Happy Easter, everyone. And if you don’t really know what Easter is about, or why the Resurrection matters, click here.

We keep hearing about a tipping point in the global warming mess, a point of no return at which the Earth will simply be on fire. But last week, the leftists using global warming propaganda to push their socialist agenda hit a tipping point of their own, when one of Australia’s top climate scientists described in great detail — to a national radio audience — not only how the Earth stopped warming ten years ago, but the degree of consensus among scientists on this point (and the unwillingness of media to report it).

Wow.

Duffy asked Marohasy: “Is the Earth still warming?”

She replied: “No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you’d expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years.”

Duffy: “Is this a matter of any controversy?”

Marohasy: “Actually, no.”

Read the rest here. It’s a real eye-opener, even to people who haven’t accepted Al Gore’s received wisdom.

UPDATE: And just for good measure, it turns out that it’s a record year for snowfall too.

…not that that’s shocking. But for Democrats to claim that his telling Republicans to go vote for Hillary in the Democrat primary is “ungentlemanly” or “a perversion of the process” is the height of hypocrisy.

This is not just because the Dems and their media allies have been glowing (for years) about the supposed “bipartisanship” of Democrats and Independents voting in our primaries, for Bob Dole, John McCain, Rudy (continue reading post »)

Well, you shouldn’t have.

As I’ve been telling anyone who would listen for weeks now, Hillary Clinton isn’t going anywhere.

And why would she? Everyone keeps saying it’s mathematically impossible for her to win the nomination on elected delegates, but the same is very much true for Obama (and was before Ohio and Texas).

The fact that you don’t hear it said that way is partly because the media keeps focusing on something the Democrat Party clearly doesn’t care about (continue reading post »)

He ran a great race for President, one that only a handful of people (like me) imagined that such an underfunded, unknown former preacher could run.

But now it’s over. So what’s a newly famous term-limited ex-governor to do?

Well, he could certainly wait around to be picked for Vice President. But given the mercurial nature of that selection process, he could be in for a very long wait if he did.

But there is something he could do — for himself, his party, and his country — that would be worthy of all that support he just gained. And that’s run for the U.S. Senate.

The math is simple, in both directions. Looking at Arkansas, Huckabee could easily end the one-term career of more-liberal-than-he-claims-to-be Senator Mark Pryor, originally elected largely because of his daddy’s name. Indeed, the last time Huckabee was on the ballot for Senate (in 1996, just before Jim Guy Tucker went to the pen and catapulted him into the governor’s mansion), he was up twenty points over a popular Democrat nominee.

Which brings us to the national math. Huckabee would not only put Arkansas’ Senate race in play, he’d probably win, and that changes everything. Republicans, defending twice as many seats this time as their opponents, are expecting to have a nasty year, regardless of John McCain’s chances; yet in fact, what was looking to be a seven-or-eight seat loss (giving the Ds almost enough seats to block filibusters) is now looking like something more in the range of three, possibly even one. If we’re lucky.

But Arkansas doesn’t even have a Republican Senate candidate at all. Adding him to the mix could make that (admittedly highly optimistic) one-seat loss into a wash. And what if McCain pulled out a win, pushing votes in the direction of all the down-ticket races? Then that wash might become a one-seat gain, a 50-50 Senate, with ties broken by the new Republican Vice President. Which is to say, Mike Huckabee could give us back the Senate.

But not if he is the Vice President. Only if he isn’t.

A Senator Mike Huckabee would be in perfect position to advance his agenda, firm up some of the parts of his gubernatorial resume that a more-than-2/3 Democrat state legislature tilted left, and spend a lot of time articulating his message on national TV. He might also be in a position to help deliver the next Supreme Court justice, putting some powerful legs to his pro-life promise. And if his White House dream — for one reason or another — never came to pass, he, like many famous men before him, could be a major national figure for decades to come.

Today, at least. His filing deadline is March 10th. So carpe diem, Governor. This is your time.

UPDATE, March 11th: Unfortunately, Governor Huckabee had other plans, meaning that the perfectly winnable (for him, anyway) U.S. Senate seat in Arkansas will go completely uncontested by Republicans, and a crucial chance of changing the ugly national Senate math is lost. Far from us to question the Governor’s decision-making process, but this may be a crime which carries its own punishment: should John McCain win this fall — and at this point at least, Team Huckabee absolutely believes he won’t — there’s not likely to be a 2012 comeback; and without a Senate seat, 2016 could be a very long time indeed to maintain an already-tenuous national presence.

But we shall see.

So says Hillary. To which we can only ask, why not win both?

No good reason judging by her comments, which were extremely hard core on Afghanistan (maybe there’s something about that completely landlocked mountainous country which devoured an entire Soviet army that makes it an easier win?). It’s just become Democratic dogma that Iraq is lost, and no Democrat — particularly one about to get smacked by Barack Obama — can afford to say otherwise, no matter what else is on the line.

But a lot is on the line. If you missed it, read my blog from two weeks ago on the degree of both our growing victory and what we’ve achieved. Abandoning Iraq would be one of the most childish, petulant, tragically needless defeats in human history. Brought to you as usual by the Defeatocratic Party.

…which might be excessive, but given last week’s revelation that 2007’s global temperature drops completely wiped out all the global warming of the entire past century, one does have to wonder: will Gore have to give back his Oscar?

Or his Nobel Prize?

Hmmm.

My friend Mark Hyman writes in The American Spectator on why it makes absolutely no sense for Hillary to drop out, regardless of tomorrow’s results.

(And oh by the way, weren’t a lot of the same people saying she needs to drop out “for the good of the party” telling Bill Clinton the same thing about this time ten years ago?)

Bill Richardson’s promise of government-mandated universal health care may well have foundered on “fiscal and economic reality” (as National Review puts it), but it’s another aspect of the debacle which ought to be a wake-up call for everyone:

And what did that proposal include? First and foremost, it targeted doctors for significant cost savings by forcing anyone practicing medicine in New Mexico to prescribe whatever care the state or health-insurance companies deemed adequate. While such a move may appear logical to those who believe government is the font of all wisdom, the reality is that doctors — already scarce in the state’s rural areas — would flee New Mexico in droves if they became the target of ever-increasing demands for cost-savings.

If this is how you want your health — and that of your children and your aging parents — taken care of, vote Democrat this fall. It’s that simple.