Friday, January 29, 2010

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson: Can He Buy a New Reputation?

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson is running an expensive TV campaign to try and regain the respect and trust of the voters of his state. But will it work? After all, his TV commercials are full of distortions and outright lies; he has permanently lost the support of Nebraska's pro-life leadership; and his reputation as an honest, straight-talking independent just hasn't matched his recent actions.

It's going to be a hard sell.

Here, for example, are a few of the items which Nelson's TV ads have to overcome.

1) Ben Nelson voted the Democrat party line on extending the U.S. debt limit an additional $1.9 trillion! He did so without shame. Harry Reid wants it; I'll do it. That hardly matches the picture of an independent, forward-looking, fiscal conservative that Nelson's ads are trying to paint.

2) Ben Nelson has been completely silent on his party's illegal actions in the Senate; namely, refusing to seat Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown and continuing to let former Senator Paul Kirk conduct business as usual, including casting that all-important 6oth vote on the debt ceiling. There's no way to spin this -- it is sheer tyranny by the Democrats. Kirk is no longer Senator; Scott Brown won that seat and has been acknowledged by his state officials. For Ben Nelson to smile and go along with this brazen injustice belies his claims to be independent, fair, honest and wanting only what's right for Nebraska. No, as much as anything else in Ben Nelson's craven conduct in recent weeks, his complicity in this illegal power play proves he is not at all the kind of man Nebraskans once thought he was.

3) Among other recent actions of Senator Nelson's that have alarmed former friends is the smug and superior tone he has struck as he presents himself as a straightforward, principled independent. But his deeds portray a conniving (if somewhat inept) back-room dealer.

Sarah Kliff over at Newsweek points out that his flip-flopping on abortion (he formerly has claimed to be a devout pro-lifer) has exposed him to severe criticism from both sides of the issue. She refers to an interview Nelson gave with LifeSiteNews.com in which he openly bragged about his duplicitous dealings:

This interview is telling in a number of ways. First, it says a lot about Nelson's views on health-care reform as a means of bartering. The line that sticks out to me is this take on legislating: "You have to play it." From the abortion language to the Cornhusker Kickback, Nelson has reached Lieberman-like levels of posturing himself as the crucial 60th vote and has done so in pretty unflattering ways. What baffles me is why he continues to do so. He has gotten hounded by groups on both sides of the abortion issue who didn't like his compromise and engendered threats of lawsuits.

I could understand facing such blowback for an electoral gain, but Nelson's approval ratings back in Nebraska have plummeted, dropping below 50 percent in mid-January. If you're going to get flak for standing up against abortion, go the Bart Stupak route and embrace it. But this flip-flop approach does not seem to add up to much in the way of gains.


Philip Klein over at The American Spectator says of Nelson's new pose as a clever backroom conniver, "It goes without saying that this is completely absurd. Nelson's leverage was at its peak when Democrats were desperate to pass the Senate health care bill before Christmas, and if he was going to take a principled stand, that was the time to do it. Now that Brown's victory has has made him largely irrelevant, it's easy to say that he was prepared to hold up the bill over abortion language. It is pretty amusing, nonetheless, to see how he tries to squirm his way out of the situation like a second grader in the principal's office."

4) However, Senator Nelson's braggadocio about being a whistle-blower was called something else by President Obama in his State of the Union speech the other night. Said Obama of the "health care reform" bill in the Senate, “I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, this process left most Americans wondering what’s in it for them.”

Of course, the horse-trading label fits Ben Nelson more than anybody in town and the now infamous "Cornhusker kickback" made it quite clear that the President's unflattering reference was made directly of the Nebraska Senator. Poor fellow, is there nowhere for Ben Nelson to turn nowadays without being treated like a bad joke? He so much wanted to be likened to James Garner's riverboat gambler but he has ended up more like a Don Knotts clown. And even the Prez is dissing him.

However, Nelson is in desperate denial and just can't see it. He is attempting to present his backroom bartering with Harry Reid wherein Nebraska was to receive a special Medicaid funding deal (a deal which has been scathingly discredited and dropped like a hot potato) as proper politics. But, of course, what it has done is to expose Nelson as a manipulative, secretive, greedy politician...and not a very good one at that. Yet he clings to his tattered dignity as he tells the Washington Times (with a straight face too) that his deal certainly wasn't part of Obama's horse trading remark.

5) And finally, speaking of bad jokes, here's how Senator Nelson's buffoonery is being appreciated outside of Nebraska. The Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports on a bill submitted to the Tennessee General Assembly which would define a lawmaker's trading votes for special favors as criminal bribery. The title of the bill? "The Ben Nelson Act to Ensure Political Integrity."

As I mentioned earlier though, Ben Nelson is in a dull-witted, defiant, denial and he still doesn't get the joke. And he hopes that those high-dollar ads he's now running regularly in Nebraska keep voters from getting the joke too.

D.C. Security Guards: Pro-Lifers Can't Be Art Lovers

She didn't insist on carry a placard in. She didn't have a costume, bullhorn or even a message T-shirt. Meghan Duke simply had a little pro-life pin on her coat lapel.

And just for that, ham-handed security guards at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C. refused her entrance to the facility.

Yes, folks. That's your tax dollars paying goons to keep citizens from going into your tax-supported national museums...because those goons believe their uniform allows them to lord their distorted views of political-correctness over others.

Good grief.

Here's Steven Ertelt with more on the story.

Tim Tebow Blitzed by Feminist Linebackers

While the gross-out ads from Dockers, Bud Light and CareerBuilder.com will break some meaningless boundaries by bringing "Old School"-style humor ("We're streaking!") to Family Hour television, the real Super Bowl controversy is over the ad staring former University of Florida quarterback Tim Tebow.

Read the entirety of Chris Stirewalt's article ("Tim Tebow's Ad Has Left Tangled in Their Knickers") in the Washington Examiner.

Why Does NBC's Football Coverage Need Keith Olbermann?

