Isn't it enormously ironic that Barack Obama now finds himself the unintended beneficiary of the Iraq surge that he so vocally -- and wrongly -- opposed?

It seems that Obama's untimely calls for a withdrawal timetable have lingered long enough to have some merit in the eyes of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel, a German magazine, that U.S. troops should withdraw from Iraq "as soon as possible, as far as we are concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Assuming al-Maliki said it, and there has been some dispute, it doesn't make Obama right -- even now. But it's hard to imagine al-Maliki would be saying anything helpful to Obama's campaign today if the United States had followed Obama's disgraceful surrender policy instead of implementing the surge in 2007 -- over his strenuous objections.

Obama Democrats have been adamantly opposed to our intervention in Iraq from the beginning, including when they voted for it for political expediency and then later claimed they were duped into it.

One would have hoped that Barack Obama's presumptive capturing of the Democratic presidential nomination would have dampened the mainstream media's obsession with race, but instead, they've figured out a way to obsess even further about it since Obama's putative victory.

You almost can't read election headlines in a major newspaper without some reference to race issues. Earlier this week, Google News featured three back-to-back stories in its "Elections" section highlighting race:

"McCain looks to make gains among black voters," "Race, Foreign-Policy Plant Doubts for Obama" and "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race."

The last one is a New York Times article analyzing results from the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. It proves the Times just can't let race go, whether it's because of the liberal guilt of its reporters and editors or because they want to keep the racial pot stirred for purposes of newspaper sales or because they deem racial polarization advantageous to Obama.

The story's lead paragraph reads: "Americans are sharply divided by race heading into the first election in which an African-American will be a major-party presidential nominee, with blacks and whites holding vastly different views of Senator Barack Obama, the state of race relations and how black Americans are treated by society, according to the ... poll."

If liberal journalists had just a little more intellectual honesty and an ounce of intellectual freedom, they could first recognize, then report, that there do not appear to be similar feelings of race alienation among whites as there are among blacks. Yet the Times article, including its title, implies there is complete mutuality.

The Times admits that part of the "polarization" is political but says the poll also "underlined the racial discord." For example, "More than 80 percent of black voters said they had a favorable opinion of Mr. Obama; about 30 percent of white voters said they had a favorable opinion of him."

But how does the 80/30 dichotomy necessarily support the Times' conclusion that it's a result of racial discord? As to the 80 percent of blacks supporting Obama, even some black conservatives are suggesting they are attracted to his candidacy -- mystifying as that is -- because he would be the first black president (apologies to Bill Clinton). As conservative black Michael Steele said on "Hannity & Colmes" recently, this "is not rocket science." Obama could be "elected the first African-American president of the United States."

But the dubious 30 percent favorable rating among whites, even if accurate, can't automatically be attributed to Obama's race. Obama is an extreme liberal who is running in a center-right nation and has insulted a large part of America's population with his Bittergate remarks and attended a church whose pastor condemned America. While the latter involves a racial component, it issues from Obama and his former church, not from whites.

The Times also quoted a black Pennsylvania Democratic poll participant implying that whites oppose Obama's candidacy because they want to stay in power: "Basically it's the same old problem, the desire for power. People get so obsessed with power and don't want to share it. There are people who are not used to blacks being on top."

What is bizarre about this is that Obama is not only the nominee but also the odds-on favorite to win the general election in a nation whose voters are overwhelmingly white. If the media must dwell on race, why can't they celebrate Obama's so-far-successful candidacy?

It's sad that these liberals are compelled to view this race through a racial prism instead of understanding that the lion's share of any opposition to Obama is based on his politics, his record and experience, his flip-flops, his statements, his arrogance and his associations, not his race.

If Obama wins, conservatives won't view him as a black president, but as a liberal one. His race is irrelevant to us, unless he and others start making everything about race and forfeit any strides we've made or aspirations we retain on colorblindness.

Race relations could improve immeasurably if the liberal establishment would quit treating minorities as exploitable objects instead of equal human beings.

If the liberal media's approach to Obama's candidacy is any indication, we'll rarely read a race-free story during Obama's term if he is elected. No matter what liberal dogma preaches, that cannot be good for blacks, other minorities or race relations in this country.

Sunday July 20, 2008 will likely be a fairly typical summer day in America. People will get up, go to Church, and maybe hold a barbeque in the back yard. Perhaps the more industrious amongst us will wash the family car. Calmness, serenity, and above all, normality will rule the day. And in a way, that is an awful shame.

Thirty nine years ago on that date (also a Sunday), the nation was anything but normal. Americans huddled around their TV sets and radios, listening to the almost unintelligible exchange of technical jargon, watching crude network animations, trying desperately to comprehend the unfolding events a quarter of a million miles away. Few realized just how close the mission was to total failure, with only seconds of fuel remaining in the spacecraft.

Then, at 4:53 pm eastern time, after a heart-stopping momentary hush, an eight word message, crisp, clear, and easily discernable, crackled across the void of space and into the homes and businesses of anxiously awaiting Americans. Eight words that, from that day forward, might well have irrefutably defined the course of this nation, its history, and its legacy in terms of “before” and “after.” “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” In the aftermath of Neil Armstrong’s brief declaration, some aspects of life on earth would be changed forever.

During the following twenty one hours, a fantastic drama unfolded as Armstrong set foot on the moon, accompanied a few moments later by his co-pilot Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin. A crude black-and-white television transmission allowed earthlings to share in the occasion, as the astronauts collected samples, raised the American flag over lunar soil, and talked with the President via telephone from the Oval Office. Finally they launched their spacecraft back towards their awaiting colleague overhead for the journey home.

