Senator Obama is providing his share of memorable gaffes that should yield considerable fodder for the late-night comedians as well, except that some of them are serious. Were it not for the fact that the mainstream media has already anointed the Senator as President, we would have his more significant blunders plastered across the pages of the nations’ newspapers. In fact, coverage is so abysmally and incompetently absent from the mainstream media, one has to peruse the primary texts of his speeches to find them.

A couple of weeks ago while addressing a crowd in Missouri about Afghanistan, Obama said, “It's like Arab -- Arab -- Arabic interpreters, Arab language speakers, we only have a certain number of them, and if they're all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them, and -- and obviously they may not speak Arabic, but the various dialects that they speak in Afghanistan.” Afghans do not speak Arabic, Senator. They speak Dari and Pashto. Well, there goes the “smartest guy in the room” label.

On Tim Russert’s “Meet the Press” on May 4, the Senator was asked, “Would you respond against Iran?” He answered, “It – Israel is an ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there’s no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise.” Somehow in there Obama got Israel and Iran confused. I’d say there’s quite a difference between the two, and yet he says he’d act forcefully on any attack against Iran. If that had been President Bush or John McCain, we’d still be hearing about it.

The best one is a real winner. Two weeks ago he told an Oregon audience that “I’ve been in 57 states, [with] I think one left to go.” I guess if he had that American flag lapel pin on that he makes a point of not wearing (unless he’s in a red state) he could have glanced down and counted the stars and realized there are only 50, not 58 states in the Union. Maybe it’s just a math deficiency, but you know it wouldn’t have been shrugged off to fatigue if it was John McCain who had said it; they would have called it a “senior moment.”

Maybe his comment was a Freudian slip and reflected his Muslim upbringing. for there are in fact 57 Muslim states around the world. But then he’d still be off by one. I’m perplexed. What makes his statement even worse is that it wasn’t even a complete sentence. I had to add the conjunction parenthetically for the Senator’s phrase to make sense!

Senator Obama is very articulate when he’s got a teleprompter. It’s when he goes off script that he runs into problems. I wonder if he’ll have to carry around a stack of 3x5 cards with cues and factoids for him if he’s president since he won’t be able to take a teleprompter everywhere.

The state of Israel this past week celebrated its 60^th birthday, one that it would not have been able to observe had it not been for the leadership and tenacity of one American president. President Harry Truman, going against nearly the entire Washington establishment, made the United States the first nation to grant official recognition of the State of Israel a scant 11 minutes after they declared their state official.

Israel is the only free country in a region that is dominated by monarchies, theocracies, and dictatorships that repress freedom, oppress women, limit educational opportunities, outlaw religious and racial tolerance, and sponsor terrorism against freedom-loving people. As such, the approximately 7 million citizens of Israel, including Jews and Arabs who live within the original borders, enjoy freedoms not available to the hundreds of millions living in neighboring Muslim dominated countries. They can express their opinions, criticize their government, publish opposition newspapers, and hold free un-coerced elections. It’s an affront to logic for Arab authorities in the region, who deny the most fundamental freedoms to their own people, to criticize Israel for violating Palestinians’ rights.

On May 14, 1948, the day the British Mandate over Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered to declare their independence. In that document, they declared that the Land of Israel “was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance.

“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

“Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.” This right to gather in Israel “was recognized in the Balfour Declaration (1917), and reaffirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.” This right was reaffirmed in 1948 by the United Nations.

The declaration then states the principles upon which the nation would be established. “THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

Since that time, Israel has struggled for its very existence, having fought military onslaughts in seven wars of self-defense against 22 hostile Arab dictatorships, and faced a determined terror-led attack that makes those against America pale in comparison. In the 18 month period following 9/11/01 alone, Israel suffered 12,480 terrorist attacks that killed more than 400; a per-capita death toll more than six times that of America’s 9/11 attacks.

It is with this historical backdrop that President Bush addressed the world at Israel’s celebration of independence this week, where he declared, “You've lived too long with fear and funerals, having to avoid markets and public transportation, and forced to put armed guards in kindergarten classrooms. The Palestinian Authority has rejected your offer at hand, and trafficked with terrorists. You have a right to a normal life; you have a right to security.”

The President went on to say, “Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Does anyone truly believe the bellicose leaders of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and Islamic Jihad, who all call for the eradication and annihilation of Israel, can be persuaded to change their minds?

Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan are the primary front lines of battle in the war against terrorism. Recognizing this, and the fact that Israel is a free and democratic country, and an ally in combating the evil of terrorism, we should always maintain a resolute determination to stand by them and assure their defense, and not believe naively that Israel’s enemies can be appeased into pacifism. After all, their enemies are ours as well.

With the Pope’s visit last month we were treated not only to great wisdom and insights, but a civic lesson that too many Americans either never learned or have chosen to forget these days. The contrast of the Pope’s comments with frequently referenced ecclesiastical sermons from Chicago is stark, and speaks volumes of the character and values of both.

Speaking at the White House to the largest crowd ever assembled there, His Holiness set the tone for the rest of his comments by addressing President Bush, “I deeply appreciate your invitation to visit this great country.”