A.W.R. Hawkins, writing in Human Events, is the latest voice asking NBC to ditch the arrogant, sophomoric, foul-mouthed, ultra-liberal political commentator Keith Olbermann from the network's coverage of football. I've written to NBC before about Olbermann's removal and Mr. Hawkins has stimulated me to do so again.

Hawkins also suggests action by the National Football League which so far has argued that the league wants to stay out of politics and therefore cannot interfere in a company's broadcast decisions.

Right.

Ask Rush Limbaugh about the NFL's "neutrality" on such matters.

Furthermore, the NFL has always pressured networks about who is in the booth and what they can say about league rules, officiating, etc. So, yes; it's perfectly proper for them to ask NBC to drop the obnoxious Olbermann.

Here are my latest notes, first to NBC and then to the NFL:

1) Please NBC, you are long overdue in ditching the arrogant, sophomoric, foul-mouthed, ultra-liberal political commentator Keith Olbermann from your football coverage team.


He adds nothing to your coverage; indeed, I can tell you from my own experience (and that of friends) that you are fast losing respect and even viewers because of this extremely offensive, polarizing person.


When the people in the sports bar start booing and yelling at the screen every time Olbermann appears, you know NBC's prestige and earning power are both diminishing. And it's not the kind of good-natured division sports fans once had over Howard Cosell. Oh no; Olbermann's continued rants over on MSNBC are making him a loathsome figure to a huge section of Americans. Please, remove him from football coverage.

2) I write with an appeal to the NFL to do itself a big favor by asking NBC to remove Keith Olbermann from coverage of football. Yes, I've heard the Commissioner and others say that they cannot interfere in a network's employment practices but, let's get real -- we all know the NFL can (and has) exerted tremendous pressure on networks when the league's interests are at stake. Believe me, they are now.

Olbermann's ultra-liberal politics are not the problem. Rather it is his extremely crude, loutish, confrontational behavior on MSNBC that defines his reputation. Therefore, every time he appears to do football coverage, a majority of American sports fans are angry. And many of them are disgusted enough to turn the TV off.


C'mon, Mr. Commissioner. Please ask NBC to help you keep sports fans happy (and watching!). Ask them to keep Keith Olbermann off of their football coverage team.


Here's the contact info:

NBC
30 Rockfeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
(212) 664-4444
nbcsports@nbcuni.com

National Football League
280 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10017
NFL Public Relations (212) 450-2000
E-mail contacts for the NFL are elusive but this one appears to be accurate for the NFL Commissioner: Roger.Goodell2@nfl.net

Johnny's Furry Fashion Faux Pas

Skater Johnny Weir has upset an animal rights group because he recently wore a costume with a tuft of white fox fur on his left shoulder.

Uh...is it just me thinking there might be issues besides the fur with Johnny's getups?

Country Music Standouts Appearing at Pro-Life Concert

Do you like country music? Will you be anywhere near Indianapolis on April 11th?

Well, whatever your answers were to those two questions, you may want to reconsider them when you learn that the concert I'm hinting about is the first annual Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Concert being held at the Murat Theatre in Indianapolis, Indiana and featuring -- get this -- country music superstars Randy Travis and Collin Raye!

Tickets are on sale now. (Can you say, "road trip?")

But you can also click on this page to find out how you can be a sponsor of this remarkable event and, over on this page, there's plenty of helpful, inspiring information about the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation itself.

How Real Is Hell?

When the subject of hell comes up in Christopher Marlowe's great medieval drama, Dr. Faustus says to Mephistopheles,"I think hell is a fable."

To which the demon (infinitely more knowledgeable on the subject) replies, "Ay, think so still 'til experience change thy mind."

(Eugene Delacroix's masterful depiction of their conversation is at left.)

Christian author, researcher and pastor Randy Alcorn recently came across the following note which expresses a dismissal of hell's reality similar to that made by the tragically naive Faustus.

"You seem to be missing the big point here—the complete absurdity that God hurts people for any reason! Jesus told us God is not like the pagan deities who tortured people in Hades, but that he is forgiving, loving, and caring. If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place “Hell” on Jesus’ lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death."

Randy's response is given in full on his blog and I urge you to check it out. It's very good. Very honest. And thoroughly biblical. But as a teaser, I print below an excerpt.

...This comment is misinformed. The truth is that the oldest and most reliable biblical manuscripts include Christ’s explicit statements about Hell. The gospel writers didn’t make up their Lord’s words in the gospels. They simply recorded them. And the hyper-careful scribes didn’t add them to the manuscripts, they simply copied them, word for word, from one to another.


The truth is that Jesus spoke more about Hell than anyone else in all of Scripture. (Because of its importance, I devoted a chapter of my book If God Is Good to the subject of Hell.) Jesus referred to Hell as a real place and described it in graphic terms (see Matthew 10:28; 13:40–42; Mark 9:43–48). He spoke of a fire that burns but doesn’t consume, an undying worm that eats away at the damned, and a lonely and foreboding darkness.


Christ says the unsaved “will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 8:12). Jesus taught that an unbridgeable chasm separates the wicked in Hell from the righteous in paradise. The wicked suffer terribly, remain conscious, retain their desires and memories, long for relief, cannot find comfort, cannot leave their torment, and have no hope (see Luke 16:19–3 1).


Our Savior could not have painted a bleaker picture of Hell...


Why do I believe in an eternal Hell? Because Jesus clearly and repeatedly affirmed its existence. As [Dorothy] Sayers suggested, you cannot dismiss Hell without dismissing Jesus...


Who are we to think we are better than Jesus?


Or that when it comes to Hell, or anything else, we know better than he does?


God determined he would rather endure the torment of the Cross on our behalf than live in Heaven without us. Apart from Christ, we would all spend eternity in Hell. But God so much wants us not to go to Hell that he paid a horrible price on the cross so we wouldn’t have to. This can be distorted into self-congratulation: if God paid such a great price for us, we must be extremely valuable. A better perspective is that if God had to pay such a great price for us, it emphasizes both the extent of his love and the extent of our evil.