Even in the midst of the massive parades and celebrations that characterized America’s immediate response to the successful Apollo mission, its larger significance as a defining event of the Cold-War escaped the comprehension of many. During the years since, this aspect of the “Space Race” between America and the Soviet Union has been all but erased from consideration. Yet, as an event no less pivotal in its age than was the D-Day invasion of Normandy in World War II, the significance of Project Apollo cannot be overstated.

Ultimately, man’s journey to the moon entailed not just the skill and courage of the three astronauts who flew the mission, but rather was the summation of American technical expertise and commitment to the cause. Thus, the feats of Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin, and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins represented a pivotal moment in a life or death struggle against Soviet Russia for technological dominance of the world. It was in that realm, far more than in the arena of the traditional military battle, that the encounters of the Cold War would be fought, and its outcome decided.

Barely a dozen years prior, the gauntlet of this conflict had been thrown down by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. On October 4, 1957, the world was electrified by the Soviet announcement that it had successfully orbited the world’s first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. Visible from earth, it sailed dispassionately through the night skies with a menacing silence that at once promised greater horizons for humanity, accompanied by the appalling threat that such a future might be realized in a world under the iron fisted dominion of the Soviet Union.

America’s technological superiority, unquestioned at the close of the Second World War as it ushered in the atomic age, was now seriously in jeopardy. Not only had the Soviets managed to appropriate the secrets of the atomic bomb within five years of its invention, with the advent of Sputnik and the advances in rocketry it represented, they were quite possibly equipped to deliver a nuclear warhead, via intercontinental ballistic missile, to selected targets within the United States.

The future of the entire free world would thus be determined by the arms race, the space race, and ultimately the moon race that ensued. And in the dark days immediately following news of Sputnik, an American win was by no means assured. In truth, the Soviets had every intention of beating America to the moon, having even chosen their premier Cosmonaut, Alexi Leonov, to fly the mission.

However, several catastrophic space-hardware failures during the 1960s eventually rendered their chances for success a virtual impossibility. Meanwhile, America had risen to the occasion, inspired by President John Kennedy’s momentous May 25, 1961 speech in which he challenged the nation to achieve a manned moon landing before the end of the decade.

Apollo 11, derided by the Soviets as technologically insignificant, excessively expensive and indifferent to the suffering of common citizens (an indictment immediately echoed by America’s leftists and eventually accepted and carried by the nation’s liberal media), was nonetheless the crowning jewel of that challenge.

So on that twentieth of July thirty nine years ago, America did indeed realize a decisive victory in the Cold War. American heroism and greatness was on display. Flags were flying then. And they should be flown every July 20 lest we ever forget.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, or as she is called on the Big Dogs blog, "the worst speaker in the history of Congress," explained the cause of high oil prices back in 2006: "We have two oilmen in the White House. The logical follow-up from that is $3-a-gallon gasoline. It is no accident. It is a cause and effect. A cause and effect."

Yes, that would explain why the price of oral sex, cigars and Hustler magazine skyrocketed during the Clinton years. Also, I note that Speaker Pelosi is a hotelier ... and the price of a hotel room in New York is $1,000 a night! I think she might be onto something.

Is that why a barrel of oil costs mere pennies in all those other countries in the world that are not run by "oilmen"? Wait -- it doesn't cost pennies to them? That's weird.

In response to the 2003 blackout throughout the Northeast U.S. and parts of Canada, Pelosi blamed: "President Bush and Rep. Tom DeLay's oil-company interests." The blackout was a failure of humans operating electric power; it had nothing to do with oil. And I'm not even "an oilman."

But yes -- good point: What a disaster having people in government who haven't spent their entire lives in politics! That explains everything. A government official with relevant experience or knowledge about an issue is obviously a crisis of gargantuan proportions.

Announcing the Democrats' bold new "plan" on energy last week, Pelosi said breaking into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve "is one alternative." That's not an energy plan. It's using what we already have -- much like "conservation," which is also part of the Democrats' plan.

Conservation, efficiency and using oil we hold in reserve for emergencies does not get us more energy. It's as if we were running out of food and the Democrats were telling us: "Just eat a little less every day." Great! We'll die a little more slowly. That's not what we call a "plan." We need more energy, not a plan for a slower death.

But there's more! Pelosi announced that the Democrats also plan to push for "an historic investment in biofuels, efficiency, conservation and the rest." The "rest" is apparently what she called our "important and essential" investment in alternative energy.

That certainly would be historic: We would make history by throwing our money away on unproven energy boondoggles that have eaten up untold billions since the 1960s without producing a single net kilowatt of power while we all starve to death.

The proposal to use energy sources that don't yet produce any energy is like the old New Yorker cartoon with Obama in Muslim garb -- no wait, that was a different cartoon. The cartoon is: A scientist has written out his extremely complicated theory on a blackboard and is showing it to another scientist. The theory consists of numbers and characters and takes up the entire blackboard. About two-thirds of the way across, reading left to right, appear the words, "then a miracle happens," followed by more numbers and characters.

That's the Democrats' plan to run cars on biofuels, solar and wind power: Then a miracle happens. The current Democratic mantra on energy is: "We can't drill our way out of this problem." Apparently their plan is to talk our way out of this problem.

Democrats are also alleging that the oil companies are sitting on millions of acres of oil but are refusing to drill -- presumably because oil company executives hate the American people and perversely don't want to make money. Manifestly, those acres are being explored for oil or have already come up dry.

If the Democrats really wanted oil companies to find more oil, they'd allow oil companies to drill offshore and to drill in ANWR, which we happen to know is bursting with oil.

But they don't. They don't want drilling. They don't want more oil. They want humans to ride bicycles and then to die. We deserve it: We were mean to the polar bears.

