Rosie O'Donnell will replace Meredith Viera on "The View", ABC's morning talk show. This staffing decision means one of two things; either ABC is completely ignorant of the idea of leftist bias in the news, or it just doesn't care. I don't know which one is true, and in the end, it doesn't really matter. I think it must be the latter.

It is evident that the mainstream media has no interest in allowing any shift in its editorial bias, despite mounting evidence that their credibility, and thus their most critically important quality, is being pissed away. People are not blind. They can see bias. The MSM isn't half clever enough to conceal it, and increasingly, doesn't appear to even be trying to conceal it.

They know that the mainstream media is biased heavily toward the left, but they don't see it as a problem. For an organization that is tasked with the important function of acting as the eyes and ears of the US population, it is a startlingly glib position.

They'll probably regurgitate some weak justification, such as saying that while O'Donnell is on the left, she is balanced out by the other women on the show. I wouldn't be surprised to see this at all. To the left, Rosie is "comfortably left," moderate leftists are centrists, and centrists are closet Republicans. Of course, conservatives are Nazis.

Thank God we don't have to trust them any more, because they're proving, with every decision, to be eminently untrustable. One wonders, though, just how much of their audience they'll have to watch vanish before they wake up.

Perhaps they should rename the show "The View From the Left."

Russia today announced that it cannot support sanctions against Iran without proof that it is seeking to build nuclear weapons.

Russia Says Nyet to Iran Sanctions

 Thus, Russia has chosen to side with the Iranians in the growing conflict over its nuclear program. One cannot come to the conclusion that this position is a reasonable act of an impartial state. Russia knows that Iran cannot be proved to be producing nuclear weapons, because Iran is refusing to allow UN inspectors to fully investigate its sites. Ergo, the only way we can only get "proof" that the Iranians are building a bomb is for them to test one... either in Iran, or on Israel.

In addition, Russia has agreed to sell surface-to-air missile systems to Iran.

China's position is unfortunately very similar to Russia's, except at the moment we are tripping over ourselves to welcome a communist dictator to America and slobber all over him.

It is all part of the calculus of international relations, I'm afraid. It has been said that nations do not have friends, only interests. Russia and China have decided that their interests are best served by supporting the development of the Iranian bomb.

Why is this? One can only speculate. These two countries may believe that in the international competition of states, Russia and China can come to some advantage by causing the US to spend a lot of money and influence trying to reign in Iran. I can't agree with this, though, even from a Machiavellian perspective. Russia's problem is not the United States, it's problem is Russia. Bleeding us in a foreign war does nothing to help Russia, but apparently they disagree. And China's best friend is the US, even though the US's best friend is not China - which is to say, we treat them like a friend, and they treat us like an interest.

We are sending them billions upon billions of dollars in investment capital every year, which they are using to strengthen their military. For what? To invade Taiwan (a part of the world, incidentally, that was never a part of Communist China, and to which the Chinese have absolutely no legitimate claim)? Japan perhaps? South Korea, via its proxy North Korea?

For those who think that Russia and China are constructive members of the global community, please keep in mind that they now actively supporting a fascist, terrorist regime. Russia is essentially an ally of Iran now, China a willing supporter.

Mahnoud Ahmadinehad, the President of Iran has stated, in agreement with the Ayatollah Khomenei, that Israel "must be wiped off the face of the map." Such a sentiment is nothing new in the world of Islam - they've been swearing to do this since Israel became a state in 1948. This was the first time that such a high ranking Islamic leader has expressed the sentiment, though, and more importantly, the west fears that he may actually be able to do it.

The Iranians have sworn publicly that they have no interest in nuclear weapons, that such weapons are forbidden by Islam, that Iran only wants peace, and on and on. These of course are bald-faced lies. They are only the latest in a string of Islamic lies that has wound through the region since Mohammed broke a peace treaty with his opponents, the Koreish, and invaded them, two years into a ten-year peace treaty. Since then, the prevailing school of thought in Islam is that peace treaties are to be pursued only in order to take the pressure off, so that the eternal war against the infidels can continue when Islam is in a better position to fight. Saladin did the same thing when he agreed to a peace treaty with the crusaders, only to break it when his position was sufficiently improved. And before the word "Crusader" sufficiently turns you off, let us be reminded that the Crusaders were in Israel not to take it from the Muslims, but to take it back.

In the coming years, we will see what America and the world will do to stop fanatical Muslims from obtaining nuclear weapons. If not, will the Iranian mullahs fulfill their promise to wipe Israel off the map, or are they lying about that? Let us pray that they are, although the constant invasions, terrorist attacks and intifadas would lead the rational person to believe otherwise.

This is not America's conflict, this is the world's conflict. A nuclear Iran is sufficiently psychotic that it is conceivable that they will use their nukes to strike Israel. Now, maybe you don't care about Israel, maybe to you they are just troublemakers. That opinion, although shallow and misguided, is fine. Please be aware though, dear reader, that Israel has, by good estimates, over 150 nuclear weapons. If they are attacked, they will counterattack. If three or four Israeli cities are burned to the ground, Israel will return the favor in spades. They will, in all likelihood (and quite justifiably) try to destroy the nation that is trying to destroy them. Are we as a world prepared to hang onto our stubborn pacifism and allow this to happen? What will the world be like when Israel has indeed been wiped off the map, and has in turn destroyed the entire nation of Iran?

As an American, I don't want to see it happen, but there are plenty of others who don't seem to care whether it does or not. America cannot make the world care. We can only present a warning, and hope that the rest of humanity is willing to head off this catastrophe. If they are not, then let them live with the consequences. It will be pale shelter to say that we tried to stop it, but sometimes, pale shelter is all there is.