"A blizzard of lies from Al Gore"

Al Gore has a huge financial interest in the myth that human activity causes global warming. Perpetrating the fraud of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) has made him even wealthier than did his family's tobacco business. And he's prepared to defend this lie with the same zeal with which he and the tobacco companies defended the lie that cigarette-smoking was not a serious health hazard.

Gore has came out of hiding with an op-ed piece in the New York Times. If the spin makes you dizzy and the fantasy world he inhabits reminds you of Lewis Carroll's Wonderland, you might regain your footing with a dose of reality from Investor's Business Daily:

If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore's op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it."

Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean.

Read the entire IBD piece here.

Must Watch TV: "Hide the Decline"

Note: Please pardon the unfortunate effect of fitting a wide video into a narrow column (second two videos).

Hide the Decline [in global temperatures]


Al Gore's "inconvenient falsehoods"


Learn more at Climate Depot.

Emails reveal efforts to promote "global warming"
fiction and punish dissidents


The corrupt peer review process
behind "global warming"

South Bend, Indiana: Kill children, not dogs

In South Bend, a stoned driver who killed two little girls gets ten days in jail:

St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Richard McCormick sentenced 56-year-old Leroy Hoover to 60 days in jail Thursday with 50 days suspended.

I guess McCormick couldn't bear to see Hoover spend the whole 60 days in the slammer. Ten days isn't a sentence, it's an endorsement. There's probably some reason that McCormick and Hoover shouldn't spend the rest of their lives sharing a cell, but I don't know what it would be.

In other news from South Bend, residents are outraged that a burglar shot and killed a dog that was suffering from bone cancer:

Gina Oliver created one of the reward funds after reading about the disturbing crime. She says the robbers "crossed a line that no one should ever cross."

I sympathize with the dog's owner, Dan Warner; I've experienced the shock of a beloved pet's sudden and unexpected death. But on a scale of "disturbing" crimes deserving of outrage, on the list of lines that "no one should ever cross", killing children really should rank higher than killing a dog.

Maybe not in South Bend.

A toxic orthodoxy

The title of this post is my own; I doubt my "guest" here would agree with it. But I think that threats of retaliation and un-Biblical litmus tests do indeed suggest some level of toxicity. I have previously written about ill effects of dogmatic insistence on a young Earth and a literal six day creation. In a recent commentary on Moody Radio, Bryan Litfin, Associate Professor of Theology at Moody Bible Institute, identified some others. With his permission, I have reproduced his remarks below.

Misplaced Priorities
by Bryan Litfin

I had a disturbing experience recently when I was interviewed on Moody radio about the viewpoint held by some Christians called “progressive creationism.” I’ll explain what that is in a moment, but my goal isn’t to rehash that topic today. It was the response from listeners that disturbed me, and that’s what I want to focus on. I think it’s an example of misplaced priorities when it comes to the Bible’s emphasis.

Basically, progressive creationism argues that God created the universe over billions of years. This is not the same as Darwin’s evolution, because progressive creationists do not hold that man descended from other hominid species. They say God directly created certain species, including man, over billions of years. It’s an old-earth view of creationism. In this way, God’s Word and the scientific record can be reconciled. Again, my point here isn’t to revisit that topic.

It was the response from listeners that disturbed me. When I said on the radio that progressive creationism is an acceptable Christian view, and indeed one I find plausible, some listeners responded negatively. They wrote letters to me and to Moody vehemently disagreeing. That of course is fine; there’s nothing wrong with theological debate. But there were accusations flying as well, including the suggestion that certain creationist viewpoints must be a litmus test for teaching at Moody. There were threats about withholding donations, or not sending students to Moody, and even accusations of infidelity to God’s Word. Though I didn’t feel personally threatened by all this, I was bothered by the lack of discernment I was hearing. I thought, “Is this what we’ve come to in the American church today? Have we been so deluded to let a side issue become the centerpiece?”

The Bible doesn’t make a big issue of the age of the earth. Man has done that. Scripture emphasizes God as Creator, absolutely. But the specific “how” isn’t something that reverberates throughout the Bible. Defending six-day creationism is not the lynchpin of faithful Christianity. Nor is belief in evolution the root of all evil in the world. What science textbooks teach about human origins in the public schools is not a make or break issue for us.

We as believers have got to let creationism assume its proper place in our list of priorities. Sure, it’s an issue for debate among Christians. But when it comes to the unbelieving world, it’s time to stop attacking science as some massive demonic conspiracy, and stop attacking scientists as godless reprobates. Instead, it’s time for Christians to embrace the scientific enterprise, and engage unsaved scientists in serious debate and charitable apologetics.