It's good to know that in the middle of a crisis, the Democrats are still liars. As long as we're fantasizing about "alternative" energy sources, what we really need is a car that runs on Democrats' lies.

I can't pinpoint the precise date I met Tony Snow, but I remember it was over the telephone. We talked about one of his passions: radio. And we became fast friends. From that point on, we talked every few months, until about three or four months ago when I could only get his voice mail.

I knew something was up because he was always good about returning calls. Still, I probably would have chalked it up to his busy schedule, except that I read news reports that he was forced to cancel a number of speeches because of illness.

I remember e-mailing a few mutual friends: Lucianne Goldberg and Kathryn Lopez. Both shared similar concerns, but we were all cautiously relieved when follow-up news stories reported Tony was OK.

I had no idea Tony had taken a turn for the worse, so the news of his death Saturday completely shocked me. The last time I talked to Tony about his disease, he was entirely upbeat and optimistic.

In retrospect, I have to wonder whether he wasn't sparing some of his friends the extent of his illness because he never wanted to dwell on himself and certainly was never seeking sympathy.

Some say Obama's critics have taken their eye off the ball in focusing on his associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, thus giving his far-left policies a pass. But that's a false choice.

Those criticisms would have more validity but for the fact that Obama's associations and his approach to policy are inextricably intertwined, flowing from a particular -- and consistent -- mindset.

It's no accident that Obama sat for 20 years and had his children baptized in a church whose pastor revved up his congregation by denouncing America with expletives, that he had a working relationship with a professor who expressed pride in his past anti-American terrorism, or even that his wife admitted a first-time pride in the United States with the advent of her husband's electoral success.

Repeated references to Obama's close connections with these people and others are not drive-by attacks designed to incriminate Obama merely by association. Their purpose is to shine a spotlight on Obama to help determine whether he embraces or is sympathetic to the same negative views about America as his soul mates.

When you couple Obama's associations with his many statements and policies, a disturbing picture emerges, suggesting Obama might lack a robust pride in America -- at least in what he considers to be its present state. This point was driven home again this week, as Obama expressed "embarrassment" that American children can't speak foreign languages while European children can speak English.

Last Friday, on the Fourth of July, the great patriot Jesse Helms passed away. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson also went to their great reward on Independence Day, so this is further proof of God.

Helms is now the second great American patriot I've always wanted to meet and never will, at least in this lifetime. The only other one is the magnificent Reagan aide Lyn Nofziger. (Wikipedia quote: "I sometimes lie awake at night trying to think of something funny that Richard Nixon said.")

After a week of hundreds of Helms obituaries -- one or two of which were not completely dishonest -- I will mention just a few items that were not addressed or given sufficient attention.

The two most obsessively discussed topics among Senate staffers are: (1) Who is the stupidest senator? (Sen. Barbara Boxer pulled into the lead when Sen. Lincoln Chafee retired), and (2) which senators are beastly and which are wonderful to their staff?

When I worked in the Senate in the '90s, the two senators famous for being absolute princes to work for were Sen. Helms and -- it pains me to tell you this, so you know it has to be true -- Sen. Teddy Kennedy. (He was so nice to his staffers, he frequently offered them rides home in his car after parties.)

I never knew -- and you never knew, unless you read one of the two honest obituaries this past week -- that in 1962 Helms and his wife "Dot" adopted a 9-year-old orphan with cerebral palsy. They already had two daughters and Helms was 41 years old at the time. But it was Christmastime and they read about Charlie in a newspaper. He said all he wanted for Christmas was a mother and father.

In the 1976 North Carolina Republican primary, Helms engineered Ronald Reagan's upset victory over Gerald Ford, the sitting president. That victory carried Reagan to the convention and made him the front-runner in 1980. The night Reagan won the 1980 presidential election, Helms famously uttered the beautiful words: "God has given America one more chance."

Shockingly, Hunt also received a donation from Arthur Sulzberger, publisher of the nonpartisan, totally objective, straight-down-the-middle New York Times. Which I guess explains the nasty obituary last week.

Meanwhile, Helms received contributions mostly from America's two most dangerous fringe groups: housewives and businessmen. His few celebrity supporters included Gene Autry and Ellin Berlin, wife of composer Irving Berlin, the patriotic Jewish immigrant who wrote "White Christmas" and "God Bless America."

Other Republicans loved to run in years when Helms was up for election because, like a Marine exposing himself to enemy fire to let his comrades escape, all the Hollywood money would be dedicated to defeating Helms.

On election night 1984, a friend of mine was at a Republican victory party in Michigan when suddenly a group of Hasidim broke out in cheering and dancing. Was "Fiddler on the Roof" being made into a major motion picture? He looked up at the mammoth TV screen. It read: "Jesse Helms Wins North Carolina."

Helms was viciously and falsely portrayed as a racist -- including in the totally objective New York Times obituary last week. In January 1963, a decade before Helms would run for office, he editorialized about Harvey Gantt, the first black student to be admitted to Clemson University in South Carolina.

Helms praised Gantt to the skies, saying he had "stoutly resisted the pose of a conquering hero" and had "turned away from the liberal press and television networks which would glorify him." Gantt, Helms said, just wanted to be an architect and "Clemson is the only college in South Carolina that can teach him how to be one."

Funny how that little tidbit didn't make the Times obituary. They must have cut it for "space."

Helms was for integration; he was simply against "movements." He would later hire James Meredith, who was the first black to attend the University of Mississippi -- with the assistance of federal troops. By 1989, Meredith's views had come around to those of Helms, not the other way around.

