I thought for sure it was a joke when I first saw this book referenced on another site. But Why Mommy Is A Democrat is, sadly, oh so very real.

The book's website says the book intends to "bring to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand ... using plain and non-judgmental language." The 28-page paperback is fully illustrated, using "whimsical squirrels" (I'm not joking) to accompany the text.

The book's pearls of wisdom include:

Democrats make sure we share all our toys, just like Mommy does.

So do Communists. And in the very same way when it comes to managing the country's budget.

Democrats make sure we are always safe, just like Mommy does.

You mean by slashing all weapons and war expenses, repealing the Patriot Act, and stopping recruiting for the military on college campuses? Right on.

Democrats make sure children can go to school, just like Mommy does.

I guess a page saying: Democrats don't want Mommies and Daddies to have a choice in where they send their kids to school didn't sound as appealing.

The website only lists those three pages, but I'm sure they are all equally forthright and "non-judgmental" (which, when used here, must mean "lacking in truth").

Conspicuous by their absence from Why Mommy Is A Democrat were such pages as:

• Democrats believe the people on the news because they're on TV, just like mommy does.
• Democrats like spending other people's money, just like mommy does.
• Democrats born into a low-income, government-run squirrel nest believe "the man" is always keeping them down, just like mommy does.
• Democrats use schools to indoctrinate children in a collectivist mentality so it's easier to control them later, just like mommy does.
• Democrats confuse a foreign policy of appeasement with that of safety, just like mommy does.
• Democrats believe saving the earth is more important than saving babies, just like mommy does.
• Democrats play politics with other people's safety, just like mommy does.
• Democrats don't believe you should be allowed to take your religious beliefs to school with you, just like mommy doesn't.

Stand by for excerpts from the forthcoming sequel, "Why BOTH Your Mommies Are Democrats."

Source: Concepts for some of the "missing pages" were excerpted from: http://wizbangblog.com/2005/12/03/why-is-mommy-a-democrat.php

I just want to be sure I have this straight. NBC is okay with airing a program where Madonna mocks Christians by stretching herself across a tacky, flashing cross covered with light bulbs while wearing a crown of thorns.

But, its stringent programming standards demand that any references to God be removed within the children's show VeggieTales, which NBC now airs every Saturday.

Kevin Reilly, an executive at NBC, told reporters that NBC did not see Madonna's mock crucifixion as "inappropriate." Later this same week, NBC spokeswoman Rebecca Marks told the media that VeggieTales had to be edited "to comply with the network's broadcast standards."

So, the same standards that permit an individual faith to be flagrantly mocked, prohibit that same faith from being presented positively in any way. The network even insisted that the VeggieTales signature sign-off, "Remember kids, God made you special and he loves you very much," be edited out.

Just to recap, Madonna on tacky, glitzy cross OK. Cartoon vegetable telling kids "God loves you" not OK.

Call these exhibits 179,834 and 179,835 of signs that our culture -- and most certainly Hollywood -- is ever increasingly hostile to Christianity.

NBC has yet to air the Madonna program. Click here  if you would like to learn how you can tell NBC what you think of these nonsensical programming decisions.

It must be one of the top seminaries ... Dallas Theological Seminary or perhaps Moody Bible Institute.

Would you believe Harvard University? At least, that's the motto it was founded on when the school began in 1636. That remained as the guiding principle for the now liberal, "free thinking" university until the later half of the 19th century, when then president Charles W. Eliot began the process of stripping away Harvard's moral foundation rooted in Christianity.

Today, the original Latin "Veritas pro Christo et Ecclesia" (Truth for Christ and Church) has been tightened to simply ... Veritas, or Truth. What that truth is based on? Well ... who knows.

In a recent book titled "Excellence Without a Soul," University of Massachusetts instructor Harry Lewis asserts that universities have "lost, indeed willingly surrendered, its moral authority to shape the souls of its students." He goes on to say: "Harvard articulates no ideals of what it means to be a good person."

For Harvard's first 250 years, its biblical basis would have made it clear what its moral foundation was. But now that that's gone, it shouldn't be surprising that the university is floundering when it comes to helping shape the character of its students.

As a part of its foundational mission today, the university states it, "must provide a broad introduction to the knowledge needed in an increasingly global and connected, yet simultaneously diverse and fragmented world." Huh?

Lewis' book, which was recently profiled in the Wall Street Journal, notes that the school never actually says what kind of knowledge is needed.

One can't help but wonder if hearkening back to the core principles the university was founded on might be a good start.

More than one third of the people in the U.S. believe that the government assisted in the terrorist attacks on 9/11 or took no action to stop them so the U.S. could go to war in the Middle East, according to a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.

That is just barely lower than the 38% of Americans who think that the U.S. is withholding proof of the existence of intelligent life on other planets.

Do you know what this means? It means that about 1 in every 3 people you pass on the street are completely out of their gourd! We live amidst millions of people who are in need of more than just confidence in their government. They are in need of their meds.

Given this data, serious consideration needs to be given to "adjusting off" this portion of the population when relaying other major polling data. For example, let's say 48% of people report that they believe that America is worse off today than we were five years ago. If we assume that the "36% whack job" contingent would all state that they were worse off, well then, that's really only like 1 in 6 legitimate folks who think that America is worse off now than half a decade ago.

Just think at the unbridled common sense and optimism that would reign if we could make such an adjustment.

The survey also revealed that people who regularly use the Internet, but do not frequent "mainstream" media, are significantly more likely to believe in 9/11 conspiracies. These same folks are probably the ones still waiting for their $1,000 check from Bill Gates while watching "Deal or No Deal."

Gosh, by recently starting this blog have I suddenly become part of the problem?

OK, so I am a little slow on the uptake, but I just recently completed reading Michael Crichton's book from about a year-and-a-half ago titled State of Fear. Like previous Crichton books such as Jurassic Park or The Andromeda Strain, the book is a clever blend of a compelling fictional story (in this case, an eco-terrorist group wrecks stunning havoc all in the name of protecting the environment) with actual scientific data and analysis.

Now, perhaps you are starting to sound mental alarms that are blaring, "blending fact and faction ... sounds like the DaVinci Code." However, the element this book has that Dan Brown's novel was totally devoid of is an extensive bibliography at the end of scientific papers, books, websites, magazines and journals reinforcing the novel's assertions that the modern theory of global warming is terribly flawed. These include:

• most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);
• temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
• temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
• full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy (p. 90);
• temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
• dire predictions of global warming during a 1988 Congressional committee hearing, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 300 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next decade vs. an actual .11 degree increase);
• there has been no increase in extreme weather events (e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years (p. 362);
• temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
• sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
• sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
• the Kyoto Protocol, still unsigned by the U.S., would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
• computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).

Again, all of the above are backed up by independent research, or competing theories based on data, noted in Crichton's bibliography. Crichton asserts that the reasons that the above are given so little attention in the media is a combination of this scientific minority getting shouted down by those unwilling to consider other theoretical alternatives ... desire by the environmental establishment to preserve its status quo ... and the potential damage alternatives pose as scientists seek grants.

The book also asserts, both within the novel and in the epilogue, that the scientific community ignores all of the above because it conflicts with a "Theory" that most have bought into as a "Truth."

Hmmm ... sounds a little like evolutionary theory.

Predictably, NPR bashed the book and its author, while the nonprofit Heartland Institute reinforces the assertions made by Crichton.