Jesus asks a haunting question in Mark 8:36–37: “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?”


The price has been paid, but we can’t benefit from forgiveness unless we choose to receive it. A convicted criminal may be offered a pardon, but if he rejects it, he remains condemned.


By denying Hell’s reality, we lower the stakes of redemption and minimize Christ’s work on the cross. If Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection didn’t deliver us from a real and eternal Hell, then his work on the cross is less heroic, less potent, less consequential, and less deserving of our worship and praise...

Popular British Novelist Suggests the Creation of Street Corner "Euthanasia Booths"

The novelist Martin Amis is calling for "euthanasia booths" to be set up on street corners in Great Britain, places where the elderly can get a medal for drinking a lethal martini.

Is it a sick joke? Not at all. Though clearly trying to create publicity for his new book, the 60-year old Amis is quite in earnest about promoting a general push for the elderly to die and get out of the way. For only by such extreme measures, he believes, can the country avoid an all-out "civil war" between the generations.

Here's the story with a good related article here.

You Gotta' Be There: The Nebraska Walk for Life!

Here's the deal:

The 35th Annual Nebraska Walk for Life sponsored by Nebraska Right to Life is coming up this Saturday. The event serves several important purposes, not the least of which is to commemorate the millions and millions of unjust deaths of preborn boys and girls killed by abortion since January 22nd, 1973.

Those children deserve our remembering and our mourning.

And they also deserve our ongoing dedication to promote the sanctity of human life in our culture. In this purpose also, the Walk for Life is a compelling success for participants are inspired, encouraged, informed and equipped to better meet the various challenges facing pro-life Christians.

The Walk begins on the west side of the State Capitol in Lincoln at 10:30 a.m. There those gathered together listen to brief remarks from NRL leaders and pro-life statesmen. They are usually given a bit of a "teaser" too from the Walk's special guest. That person also has a major address which is given later at the UNL Student Union when the Walk itself has concluded.

Also, while still at the Capitol, we pray together, are led in a pledge of allegiance and the singing of the national anthem, and then contemplate the impact of legalized abortion in our country as helium balloons representing the unnecessary dead are released. It's always a very moving moment.

Then the Walk through the streets of Lincoln, cordoned off temporarily by local police. The Walk is completely peaceful, legal and upbeat. It takes about 20 minutes to complete the course from the Capitol to the Student Union. There, inside the warm, historic building, there are information booths (including one sponsored by Vital Signs Ministries), bake sale items and the formal presentation of the year's speaker.

Please come join us for this year's Walk for Life. It is an extremely important event, one which will provide inspiration for many. You will, for instance, be part of a public witness to lawmakers and to the general public across the state. But your presence will also be a foundation for your own conversations with friends, family and co-workers throughout the year. So dress warmly and bring the family.

By the way, this year's speaker is Jane Hampton Cook from Fox News. She will be talking about the aims for our nation desired by our Founding Fathers and how those aims relate to pro-life advocates of the modern era. The event concludes by1:00 p.m.

Again, please make plans to attend. And be sure and come up and say hello. You'll see us at the VSM booth at the Student Union and, quite likely, before that up at the Capitol building. That's because our pink, green and yellow banners kinda' catch the eye! See you Saturday.

What Should (But Won't) Be in the State of the Union Speech

I will not be watching the President give the State of the Union speech this evening. Instead we're having some friends over to watch the approriately-titled "A Hard Day's Night." (Come th think of it, the Beatles other film also has a relevant title for tonight, Help!")

Anyhow, whether you watch it or not, here's an excellent standard to compare it too, an insightful and visionary manifesto written by Edwin J. Feulner, President of The Heritage Foundation.

Just When the World Needs It Most: ABBAWORLD!

Because of my lengthy participation in a close-knit support group (Bookish, Otherwise Discriminating Adults Who Admit to Liking the Bee Gees, ABBA and Elvis in his Vegas Period), I'm able to say in public that I still listen (often and with sustained delight) to the music produced by the Swedish super-group, ABBA.

Nevertheless, the Arrival in London of the museum/theme park, ABBAWORLD, is just too, too weird. I mean, over 30,000 square feet of a Dream World where visitors can be the Dancing Queen alongside holographs of Frida and Agnetha, look at a re-creation of the cabin near Stockholm where Benny & Bjorn composed many of their hits, and even imagine they can Fly Like an Eagle on the actual helicopter pictured on the cover of their 1976 album?

That's eerie.

But When All Is Said and Done, ABBAWORLD is primarily about Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! The creators hope the displays and the kitschy merchandise will take the Money, Money, Money from the Super Troupers and others among The Visitors who remain Head Over Heels over ABBA. And yes, The Winner Takes It All.

Here's how it goes down.

Ring, Ring. Hello, Nina, Pretty Ballerina. This is Angeleyes; I've Been Waiting for You. What do you say Honey, Honey -- you want to Put On Your White Sombrero, Move On and meet me at Waterloo tube station and go Take a Chance on this ABBAWORLD thing? Knowing Me, Knowing You, we'll have a great time.

What's that you say? Does Your Mother Know? Okay, Chiquitita, you can bring your Mamma Mia along too; She's My Kind of Girl. One of Us can look after her. Huh? You say Fernando wants to come too? Well, He Is Your Brother. And Elaine? And On and On and On?

C'mon now, Baby. What's The Name of the Game here? Dum Dum Diddle and Bang-A-Boomerang, I was hoping for a One Man, One Woman kind of date. But it seems like that's Slipping Through My Fingers.

Okay, My Love, My Life. I get it. Yes, I love your family. Really. I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do, I Do. Yes, darling, even Tiger and Lady Bird and Rikky Rock'n Roller. Bring 'em all to ABBAWORLD. Who cares? Money? Sure, I've got enough for everybody. For crying out loud, I Am A Musician. Okay, Hasta Mañana. But, lover, please remember this, alright? You Owe Me One.

