't think McCain is conservative enough, voting for your favorite "real" conservative will put a hardcore liberal in the White House. If you are liberal and don't think Obama is liberal enough, same thing on the other side.

This election is critical for a host of reasons, not least the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court and whatever progress we hope to make in the war Islamic terrorists started against us. I urge you to vote, but not to throw your vote away by guaranteeing victory to your worst nightmare.

JDK

Righteous Government

2008-07-11T09:38:00.000-07:00

Some years ago, as a radio talk show host, I began to take a message to churches in the Miami, Florida area about a subject I called Righteous Government. I have attached an mp3 version of one of them to this post. By clicking the phrase "Righteous Government #3 - Righteous Government" above the "Gabcast" icon, you will be taken to a link where you can click "play" to listen to most of the 30 minute presentation.

Now, understand that this material is rather dated in some ways. You will note that there is some discussion of an effort to convene a second Constitutional Convention, supposedly for a limited purpose but which many people believed would be a vehicle to materially change many key provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Blessedly, that effort failed and the nation survived.

Nevertheless, as I listen to it again, I am amazed at just how relevant words spoken twenty years ago remain. Righteous Government is still defined as "public policy that agrees in principle with God's Holy Word and the election to office of those with that as their agenda." Likewise, righteousness with respect to our civil government consists of four things - 1) Register to Vote, 2) Register in the political party where you believe God would be pleased to have you register, 3) Be informed about the character and positions on issues of the day of those who will be on your voter's ballot, 4) Vote at every legal opportunity. For Christians, a fifth element would be to pray earnestly to God that He, using His own standards as to who is what, would exalt the righteous and cast down the wicked.

If you choose to listen to the address, I'd be interested to get a comment on the material. Just click the comments option below the post to do so.

Gabcast! Righteous Government #3 - Righteous Government

Address before a church in Miami in 1988

What the major political parties stand for.

2008-07-10T11:33:00.000-07:00

In this political year, with all the presidential hoopla, facts readily become swept away by hype. Presidential candidates become invested with the most astonishing power - the ability to drop the price of gas by $2.00 a gallon, the ability to insure that every American has a perfect healthcare plan that costs virtually nothing, the ability to make every child above average in terms of educational achievement - to decree peace, establish justice, ensure a good job for everyone and eliminate rain on weekends.

People actually buy this stuff, which is why the cynical professionals in the ad business keep it up. But if you want to know where the parties stand on the real issues of the day, you have to read the platforms. Ugh! Page after page of endless self congratulation, bashing the other guy, declaring that only "they" can solve the problems of the day. Forget it, back to the ads with the pretty girls (or boys)!

So, as a public service, I decided to slog through this stuff to distill from the two major parties, Democrats and Republicans, perhaps 500 words of actual content in each of the platforms. This material is what they actually believe and what they actually plan to do regarding the major issues of the day. You can read what they have to say in 5 minutes. I hope you do.

Now, these are the platforms for 2000. But not to worry. Neither party has changed its stance on a major issue for many years and it is unlikely that either one will deviate much when they release their new platforms in August. If they do, I'll let you know.

Democratic Party - Key Positions

Note: All Caps headlines are not part of the platform. Words in [ ] are supplied for clarity. All other words on this sheet are verbatim from the "2000 National Democratic Platform” adopted August 15, 2000 containing 24,300 words. Issues are arranged alphabetically.

ABORTION - The Democratic Party stands behind the right of every woman to choose [abortion], consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of ability to pay.

CAMPAIGN REFORM - [Democrats] will insist on tough new lobbying reform, publicly-guaranteed TV time for debates and advocacy by candidates, and a crackdown on special interest issue ads.

EDUCATION - What America needs are public schools that compete with one another and are held accountable for results, not private school vouchers that drain resources from public schools and hand over the public's hard-earned tax dollars to private schools with no accountability.

GUN CONTROL - We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America.

HATE CRIMES - are more than assaults on people, they are assaults on the very idea of America. They should be punished with extra force. Protections should include hate violence based on gender, disability or sexual orientation. And the Republican Congress should stop standing in the way of this pro-civil rights, anti-crime legislation.

HEALTH CARE - Universal Health Coverage. We should guarantee access to affordable health care for every child in America.

HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS - We support continued efforts, like the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, to end workplace discrimination against gay men and lesbians. We support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of the nation. This would include an equitable alignment of benefits.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS - We also want to reverse the widening gap between rich and poor and nations, which is why Al Gore and the Democratic Party back debt forgiveness for the world's poorest nations.

STEM CELL RESEARCH - We should allow stem cell research to make important new discoveries.

TERRORISM: While fighting terrorism, we will protect the civil liberties of all Americans. Our justice system must guarantee fairness with procedures that protect the rights of the accused, even under the unusual circumstances of the investigation of threats to our national security. We must avoid stereotyping, for it defeats the highest purposes of our country if citizens feel automatically suspect by virtue of their ethnic origin

Republican Party - Key Positions

Note: All Caps headlines are not part of the platform. Words in [ ] are supplied for clarity. All other words on this sheet are verbatim from the “Republican Platform 2000” which was adopted August 3, 2000 and contained 34,653 words. Issues are arranged alphabetically.