Perhaps most importantly, we’ve got to start spending our dollars wisely. There’s only so much money to go around. We live in a world full of massive human need and suffering. Should we here in America become obsessed with our own culture wars at the expense of such need? When children are literally starving to death, and widows are oppressed by thugs, and orphans multiply daily, and young girls are forced into prostitution, day after day after day – do we really need a museum with animated dinosaurs and displays about Noah’s flood? Seriously – where do you think Jesus would spend his time? As for me, I have a hunch it would be with the poor and the oppressed.

For Moody Radio, I’m Bryan Litfin.

Professor Litfin is the author of Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction.

Politics: Having your cake and eating it too

Disclaimer: I occasionally smoke a hand-made imported cigar. I quit cigarettes 27 years ago and have never chewed.

"Having your cake and eating too" could apply to much of what's going on in Washington these days - Senator Chris Dodd handing his AIG buddies millions of dollars in bonuses then criticizing them for taking the money, Obama promising not to force the burden of our economic mistakes on future generations while creating the largest and fastest-growing deficits in the history of Earth, and so on.

But I'm particularly amused by the reasoning of those who raise taxes on tobacco. Inevitably, these geniuses manage to do something I cannot - believe that both A and not A are true at the same time. I suppose this irrational ability is a consequence of the post-modernist belief that truth is relative:

Rational Person: "Is truth absolute?"
Post-Modernist: "There are no absolute truths."
R P: "Really? none?"
P-M: "True. Absolutely none."

According to the story cited above, the reason for raising the federal tax on cigarettes from $.39 to $1.01 is "to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children". Rooting for the increase is the president of the American Heart Association:

The tax increase "is a terrific public health move by the federal government," he said. "Every time that the tax on tobacco goes up, the use of cigarettes goes down."

Wow! 33 billion bucks to spend on children and improved health for smokers who are forced to quit or cut back! Who wouldn't want that? But there's a more realistic question - which one do you want? Someone needs to explain to liberals that they can have one or the other, but not both. Either smokers keep smoking and keep coughing up the taxes (so to speak) to pay for children's health insurance, or they cut way back, get healthier, and leave no one to pay for the insurance.

But liberals, the poster children for irrational public policy, obviously believe that cigarette smokers will simultaneously pay and not pay the tax; they will both smoke and not smoke.

And, of course, there's another hallmark of liberalism here, hypocrisy:

Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit.

There you have it, pure post-modern liberalism at its best.

Real must-see TV: Energy independence

If you want to know why we need to reduce our dependence on all oil (not just imports), watch this video. If you want to know how to do it, watch this video. If you want to see through the phony plans of McBama, OCain, T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore, and everyone else who is trying to get rich, elected, or both, watch this video.

The video (from C-SPAN) features Anne Korin of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security is a bit over an hour long with Q&A. The talk itself is about a half-hour of very useful and relevant information but the Q&A is just as informative. (If you can't see the player below for some reason, you can go to the C-SPAN site to watch it. You'll have to enable pop-ups to see it on the C-SPAN site.)

After you've seen the video, read the related OpEd piece that was published in the Washington Post.

The Republicans' Jimmy Carter

George W. Bush is on the verge of limping out of the White House as ignominiously as Jimmy Carter did - reviled, mocked, and bewildered. If his catastrophic 700 billion dollar giveaway gets through Congress, "W" - along with his liberal allies in Congress - will forever be remembered as the President who sold out America.

There's no need to go over all the bad ideas rolled into this monumental transfer of public wealth to private coffers. Plenty of commentators have turned over the rocks to expose the dirty little creatures scurrying around beneath. I want to focus on Bush's betrayal of his constituency and his country.

The Great Betrayer of Conservatism

For all his empty talk about the free market, Bush is revealing himself to be a statist who wants to manage the economy for the benefit of the wealthy. It is ironic that real conservatives are often falsely accused of promoting the American plutocracy, but it is Bush, the phony "compassionate conservative", who is actually trying to deliver the goods. Unlike real conservatives, Bush likes the upside of free markets, but lacks the courage and conviction to accept the downside.

The premise of deregulation is that the market will be a better watchdog over financial institutions than government bureaucrats. The market has spoken. Fanny and Freddy, WaMu and Wachovia, AIG and Lehmann have been disastrously mismanaged and the market has put an end to their follies. But Bush can't bear to let the market act when it rightly punishes incompetence. To him and his ilk, the"free" in "free market" means only the freedom to succeed; it does not include the freedom to fail. Bush wants to sacrifice America to protect members of his class from failure.

(Of course, the Pelosis and Reids of the world - along with plenty of compliant Republicans - bear much of the blame by encouraging radical organizations like Acorn to push banks into making loans that no sane underwriter would allow.)

The Great Betrayer of America

At a time when left-wing radicals like Al Franken and moveon.org are making an all-out push to oust Republicans from government once and for all (as if they presented an ideological threat to their socialist dreams), Bush is trying to hand them their favorite weapon - class hatred.

In order to seize power, the radical left requires a deep-seated belief that life in America is a zero-sum game. If the rich grow richer, the poor must become poorer. Their entire political life depends on the notion that the only way "working families" can succeed is for the government to take money away from the "rich" and give it to the people who really "deserve" it - people who vote for them.