After years of reading and studying and attending law school at Columbia University, Meredith concluded that blacks had been better off when they worked for themselves and not for white liberals. (Having worked for white liberals myself, I couldn't agree more.) Meredith claimed Helms fired him as domestic policy adviser after a year because he was too right-wing for Helms.

Which reminds me: I'll have to try to meet Meredith before the next Fourth of July.

Liberals discount Helms' hiring of Meredith on the grounds that Meredith had wandered off the reservation. (Blacks are allowed to have only one set of political views.) It just shows you how stupid liberals are: Blacks don't live on reservations; Indians do.

It's pretty much the same thing liberals are accusing B. Hussein Obama of right now. In its July 4 editorial, the Times harangued Obama for his diversions from the liberal line on Iraq, the domestic surveillance bill, capital punishment and guns. I believe the editorial was titled something like, "Get in Line, N-word."

To paraphrase Dan Quayle, to be called a racist by these people is a badge of honor. Rest in peace, Jesse Helms: New York Times stock was recently lowered to a notch above junk bond status.

How long can Congressional Democrats hope to continue their anti-capitalist, anti-American agenda without facing accountability from the voting public? Current indicators are that they intend to hold firm on their signature issues, believing that the public will simply not recognize the correlation between their actions of recent years, and the horrendous economic fallout that ensued as a direct result. And nowhere can this relationship be seen more clearly than in the skyrocketing energy prices currently threatening to squeeze the vitality from the American middle class.

Simple economics, the principles of which are becoming painfully apparent to every American who stops to fill up the family sedan, dictate that when disproportionate multitudes of customers have to compete for a limited supply of fossil fuels, prices will rise. Thus all of the liberal/environmentalist efforts to curtail the availability of the world’s oil, specifically by hamstringing America’s ability to exploit its own natural resources, have only succeeded in driving up the cost of those resources for all who want or need them.

Concurrently, liberals are showcasing their disingenuousness by making two distinctly disparate claims regarding the economic repercussions of their actions. On the one hand, they castigate market speculators as the ultimate culprits of the current price spike. Yet in the very next breath, they deny any possible immediate benefits from renewed exploration, drilling and production by Americans. Rather, they insist that any advantage from expanded supplies would not be realized for at least a decade, as if those evil speculators could somehow remain totally blind to consequent changes in the oil market until newly produced American gasoline is running in the streets.

Even a cursory examination of the many contributing economic factors reveals how the current prices of diesel fuel and gasoline are being artificially inflated, and who is ultimately to blame for the problem. And the picture is not pretty.

From a worldwide perspective, the “free market” would currently yield a much lower price for a barrel of oil than recent numbers which exceed one hundred forty dollars. This fact being well understood among oil producing nations, particularly in the Middle East, where major oil producers banded together to form the infamous “Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries” or OPEC.

Under its auspices, participating nations agree to non-market driven limitations in their oil production, thus ensuring that any losses in profit from volume sales would be offset by increases in profit margins. This often tenuous agreement has at times completely collapsed, specifically when a member nation determines that it can reap significantly larger profits from selling a much higher volume at a lower price. Yet with worldwide demands as high as they currently are, the accord remains stable.

In essence, an artificial “monopoly” has been created among the member nations, whereby they can unilaterally determine what the rest of the world will pay for its energy needs. But for this monopoly to survive and thrive, it requires the defacto cooperation of all other parties involved. Perhaps the most infuriating aspect of this situation is that such “cooperation” is effectively coming from the Democrat controlled Congress of the United States.

By stubbornly refusing any consideration of exploring, drilling, and thus expanding American oil production, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-CA) and Senate Majority Harry Reid (D.-NV) along with their Democrat political machine in Washington, are effectively forcing the entire American oil industry into the role of collaborating OPEC members. In a sinister sense, America is officially refusing to increase the world production of oil, thus strengthening the OPEC monopoly and its ability to deliberately inflate the price of crude oil.

It makes no difference when paying the bill at the gas pump that Pelosi, Reid, and their liberal political cohorts are claiming to do their deed for the sake of the planet, as opposed to the Arab nations who simply want to maximize profits. The end product is the same. Americans are senselessly forced to crunch their personal budgets in order to keep the family car rolling.

Elsewhere around the world, the predictable fallout from liberal policy making hits much harder. Food prices are soaring, both as a result of higher costs to grow and transport edible crops, along with the insane practice of sapping food supplies in order to use basic grains for the production of ethanol in a dubious scheme to supplement gas supplies.

Meanwhile, those most responsible for the current energy calamity offer only environmental sanctimony, entwined in the hoax of “global warming,” as their justification.

However, some current signs indicate that the public may have grown wise to the environmentalist charade, which could produce an enormous backlash in the coming elections, if those on the right side of the issue have the wherewithal to properly portray the situation. The latest Rasmussen poll shows that public approval of Congress has dropped to the unbelievable number of nine percent. This represents the first ever dip into single digits since such polls were taken.

In other words, the American public is no longer buying the flowery liberal rhetoric and its empty promises of environmental utopia that somehow always degenerates into higher costs, less freedom, and of course, larger tax revenues for career politicians and their bureaucratic legions. Instead, the people of the heartland see an accelerating decay of their lifestyles and diminishing prospects of a better future for their children.

Congressional Democrats are banking on their ability to deflect scrutiny on the cause and effect relationship of their political alliances and resulting policies, along with the horrendous consequences reaped by middle America, at least until after the November elections. However, the public has begun to grasp the painful realities of the Democrat ruse, and is in no mood to accept any more of it.

