Half the nations of the world currently have fertility rates below replacement level and global population is expected to peak in 2050 and then start to decline…so, what does the Obama Administration propose to do? Pretend its still 1970 and go after the “population explosion”:

The new U.S. ambassador for global women’s issues pledged Thursday the Obama administration’s “deep commitment” to a U.N. blueprint aimed at slowing the world’s population explosion and empowering women.

What is really going on here? The advancement of a radical feminist, anti-religious and pro-abortion platform. There is no need to work out ways to reduce population growth – that is already happening and actually is becoming an impending catastrophe (as the Russians die out, for instance, who gets to take over Russia? Its 1/6th of the world and has vast natural resources…war will likely settle the issue). But there is a need, on the left, to essentially make traditional religious belief illegal and force women into the corporate/Statist lifestyle approved by liberals – and so under the rubric of stopping the “population explosion”, the left will insert all manner of anti-family, anti-religious and anti-freedom laws and regulations.

Our problem here, in the pro-life community, is that the so-called “population explosion” has been hammered in to the national consciousness for decades now. Most of the time, when you tell someone that China is less densely populated than Japan and that the Russians are dying out, they are quite surprised – to hear the population control people tell it, the Chinese are living right on top of each other and we’re down to the last half-acre of wilderness unless we act NOW to save the planet! Injecting a note of reality will prove difficult.

meg⋅a⋅lo⋅ma⋅ni⋅a [meg-uh-loh-mey-nee-uh] – noun

1. Psychiatry. a symptom of mental illness marked by delusions of greatness, wealth, etc.

2. an obsession with doing extravagant or grand things.

Obama wants to take a prime time slot to discuss his first 100 days:

The President Obama Show will be making an appearance in the May sweeps.

Officials from the Obama administration have asked the major broadcast networks for up to an hour of primetime next Wednesday at 8, according to sources familiar with the request. Mr. Obama wants the time for a news conference outlining his first 100 days in office.

The end of those first 100 days comes on April 29, and at least one cable news channel, CNN, had already announced plans for a major Election Night-style coverage extravaganza.

By scheduling a press conference on the night, the president is positioning himself to directly participate in the debate over his early performance.

There’s no word yet on whether the broadcast networks will agree to the White House request, though one network insider said it’s all but a given they will.

What’s next? Another volume of his autobiography? Are we going to start getting a minute-by-minute update of Obama’s day? 7:59am, intel brief on terrorist threat; 8:01am, interview with GQ; 9:17am, cabinet meeting to discuss new stimulus bill; 9:19am, interview with People; 10:58am, break for photo op with Mrs O in vegetable garden; 12:07pm, lunch…

Mr. President – you haven’t done anything, yet. You’ve set in train a series of events which, you believe, will improve matters. Those of us with the sense God gave little, white mice know they will end in disaster – but bad or good, what you’ve started hasn’t actually happened. Its all in the planning and start-up phase. You’ve got nothing to talk about. Except yourself – which seems to be the point.

Get off your high horse – you really ain’t all that.

UPDATE: Washingtonian Magazine doctored the famous picture of Obama in the bathing suit. This is Stalinist stuff, boys and girls.

Rasmussen’s survey:

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Specter is viewed favorably by 42% of Pennsylvania Republicans and unfavorably by 55%, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of voters in the state. Those are stunningly poor numbers for a long-term incumbent senator. Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980.

Toomey, who served in the House from 1999 to 2005, earns positive reviews from 66% and negative comments from just 19%.

Its time to read the writing on the wall, Senator: the GOP is rejecting you.

I bear no ill will towards Senator Specter and, to be honest, I often find myself admiring the man. But while I view Specter as an ally on some issues, I don’t view him as someone appropriate for the GOP Senate caucus. Even if Specter would be the 51st Senator to provide the GOP with a majority, I’d rather we didn’t have that – I don’t want any future GOP Senate majority dependent upon the good will of a man who consistently undercuts conservatism in the Senate. Better to be a strong minority than a weak majority, as far as the Senate goes. Specter now has his choice to make: run as a GOPer and likely get beaten in the primary, or run as an Independent and have a shot at winning in his own right and thus be able to ally himself with the GOP or the Democrats as his inclinations dictate and, in the end, as he’s done throughout his Senate career.

