Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!
Obama Is A COMMUNIST!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!



Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page





Sunday, November 29, 2009

Climate Change: This Is The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation

From The UK Telegraph

Climate Change: This Is The Worst Scientific Scandal of Our Generation
Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker

A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide?


The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming.

This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work.


It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang.


In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC.

Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind.


Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.
_____

Just more smoke and mirrors from the 'wizards of climatology'?
Does anybody REALLY believe this nonsense???

Friday, November 27, 2009

Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'

From WSJ

Rigging a Climate 'Consensus'
- About those emails and 'peer review.'

The climatologists at the center of the leaked email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing.


Yes, the wording of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist this in no way undermines the underlying science. They're ignoring the damage they've done to public confidence in the arbiters of climate science.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails—confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.

We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper.


He's right that it doesn't look good that his May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?"

Mr. Mann says he didn't delete any such emails, but the point is that Mr. Jones wanted them hidden.

The furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or whether climatologists are nice people.


The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at, and how a single view of warming and its causes is being enforced.

The impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.

According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science.


And sure enough, any challenges from critics outside this clique are dismissed and disparaged.

This September, Mr. Mann told a New York Times reporter in one of the leaked emails that: "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."


Mr. McIntyre is a retired Canadian businessman who checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds on his Web site, Climateaudit.org. He holds the rare distinction of having forced Mr. Mann to publish a correction to one of his more famous papers.

As anonymous reviewers of choice for certain journals, Mr. Mann & Co. had considerable power to enforce the consensus, but it was not absolute, as they discovered in 2003.


Mr. Mann noted in a March 2003 email, after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, that "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that—take over a journal!"

Mr. Mann went on to suggest that the journal itself be blackballed: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."


In other words, keep dissent out of the respected journals. When that fails, redefine what constitutes a respected journal to exclude any that publish inconvenient views.

A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

"This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized.


The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science.


The proof for this is circular.

It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.

The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim.
__________________
More here...
Climategate e-mails sweep America, may scuttle Barack Obama's Cap and Trade laws

It's getting worse ALgore...
They're starting to dig up the bodies...

Thursday, November 26, 2009

MSNBC EXCLUSIVE: FORT HOOD NEVER HAPPENED!

From Ann Coulter

MSNBC EXCLUSIVE: FORT HOOD NEVER HAPPENED!
November 25, 2009

It's been weeks since eyewitnesses reported that Maj. Nidal Hasan shouted "Allahu akbar" before spraying Fort Hood with gunfire,

killing 13 people.

Since then we also learned that Hasan gave a medical lecture on beheading infidels and pouring burning oil down their throats (unfortunately not covered under the Senate health care bill). Some wondered if perhaps a pattern was beginning to emerge but were promptly dismissed as racist cranks.

We also found out Hasan had business cards printed up with the jihadist abbreviation "SOA" for "Soldier of Allah."


Was that enough to conclude that the shooting was an act of terrorism -- or does somebody around here need to take another cultural sensitivity class?

And we know that Hasan had contacted several jihadist Web sites and that he had been exchanging e-mails with a radical Islamic cleric in Yemen. The FBI learned that last December, but the rest of us only found out about it a week ago.

Is it still too soon to come to the conclusion that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism?

Alas, it is still too early to tell at MSNBC.

For Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews -- at least two of whom would be severely punished under Shariah law -- the shooting of George Tiller was an act of terrorism, no question.

The death of a census taker in Kentucky was also an act of terrorism. (We learned this week that it was a suicide/insurance scam.) But as to Maj. Hasan, the jury is still out -- and will be out for many, many years.

Actually, according to Keith, the Fort Hood massacre may not have happened at all. He has argued persuasively, on several occasions, that it is impossible, literally impossible, to commit mass murder at a military base.

Like many on the left, Keith loved to sneer at all terrorist plots allegedly foiled by the Bush administration. He was particularly contemptuous of the purported plan of six aspiring jihadists to sneak onto the Fort Dix army base and kill as many soldiers as they could.

On Nov. 11, 2008, he explained why the Fort Dix terrorist plot was a laughable fraud, saying the "morons" apparently didn't realize that "all the soldiers have these big guns."

Keith, the moron, apparently doesn't realize that on military bases on U.S. soil only MPs have guns. (Special authorization is required for soldiers to carry a firearm, which can be granted only in the case of a specific and credible threat against military personnel in that region. Thank you, Bill Clinton.)

Again on May 21 this year, Olbermann ridiculed the Fort Dix terror plot, pointing out that the six alleged terrorists seemed to be "forgetting that every man there was armed." (Curiously, even though ROTC was offered at the ag school Keith attended, he appears not to have investigated it.)