America’s families suffer a loss of buying power, and American workers are barred from gainful employment among the abundant natural resources that exist across this land and just off its shores. In response, Representative Maxine Waters (D.-CA) expresses her desire for the government to nationalize the oil industry, and Democrat presidential hopeful Barack Obama reveals his contempt for middle America, which he believes is excessively lavish in its lifestyles and use of energy resources.

Consequently, even at this late date, a bold and aggressive Republican campaign offensive can properly characterize this issue along partisan lines, and put the Democrats to flight. On the other hand, if the average voter can successfully be prevented from “connecting the dots” for the remainder of the election season, Democrat ranks in the House and Senate will swell, and their hold on power will be cemented for the foreseeable future.

While everyone is focusing on Barack Obama's shifting positions on issues such as campaign finance, NAFTA, telecom immunity and Iraq, we're missing his incursion into enemy territory to capture those reviled, though politically coveted values voters.

His recent proposal to adopt a modified version of President Bush's faith-based initiative is just another piece of his strategic plan to seduce evangelical voters to his cause.

Obama is aiming for a threefer: wooing values voters, reconciling with small-town Americans, and neutralizing the taint of Jeremiah Wright and turning the religious issue into a net plus for his campaign. Hey, no one says this guy is politically naive.

You see, most liberals aren't really concerned about the intermixture of church and state unless it involves the Christian church, and only then if it involves the promotion of biblically based ideas and values. They have no problem with the government's endorsement of the values of other religions, New Age, or secular humanism. Even the state's or politicians' endorsement of nominally Christian values don't bother them, as long as they are watered down enough to detach them from any legitimate connection to Bible-centered Christianity and reframed to embrace the secular liberal worldview.

So while liberals complain hysterically when social conservatives cite Scripture, praise Jesus, or oppose same sex-marriage or abortion, they swoon over liberal politicians who interpret Jesus' many exhortations to care for the poor as a mandate for socialism. Commingling church and state is fine as long as it's in furtherance of the liberal political agenda.

To be sure, some on the far secular left are complaining about Obama's recent emphasis on faith, but most liberals have no objection to it because they suspect Obama's brand of Christian values is not remotely threatening to their secular ones -- which says it all, does it not? Even Obama's faith-based program ensures that the federal government can only provide funds to faith-based groups if they agree to use the money for secular programs.

In the words of the Rev. Leanne Tigert: "Obama has really opened up an avenue for many of us 'progressive people of faith' that says you don't speak for us. We are people of faith; we are pro-choice, pro-gay/lesbian equality, civil rights. … He's giving us a voice." Dr. Albert Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, aptly described Obama's values agenda as "secularism with a smile."

Obama believes faith should be used to "bring us together" instead of to "driv(e) us apart," apparently impervious to Jesus' admonition that the truth will divide us.

Indeed, based on his public statements, it seems that Obama's Christianity is stripped of its unique claims and diluted into a universalistic, pluralistic hodgepodge of meaninglessness. For Obama, Jesus isn't the only way, but just one of many ways to God.

All but the fringe left will realize that Obama's faith overtures are the fulfillment of the left's dream to win back values voters, who have been voting Republican at least since Ronald Reagan.

Obama's efforts represent the culmination of the Democrats' grand scheme, engineered by linguistics professor George Lakoff, to repackage their policies in values terminology to appeal to Christian voters without really changing those policies they find objectionable.

It was Lakoff who suggested that Democrats spin "out in a new morality play in which everything, from Social Security to the driest spending cuts, is cast in terms of right and wrong," and "Democrats are freely quoting the Bible."

I suppose we can say then, with no small irony, that "the messiah" has become a disciple -- a disciple of George Lakoff's, en route to accomplishing what liberal columnist E.J. Dionne described as "a New Reformation that is disentangling a great religious movement from a partisan political machine." Or to put it another way, trustbusting the GOP's reputed monopoly on values voters.

Christian conservatives have plenty of cause for concern over these developments, but there is a hint of a silver lining to this story. The Washington Times has reported that pro-life black pastors are becoming wary of Obama's policies, especially on abortion.

Perhaps the pastors' disenchantment could lead to greater scrutiny of Obama's calculated strategy to win over Christian voters, along with eye-opening revelations about what he really believes and what values he is actually trying to promote. We can only pray.

Sen. Barack Obama spoke on the subject of patriotism this past week in an effort to undo some of the damage he has already inflicted on his own image -- through his associations, his statements and policy positions -- and to obscure his liberalism.

Liberals rightly feel defensive about their patriotism because they always seem to find themselves blaming the United States for this or that, exhorting us to be more like the "enlightened" nations of Europe or forever shouting that we are a "laughing stock" in the eyes of other nations.

It was not a conservative who wrote in an editorial this week: "Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time. This year, America doesn't deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement. For we have sinned."

It was Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Chris Satullo, who, like so many liberals, is angry at America because he sees it as standing for torturing prisoners, imprisoning enemy combatants without hearings, rendition and other denials of human rights. According to Satullo, America isn't safer because our alleged abuses have "spawned new enemies by the thousands, made the jihadist rants ring true to so many ears. So put out no flags. Sing no patriotic hymns. We deserve no Fourth this year."

Sorry, but you just don't hear much of this type of rhetoric from conservatives. And Obama and the entire Democratic establishment know it.

As far back as Sun Tzu, military strategists have well understood the concept that victory in war does not require the destruction of one’s enemy, but merely convincing that enemy that destruction is inevitable if the fight continues. Similarly, in a dictatorship, absolute control is neither necessary nor, in most cases, even possible. All that is needed for the dictator to endure is the presumption among the underlings that the leader does indeed hold a monopoly of power.

It is a point that Americans ought to seriously ponder, as the future of their nation appears to increasingly rise and fall on the basis of a single vote in the United States Supreme Court.