Would Your Church Be Missed?

Diane Singer's church (First Baptist of Huntsville, Alabama) narrowly missed being taken out by a tornado last week. The picture of the near-miss became a bit of sensation on the internet (I post it here too) but the event prompted a provocative commentary on Breakpoint.

Particularly challenging were Diane's concluding questions:

If a tornado destroyed your church building tomorrow, would your community even notice its absence? Is your church making the kind of impact on your community that brings help to the helpless, comfort to the hurting, light to those living in spiritual darkness, and glory to the Lord? Do people in your community generally view your church as a blessing, or as something less positive? Would your church be missed?

President Obama Speaks at Elementary School (With the Help of 2 Teleprompters)

And yesterday's winner of the "You Just Couldn't Make This Stuff Up" Award goes to Barack Obama. (Our president, of course, is a frequent contributor to this category.)

The Prez wins this particular prize for his delivery of a short speech at a Virginia elementary school -- a speech in which he had to use two teleprompters which were in plain sight of the audience and TV cameras.

What a genius. What a gifted orator. And what an example for the kids.

"Don't worry about your parents and teachers trying to dissuade you from using cheat sheets or copying internet sources for your reports. Look at me. I'm the President of the United States and I'm acting like I can give a speech confidently, intelligently, and easily any time I want when all I'm really doing is reading somebody else's stuff from off these fancy gadgets. And, like in this case, I don't even bother to hide 'em."

In his remarks, President Obama praised the school for "using innovative approaches to provide effective teaching." Hmm. Maybe those teleprompters didn't have to be lugged all the way from the White House. They just set up the ones the kids normally use for classroom presentations.

I'm afraid that President Obama is giving the bully pulpit a somewhat different connotation than the one Americans were used to.

Commission or Omission: The Church's Ministry to the Disabled



For information on how you can get involved in helping the Christian Institute on Disability (and how the Institute can help you in your own ministry!), please check out this web site.

The Court's Campaign Finance Decision: It's Not What the Media Is Telling You

Setting the record straight is what John Stossel does best. And in this article in his new blog, John Stossel's Take (hosted by Fox in it's Business Section), he describes how badly botched was the mainstream media coverage of last week's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance law.

Stossel calmly, carefully exposes the glaring errors made in what were less news stories than they were MSM opinion pieces and he then explains why McCain-Feingold "reforms" were actually quite injurious to free speech.

He concludes with a celebration of how the Court gave the people a bit of their democracy back:

What campaign finance laws did was hand the power and control back to incumbent politicians and the political parties. The laws left "ordinary citizens" with only one way to make their voices heard: Make a contribution to a candidate or a political party.


Not anymore.


Keep that in mind when you hear the media describing last week's ruling as a victory for "corporations". The Supreme Court also empowered ordinary citizens to band together and speak freely.


FYI: John Stossel also has a new TV program airing Thursdays at 8 p.m. on the Fox Business Network.

Has Chavez Finally Gone Too Far?

Venezuelan tyrant Hugo Chavez just shut down Radio Caracas Television and 5 other cable TV channels because they wouldn't serve as mere megaphones for the dictator's failing agenda. Indeed, these stations had such anti-socialist gall that they refused to broadcast every ranting speech Chavez made.

But RCTV was the worst offender. The staff there went so far as to actually oppose certain of Chavez' policies in on-air editorials. The strongman had been threatening to pull their plug for some time unless they got in line. They didn't. And so, as of January 24, RCTV and the others have been driven into stone cold silence.

The Fairness Doctrine, Hugo Chavez style. Complete government control of the airwaves.

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi and Al Franken are taking notes.

However, it turned out that shutting down RCTV just added to the dictator's many woes. As an immediate result, major protests have erupted in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities. Chanting crowds confronted by police, street demonstrations met with tear gas cannisters, fights between pro-Chavez and pro-democracy groups, a student killed and several officers injured in the city of Merida, a couple of the Chavez inner circle resigning -- Chavez may indeed be reaching the end of his countrymen's endurance.

But how can anyone be surprised? For not only has Venezuela been forced to swallow Chavez' swelling egoism, his attraction to unjust regimes the world over, and his ever-increasing war on individual liberties, the once prosperous and noble nation is a mess.

As Ray Walser points out in this entry at The Foundry (the blog of the Heritage Foundation):

Increasing polarization is the result of mounting problems occasioned by Chavez’s disastrous “Socialism of the 21st Century” that include galloping inflation, recurring power outages, and periodic food shortages.

Chavez has resorted to increasingly restrictive measures ranging from currency devaluation to the nationalization of retail stores to shore up his struggling oil-based economy. He has driven his nation’s economy to the bottom of the barrel.

The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal 2010 Index of Economic Freedom released last week handed Venezuela’s statist economy a ranking of 174th out of 179 rated economies, placing it on par with Burma, Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe.


So here's to the voices of freedom in Venezuela. May their long nightmare soon be over. And, in particular, I lift a prayer for station RCTV. May it soon be back on the air, celebrating a re-birth of liberty, prosperity and democracy in Venezuela.

Science vs Theology?

Is science in competition with religion? Or do they each provide enlightenment but of different dimensions of life?

Or is truth an indivisible (if magnificently complex) unity, making scientific inquiry, prayer and careful study of the Bible all legitimate partners in the quest for knowledge?

Steve Cable from Probe Ministries weighs in on the controversy.

The current view promoted as dogma by many in academia is that acceptable, genuine science is based on a theological presupposition, namely, that any possibility of intervention by a transcendent Creator or other non-physical entity must be excluded from consideration in evaluating possible explanations for any phenomena observed in the physical world...

In a similar fashion, a common viewpoint promoted in some theological circles is that theology trumps science in any areas in which they have an intersecting interest, i.e. a viewpoint that looks only at the Bible without allowing its interpretation of Scripture to be informed by the findings of science. From this viewpoint, science is at best a limited field of study looking at only a small part of reality, and at worst is spending large amounts of resources studying an illusion masquerading as reality. It is assumed that science cannot provide insights to help deepen our understanding of theology.