Too many Americans fall into the secular trap of moral equivalence. They see all countries as essentially equal: countries have people, geography and boundaries, and they have their respective political challenges and characters on the political stage. Those are the commonalities, yet it is the principles and values upon which countries are founded that distinguish them from the others. And there is no other country founded on the uniquely individualistic precepts of the inherent greatness and divinity of man, who is endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights.

The Holy See articulated this uniqueness, “From the dawn of the Republic, America’s quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the Creator. The framers of this nation’s founding documents drew upon this conviction when they proclaimed the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

He then placed these principles which make America great and unique into historical context. “The course of American history demonstrates the difficulties, the struggles, and the great intellectual and moral resolve which were demanded to shape a society which faithfully embodied these noble principles. In that process, which forged the soul of the nation, religious beliefs were a constant inspiration and driving force, as for example in the struggle against slavery and in the civil rights movement. In our time, too, particularly in moments of crisis, Americans continue to find their strength in a commitment to this patrimony of shared ideas and aspirations.

“As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more human and free society. Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, and sacrifice for the common good.

“Faith also gives us the strength to respond to our high calling and to hope that inspires us to work for an ever more just and fraternal society. Democracy can only flourish, as your founding fathers realized, when political leaders and those whom they represent are guided by truth and bring the wisdom born of firm moral principle to decisions affecting the life and future of the nation.”

Insightfully, the Pope placed a challenge before all American Catholics. He expressed his desire that his visit would “strengthen the resolve of Catholics to contribute ever more responsibly to the life of this nation, of which they are proud to be citizens.” I think that challenge can be equally applied to all of us, whether Catholic or not.

This vision of faith in America is far removed from the notion that we cling to our religion because we’re bitter and angry. Our nations’ religions are not crutches, but rather constitute the pillars of our nations’ strength and the fount of our nations’ values and soul. His articulation of America sounds like the true “audacity of hope,” not the hatred and bitterness spewed from the pulpit in Chicago.

Since we have no viable option now available to supplant our dependence on oil, all we can hope to do is reduce our consumption, and do all we can to expand supply by accessing the resource everywhere it is feasibly possible. If we don’t, the amount we pay for gas every month may soon rival our mortgage as our largest monthly budgetary outlay.

Energy independence and finding alternative means to quench our thirst for energy to maintain our high standard of living is prudent. But to mistake such individual or collective prudence for “saving the planet” is a non sequitur. There is no scientific basis for equating riding bikes to saving the polar bears.

If “going green” were less a matter of politics and religious zeal and were based more fully on science and economics we could all collaborate more effectively. Instead, it seems to be more founded in a “feel good” mentality that makes people who drive hybrid cars think they are saving the planet, or that by banishing the incandescent light bulb people are staving off the destruction of the planet due to global warming.

Our energy challenges are actually exacerbated by those who sensationalize the issue of global warming. They are compounded by a nearly universal effort on the part of media to make an illogical connection between proper and wise use of natural resources, and saving the planet from the global warming threat. By making that connection, the discussion of wise use of such resources is corrupted, as well as solutions to real problems that we can address.

Climate change has always existed, and will always be here, whether we’re here or not, or whether we’re emitting 34 parts per million of CO2 into the atmosphere or not. But when the cadre of global warming alarmists claims the debate is closed, and threatens us with cataclysmic events if we don’t change our consumption habits, the issue passes from the realm of possibilities to the realm of the absurd. Those who claim we have to limit our “carbon footprint” to save the polar bears fall into the same illogic of absurdity. We exhale CO2 for heavens sake! If they are so worried about their carbon footprint they should make the ultimate commitment to save the earth and just stop exhaling.

As if the missing scientific proof wasn’t enough, the cacophony of media reports ascribing natural anomalies to global warming is enough to turn daily news reports into funny papers. I recently came upon a website that includes hundreds of links to media stories blaming everything under the sun to global warming. It’s as if the mainstream media has finally realized the George Bush is not going to be on the ballot in November, so they’ve decided to blame everything on natural global temperature fluctuation instead of him.

Following is an abbreviated list of such anomalies and natural conditions that have recently been blamed on global warming: acne, end of the American dream, amphibians breeding earlier, amphibians breeding later, anaphylactic reactions to bee stings, animals head for the hills, Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks, anxiety treatment, Atlantic ocean less salty, Atlantic ocean more salty, Atlantic ocean cooler, Atlantic ocean warmer, attack of killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, Baghdad snow, bananas growing larger, bananas growing smaller, beer shortage, better beer, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds confused, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, brains shrink, bridge collapse in Minneapolis, buildings collapse. The list goes on and on.

In short, it’s very hard to take seriously a movement that ascribes every anomaly, aberrant behavior, global crisis, and unique occurrence to one cause, namely, global warming. But even the name had to be changed since the earth has cooled over the past 10 years. Now they call it climate change, even though it’s all still blamed on global warming. Those who buy in don’t seem to care whether their explanations are logical or not, but it fits the narrative for a sense of self-importance to “save the planet.”

A reality based discussion of energy usage is critical in our time. To cloud this discussion with unviable emotional and unscientific theories does nothing to lower the cost of gas or the cost to heat our homes. Our strategy for future energy usage must be based on economic realities of current available energy sources not on unviable or hypothetical non-existent technology. A healthy dose of reality must be infused into the discussion if we’re going to make it through this together.