This past June, the ever more prominent annual ritual played out in which the Court handed down its latest batch of “decisions,” which increasingly appear less as judicial considerations and more as edicts. More disturbing is that a growing number of Americans seem to be accepting the latest whims of the court as some sort of celestial standard, determining with absolute finality what America can or cannot be, and what Americans can or cannot do.

This was never intended to be the role of the courts. Rather, the founders clearly sought to prevent such unaccountable governing practices by consigning the ultimate power of legislating to the Congress which, among the three branches of government, would in turn be most accountable to the people.

Changes were allowed, but only under a stringent set of rules, known as the amendment process. And once those changes were instituted, the only proper duty of the Court was to enforce them. In this manner, citizens could rely on the protections afforded them under the Constitution, and its execution in all matters of governing, to be conducted in a just manner that they themselves had enjoined.

In complete contrast to modern thinking, even a cursory reading of the Constitution reveals that its design does not empower government but, at every turn, restricts and regulates the means by which those in power can exercise their dominion over the people. Even the first five words of the First Amendment (which was placed at the top of the list for a reason), lend incontrovertible proof to this case: “Congress shall make No law...” Clearly, the restrictions of the First Amendment are imposed on the Congress. And any First Amendment matter before the Court should be adjudicated solely on that basis.

In contrast, the three most notable cases of the latest Supreme Court session give a clear indication of just how far beyond its original boundaries the Court has reached, and just how dire is the burgeoning threat it represents to America. That governing officials and pundits are essentially ignoring the Court’s overreaching behavior, and are instead focusing on the minutia of the individual decisions, suggests that the problem in American thinking must be corrected outside the Court before any real fix can be implemented within.

Absent any Constitutional authority or mandate, in “Kennedy v. Louisiana” the Court summarily struck down the death penalty for child rapists in all fifty states. Citing no Constitutional precept, it instead substituted its own interpretation of “society’s standards, as expressed in legislative enactments and state practice with respect to executions.”

Apparently, the majority believes it sees a trend away from such punishment, and in response issued a blanket decree prohibiting any variance from that perceived trend. Abominating the Constitution and the rule of law, the Court simply imposed its views above those of all elected legislatures and the people.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court did indeed reaffirm, albeit grudgingly, that the Bill of Rights does indeed assert an inherent right to keep and bear arms, as if the unambiguous text of the Second Amendment was ever in question among those who can read. But if anyone doubts that this 5 to 4 decision represents a tenuous hold on the reality of such a fundamental constitutional guarantee, consider the words of dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens, who expressed incredulity at the prospect that Second Amendment advocates “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In Justice Stevens’ mind (and he is clearly not alone in his thinking), the ultimate authority to regulate society lies with high officials such as himself. It was exactly for this reason that the founders recognized the vital importance of including the Second Amendment, in order that the limitations on the exercise of governmental power imposed by the Constitution would endure.

Where, one must wonder, does Justice Stevens deem rights to be inherent? Certainly not the rights of a child to be free from the threat of a grisly sexual assault. Yet in another arena, Stevens and his liberal cohorts do indeed embrace the concept of “unalienable rights,” at least for foreign Islamic terrorists.

“Boumediene v. Bush,” possibly the most abominable and traitorous decision ever handed down by the Supreme Court (and again a 5 to 4 ruling), gives a shocking glimpse into how thoroughly an unaccountable and unrestrained court can insidiously destroy the nation. By its very name, this case representing a terrorist suit against the President of the United States, reveals how an out-of control Court can become a weapon for America’s mortal enemies. And the Court’s appalling decision, effectively granting “Constitutional Rights” to the terrorists, represents a level of collaboration with the enemy not witnessed within this nation’s shores since the days of Benedict Arnold.

In truth, the Court can no more “grant rights” to non citizens than can it alter the reality of an unborn child. It can, by properly upholding its own responsibilities, maximize the God-given rights of Americans or, as it has done here, abridge them by bestowing unlawful protections to murderous enemy combatants.

Many Americans look to this next presidential election as a watershed moment, possibly determining whether the court will be returned to its constitutional roots, or by the appointment of a few more liberal “justices,” veer irretrievably away from the foundations of the nation. Yet a proper fix must go much further than that.

While it is unrealistic to expect a move towards the impeachment of any Justices despite their having clearly exceeded the authority of office, the Constitution clearly stipulates that the Congress can, at its own discretion, place certain issues beyond the realm of the Court. Until it musters the principle and courage to do so, this unchecked Supreme Court will undoubtedly continue its perversion of the Constitution and thus the rest of America.

Well, I guess we're all pretty relieved we didn't drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge back in 2002. What a disaster that would have been.

The vote on ANWR was almost entirely along partisan lines, with all Republicans, except a handful of "moderates," voting for drilling, and all Democrats, except a handful of sane Democrats like Zell Miller, voting against drilling.

John McCain opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge because he polled soccer moms and found out they were against drilling. They thought it sounded too much like going to the dentist. McCain wanted to ensure that he remained beloved by the two pillars of his base: "centrists" and New York Times reporters.

Even Sen. Chuck Hagel voted for drilling in ANWR. But John McCain, "our" candidate, voted against it.

I guess we're beginning to see the problem of basing a political platform on the passing fancies of "centrists." These are people who have no opinions because they know nothing about national issues. They're the ones who check the "not sure/no opinion" box on polls regarding the legalization of cannibalism.

But now, astronomical gas prices have forced even soccer moms to spend 10 minutes looking at a problem that their leaders were supposed to be thinking about for years. And the soccer moms are saying: Drill! Drill! Drill! Bobby, come down off of there! Stop hitting your sister! Where was I? Oh, yeah ... Drill! Drill! Drill!