ABORTION - We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

ABSTINENCE - Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS, when transmitted sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for contraception and abortion

CAMPAIGN REFORM - We affirm the right of individuals to voluntarily participate in labor organizations and to bargain collectively. We therefore support the right of states to enact Right-to-Work laws. No one should be forced to contribute to a campaign or a candidate, so we will vigorously implement the Supreme Court’s Beck decision to stop the involuntary use of union dues for political purposes.

EDUCATION - Children should not be compelled to answer offensive or intrusive questionnaires. We will continue to work for the return of voluntary school prayer to our schools and will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups. We strongly support voluntary student-initiated prayer in school without governmental interference.

GUN CONTROL - Although we support background checks to ensure that guns do not fall into the hands of criminals, we oppose federal licensing of law-abiding gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.

HEALTH CARE - We will extend... protections to non-profit organizations — churches, civic and community groups, and the volunteers who sustain them. To reduce health care costs and keep doctors practicing in critical areas like obstetrics, we will reform medical malpractice law on the federal level and urge decisive action on the state level as well.

INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS - Negotiate reductions in tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and the elimination of other trade barriers so that our autos, heavy machinery, textiles, and other products will no longer be shut out of foreign markets.

PORNOGRAPHY - Federal obscenity and child pornography laws, especially crimes involving the Internet, must be vigorously enforced... We urge States to follow the lead of congressional Republicans by making admissible in court the prior similar criminal acts of defendants in sexual assault cases.

STEM CELL RESEARCH - With the enormous increase in resources for biomedical research comes accountability for its use, as well as responsibility to maintain the highest ethical standards. We applaud congressional Republicans for the steps they have taken for protection of human embryos and against human cloning, the trafficking in fetal tissue organs, and related abuses.

You will note that each party does not necessarily address the same subject. If there is no corresponding headline from one issue to the next, it's because that party simply didn't address the issue. Remember these were published in mid 2000, over a year before the atrocity of 9-11.

So don't just listen to the candidates and their sound bites. This is what they and their party are invested in. If elected, this is what they will do if they can. Count on it.

How close are we to the end?

2008-07-09T13:34:00.000-07:00

A favorite pastime among Christians has always been the endless discussion of "the end times." Frankly, I have always thought that even if I knew the exact moment of Christ's return to earth, it would not help one bit with my problems with anger or gossip. I have always thought that Christianity should be focused on more practical matters, like how to deal with such things so that one has a better testimony and a more productive life.

But today, storm clouds are gathering that one must admit are unmistakable. The world today is more precarious than at anytime in my life history, and I include several decades of the Cold War in that assessment. As we look at events in the Middle East, I am reminded of something said by a wise speaker at a church service I attended back around 1986 or so. While commenting on some other topic, he seemed to stop, reflect for a moment, and then said, "the Soviet Union must fall so that the Anti-Christ can rise." That is a quote; I remember it like yesterday. As we all know, not four years later, again to quote, this time the brilliant political commentator Bill Kristol, "God cleared His throat, and the Soviet Union was gone."

Now we are seeing the rise of something sinister that could probably not have happened in its current form while the Soviet Union was master of most of Asia - militant Islam. And for those Americans who are paying attention, the situation in the Middle East could not be more tense. Regardless of calming words from diplomats and others who are paid to pretend that all is well, the area is a powder keg. This is because Iran is presided over by a group of extremist Muslims, and one of them is a religious fanatic called Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad is a Shiite true believer, someone who fervently believes that somewhere in the world is a supernatural personage called "the 12th Imam" who shall bring forth the triumph of radical Islam and vanquish western civilization forever. Every indication I have about this man is that he is a true and sincere believer in this outcome of world history and that makes him perhaps the most dangerous man on earth.

While the Soviet Union was ruled by reasonably pragmatic Communists and megalomaniacs like Kim Jong Il, dictator of North Korea, and Victor Chavez, so-called president of Venezuela, at least live in the real world, Ahmadinejad is motivated by nothing but his religious zeal, and there appears to be nobody in the ruling clique of Iran who is likely to oppose him on this point.

My perception of Ahmadinejad is that he is truly devoted to bringing forth this "12th Imam" and he intends to do it by starting a nuclear war. Once Iran has a tested, functional nuclear bomb and once they have a tested, functional way to deliver by missile, I believe that Ahmadinejad will use it the following Tuesday, without any warning or threats, against Israel. Absent a miracle from God, the carnage will be virtually unprecedented and (unless Obama is president) the United States will have to respond. Since our ability wipe Iran off the map with nuclear weapons is indisputable, should we decide to retaliate the only hope for Iran is the miraculous appearance of this "12th Imam" who will burst upon the scene, save Iran and its brave leaders, and forever destroy the United States through supernatural power.

I am quite certain that Ahmadinejad believes that this will happen just as I've described it. If he, in fact, does believe this, his first use of his nuclear weapon would make a poetic sort of sense, at least in his mind. The fact that his hoped-for triumphal outcome will occur only if God has in fact died is no kind of deterrent, since people act on perceived truth, not what is actually true, unless the two completely coincide. If I am right in this (and I would be enormously relieved to discover that I am totally wrong), Ahmadinejad will continue to play nice negotiation games with the clueless European Union, stalling for time, making promises, breaking them, asking for another chance, trying to wrest more concessions from them as if he really cared what their response is - all to achieve his real end: a functional, deliverable nuclear weapon which he will use immediately.

Any of you who are inclined to pray that God will intervene before the mushroom cloud appears over an Israeli city, I encourage you to do so along with me.

JDK