It's not a scare tactic...it's simply a scary reality.  The United States and the rest of the free world stand on the precipice of entering an age of nuclear blackmail, tension, and terror.  Whatever allegiances our President feels to particular interest groups, whatever motivations he previously held, whatever his domestic agenda might entail, this issue deserves his undivided attention.  It's time to be President, Mr. Obama.  And that means making your top priority protecting this generation of Americans, and those yet to be born.

For the purpose of achieving political power, the Democratic Party waged a successful six-year propaganda campaign against former President George W. Bush.  They tarnished him as engaging in cowboy diplomacy, accused him of war crimes, suggested that he was urinating on the Constitution, and condemned him for destroying civil liberties in his maniacal quest for unlimited authority.  It was a calculated political strategy to use the President's unwavering commitment to fighting threats to our country against him.  And it worked.  Bush left office with an incredibly low approval rating, and both branches of elected government are now completely dominated by those who opposed America's preemptive war strategy from the start (President Obama), or those who originally supported it but then changed their minds once it became politically expedient to do so (virtually every other Democrat in Washington).

But as news broke that North Korea belligerently defied the world again by testing nuclear weapons and missile capabilities, all while Iran rejected the softer approach of our new leadership to continue their own pursuit of nukes, you wouldn't be blamed for wondering if this change of power in Washington was really so great after all.

Regardless of how one might feel about the actions of former President Bush - whether they went too far or were too obsessive - there is no denying the motivation behind those actions: he vowed to protect the American people at any cost.  If it meant going it alone, he would do it.  If it meant allowing tough interrogations against murderous butchers, he would do it.  And while liberals across the country publicly lamented his bullish behavior, they benefitted from his relentless resolve.  They were able to put their heads on their pillows at night knowing that the man they impugned was pacing the floors of the White House to ensure they could wake up safely the next day to resume their criticism.

But the cowboy who was once so easy to demonize is gone.  And in his place, an under-qualified Chicago politician who doesn't seem to grasp that radical Islamists and lunatic dictators aren't tempted by "peace," nor enticed by compromises.  Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad aren't intrigued by Obama's new rhetoric, they aren't fascinated by his humble beginnings, they aren't captivated by his powerful oratory, and they certainly aren't impressed by his global celebrity.  They will view Barack Obama just as they have viewed other American presidents: either an obstacle to overcome, or a pushover to manipulate.

To this point, Americans have reason for concern.  President Obama has already spoken out against preemptive strikes even when intelligence reveals an imminent threat.  He has condemned tough interrogations as beneath our dignity, even if it means saving countless American lives.  He has ordered his Secretary of Defense to slash spending on missile defense, even as the threat of a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse emanating from an ICBM has become real.

Bear in mind this new nuclear threat is not like the last.  During the Cold War, Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan knew they were dealing with an evil, but rational regime.  The Soviets were our ideological enemies, but we both benefited from the knowledge that neither desired a nuclear holocaust that would end all life on earth.  That was the baseline that made negotiations, diplomacy, and compromise possible.  We have no such baseline with North Korea and Iran.

In his letter to the church at Colosse, the apostle Paul warned the faithful believers to be on guard for those who speak with eloquence, but whose message is corrupt and evil.  His purpose was, "so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments."  It is becoming increasingly clear that as our country has lost its grip on its Godly underpinnings, and has forsaken a solid Biblical worldview, our ability as a people to resist this trap has greatly deteriorated.

Consider as evidence the reaction of many Americans to our President's recent remarks on the most crucial human rights issue of our time.  In addressing abortion during a commencement speech, the President appeared to humbly propose attempting to find common ground. 

"Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived."  Does President Obama not realize how twisted of a statement that is for him to make given that his policies facilitate the destruction of human dignity in the womb?  If we are all endowed by God with the right to experience the fulfillment of a life well-lived, Mr. President, why do you continue to advocate limiting that right to merely those who are convenient? 

Yet media sources across the country had high praise for Obama's "eloquence" on the issue.  To them I would simply point out that a steaming pile of excrement, eloquently presented, is still a steaming pile of excrement.