Consequently, McCain recently switched his position to go along with the centrists. See, that's the downside of having chosen all your political positions by polling centrists: The moment they acquire any knowledge, they'll realize you're an idiot.

It's always the same argument. Year after year, the "moderate Republicans" so respected at The New York Times harangue us to dump the Christians, the conservatives, the Swift Boat Veterans, the "right-wing extremists," the gun-and-God clingers and the fanatical pro-lifers from our party so we can repel every American who voted for Ronald Reagan in order to win the votes of people like Christine Todd Whitman.

Yes, by all means let's clear out all that deadwood and pave the way for a 49-state landslide! (For the Democrats.)

McCain followed the Times' strategy to a T. He called Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance." He called the Swift Boat Veterans "dishonest and dishonorable." He has denounced every Christian minister who tries to endorse him. Over the years, McCain has ostentatiously attacked every issue of importance to conservatives and embraced every crackpot liberal idea, including the left's latest plan to exterminate the human race, called "global warming."

Two weeks ago, McCain skipped the capitol prayer breakfast in California, instead appearing with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger at an environmental event in nearby Santa Barbara. Schwarzenegger's absence marked the first time a governor skipped what has come to be known as "the governor's prayer breakfast." I guess in the world of moderate Republicans an environmental event qualifies as a religious observance.

The keynote speaker at the breakfast, Hollywood producer Mark Joseph, quoted a recent cover article in Christianity Today by professors Daniel Taylor and Mark McCloskey that said:

"In premodern times, the courage of a leader often had to be physical. In the last 500 years it is more often moral. Moral courage is the ability to do what's right even when it is deeply unpopular, even dangerous. Courage is only found where there is the genuine possibility of loss -- loss of friends, reputation, status, power, possessions or, at the extremes, freedom or life."

No wonder McCain and Schwarzenegger skipped it.

Moderate Republicans like McCain have taken to heart liberals' admonition that Ronald Reagan's appeal had absolutely nothing to do with his conservative philosophy. Don't be like him! You'll lose the soccer moms! Liberals assure us that Reagan won landslide elections because Americans were mesmerized by his sunny disposition and corny jokes. If that's true, why isn't Al Roker president?

The irony is, the only people McCain can count on to vote for him are the very Republicans he despises -- at least those of us who can get drunk enough on Election Day to pull the lever for him. In fact, we should organize parties around the country where Republicans can get drunk so they can vote for McCain. We can pass out clothespins with his name as a reminder and slogan-festooned vomit bags. The East Coast parties can post the number of drinks necessary for the task to help the West Coast parties. For more information, go to getdrunkandvote4mccain.com.

Not being ignorant "centrists," we know what a world-class disaster B. Hussein Obama will be. Meanwhile, the centrists McCain spent years impressing with his outraged denunciations of conservatives, Swift Boat Veterans and Christians will be voting for Obama. They think he's cute.

How many times do we have to run this experiment?

Taking the advice of Democrats, Republicans ran "moderates" for president in 1944, 1948, 1976, 1992 and 1996. All lost. Republicans also ran a "moderate" for president in 1988, but that was unwittingly -- both to us and, fortunately, to the voters. In other words, in the language of the market, the best tip on "moderate Republicans" is: SELL!

But now, apparently, we have to run the experiment again. This year, moderate Republicans have hit the jackpot. John McCain is the Platonic ideal of a "moderate Republican."

To paraphrase Richard Nixon on George McGovern in 1972: Here we have a situation where moderate Republicans finally have a candidate who almost totally shares their views. Now we'll see what the country thinks.

Be afraid; be very afraid. If you think Barack Obama is arrogant and leftist, you ought to see those he will have to cater to if elected -- and, according to them, even to get elected in the first place.

These leftist "netroots" are none too pleased with Obama's feint to the center the past few weeks, his "capitulation" on retroactive immunity for telecoms for cooperating with the government to monitor terrorist communications, his alleged disagreement with the Supreme Court for invalidating the death penalty for child rapists, and his flip-flop on the D.C. handgun case.

They are abuzz about the messiah's apparent abandonment of their orthodoxy. Interestingly, though, not many of the complainers really believe Obama has left them. Like Obama's longtime pastor, Jeremiah Wright, they realize Obama is quite willing to mask his inner self to get elected. But many are disgusted that he's even playing the game.

One blogger at The Huffington Post writes: "Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists."

Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, added, "I've been struck by the speed and decisiveness of his move to the center."

And what do these leftist sweethearts have in store for us if Obama prevails? Hint: It's not just Republicans who should be worried. If they have their way, the Obama leftists will purge from the Democratic ranks conservative, or blue-dog Democrats, who are just getting in the way.

Marshall Grossman tells us: "When the Republican bogeymen and bogeywomen are gone -- in just a few short, summer months -- the political scene will shift. The blue dogs will be the new Republicans and we, the people, will hold the newly elected feet to the fire. … Incumbent and unresponsive conservative Democrats will have to begin looking over their left shoulders."

Jason Rosenbaum writes: "Once Obama is elected, it's war. … November is just the beginning." Rosenbaum will "work to rid Congress of conservative, Blue and Bush Dog Democrats, and build up long-term progressive infrastructure." (Are you self-professed conservative Democrats paying attention?)

What this all means, at the very least, is that voters need to keep their eye on the big ball here -- and the big ball is not Obama's political cynicism, which far too many will dismiss as acceptable Nixonian politics, engaged in by every politician. The big ball is Obama's real leftism -- and its potentially devastating consequences for the country.