I propose that both of these viewpoints share a common shortcoming of prejudging the result before examining the evidence. Both scientist and theologians should be free to follow the evidence where it leads, whether the evidence comes from observation of the physical aspects of our universe, or from philosophy and logic, or from divine revelation...


If God is the Creator of the universe and the Bible is revelation directly from God, then accurate observation of the universe will ultimately prove to be consistent with His revelation. By combining the general revelation of science with the special revelation of the Bible, we should be rewarded with a greater understanding of the nature of our Creator and His intentions for mankind.

"Scientist" Admits Fudging on UN Report...But It Was In a Good Cause

Here's a bit more about that popular (but alas, completely bogus) claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have all melted by 2035 that I mentioned to you last week.

It turns out that the glacier scientist who included the claim in the UN report, Dr. Murari Lal, knew full well that the claim skated on thin ice and was not supported by peer-reviewed scientific research.

So why put it in? Why prostitute his profession and risk damage to his standing as an objective scientist?

Simple. When it comes to global warming, politics trumps science.

"[The Himalayan matter] related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."

In other words, if the scientific facts don't swing the deal, just throw in scientific-sounding lies.

Enthusiasm Wanes for Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Michael Cook mentions in this brief BioEdge post a couple of examples showing that "the bloom is off the rose" of embryonic stem cell research. The first is a January 17th editorial from Investor's Business Daily about the utter failure of California's $3 billion Proposition 71 ("When funding was needed, the phrase 'embryonic stem cells' was used. When actual progress was discussed, the word 'embryonic' was dropped because [the ESCR] never got out of the lab.") and the second is a January 19th Daily Mail story refering to even the International Society for Stem Cell Research admitting that "people’s expectations about stem cells are unrealistically high."

"Too Much of a Bad Thing"

In case you missed your weekend Mark Steyn moment, circle back and read his take on Barack Obama's claim that the long tumble he's taken in the polls is because he hasn't talked to the American people enough!

Go ahead, "Too Much of a Bad Thing" will be just enough of a good thing to start your Monday morning right.

Barack Obama: Abortion Is a "Fundamental Constitutional Right"

"Today we recognize the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which affirms every woman’s fundamental constitutional right to choose whether to have an abortion, as well as each American’s right to privacy from government intrusion. I have, and continue to, support these constitutional rights."

(President Barack Obama, from a White House press release, January 22nd, 2010)

Obama's Myths Exposed

We the people of the United States owe Scott Brown's sup porters a huge debt of gratitude. They didn't merely elect a senator. They ripped the façade off the Obama presidency.

Just as Dorothy and Toto exposed the ordinary man behind the curtain in "The Wizard of Oz," the voters in Massachusetts revealed that, in this White House, there is no there there.


It's all smoke and mirrors, bells and whistles, held together with glib talk, Chicago politics and an audacious sense of entitlement.


At the center is a young and talented celebrity whose worldview, we now know, is an incoherent jumble of poses and big-government instincts. His self-aggrandizing ambition exceeds his ability by so much that he is making a mess of everything he touches.

He never advances a practical idea. Every proposal overreaches and comes wrapped in ideology and a claim of moral superiority. He doesn't listen to anybody who doesn't agree with him.

After his first year on the job, America is sliding backwards, into grave danger at home and around the world. So much so that I now believe either of his rivals, Hillary Clinton or John McCain, would have made a better, more reliable and more trustworthy president.


They warned us he wasn't ready.


Yes, we're stuck with him, but we're no longer stuck with his suffocating conformity. The second Boston Tea Party opened the door to new ideas and new people of both parties...


Michael Goodwin takes no prisoners in this wry and witty overview of Barack Obama's first year. Read the rest of his article in the New York Post here.

Media Ignores Persecuted Christians

Cliff May posted this at NRO's The Corner:

"Mosques Under Attack in France"

The headline above is not true. But if it were, it would be huge story, would it not?

However,

"In Nigeria this week, Muslim youths set fire to a church, killing more than two dozen Christian worshippers. In Egypt, Coptic Christians have been suffering increased persecution including, this month, a drive-by shooting outside a church in which seven people were murdered. In Pakistan, Christian churches were bombed over Christmas. In Turkey, authorities have been closing Christian churches, monasteries, and schools, and seizing Christian properties. Recently, churches in Malaysia have been attacked, too, provoked by this grievance: Christians inside the churches were referring to God as 'Allah.' How dare infidels use the same name for the Almighty as do Muslims."

Why, to most of the media, is this not a story? My NRO column today is on the war being waged — with little press attention — against infidels within the “Muslim world.”

77% of U.S. Investors See Obama as Anti-Business

Joblessness. Inflation. Economic cluelessness. Ludicrous bailouts. Cash for clunkers. Boondoggle bills. Taxing banks. High-handed but hypocritical harranguing. Blaming others for his own failed policies. Appointing tax dodgers to his cabinet. An arrogant attack mode towards business. Trampling the Constitution to kill cash cows.

Is there any surprise then at the opening paragraph of this Bloomberg/Yahoo story?

U.S. investors overwhelmingly see President Barack Obama as anti-business and question his ability to manage a financial crisis, according to a Bloomberg survey. The global quarterly poll of investors and analysts who are Bloomberg subscribers finds that 77 percent of U.S. respondents believe Obama is too anti-business and four-out-of-five are only somewhat confident or not confident of his ability to handle a financial emergency.

The March for Life, The Walk for Life, and Blogs for Life: YOU Can Participate!

As I hinted yesterday might be the case, I am blogging today not from Washington, D.C. but from Omaha. Claire and I were scheduled to fly to the nation's capital for the March for Life and other activities but we got an early morning phone call yesterday telling us that my Mom had been taken in to the emergency room at Immanuel Hospital.

