Why is Gingrich fronting for Gore?

"The climate crisis is both urgent and solvable [so] our ultimate aim is halt global warming," proclaims an Al Gore website and ad campaign. But conservatives, among whom former Speaker Newt Gingrich proudly counts himself, believe hardly a single word of that statement. So it's hard to fathom why Gingrich is appearing in TV spots with Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi, promoting the campaign. In a damage control letter, Newt claims he is merely trying to engage the climate debate and keep the right relevant, without granting the left's premise "that we have conclusive proof of global warming [or] that humans are at the center of it."

He insists his purpose in doing the ads with Pelosi is to advance "a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in."

Sorry, but that sounds like moonshine to me. The sum total of Gingrich's message on these cheesy spots, showing the past and present Speakers seated like couch potatoes in front of the US Capitol (similar to an equally horrid beach sofa scene with the Revs. Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton, God help us) is this:

"Our country must take action to address climate change. If enough of us demand action from our leaders, we can spark the innovation we need."

But why, Newt, pray tell, "must our country take action" on something which, according your off-camera spin lacks conclusive proof as to its very existence, let alone its human cause? And how can your Green Conservatism get any hearing whatsoever from WeCanSolveIt.org, the Gore-led website to which Nancy directs us at the close of the ad?

The site offers no "spark the innovation" option at all. Gingrich disciples who go there will find that "demand action from our leaders" translates to a rigged three-part agenda: (1) Sign the petition for a global treaty on climate change, Son of Kyoto. (2) Ask lenders to consider climate impact when funding new coal plants, a concession to precisely that "left-wing environmentalism" which Newt's letter, shown below, condemns. And (3) Urge the press to ask about global warming. Right, we sure need more of that; just so the theory's validity isn't asked about.

Newt Gingrich has long been a hero to many of us for, among many other notable achievements, tagging the word "nutty" onto things that liberals like naked emperors had always gotten away with before. How sad to see him (and poor old Pat Robertson) now standing at the summit of -- or should we say sitting on the sofa of -- nuttiness themselves.

I asked Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, which convened the recent Manhattan conference of prestigious scientific skeptics about global warming, what he makes of the Republican ex-Speaker's strange odyssey to the land of melting polar caps. Bast replied:

Newt Gingrich was once an important figure in the conservative movement, but his appearance in advertisements run by Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection confirms what many conservatives have been saying for quite awhile: Gingrich is no longer a conservative. His views on environment and even health care no longer are based on sound science, private property rights, and market-based solutions, but instead spread and stray into territory mostly traveled by alarmists and liberals. It’s a surprise, because very few conservatives “go over to the other side” (whereas it is common among liberals). It’s disappointing, too, because Gingrich is undeniably a clever man and forceful communicator. We can only hope it is a phase he’s going through, and be prepared to welcome him back to the fold if ever he wakes up and smells the coffee.

Couldn't have said it better myself. I especially liked that "Newt come home" appeal at the end. Let's hope he does. Brain cooling on Planet Gingrich can't set in soon enough. For the record, here's the Newt Gingrich spin statement, as read on air by Rush Limbaugh, April 24:

Many of you have written to me to ask why I recently taped an advertisement with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for The Alliance for Climate Protection, a group founded by former Vice President Al Gore. I completely understand why many of you would have questions about this, so I want to take this opportunity to explain my reasons. First of all, I want to be clear: I don't think that we have conclusive proof of global warming. And I don't think we have conclusive proof that humans are at the center of it.

But here's what we do know. There is an important debate going on right now over the right energy policy, the right environmental policy, and making sure we do the right things for our future and the future of our children and grandchildren. Conservatives are missing from this debate, and I think that's a mistake. When it comes to preserving our environment for future generations, we can't have a slogan of 'Just yell no!' I have a different view. I think it's important to be on the stage, to engage in the debate, and to communicate our position clearly.

There is a big difference between left-wing environmentalism that wants higher taxes, bigger government, more bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape, and more litigation and a Green Conservatism that wants to use science, technology, innovation, entrepreneurs, and prizes to find a way to creatively invent the kind of environmental future we all want to live in. Unless we start making the case for the latter, we're going to get the former. That's why I took part in the ad.

Maybe that convinces you, but to me it's about as plausible as a weight-loss infomercial. Sad, sad. Sad.