Liberals will never admit that it is capital - not government - that creates jobs, credit, and opportunities. They will never admit that the whole pie can grow and everyone's own little slice with it. And they are committed to keeping America ignorant of those simple facts.

Bush has created a new and powerful "Main Street v. Wall Street" class war. He seems determined to prove to the American people that (a) wealthy financiers need to be protected from financial loss, and (b) only government spending can "solve" the problem. This war plays directly into the hands of liberals on both sides of the aisle (especially in the Senate) who hate democracy and hate the limits the Constitution places on their power.

Is there any hope? Not much. Even if sanity prevails and the bailout is somehow averted, Bush will turn over the White House to either McBama or OCain. The Republicans and Democrats will continue to look after their own interests. A return to such archaic ideas as liberty and fiscal sanity would require the American voters to do something they haven't done in decades. Voters would have to look beyond their own sense of entitlement and the "journalists" who pander to it, and make some tough, responsible decisions.

That seems unlikely. Sadly, John Kennedy's stirring admonition to ask what we can do for our country has become just another sound bite to be ignored along with the Republican and Democrat candidates' empty promises.

Time to vote third-party!

I've always bought into the idea that a vote for a third-party candidate was a wasted vote. No more. I've become convinced that a vote for a Republican or Democrat - at least at the national level - is a wasted vote. Why? Because neither party can be trusted to do what is right for America.

Consider this: Based on their relative solvency, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG should be bailing out the U. S. government, not the other way around. Uncle Sam is so broke and so in debt to China that it's folly to pretend he has the assets to save even the neighbor kid's lemonade stand from financial ruin. And there's no point in partisan finger-pointing. The Elephants and Jackasses have all sold us out with equal fervor.

Yesterday I briefly watched Sen. Chris Dodd blather about how, amid the feds' .7 trillion dollar give-away, the "taxpayers will be covered". Covered with what, he didn't say, but he didn't need to. When it hits the fan, the politicians and their rich buddies who created the problems in the first place will be well under cover. (See Ron Paul's email about this vast giveaway.)

The argument from hysteria (the politicians' favorite way of clouding any issue) is that there will be terrible economic consequences if a handful of private financial instutions are allowed to collapse. What the politicians never tell us, however, is how much more terrible the consequences will be when our government collapses from the weight of its own spiraling debt. I - along with most of Congress - may be long gone by then, but my children or grandchildren are going to live in a debt-ridden country with a third-world economy because we took the easy way out and voted for Republicans and Democrats.

I'm voting for Libertian candidate Bob Barr and I'd encourage you to do the same. But if you want to vote for the Green candidate or the PETA candidate or dust off Ross Perot or write in dear old dead Pat Paulsen, it doesn't matter to me. Just do it! My guy won't win and neither will yours. No matter what happens, we'll be saddled with McBama or OCain and it won't matter much which one it is.

But if enough of us vote for someone who is neither Democrat nor Republican, we might put a little fear into the self-serving fat cats inside the beltway who have had their way at our expense for way too long.

Culture: Imus and Jackson

Among Don Imus' critics was a relatively subdued Jesse Jackson. I was surprised he had the nerve to speak up at all. In their feeding frenzy, the news outlets I've seen and heard have been strangely silent about Jackson's anti-Semitic remarks in 1984.

I was taught that character is what you do when you think no one is looking. When Jackson referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York as "Hymietown", he was having what he apparently thought was a private conversation with a journalist. He thought no one was looking.

It can hardly be said that Imus thought he was speaking privately. Insulting people and being hip were part of his broadcast schtick. On the few occasions when I watched his show on MSNBC, I briefly wondered where the offensive humor ended and the man with a heart for kids* began. It seems unlikely that he actually bore the women - black or white - of Rutgers' basketball team any ill will. I suppose he was just a foolish old white man trying tart up his trademark insults in gangsta chic.

But Jackson was in what he thought was a safe environment. He spoke freely, apparently never considering that his bigotry would be made public. According the Washington Post story cited above, Jackson first denied the remarks then tried to blame his victims. I don't recall Imus blaming the basketball players for his remarks. So who's the greater bigot?

Come to think of it, what about all the racial invective directed at three innocent Duke lacrosse players? Who's going to get fired for that?

I don't consider the end of Imus' show much of a loss. Like Howard Stern and the gangsta rappers he seemed to want to emulate, Imus made a substantial contribution to the coarsening of American culture. It's the shrill hypocrisy of those who brought him down that seems to be getting lost in the coverage.

* [The Imus ranch's] sole purpose is to provide the experience of the great American cowboy to children suffering from cancer or serious blood disorders, and children who've lost brothers and sisters to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).... All expenses are provided including airfare and transportation to and from the airport in New Mexico. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3359675/