But it was not until Aug. 21 of this year that Olbermann hit upon the true reason for the Bush administration's hyping of this implausible terror plot. According to Keith -- and I'm not kidding -- it was to distract from Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' announcement that her state had been unable to respond adequately to a tornado because Bush had diverted the National Guard to his crazy war in Iraq!

The Bush administration, you see, had revealed the arrest of the Fort Dix conspirators the day after Sebelius' world-reverberating bombshell about Kansas' decimated National Guard! Eureka!

This little theory of Keith's, adorable though it is, has problems apart from his insistence that it would be impossible to kill army personnel on "a closed compound full of trained soldiers with weapons."

The other problem is Gov. Sebelius was full of crap.

First, Sebelius wasn't in much of a position to know how well Kansas responded to the tornado, inasmuch as she had been partying at New Orleans' Jazzfest the day after the tornado hit -- while Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts and both local congressmen were on the scene, helping the rescue efforts.

Second, the manager of the actual rescue team soon contradicted Sebelius, saying: "We have all the staff that we need and can manage at this time. If we had more people right now, it would just start being a cluster."

The Kansas National Guard had 352 Humvees, 72 dump trucks and more than 320 other trucks, which would seem to be sufficient for the town hit by the tornado, Greensburg, Kan., population 1,574. That's almost one National Guard truck for every two people. (This is the same tornado that Obama claimed had killed 10,000 people. He was off by 9,988.)

Third, it turned out that Gov. Sebelius had rejected offers of additional help from neighboring National Guard units.

Consequently, the day after her dramatic cri de coeur for more National Guard resources, Sebelius' office completely reversed course, telling The Associated Press that the rescue efforts were going "just fine."

What the governor had meant, her office explained, was that Kansas' National Guard might be stretched thin if, hypothetically, another natural disaster were to strike immediately after the tornado.

Keith, unfortunately, was unaware of Sebelius' humiliating about-face, as it was not carried on Daily Kos.

Last December, five of the Fort Dix plotters were found guilty by a federal jury of conspiring to kill American soldiers. The sixth had already pleaded guilty.

Still, compare the macho posturing of the Bush administration over thwarting the Fort Dix terror plot to the masterful handling of domestic terrorist plots since the angel Obama has taken the helm. Why, the Obama administration managed to capture and arrest Maj. Hasan without violating a single American's civil liberties!


COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Reflections on Mrs. Palin From a Recovering Berkeley Liberal

From American Thinker

The Wilding of Sarah Palin
By Robin of Berkeley(that's what she calls herself!)

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith.

She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c__t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "slutty flight attendant" and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from Atlantic Magazine's Andrew Sullivan: "Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy."

Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin's daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core '60s leftists were masters of guerrilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged from a punishment of sodomy.

The extreme Left still consider themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim. As Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin's violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men and render them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible.

But defiling a mother of five with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother to boot, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin's unapologetic motherhood that fuels the leftist fire.

Because as a mother and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro-life. Her whole being emanates life, which is a stark contrast to the darkness of the Left, the life-despoilers.

These "progressives" are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I've discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it's a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors.

Rather than sheild the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way.

Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. -
Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

_____________________

Ahhhh... another has seen 'the light'...
... and so it goes...

Ready For The V-CHIP?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Global Warming: A Gigantic Hoax?

From the UK Guardian
By Leo Hickman and James Randerson

Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists
Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog called The Air Vent.
The files, which in total amount to 160MbB of data, were first uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement: "We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."

A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry."

In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to comment on the email.

"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating," said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about. Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."

In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying "in an odd way this is cheering news".
Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public." But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."

The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings. "Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."

Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found out doing something as wrong as that."

Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused to comment.

The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests, for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense, often politically motivated, scrutiny.

Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."

"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do – the impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the economic consequences will be catastrophic."

A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David Icke."

_____________________

More from American Thinker:
Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

______________________

Looks like we have a scandel brewing...
Algore is NOT happy!


I wonder if they'll take back his oscar?

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Army to Allow Some Media Coverage During Palin Event at Fort Bragg

From the AP and FOX News
Army to Allow Some Media Coverage During Palin Event at Fort Bragg

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The U.S. Army will allow the media limited coverage of Sarah Palin's appearance at Fort Bragg, but will bar reporters from interviewing her or her supporters on the post, officials said Thursday.

A Fort Bragg spokesman initially said the Army would ban the media from Palin's book signing next week, fearing it would turn into political grandstanding against President Barack Obama. After The Associated Press and The Fayetteville Observer protested, Col. Billy Buckner said the post would permit restricted access.

A small pool of reporters will be allowed to view and document the event but will be barred from the interviews. The public will be allowed.