Moloney's World: Dems committing slow-motion suicide

(San Francisco, Apr. 14) If you headed south to Hollywood from here and tried to sell this year's Democratic melodrama as a screenplay, you would quickly find yourself bounced out the door by a producer shouting, “Get real, buddy!” Editor: That's the gleeful observation of Backbone columnist Bill Moloney, filing this time from the City by the Bay. His blogs and radio conversations with us seldom originate from Bill's nominal home in Denver, or from the same city twice, for that matter. His latest punditry-cum-travelogue goes this way:

Whenever in San Francisco there are two things I unfailingly do. First, rent a bicycle at “Blazing Saddles” on Fisherman’s Wharf, bike through the Presidio up and over the Golden Gate Bridge -- stopping frequently to gaze at the awesome panorama below -- fly down the hill to Sausalito; throw the bike on the ferry, and wave to the ghost of Al Capone on Alcatraz while returning to Pier 41.

The second is to dine at John’s Grille on Ellis St, one of America’s grand old steakhouses currently celebrating its’ centennial year. Literary aficionados will recall Dashiell Hammett’s famous sleuth Sam Spade dining at John’s while pondering clues in the classic Maltese Falcon.

While recently tucking into a splendid porterhouse at John’s I was blessed with the company of an old friend who is a retired journalist now scribbling away at what I am sure will be the long awaited Great American Novel. His reminiscences of San Francisco figures, famous and infamous, from columnist Herb Caen to Mayor Willie Brown, are themselves worthy of a book.

At the time of our repast the city had just experienced near-riots over the highly controversial visit of the Olympic Torch. Only in San Francisco could you find on the same day public denunciations of Communist Chinese as “evil conservatives” and picketers at the local offices of Speaker Nancy Pelosi denouncing her for “spinelessness” and insufficient zeal in opposing the Iraq War.

The travails of Speaker Pelosi significantly touch on one of the most extraordinary political stories of our time: The slowly unfolding implosion of the Democratic Party as it tries to anoint a Presidential candidate in an atmosphere of growing fratricidal viciousness.

As my friend observed if you headed south to Hollywood and tried to sell this Democratic melodrama as a screenplay you would quickly find yourself bounced out the door by a producer shouting, “Get real, buddy!” In fact the screenplay -- “See, There’s this really good looking articulate African-American guy who’s got a good shot at becoming President, but he keeps getting sandbagged by this strident old feminist, and her shady husband” -- is a perfect validation of the old saw “truth is stranger than fiction."

Republicans watching all this keep pinching themselves thinking they must be dreaming: Are the Democrats really going to commit suicide right before our eyes? When 2008 opened the GOP had realistic prospects of their greatest electoral disaster since 1964. Now – miraculously - retaining the White House is almost conceivable.

Since the Sixties, liberal dreams have revolved around a credible woman or minority candidate for President. Now in a “beware of what you wish for” scenario they have gotten both -- in the same year, same party, seeking the same office, and killing each other in the process.

For two generations race and gender have been the twin obsessions of the Democratic Party’s belief system. For liberals they invoke a quasi-religious intensity. For years I’ve amused myself noting the high incidence of stories on the New York Times front page dealing with these topics(e.g. “Suspicious Decline of African-American Baseball Players” or “New Outrage: Augusta National Golf Club Still Bans Female Members.")

Now the collision of the race and gender issues has exposed for all the country to see the Democrat’s mindless propensity for political correctness as well as their capacity for a political savagery usually aimed at Republicans and utterly unreported in the mainstream media. Now the Democrats’ internecine food fights on MSNBC are more fun than anything on Fox News! John McCain won’t have to waste any money on “opposition research;" the Democrats and their media acolytes are providing it free of charge.

The leftist nature of the Democratic primary electorate has trapped Obama and Clinton in a devastating “race to the bottom” to prove they are “more left wing” than their opponent.

Not since the historic Democratic bloodletting of 1968 ending in the disastrous Chicago convention have the American people gotten such an extended and graphic an answer to the question: “What are liberals really like?"

Dark clouds still abound for Republicans -- Iraq, gasoline at $4 a gallon etc. -- that could yet invoke the nightmare of 1964, but in a supreme and almost providential irony it is the Democrats who have given the GOP “Hope they Can Believe In."

Dr. William Moloney, a featured columnist on BackboneAmerica.net, was Colorado Education Commissioner from 1997-2007. He has done graduate work in world history at Oxford, and admits to being a veteran of all too many political campaigns. Moloney's columns have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Denver Post, Rocky Mountain News, and Pacific News Service.

Penna. wasn't good news for Dems

So the results from Pennsylvania are in and the outcome portends doom and gloom for the Democrat party in November. No, this isn't just wishful thinking on my part (though wishful I am). It's in the numbers -- as in the demographic breakdown of Tuesday's record turnout. The truth is that not only did Hillary win the total vote by almost ten points, she dominated among voters who will be key to deciding the 2008 general election: working class whites and Catholics. Yes, I know this is not what you are hearing from an adoring media, who sits happily in the front row of the Obama bandwagon. The media is telling you that Obama is riding a wave of young voters who are clamoring for change, and who will turn out in record numbers come to push Obama over the top. Perhaps this is so -- young, first-time voters may turn out to vote in big numbers in November. But the truth is that it probably won't matter: the 2008 general election will turn largely on the votes of "independents" and so-called "Reagan Democrats" -- largely white working class voters from the Northeast -- exactly like those in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana. As the data show, among Reagan Democrats, Hillary Clinton dominated Obama. (Click here for data table, posted on my own blog.)