She is now okay but we didn't get her back to her room at the Life Care Center until after noon. By then, it was probably too late for us to make our flight anyhow but we just didn't feel comfortable leaving town under the circumstances.

So we will miss direct participation in the annual March for Life in Washington and the Blogs for Life conference at the Family Research Council. That's a bummer.

However...thanks to the advances in technology, we don't have to miss them entirely. Indeed, we invite you to join us here tomorrow morning for a live webcast of the Blogs for Life conference beginning at 7:30 CST.

And you can even join the thousands of pro-life Americans who will...get this...be going on a Virtual March for Life thanks to the clever folks at Americans United for Life. You can select your own "avatar" (it's an old word, doesn't mean I'm endorsing the pantheistic movie which uses it as a title) and join tomorrow's March. CLaire and I signed up; you can too. Click here to learn how.

And finally, the most important word of all for those of you here in Nebraska, is please plan on attending the Walk for Life in Lincoln a week from Saturday. (Details are right here.) This may well be one of the most important Walks for Life ever held in our state and it is of critical importance that we increase (by big bunches) the evangelical support of this inspirational public witness. C'mon, join us in Lincoln!

Ben Nelson Doesn't Act Like Ben Nelson Talks

Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) reacts to the Massachusetts election in a statement:

“Clearly, the vote showed that people are frustrated with Washington...and I am too. That frustration will likely register across the board for all incumbents. The overriding message from yesterday is that people are upset because Washington is dysfunctional and not working together for them. The Massachusetts vote should be a wake-up call for Washington. Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, Democrats and Independents have 59. The 60/40 split that took us too far down the road to partisan gamesmanship is history. The vote should end the situation where one side thinks it doesn’t need the other, and the other thinks there’s no need to work together for the good of the nation."


(The rest of the statement is pap. Nelson, facing tanking approval numbers back home, proceeds to use the words "bipartisan" and "bipartisanship" a half-dozen times in the span of as many sentences.)


But the upshot is clear enough: Now that the Democrats lack a supermajority in the Senate (and, more importantly, now that Ben Nelson is no longer its 60th vote) it is time to stop all the odious quid pro quo, special favors, and backroom kickbacks it took to keep that caucus together.


Well, he should know.


(Daniel Foster, "Ben Nelson Finds Religion," NRO, January 20)

Mort Zuckerman Turns On Obama

Mortimer B. Zuckerman, chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report and publisher of the New York Daily News (and one of the richest men in the world) has paid close attention to Barack Obama's first year in the Oval Office. After all, that's Zuckerman's job. But he was also concerned as a citizen, a naturalized citizen who generously supports Democrat politicians and is particularly interested (as should we all be) in the freedom and prosperity of Israel.

Zuckerman is one of the many who bought into Obama's promises of hope, positive change, non-partisanship, unity, transparency, fiscal responsibility, etc. Indeed, Mort Zuckerman was a fellow who really went out on the limb for Obama. He voted for him. His newspaper endorsed him. He was constant and energetic in his support.

But now -- Mort Zuckerman is anything but pleased.

Here's a portion of his article in The Daily Beast:

Obama punted on the economy and reversed the fortunes of the Democrats in 365 days.

He’s misjudged the character of the country in his whole approach. There’s the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid.” He didn’t get it. He was determined somehow or other to adopt a whole new agenda. He didn’t address the main issue.


This health-care plan is going to be a fiscal disaster for the country. Most of the country wanted to deal with costs, not expansion of coverage. This is going to raise costs dramatically.


In the campaign, he said he would change politics as usual. He did change them. It’s now worse than it was. I’ve now seen the kind of buying off of politicians that I’ve never seen before. It’s politically corrupt and it’s starting at the top. It’s revolting.


Five states got deals on health care—one of them was Harry Reid’s. It is disgusting, just disgusting. I’ve never seen anything like it. The unions just got them to drop the tax on Cadillac plans in the health-care bill. It was pure union politics. They just went along with it. It’s a bizarre form of political corruption. It’s bribery. I suppose they could say, that’s the system. He was supposed to change it or try to change it...


Obama’s ability to connect with voters is what launched him. But what has surprised me is how he has failed to connect with the voters since he’s been in office. He’s had so much overexposure. You have to be selective. He was doing five Sunday shows. How many press conferences? And now people stop listening to him. The fact is he had 49.5 million listeners to first speech on the economy. On Medicare, he had 24 million. He’s lost his audience. He has not rallied public opinion. He has plunged in the polls more than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls. He’s done everything wrong. Well, not everything, but the major things.


I don’t consider it a triumph. I consider it a disaster...


I hope there are changes. I think he’s already laid in huge problems for the country. The fiscal program was a disaster...


It’s very sad. It’s really sad.


He’s improved America’s image in the world. He absolutely did. But you have to translate that into something. Let me tell you what a major leader said to me recently. “We are convinced,” he said, “that he is not strong enough to confront his enemy. We are concerned,” he said “that he is not strong to support his friends.”


The political leadership of the world is very, very dismayed. He better turn it around. The Democrats are going to get killed in this election. Jesus, looks what’s happening in Massachusetts...


I can’t predict things two years from now, but if he continues on the downward spiral he is on, he won’t be reelected. In the meantime, the Democrats have recreated the Republican Party. And when I say Democrats, I mean the Obama administration. In the generic vote, the Democrats were ahead something like 52 to 30. They are now behind the Republicans 48 to 44 in the last poll. Nobody has ever seen anything that dramatic.

Ft. Hood Report Doesn't Mention Islam, Doesn't Even Mention the Terrorist's Name

Even TIME magazine is bothered by the government's Ft. Hood massacre report.

The U.S. military's just-released report into the Fort Hood shootings spends 86 pages detailing various slipups by Army officers but not once mentions Major Nidal Hasan by name or even discusses whether the killings may have had anything to do with the suspect's view of his Muslim faith. And as Congress opens two days of hearings on Wednesday into the Pentagon probe of the Nov. 5 attack that left 13 dead, lawmakers want explanations for that omission...