To illustrate, let's suppose I made the audacious suggestion that we begin allowing families to choose the execution of their dependent great-grandparents.  These elderly folks are not productive members of society, they are a financial and emotional drain on a family's resources, and they drive big cars with large emissions, making our planet less livable.  Or perhaps I suggest allowing families to choose the execution of their physically or emotionally handicapped children.  They tried their best to provide for these kids, but they had no idea the burden they would end up being.  Financially, emotionally, it's just too much for them.

Though I would be using the same logic as the abortion crowd, you would hopefully recoil in disgust at my depraved and inhuman proposals.  So in response, suppose I offered to "find common ground" with you.  How about a waiting period?  You have to wait 30 days after your initial decision to kill your grandparents.  That's more reasonable, right?  Or we could have a familial consent law?  You must have unanimous approval from your immediate family to go through with the execution.  Better yet a post-birth version of the ultrasound law: you have to watch a 30 minute video of your grandparents knitting, crocheting, and watching TV before you have them exterminated. 

Do these compromises make my suggestion more agreeable to you?  Of course not.  And why?  Because you recognize that life itself is worth protecting, not because of what it can do, or how easy it is to deal with, or whether it's "wanted," or whether it's financially independent.  It's worth protecting simply because it's life...and there is intrinsic worth in every human being.

That is why there is and can be no "common ground" on the issue of abortion.  Waiting periods, parental consent, ultrasound laws...they all end up with the same result: "Do these things, and then you can kill the baby."  To Americans who have grown up in a country predicated upon defending the defenseless and recognizing what even Barack Obama himself calls the dignity of life given to us by God, this is unacceptable.

Scientifically, medically, spiritually, there is no longer any question that human life begins at the moment of conception.  And therefore we are compelled to defend it from that point, not find common ground with those who wish to allow its destruction.even if they make their proposals with what Paul called, "fine-sounding arguments."

Obama may speak with high platitudes and with soaring rhetoric.  But if we as a people lack the ability to see through such eloquence and examine the content of what is being said, rather than the mere presentation of how it is said, God help us.

Last weekend, the President of the United States was bestowed with an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame as he spoke at the school's commencement exercises.  In a related story, former presidential candidate Dr. Alan Keyes spent the evening in a South Bend jail for prayerfully protesting the university's invitation to the most pro-abortion president the country has ever elected.

Let me get this straight.  The country's premier Catholic institution - one that proudly touts itself as a friend and advocate of biblical truth and moral principle - jails a man for standing against the slaughter of innocent children in the womb as it simultaneously honors and exalts a man whose policy preferences facilitate such slaughter?  There's no denying it: it's a world turned upside down.

Only in an upside down world could a man with such a flagrant anti-human rights record attain the highest office in a country founded upon the protection of those rights. 

Only in an upside down world could a man be elected to preserve, protect, and defend a people's most basic entitlements after having acknowledged during the campaign that he believes determining who should have them and who shouldn't is, "above [his] pay grade." 

Only in an upside down world could "hope" be embodied in a man who votes to allow half-delivered babies to be murdered, while one who believes every human being is worthy of protection is termed a "radical."

Obama's defenders, including the president of Notre Dame, have suggested this invitation shows the great commitment the university has to open debate, differing viewpoints, and the free exchange of ideas.  Oh brother.  Having done my undergraduate studies at a private Christian university, I find such a proposition insulting. 

Open discussion, arguments, and the free exchange of ideas happen in the classroom; and if Notre Dame had invited President Obama or a like minded pro-abortionist into an ethics class for a rousing debate, that would be a legitimate position.  Indeed, my favorite college course was one entitled "Western-American Intellectual and Social History," where we were presented with an eclectic array of viewpoints, belief systems, and thought streams that dominate our world.  I am a firm believer that it is enlightening, challenging, and useful to expand our understanding of viewpoints with which we disagree.  But that's not what happened in South Bend.

The University of Notre Dame invited President Obama to deliver the commencement address to its graduates, presenting him as a model to emulate, a man deserving of the students' admiration.  To further ingrain this point in their minds, the graduates watched the institution award Mr. Obama with the prestige of an honorary degree.  Some have asked, "Who better for these students to hold in high esteem and seek to imitate than the President of the United States of America?"  I have a simple answer: anyone with a respect for human rights, whether that's a grocery store clerk, a missionary, a stay-at-home mom, a gas station attendant, or even a man sitting in jail for speaking out against evil.  Take the lowliest person among us by earthly standards who believes in the unalienable right to life - that the protection of the law should extend to more than just those who are convenient - and you'll have someone more honorable than the President of the United States.