Clinton won working class (non college educated) voters by 18 points in Ohio and 16 in PA; white Catholics by 37 points in OH and 42 in PA and those over the age of 65 by 46 points in OH and 26 in Pennsylvania. While Obama performed well among blacks, he drew even with Clinton in PA among college educated and those between the ages of 18 and 64.

In fact, the only place where Obama did significantly better than Clinton was among self-described independents, beating Clinton by 10 points. But keep in mind this critical caveat: this was a closed primary where independents didn't have the option of voting for John McCain -- something that will not be the case in November. While Obama does appeal more to independents, McCain's long track-record of attracting the support of swing voters will be tough for the Obama to beat -- especially after months of McCain pounding on Obama's liberal voting record and contradictory positions on core elements on his message.

The conclusion to be drawn from this is simple: the Democrats are once again nominating a candidate that appeals greatly to their base but who may not be able to win the general election. Obama, with his anti-war credentials and "post-racial" mantra, has galvanized the MoveOn.org crowd and given black voters and white intellectuals a "Kennedy-like" figure upon which to place their hopes, dreams and aspirations. And the media has played it up fully, giving Obama a pass on most issues of substance while basking in the glow of his "star power". It served to give Obama what is likely this insurmountable lead in the primaries -- even as information comes out that paints him as a weaker candidate against John McCain in November.

So in the ultimate irony, the anti-gun, anti-religion Democrats have figured out a way to shoot themselves in the foot: they've nominated a candidate who will have difficulty attracting key voters necessary to win the presidency. It will be a bitter pill to cling to, indeed.

6th CD race mirrors presidential primaries

Change, experience, fire, and command: those are the menu choices in the Republican contest to succeed Tom Tancredo in the 6th congressional district. Debating April 21 at a rec center in Highlands Ranch, ranged across the stage alphabetically, businessman Wil Armstrong and Secretary of State Mike Coffman -- money leaders in the race so far --sparred with State Sens. Ted Harvey and Steve Ward.

The debate was sponsored by the Sagebrush Forum, a newly formed conservative group in Douglas County, and the website PolitickerCO.com. Here's their story.

Throughout the 75 minutes of prepared statements and press questions, I kept experiencing deja vu from this year's GOP presidential primaries.

The youthful, clean-cut Armstrong emphasizes change and plays the outsider, seeking to make a virtue of his business successes and short political resume. Think Mitt Romney.

The quiet-spoken Coffman stresses military honor from his two tours in Iraq and trustworthy experience from a decade in statewide office. Think John McCain.

Ted Harvey leads the field in conservative credentials and true-believing fire. Think Tom Tancredo stirring up Iowa and New Hampshire.

Marine Col. Steve Ward projects command. He's the guy who has made government work, from clean water in Glendale to tsunami relief in Thailand. Think Rudy Giuliani, defiantly pragmatic, in charge and don't you forget it.

Ward and Harvey both scored their share of points last night, but the August primary probably comes down to a battle between the two deep-pockets candidates, Mike "Big Mac" Coffman and Wil "Mitt" Armstrong.

As honorary co-chair of Armstrong's campaign, I obviously hope his "hire someone fresh, try something different" pitch succeeds in this summer's congressional primary where Romney's didn't quite succeed in last winter's White House scramble.

One thing was clear from the Highlands Ranch debate, though -- Republicans in the 6th CD have breadth, depth, competence, and quality across the board in their 2008 congressional field.

There's no Tancredo clone in the bunch, not even Harvey. Rather, whoever succeeds Timid Tom will fill those shoes ably in his own way and continue providing solid representation for the booming south metro suburbs.

My experience with black liberation theology

What kind of Christianity did Wright teach Obama, that this man can believe a politician can be a Christian by tolerating hatred and endorsing abortion? The two men are part of an international, godless, socialist worldview, anti-free-society and anti-American. Editor: Hilmar von Campe, onetime member of the Hitler Youth, now a US citizen and Alabama resident, author of several books including the forthcoming "Defeating the Lie," wrote this piece for his website, voncampe.com.

The senior pastor at the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. stated that his theology “is based upon the systemized liberation theology that started 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, ‘Black Power and Black Theology’”. He explains on his website that he has a church the theological perspective of which starts from the vantage point of black liberation theology. With ‘systemized” he means that his theology integrates centuries of similar theological movements.

