Hello,  I wanted to thank you for writing yet another excellent column. After reading most of the recent books on string theory, black  energy and multiverses, I have been forced to conclude that it is physicists who make huge and unwarranted leaps of faith, because every ratonale they use to explain the world without God involves more faith than believing in the Bible does. For example, in the standard model of physics it seems there are some 25 or so variables that must be entered by hand, and all of them must be calibrated within a very small range for life to exist and our observable natural laws to function, yet these are mathematical equations they tout as proof there is no God. I can  prove that 2+2 does not equal 4 if given enough latitude in designing the equation and variables: mathematics that one can adjust to get the answers one is looking for is not mathematics, it is faith based manipulation. String theory and multiverses are even worse, in that as a basic premise they postulate the existence of spatial dimensions which cannot be verified empirically (ie they are purely mathematical constructs), we can never directly observe them, and yet the whole mathematical theory will not function without at least 9, or 11, or some other number of these mythical beasts. Multiverses are even worse, because the basic postulate here is that if there is any mathematical chance of anything at all happening, which is to say an infinity of choices, there will be a universe somewhere that contains that set of laws allowing for that event to occur. Then of course life is inevitable: for that matter Gods are inevitable, but are bounded by the universe they created. Or maybe not..., I can conceive of an infinite Christian god, so under the multiverse theory He must exist! Absurd ad infinitum is the pathetic ploys of people who are too smart and ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. Truly, I do not have enough faith to be an atheist:-) Thank you for writing your books and columns, the truth is good to hear. Sincerely, Brian Norton

I too thought it very interesting that the voters would split so much on a foundational issue for the Dems, ie. gay marriage, and Obama the state but uphold traditional marriage. My family and I have been having some good conversations about whether there is still a majority of good people left in the USA, and I think the gay marriage votes give some hope in that respect. For all you history buffs out there check out the rise of Hitler and the National Socialist party in Germany to Obama's rise, down to their platform of "hope and change", economic turmoil, takeover of a major political party followed by ruthless suppression of dissent and an elimination of opposition. The time it to0k to change Germany from a basically free republic to a Socialist/Fascist dictatorship (but I repeat myself): four  years, from about 1930 to 1934. Once a nation gets to a certain point on the slippery socialist slope, the fall to the bottom comes rapidly. It has also been pointed out that there is a correlation between the morality of the people and the amount of freedom they choose to have in relation to government, or to state it differently, the more righteous the people, the less government interference in freedom and individual rights. So..., we have a lot of deluded people out there who really do not understand where Socialism leads, but still have good basic moral values. As long as good people remain in the majority there is hope to change the socialist trend, but by the very nature of Socialism, it tends to corrupt minds and morals. Did I mention that in Nazi Germany, homosexuality was widely practiced among the elites, and Christianity was banished as a public nuisance/enemy to the State? Christianity and Socialism are antithetical, and cannot  coexist peacefully.  There was an excellent post about how evangelicals gave Obama the election
http://www.idahovaluesalliance.com/news.asp?id=941  
Kind of a wakeup call,eh?

I have to admit that I never was very excited about my choice of McCain, because I felt my choice of more conservative, electable men had been eliminated during the primaries by the liberal media. McCain is a great patriot, I just could never wrap my mind around him being a great conservative republican. Conservative Democrat maybe. At any rate, is it better to have a effective pragmatist in office, who may or may not govern from the center, or an ineffective Republican that would excel at National Security but have many social and fiscal policies not so very much different than Obama, or the repudiated Bush spend, spend, spend years? Bush has signed over one Trillion dollars in bailout bills that would never had been necessary had a fiscal conservative that understood money markets and the housing bubble been in office! Bush was a lot better than Gore or Kerry would have been, but to say he was competent and conservative is pushing it. So, the question remains, is effective pragmatism better than clueless RINO semi-conservatism? That is why McCain lost, too many voters asked themselves that question and chose pragmatism. Only the loony left like Moveon.org and DailyKos actually expect Obama to govern on the platform  he campaigned on in the Democratic primaries: After all, 56 million Americans did not vote for him and he said he wants to be their President too. I do not like his radical ties and background, but Obama has shown himself to be a very quick study on what works, because no rational observer would have given him odds of winning the Presidency two years ago, but he did. Despite the complicity of the liberal media, I have to assume that our electorate knew enough of his negatives to disqualify him, but chose not to, and instead elected him with enough of a margin that there is no doubt he won. Acorn and all the rest of the shenanigans Chicago politics come up with do not produce a spread of almost eight million votes. But a great majority of his general election supporters are a far different breed than Ayers, Resko, Wright and co.;  even Pelosi, Reid and Murtha are not mainstream Democrats. He will have to decide which group he gives his allegiance to, and I am willing to bet it is the centrist middle. Why? Because he wants to be a two term President who accomplishes great things, not a one term lame duck whose over-reaching Left  lost him his congressional majorities in the midterm elections, as happened to Bill Clinton in his first term. Clinton got a second term because Bush the elder sold out on taxes, and did not finish the first gulf war.Almost forget, wasn't there someone named Perot who got 18% of the popular vote that year? That could have contributed to a Bush loss too, don't you think...  Bush was, however,an incompetent semi-RINO, and shot himself in the foot, electorally speaking. Obama will not have that gift in 2012, as he will face not just a Romney or Huckabee, but possibly the likes of Sarah Palin and  Bobby Jindal, who are very popular with the conservative base and have broader demographic appeal than Obama started out with. He will have to perform very well just to effectively govern, and with the government hamstrung by fiscal crisis, he does not have enough money available for another New Deal, so he can veto the more outrageous Congressional bills without popular backlash by wearing a conservative fiscal mantle. The prospect of a  Democratic President vetoing a spending bill in the name of fiscal responsibility has a delicious irony to it, doesn't it? After all, the nation does not have enough change in her pockets left, to pay for the type of Change the radical Left wants. In fact, I expect considerably less change than wished for all around, for both voters and Democrats. We will end up a little more broke, and they will learn the meaning of a frustrated majority.