Here's the rest.

What a Week for the President!

What a week it's been for Barack Obama. For instead of helping him crow over the first-year anniversary of his presidency, reporters are grudgingly bound to cover the many evidences of how failed have been his policies and ideas.

* Erroll Southers withdraws.

* Another sad jump in first-time claims for unemployment aid shows how ineffective has been the President's wildly expensive "stimulus" package.

* The fallout contnues from the "underwear bomber" and his exposure of how frail the security sytems are at our nation's airports.

* An unknown Republican wins the Massachusetts Senate seat that has, except for a very brief period, been in Democrat control since the 1920s.

* U.S. prestige and power are both in rapid decline as Iran, South Korea, China, Russia, Islamic terrorists and others openly ridicule and exploit their once-formidable foe.

* Democrats in Washington, D.C. still live high on the taxpayers' hog and, without bothering to cut any spending, demand the debt ceiling be raised to $1.9 trillion.

* Obama's poll numbers are still tanking. He has fallen further in the opinion polls than any other political figure since we’ve been using polls.

Yet he still doesn't get it.

Barack Obama Needs to Talk to Us Even More?

President Obama said today that he believes he lost a direct connection to the American people in his first year in office because he focused too heavily on policymaking.

"If there's one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."


Ah, I see. We just didn't get to know the man.

Talk about revisionism. For this statement comes from a fellow who was constantly on our television screens, in the headlines, and on the magazine covers. Indeed, only 21 days in the whole doggone year did he not have a public appearance or splashy press event!

Indeed, the President who now claims his ideas and policies are unpopular merely because he didn't speak about them enough did, in fact, talk to us ad nauseam.

Here's the record:

How about 411 speeches, released remarks and carefully crafted public comments? 52 of them specifically dealing with his health care schemes.

For crying out loud, the guy's teleprompter was in use 178 times!

He gave 42 news conferences including 4 which took over prime time TV.

He did 158 interviews for a fawning press, 90 of which aired on television.

He presided over 23 "town hall" gatherings where he pontificated on his issues.

He traveled to 21 nations in his first year and to 58 U.S. cities (always accompanied by a huge throng of adoring reporters who let the American people know his every word and gesture).

He did 28 political fundraisers and 7 campaign rallies.

He had 13 bill-signing ceremonies plus plenty of media coverage on the other 111 bills he signed into law.

Goodness gracious, President Obama has been the most ubiquitous politician in history -- perpetually in our face -- talking to us via his teleprompter, his surrogates, his lapdog press and his arrogant self until we can't catch our breath.

Yet now he tells us we don't like his budget-busting, socialist revolution because...he "lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people."

What bizzaro political dimension does this guy live in? Couldn't even his friend and fellow Democrat, George Stephanopolous (to whom he made this remarkable statement) warn him that he was denying history, denying rationality, setting himself up as a bad joke?

And does this mean that we're going to start hearing more of Barack Obama?

Is that possible?

To Washington Or Not?

Claire and I were scheduled to fly out this afternoon to Washington, D.C. for the annual March for Life and related activities. But an early morning call from Life Care Center informed us that there may be some issues with my Mom so our plans are uncertain right now. We'll know more after I get over there. But I should be on the blog tomorrow as usual -- I just don't know from where. We would, of course, appreciate your prayers.

Obama's Pick for TSA Withdraws

He and his friends had to give with the usual yada yada at the press conference but the important thing is -- he's gone.

Errol Southers, President Obama's pick to lead the Transportation Security Administration who I drew your attention to last Wednesday, has withdrawn himself from consideration.

Well, that's one. But given Barack Obama's ego, extremism and enduring ambition to re-make American culture by selecting leftist revolutionaries to control government agencies, I shudder to think of Southers' replacement.

After the "Massachusetts Miracle"

Here's just a few items relevant to last night's "Massachusetts miracle."

* Congressman Patrick Kennedy, son of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, likened the voters of his home state to blood-lusty Romans who eagerly watched Christians killed by lions.

As election returns came in Tuesday night, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I.) said it's clear that voters wanted “a whipping boy” for all the lost jobs and foreclosed homes. “It’s like in Roman times, they’d be trotted out to the coliseum and the lions would be brought out,” Kennedy told reporters at the Capitol on Tuesday night. “I mean, they’re wanting blood and they’re not getting it so they want to protest..."

* In another interview, Patrick Kennedy passed on another delectable bon mot which expresses the sloppy approach that dominates Democrat lawmaking nowadays. Of the Senate's grievously flawed "health care" bill, Kennedy said, "There is only one guarantee — that if we don't pass something the notion of trying to put Humpty Dumpty together again is a real long shot. If you understand the legislative process, it's a lot easier to pass something and fix it later."

It's a bad bill -- a broken, unworkable, super expensive bill. But Kennedy and his fellow Democrats don't care. They just want to pass something! And they feel compelled to pass it in a hurry. In secret. And in open defiance of the will of the people.

* In a post at NRO's The Corner entitled "The Vindication of the Cambridge Cop and a Word of Caution for the GOP," Alvin S. Felzenberg has some insightful commentary (and very good advice) regarding last night's developments.

* From Tim Reid, writing in Washington for the Telegraph but before the Brown/Coakley race was decided):

When Barack Obama took the oath of office before a shimmering wave of humanity a year ago today with his approval rating at 70 per cent, he and the Democrats controlling Congress believed that history beckoned — and that they had the clout and popular support to shape it.


Yesterday the President and his party were scrambling to avoid losing Teddy Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat — an unthinkable development even a month ago — and are bracing themselves for a bloodbath in congressional elections this November. It shows just what a debilitating first year they have suffered, and what a perilous 2010 beckons.


On that freezing but sparkling January morning 12 months ago, Mr Obama promised to usher in a new era of bipartisanship in Washington and to remake the American economy and the country’s social contract with a wealth of historic legislation that a Democratic-controlled Capitol Hill would send to his desk.