Black theology, however, is not the beginning of modern liberation theology it is a local version of the Latin American original which is aimed at Catholics. Black theology is aimed at Africans, for instance in South Africa, and African-Americans. There are other versions for American Natives, Asians and Women. The liberation they are talking about is not the teaching of liberation from selfishness and sin through Jesus Christ but of economic exploitation by capitalists, whites or males respectively. The message is divisive and subversive. “We are agents of change for God,” says the mission statement of Obama’s church, “who is not pleased with America’s economic mal-distribution.” Maybe they listen to Satan and not to God. They are no agents of God.

Reading or listening to the explanations of what liberation in this context means by their Spanish- German-, English speaking professionals you notice the same line of argument – abundant Christian language, themes and apologetics but underneath a subtle shift to liberation as an economic criteria. We are dealing here with fake Christians, a class war being waged against their specific different “oppressors”, which in America is disguised as race issue.

I spent a great part of my adult life in various countries of Latin America. That’s where I came across liberation theology. In my first book “Cowardice and Appeasement” which was published 1989 in Germany I have a whole chapter about it. I had read their literature and listened to their leaders like the Brazilian Franciscan priest Leonardo Boff, visited the priest Gustavo Gutierrez in his home in Peru, and discussed this theology in UNAM, the state university of Mexico, with the German Theology Professor Johann B. Metz. I counted 18 books he had written but it could be more. The ideas in his book “Political Theology” led to the articulation of the liberation theology. During this discussion in Mexico the Argentine Enrique Dussel named Communist leader Che Guevara and the top Sandinista Thomas Borge as the new types of man for the society of tomorrow. This event, like many others, served as instrument to attack “American Imperialism” and make Soviet agents acceptable to Catholics,

Gustavo Gutierrez is acknowledged as founder of the theology of liberation. He made a good impression on me. He lived a great part of his life as a priest among the very poor in Peru, in other words, he had his heart where his mouth was. His concern was how to make the poor into a power for economic change through political and social liberation. He had a list of priorities but unfortunately the liberation from selfishness came at the end of it. The Vatican sanctioned Boff and many others because of heresy but not Gutierrez as they most likely had the same impression as I had.

What happened then, I believe, was that Marxists without interest in the liberation from selfishness picked up the idea of social and political liberation and pushed the movement to the left into the global establishment of class war but without getting rid of the religious label. It is now a political leftwing movement, not a serious theology. Julio Giradi defined: “Christian love only is a historical force if it takes up class warfare.” That of course is complete nonsense. I have been in many of these “favelas”, the living areas of the poor in Latin America. It is true, that they live in sub-human conditions and your heart goes out to them. But morally they are no different from the “rich”. They steal and lie as Western politicians do. In Rio de Janeiro I was in the home of the leader of such a settlement. From the outside his “house” looked as terrible as all the others. But inside it was a normal comfortable home. He was rich compared to the poor since he took a cut for himself from the collections he was authorized to make for the payment of electricity, garbage removal etc. It is like Congress taking our payment to Social Security for their re-election. In Sao Paulo I was with the Communist leaders of the Port Workers Union. Their wives were not hungry but resented their husbands having other women besides them – a vice also very popular in this country - and were unhappy in their marriage and their lives. That changed as the husbands realized that the new world order they were promoting did not even work in their own families. They changed.

Barack Hussein Obama has been a member of the Trinity Church of Christ church for 20 years. He was baptized and got married there. I have seen and read about its liberation fundamentals: hatred and class war. It is more than doubtful that he as an extraordinary intelligent person has not become aware in 20 years of the ideological orientation of his church. In an interview in the “Hannity & Colmes” show of Fox News on March 2, 2007 the Rev. Wright expressed himself as a trained ideologist and not as a pastor. The video with a “sermon” he made in another church is even worse. He must have a strange view of God’s commandments. Obama’s explanation that he does not agree with everything that Wright says is no explanation at all. We are not talking about occasional anger but about the moral and religious fundament of a church. To escape into a racial issue and throw the ball into the camp of the whites is a brilliant attempt to fool everybody. His and Wright’s ideology is socialist world power.

What kind of Christianity did Wright teach Obama that this man can believe that a politician can be a Christian by tolerating hatred and at the same time endorsing abortion to his voters? His voting record is morally as terrible as Wright’s communications. Most likely, it seems to me, that the two men are part of an international godless Socialist world view, which is anti free-society and also anti-American. It presents itself as Christian, like the “German Christians” movement under the Nazis who promoted Nazi philosophy with a religious label. Barack Obama has a hidden agenda.