Will we win with Toomey? I’m not sure – he seems a bit conservative for Pennsylvania, but so did Santorum, and he managed to win and only got beaten in an anti-GOP “wave” year. Pennsylvania has a lot of liberal proclivities, especially in the Philly area, but it also has a lot of conservatism, especially on the matter of Life Issues. Toomey, running against a Democrat and an Independent might be able to squeak in on the center/right votes while the other two divvy up the center/left votes.

Stuart Rothenberg rates the GOP chances of securing a House majority next year at zero – and he’s not kidding; he’s dead certain that there is absolutely no chance that the GOP will secure the 40+ seat net gain necessary for a majority. Why? Because Rothenberg, wise political observer that he is, notes that for such a massive change in seats, you need a “wave”. Meaning that you need some groundswell of popular disapproval of the incumbent party to carry otherwise no-chance/low-chance challengers over the finish line. This is true, by the way. But is there no wave in the making? Lets take a look at how the Democrat governor of very liberal (Obama by 26 points) Massachusetts is doing:

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, embroiled in a budget crisis like many state chief executives these days, may need to be thinking about another line of work.

Just 33% of Massachusetts voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic incumbent if he seeks reelection in 2010.

Nineteen percent (19%) say they’re not very likely to do so, and 38% say they aren’t likely at all to vote for Patrick, according to a new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Bay State voters.

One-third of the state’s voters (34%) now approve of the job Patrick is doing as governor, including only eight percent (8%) who Strongly Approve.

To say that Governor Patrick is “vulnerable” is to understate things quite a bit – unless things turn around massively for him, then the GOP will have no one but themselves to blame if they don’t find a candidate to win the governorship next year. There does seem to be the raw material in Massachusetts for a GOP wave in that State…and if the GOP ends up doing well in Massachusetts, can the GOP then end up doing less well in, say, Ohio, Virginia and Missouri? I suppose its possible, but it doesn’t seem probable.

Part of Rothenberg’s confidence is that Obama’s approval ratings run from 55% to 65% – what Rothenberg doesn’t mention is that the 63, 64 and 65% approval numbers in the most recent Real Clear Politics average are polls of “adults”. The 55% approval rating is from the one poll in the mix of “likely voters”. Now, any President is delighted to have 55% approval ratings from likely voters – such a President, in an election year, is likely coasting to re-election. But 2010 isn’t an election year for Obama, and the stark fact is that Rasmussen – the source of the 55% approval rating – has Obama’s “strongly approve” number dropping from about 45% on January 20th to 37% most recently, while the “strongly disapprove” number has climbed from about 15% to 31%. In other words, its not all rosy for Obama. While the American people are still cutting him some slack as the new guy and giving him his chance, if there’s no general improvement in American economic life (and/or if there is a serious military/national security setback) by the middle of 2010, then Obama’s popularity simply won’t be able to sustain its current levels. Obama boosts Democrats in 2009, but he might not do so in 2010, even if he’s not dragging them down.

So, what have we got? We’ve got Democrats in trouble in normally safe areas (Patrick in Massachuetts, Reid in Nevada, Dodd in Connecticut, eg), we’ve got a still-popular Obama suffering continual erosion of his support and, as it turns out, the “generic ballot” question has been pretty much tied up between Republicans and Democrats for a couple months now. Political junkies will instantly realize that this is a serious event, in and of itself: usually, the “generic ballot” favors the Democrats by a significant margin. Right around election day, the “generic ballot” gave the Democrats a 47% to 41% advantage…now its 39% for both sides (meaning, of course, that the GOP isn’t ragingly popular, either). Cobble together a weakening Obama, weakened incumbent Democrats and a general dismay with Congress and you have all the tools necessary for a wave. The question: Can the GOP capitalize on this?

The answer? Beats heck out of me. What it will take, first and foremost, is leadership. Back in 1994 – love him or hate him – the GOP had the superb leadership of Newt Gingrich. The GOP managed to distill the national issues down to a few quick points and then ran a very effective, anti-DC campaign against a corrupt and out-of-touch Democrat Congress. The Democrat Congress heading in to 2010 is just as corrupt and out of touch as the 1994 Democrat Congress and there are plenty of excellent issues for the GOP to run on (government spending, taxes, waste, corruption, etc, etc, etc), but there is, as yet, no clear GOP leadership. There is no one to lead the charge.