Among those potential consequences, according to Rosenbaum and Grossman, are, "President Obama will start sending non-apocalyptic judicial nominees to Senate confirmation," like Justice Ginsburg, no doubt, and "the Department of Justice will once again be populated by folks who have read the Constitution," meaning those leftist lawyer types more concerned with al-Qaida's "constitutional rights" than yours or mine.

Further, "Democrats will be more likely to pass progressive legislation …: ending the war," meaning surrender; providing "health care for all Americans," meaning poorer quality health care and long waiting lines for all but the very rich; causing "a renewed investment in our economy," meaning at some point, only about the top 40 percent of income earners will pay income tax at all; and bringing about "a renewed investment in green energy," meaning, to them, a radical assault on our economy in the name of the global warming hoax -- in deference to the pantheistic devaluation of the dignity of human beings that drives it.

Time will tell if Obama is as leftist as his voting record and past associations would indicate, but many of those most passionate about him seem rather sanguine about it.

So let's not just focus on Obama's increasingly evident character flaws, but the catastrophic restructuring he likely has in store for this nation and its institutions.

The Supreme Court's barring of the death penalty for child rapists in Kennedy v. Louisiana underscores the hazards in the court's abandonment of moral absolutes in favor of "evolving standards of decency" and the court's unbridled arrogance in substituting its subjective judgment for the legislatively enacted will of the people.

In Kennedy, the court reversed the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court to uphold the capital punishment of a convicted child rapist, holding that the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause prohibits executing such offenders "where the crime did not result, and was not intended to result, in the victim's death."

A United States Supreme Court with a majority of Constitution-respecting justices would have evaluated the Louisiana statute in light of the originally understood meaning of the cruel and unusual punishment clause.

Instead, today's sometimes Obama-inclined liberal activist majority subordinated to the lowest rung the clause's original meaning in favor of "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

And how does the majority identify that new, enlightened standard applicable to child rape cases not resulting or intended to result in death?

Liberals dismiss studies that show a link between abortion and breast cancer, claiming they are biased because the people promoting the studies are "anti-choice."

For the same reason, no one should believe the Democrats' "energy" policies.

Democrats couldn't care less about high gas prices. The consistent policy of the Democratic Party, going back at least to Jimmy Carter, has been to jack up gas prices so we can all start pedaling around on tricycles.

Environmentalists are constantly clamoring for higher gas taxes as the cure-all to their insane global warming theory. Clinton proposed a 26-cent tax on gas. John Kerry said it should be 50 cents. Gore endorsed the Malthusian proposal of Paul and Anne Ehrlich in "The Population Explosion" that gas taxes be raised gradually to match prices in Europe and Japan.

The result is consumers now pay about 46 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes. That's not including taxes paid directly to the government by the oil companies and passed onto consumers. As the inestimable economist John Lott has pointed out, in the past 25 years oil companies have paid more than three times in taxes what they have made in profits.

B. Hussein Obama's response to soaring gas prices is to have the oil companies collect even more money from us at the pump, proposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies. "Corporate taxes" sound like taxes on rich people, but all they do is force corporations to collect taxes on behalf of the government.

Democrats have worked hard to ensure that Americans pay as much for gas as Europeans do. After a quarter-century of gas tax hikes, a ban on drilling for oil and a complete destruction of the nuclear power industry in America, I guess liberals can declare: Mission accomplished!

What does that mean? This is like telling a starving man, "You can't eat your way out of being hungry!" "You can't water your way out of drought!" "You can't sleep your way out of tiredness!" "You can't drink yourself out of dehydration!"

Seriously, what does it mean? Finding more oil isn't going to increase the supply of oil?

It is the typical Democratic strategy to babble meaningless slogans, as if they have a plan. Their plan is: the permanent twilight of the human race. It's the only solution they can think of to deal with the beastly traffic on the LIE (Long Island Expressway).

How do liberals propose we acquire the energy required for the economic activity and production that results in light appearing when they flick a switch? The larger enterprise involved in producing that little miracle eludes them.

Liberals complain that -- as B. Hussein Obama put it -- there's "no way that allowing offshore drilling would lower gas prices right now. At best you are looking at five years or more down the road."

This is as opposed to airplanes that run on woodchips, which should be up and running any moment now.

Moreover, what was going on five years ago? Why didn't anyone propose drilling back then?

Say, you know what we need? We need a class of people paid to anticipate national crises and plan solutions in advance. It would be such an important job, the taxpayers would pay them salaries so they wouldn't have to worry about making a living and could just sit around anticipating crises.

If only we had had such a group -- let's call them "elected representatives" -- they could have proposed drilling five years ago!

But of course we do pay people to anticipate national problems and propose solutions. Some of them -- we'll call them Republicans -- did anticipate high gas prices and propose solutions.

Six long years ago President Bush had the foresight to demand that Congress allow drilling in a minuscule portion of the Alaska's barren, uninhabitable Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). In 2002, Bush, Tom DeLay and the entire Republican Party were screaming from the rooftops: Drill! Drill! Drill!

We'd be gushing oil now -- except the Democrats stopped us from drilling.

Drilling on only 0.01 percent of ANWR's 19 million acres was projected to produce about 10 billion barrels of oil. From all domestic sources combined, we currently produce about 1.8 billion barrels of oil per year. To a layperson like myself, 10 billion barrels seems like a lot of oil.

The other party -- plus John McCain -- ferociously opposed drilling in ANWR, drilling offshore or drilling anyplace else. Instead of Drill! Drill! Drill!, their motto could be: Kill! Kill! Kill!

They refuse to believe our abortion studies? I refuse to believe they care about Americans having to pay high gas prices.