Since taking office, the one issue that President Obama has appeared to be least concerned with is human rights.  He is seemingly disinterested in the mass starvation of North Koreans, the violent oppression in Zimbabwe, the suppression of freedom by Russia, the horrendous practices of forced abortion and political subjugation in China, and the savage treatment of the innocent Burmese.  He has exchanged polite messages with the madman of Iran, shook hands, shared laughs, and officially recognized the corrupt and fraudulent radical Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, and has hinted at easing sanctions on perhaps the worst human rights abusing regime of them all in Sudan.

As this evidence amasses, it is becoming painfully clear that the question of when a human being gets human rights is not at all above Obama's pay grade.  That pathetic response simply sought to cover the alarming reality that to our new president, human rights are determined by political winds and are pliable to partisan convenience.

Simply put, Barack Obama is not a man to be honored.  He is a man to be pitied. 

The fabled Notre Dame Victory March sung at every football game calls to "shake down the thunder from the sky."  Those words take on all new meaning when considering what a just and holy God must think of Notre Dame's decision to honor a man whose policies encourage the slaughter of His innocent creations.

It never ceases to amaze me how intellectually condescending evolutionary naturalists can be.  Keep in mind, these are folks who believe that a indescribably tiny wad of nothingness exploded into a fully functional, structured, and ordered universe of orbiting planets and complex creatures without any supernatural agency involved.  They are the ones who cling to a theory known as spontaneous generation - the notion that dead matter can just suddenly pop to life.  They are the ones who champion a man (Charles Darwin) who suggested that Africans were more closely related to gorillas than Caucasians.  They are the ones who believe that a wolf-like animal with hooves took to the water, lost its legs, and morphed into a whale (Cetaceans).  If anyone should go easy on the intellectual condescension, it's these people.  But they don't. 

In a recent article for Live Science magazine that attempts to prove Darwin by using the swine flu of all things, author Robert Roy Britt sneers, "Anyone who thinks evolution is for the birds should not be afraid of swine flu.if there's no such thing as evolution, then there's no such thing as a new strain of swine flu infecting people."  His supposedly witty remarks were meant to mock creationists, castigating their "junk science."

But the intellectual dishonesty inherent in Britt's statement is almost as obvious as his failed attempt at humor.  Britt is using a common ploy of Darwinists: confuse people into believing that their utterly unsubstantiated speculation of species-to-species macro-evolution is synonymous with the universally accepted scientific fact of adaptation and development within a species (sometimes called micro-evolution).

The word "evolve" simply means to change, alter, or develop in some way.  Everyone recognizes that changes in gene frequencies happen and are expressed in a population over time.  Unfortunately for the Darwinists, that is not anywhere close to the "molecules to man" postulation Charles Darwin made (also known as "goo to you by way of the zoo").  The contention between Darwinists and those of us who believe in a Creator then is about what kind of evolution is possible and observable.

Britt concludes that since swine flu is a mutated form of the influenza virus, it proves that viruses evolve to survive, thus confirming Darwin's theory.  The only real problem with Britt's conclusion is that it is utterly absurd.  For Darwin to be affirmed, the swine flu would have to demonstrate some new genetic information that hadn't been present in the original influenza strain.  It doesn't.  No new genetic information is present - just mutated forms of pre-existing material.

Observational science also demonstrates that various strains of flu viruses will blend together their genetic codes, creating a new form that evades our defenses.  But again, what we're left with is merely a conglomeration of pre-existing genetic information - nothing new.

Interestingly, when pressed, Britt and other adherents to the Darwinian faith would be forced to admit that they cannot produce a single example of mutations creating new genetic information.  But how can this be?  In order for a frog to morph into a lizard, it is going to need its genes to do some pretty wild and crazy productive mutations.  And when you consider the entire premise of Darwinian macro-evolution states that all creatures (not just frogs) are constantly experiencing these positive mutations, the weight of the evidence crushes evolutionary naturalists.  If Darwin was right, we should be able to observe and replicate gene mutations that yield new information nearly everywhere we look.  We simply cannot.