Today his approval rating has dropped to less than 50 per cent. Democrats are nervous and depressed. In November’s mid-term elections they will almost certainly lose their 60-seat, filibuster-proof majority in the Senate — if they have not already lost it by ceding the Massachusetts seat. Last night Mr Obama acknowledged the possibility of losing it.


In the House, it is likely that the party will lose between 20 and 30 seats, and could cede control of the lower chamber entirely. Such a notion appeared impossible a year ago.


Mr Obama remains personally popular, but his policies have unnerved many Americans who voted for him, in particular independents, whose support was critical to his election victory. In a poll this week, only 49 per cent of unaffiliated voters approved of Mr Obama’s performance: lower than any of his recent predecessors at this stage in their presidencies.


Voters are angry, restless and deeply disaffected with Washington. They are unconvinced that Mr Obama’s prescription of massive government intervention has succeeded in any area, except in exploding the federal budget deficit and leaving generations of Americans awash in national debt...


* From David Hogberg's Capital Hill post (Investor's Business Daily):

Meanwhile, J. Mark Wrighton, a frequent election commenter for IBD stories, thinks Sens. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., and Mary Landrieu, D-La., will have cover now to back out of their now-infamous political deals with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on health care. Wrighton, a professor of political science and associate dean the University of Southern Mississippi, said the following: "Brown’s election to the Senate has the potential to provide political cover for Senate Democrats pivotal in the healthcare debate. Brown's 41st vote against invoking cloture removes much of the pressure on red-state Democrats to vote for cloture. As the process unfolds, we may see some switching by those vulnerable senators who are currently associated with unpopular agreements to move the bill along."

Will Senator Nelson take advantage of this opportunity? See the Vital Signs post following this one for more on that matter.

Massachusetts Election Gives Ben Nelson a Chance for a New Start. Will He Take It?

Is Ben Nelson just misinformed about the disastrous Senate "health care" bill? Or is he guilty of deliberate misrepresentation?

Either way, he's proving himself a very poor Senator for Nebraska.

Check out the Heritage Foundation's report about Senator Nelson's double-talk about the public option.

In the wake of widespread public backlash over his eleventh-hour deal to get increased federal taxpayer Medicaid funding for his vote, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has been hitting the media circuit, assuring reporters that he won’t vote for any merged health care bill that funds abortions with taxpayer dollars or has a government-run health insurance plan.


“There is zero chance (of a public option),” he said to The Chadron Record. “I’ve made it so clear. It isn’t going to happen.” But Sen. Nelson has already allowed a “public option” to flourish by voting for the Senate version last month.


Medicare, for example, is the quintessential public plan. Instead of the Medicare bureaucracy contracting with private carriers to provide health coverage, as it does today, the latest Senate bill turns that responsibility over to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the agency that runs the federal civil service and the popular Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEBHP). Under the Senate bill, OPM would sponsor two “multi-state” health plans —one of which must be nonprofit — to compete against private plans in the country.


In other words, there could be health plan competition on a national level in every state, but only the federal government would field these national health plans. These government-sponsored health plans would have an exclusive franchise: No private health plans would be able to compete in the same way as the selected health plans sponsored by OPM. In effect, the Senate bill creates a set of “public options” that are thinly disguised as private health plans.


“If the Senate bill becomes law, OPM would not merely serve as an umpire overseeing the competition among private health plans within the FEBHP,” says Kay Cole James, a former OPM director who has warned about this latest congressional tactic to achieve a public plan. “The agency also would become the government’s health-plan sponsor.”


That means this federal agency could field its own team of players, while setting premiums and making other rules for its sponsored health plans, competing against the existing private plans in every state of the union. If OPM officials manipulate the rules, and secure special advantages for its health plans, it could just as easily undercut private health plans and drive many insurers out of the market, James said. “What we’ll see is a stacked insurance market that favors a government-operated ‘private plan.’”


“Sen. Nelson, I ran the OPM, and I can tell you that the Senate’s OPM sponsored plan is not an alternative to a government-run health plan — it is the ‘public option,’” James charges...


The rest of this enlightening report is here.

After reading this, I think you'll agree with me that Ben Nelson needs to get his facts straight.

In the past, Nebraskans have been inclined to give Senator Nelson the benefit of the doubt when it came to his motives but, after the nefarious "Cornhusker Cave-in" in which he bared his neck (and tossed away his pro-life principles) to Harry Reid, it seems like we just can't trust him anymore. So write Senator Nelson, call him, e-mail him and pass the word to others to do the same. Let him know you've become fed up with his lousy performance and, whether it stems from incompetence, naivete or something even uglier, he's got to turn things around ASAP.

That would start, of course, with a complete reversal of his position regarding the Senate "health care" bill.

The election of a Republican Senator in Massachusetts last night (primarily because of the "health care" fiasco created by Team Obama) proves that this mess must be cleaned up quickly. Nelson should see this as a splendid moment for a public mea culpa. Tell us you're sorry for what you did, Ben, and pledge anew your support for bipartisan, transparent, fiscally responsible and morally sound health care reform.

South Korea Needs Babies -- Quick

"It won't be too long before our children are burdened with supporting the elderly," South Korea's Health Minister Jeon Jae-Hee says. "Korea may lose out in the global economic competition due to a lack of manpower. It is actually the most urgent and important issue the country is facing."

Of course, South Korea is only one of dozens of countries facing a cultural and economic crisis because of negative population growth. As I have mentioned several times on this blog, Europe is in an especially precarious position. But few of those European countries are bothering to address the matter.

In South Korea, however, they're trying to reverse the trend that materialism and a "contraception mentality" have brought about in recent decades...a trend that finds South Koreans facing a birth rate way below ZPG (Zero Population Growth).

The government is trying tax breaks, cash gifts, matchmaking services and other incentives to counter the problem including, as this story describes, the turning off of lights in businesses "to encourage staff to go home early and make more babies."