Given the current lack of leadership for the GOP, I rate our chances at a House majority at no better than 10%, with a Senate majority out of the question. On the other hand, even with weak GOP leadership, I figure we’re in for 20 House seats and three or four Senate seats. How to turn 20 in to 40 is the question the GOP must ask itself, and find the answer. We’ve got a few more months left to shake things out and think things over…but come Christmas, if we’re not ready to come out political guns blazing from January on, then we’ll be passing up what could be a great opportunity.

Man, what a screwball rightwinger he was:

The Bible is the rock on which this Republic rests. – Andrew Jackson

In the grand scheme of things, its a few weeks before Kristallnacht. There are grave threats to the Jews, but their hour has not yet struck. It could have been prevented in the 1930’s, and it can be prevented now – if Obama will listen:

President Barack Obama’s visit to Capitol Hill for the Holocaust Day of Remembrance ceremony turned into more than just a solemn memorial event Thursday morning. As the president sat waiting for his turn at the podium, a series of speakers admonished him, in terms both veiled and direct, to confront Iran’s government as a threat to Jews and to Israel.

“Honoring the dead must not be the sole purpose of remembrance. It must help us shape a better future,” said Israeli Ambassador Sallai Meridor. “When a regime is again … terrorizing its neighbors, threatening to destroy the Jewish people, how will we meet this challenge before it’s too late?”

Meridor kept his message implicit, but the subtext was clear: The world must stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Joel Geiderman, the vice chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, was more blunt, drawing a comparison between the Nazis in Germany and the present-day government in Tehran.

“At least one whole nation has been targeted for destruction with the threat to wipe it off the map,” Geiderman said, alluding to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s belligerent remarks toward Israel. “History should have taught us that democracies that let such pledges stand do so at their own peril.”

Will Obama listen? Does he even realize what is at stake? Israel’s fate may turn on whether or not Obama understands the Iranian threat. More than half a century ago, as we opened up the Nazi death camps, we said “never again” – we pledged ourselves to never, ever allow a people to be targeted for destruction. Our promise made is now to be redeemed – or to be dishonorably ignored.

Per Rasmussen:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) believe the Obama administration’s recent release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangers the national security of the United States. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 28% believe the release of the memos helps America’s image abroad.

And, of course, that 28% are those who manage to be dumber than Obama

Iowahawk strikes again.

After some amateur hour moments by Janet Napolitano, a number of Republicans are calling for her to step down.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down. 

The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing “extremists,” and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment. 

Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans — but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas. 

“I don’t know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she’s caused,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. “I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let’s move on.” 

Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor. 

“Mr. President, fire that woman,” said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano’s comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. “To go on television and say your apology to be, ‘I’m sorry you were offended by this report,’ that’s no apology.” 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano’s resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing. 

Such incompetence ought not be tolerated, and I agree, Napolitano has got to go. She’s making a ridiculous administration look even more ridiculous, and when we’re talking about the Homeland Security Secretary, her incompetence will make us less safe.

A bright spot in a darkening world:

The Dominican Republic has voted to approve language in its new constitution protecting the right to life from the moment of conception.

Article 11 of the new constitution, which was approved by a large majority of 167-32, states that “the right to life is inviolable from conception until death. The death penalty cannot be established, pronounced, nor applied, in any case.”

The approval of the article came in the wake of a series of massive campaigns by the Catholic bishops of the Dominican Republic, led by Cardinal Archbishop Nicolas de Jesus Lopez of Santo Domingo.

The Cardinal has organized marches, has given a speech on national television, and has staged large-scale protests outside of government buildings and in other places over the past two years.

On Easter Sunday, a little more than a week before the vote, the Cardinal and other priests gave sermons on the importance of protecting the right to life.

The nation’s Evangelical Protestant churches have also had a major influence on the outcome. Organized by such leaders as Dr. Gene Antonio, they have succeeded in playing video of abortions on national television and have distributed tens of thousands of flyers to Dominicans.

“We are thrilled that the protection of human life from the moment of conception is now established into the constitution in spite of fierce international pressure to legalize abortion,” stated Antonio. “This overwhelming victory serves as an example to the other Latin countries fighting to protect life, that we can win and we must win because the lives of little people are at stake.”

This makes the Dominican Republic into Enemy Number One for the pro-abortion zealots in the world. Basking in their victory in Obama’s turning over of US tax dollars to the international abortion industry, they won’t take this action by the Dominicans lying down. Immense pressure will be brought to bear to get Dominica to change its ways.

I believe they will with stand the storm – and also provide an example to us all to never give up and never give in. The cause of life is the cause of hope.