Meanwhile, what we can find are innumerable cases of destructive gene mutations, where we end up with less genetic information than what was originally present.  Take the recent discovery of perfectly preserved octopus remains.  The discovery revealed that these ancient octopi actually had more genetic information than do modern octopi.  Call it "Darwin in reverse."  Both horizontal and destructive mutations support the creationist model.both devastate Darwin's.

The truth is that the swine flu evolving does nothing to prove Darwin's ridiculous "molecules to man" evolutionary model.  That his modern day prophets are so willing to distort and manipulate a flu virus in order to substantiate his wild theory only proves how they are far more rigid in their commitment to their Darwinian faith than the most rabid fundamentalist preacher is to the Bible.

Perhaps in Mr. Britt's next piece, he could lay off the condescension towards creationists and instead enlighten us all as to why he defends a theory whose author proclaimed that blacks were genetically inferior to whites.  To me, I think that's the very definition of junk science.

Peter W. Heck

Alexander Hamilton, perhaps the brightest of all the Founding Fathers, once spoke of the role of the judiciary in this way: "It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment."  In other words, judges do not determine the law, nor enforce it.  They merely gauge whether actions brought to them in various cases fall within the parameters of legality established by the political branches, and then rule accordingly with no regard for the persons involved. 

This responsibility is precisely why the Founders isolated judges from the political winds, giving them life tenures.  Judges should not be forced to consider popular opinion or cultural fads in the course of determining what the law says.  Indeed, it may be necessary for the courts to defy those very trends in order to uphold the law as written by the people through the elected branches of government.  If the people wish to change their law, they do so through the ballot box, not the courtroom.

To illustrate what Hamilton meant, it is helpful to consider the role of an umpire whose responsibility is to call balls and strikes based on a predetermined strike zone.  The umpire does not change the strike zone throughout the course of the game.  Nor does he consider the socioeconomic, athletic, or racial background of the individual batter.  He doesn't determine for himself whether it is "fair" that one team's pitcher seems to be more skilled than the other, and then seek to "even the playing field."  He is a neutral party with neither force nor will, merely judgment.

It is tough to imagine someone with a more contradictory philosophy to our Founders' vision of the judiciary than the man who currently stands poised to make his first appointment to the Supreme Court.  When liberal justice David Souter announced his retirement, Obama pledged to appoint as his replacement a justice who combines "empathy and understanding."  While this fits perfectly with his campaign pledge of seeking judges who are "sympathetic enough to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless," it is also an indication of contempt for the proper role of the judiciary and an affront to men like Hamilton who helped frame it.

Though a self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar," Obama's statements depict a stunning betrayal of constitutional jurisprudence.  Sympathy for outsiders, the powerless and vulnerable are noble qualities to desire in legislators - those making the law.  That Obama demands them of potential judges, however, shows his allegiance to the anti-constitutional practice of judicial activism.

Consider what happened in Iowa just a few weeks ago.  In 1998, the people of Iowa overwhelmingly passed through their elected branches of government a law stipulating that marriage was an institution between one man and one woman only.  But seven black robed lawyers just issued a decree binding on the entire state that marriage would be opened up to alternative definitions.

In their 69 page decree from Mount Olympus, the seven wizards of the Iowa Supreme Court audaciously stated the following: "[E]qual protection can only be defined by the standards of each generation."  In other words, when the people of Iowa first wrote their constitution, they weren't as enlightened as they are today.  Ignoring the obvious fact that this generation of Iowans already stated their definition of "equal protection" in 1998 when they said marriage is between opposite sexes, the judges threw it out and wrote their own law. 

This is the exact type of judicial malfeasance that Barack Obama wishes to facilitate at the U.S. Supreme Court level.  Regardless of where we stand in the social divide that separates the left and right in American politics, this abandonment of the separation of powers as defined by the U.S. Constitution should be a grave concern for all Americans.

Allowing umpires to redefine the strike zone whenever they see fit may seem like a good idea when they favor your team.  But what happens when they don't?  This is the problem the Founders sought to avoid, and we will too if we know what is good for us.

Our 3^rd president, Thomas Jefferson, warned that such practice would make, "The Constitution.a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."  Yet that seems to be exactly what our 44^th president desires.