Buckner said the setup will allow reporters their right to access while preventing the appearance from turning political -- something that officials believe would violate policy.

"If media are present, they can capture the imagery of what's going and sort of the ambiance of what's taking place," he said.

Fort Bragg, which is base for some 35,000 soldiers, does not hold many promotional events, especially not with political figures. Officials said they worried that media coverage would turn the appearance into a chance for people to express political opinions "directed against the commander in chief."

"The main reason is to stop this from turning into a political platform," said Fort Bragg spokesman Tom McCollum. "There are Army regulations that basically prohibit military reservations from becoming political platforms by politicians."

Palin has already agreed not to give a speech, McCollum said. Palin will sign her new book for people and will not stop to pose for photographs, officials said.

A spokeswoman for the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee and former Alaska governor didn't immediately return an e-mail message seeking comment and a spokeswoman for Palin's publisher, HarperCollins, did not immediately return a call.

Palin began a promotional tour this week for her memoir, "Going Rogue," with plans to travel through several states that were key to the 2008 election, including North Carolina. She made several stops in the state while campaigning on the ticket of GOP presidential nominee John McCain.

McCollum said it's not clear if military officials consider Palin a politician but noted that she has been critical of Obama while promoting the book. She said in an interview with ABC News that Obama should provide more troops to Afghanistan.

"It frustrates me and frightens me -- and many Americans -- that President Obama is dithering around with the decision in Afghanistan," she said.

Palin doesn't appear to be using her book signings to promote her politics. She spoke briefly to supporters in Michigan on Wednesday, saying it was great to be there and not mentioning Obama.

At least one person in the crowd yelled: "Palin power. 2012, yes."

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Pastor Manning Expects To Be Arrested!

Rush Interviews Sarah Palin

Photobucket

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: We are going to open this hour with a rare personal interview, a rare guest. It doesn't happen much on this program, but we are happy to have with us former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, whose book, Going Rogue, hits the shelves today and it's already headed for I think a record in sales. Governor Palin, thanks for making time. It's great to talk to you again. We spoke last Thursday in an interview for the Limbaugh Letter, but it's great to have you here on the radio.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you so much, and dittos from an Alaskan.

RUSH: Where are you, by the way? Where are we speaking to you from?

GOV. PALIN: In a hotel room in New York City. I'm going to do a couple of interviews after that and then head to Grand Rapids for the kickoff of the book tour.

RUSH: This is going to be exciting. Are you looking forward to that?

GOV. PALIN: I am so looking forward to this. I cannot wait to meet some of these good Americans all across this country. It's going to be a blast.

RUSH: They can't wait to meet you, judging by the reception you got during the campaign. Now, ladies and gentlemen, Governor Palin, when we spoke last Thursday I spoke to her a lot about the things in her book regarding the campaign. That stuff you'll read in the Limbaugh Letter, and I predicted to Governor Palin then that much of her book would be ignored in light of the dirt that she was supposedly dishing from the campaign.


So Governor Palin what I'd like to do here is go some different directions from what we did in the newsletter interview and start with the economy. We have 10.2% unemployment. We see no end in sight.

The administration and others are suggesting next year could be just as bad with unemployment going up to 11%. What would you do differently than is being done now?

GOV. PALIN: It's over 10%, and in fact it could be closer to 17 or 18 when you consider those who have kind of given up and are not applying for unemployment benefits. So it's bad, it's really bad and then of course Fed Chair Bernanke announced that there are still weak job prospects for the very short term and probably long term, and that's an uncomfortable place for our country to be. What we need to do is shift gears and really head in another direction because what we're doing right now with the Fed, it's not working.


We need to cut taxes on the job creators. This is all about jobs, creating jobs. We have to ramp up industry here in America, and of course reduce the federal debt, quit piling on and growing more.

But those commonsense solutions there, especially with the cutting taxes on the job creators, that's not even being discussed. In fact, increased taxes is the direction it sounds like Obama wants to go.

RUSH: You mean that you don't even hear it being discussed on the Republican side or within the administration?

GOV. PALIN: Within the administration, and as it is discussed on the Republican side, Republicans need to be bolder about it. Independents need to be bolder about that solution that has got to be considered and plugged in. This is the only solution that will be successful.


We need to rehash some history that proves its success. Let's go back to what Reagan did in the early eighties and stay committed to those commonsense free market principles that worked. He faced a tougher recession than what we're facing today. He cut those taxes, ramped up industry, and we pulled out of that recession. We need to revisit that.

RUSH: Why do you think this administration is ignoring that blueprint? What is their ultimate objective here? They're sitting in the middle of abject failure of their number-one stated goal, and that's job creation. So what are they really trying to do here do you think?

GOV. PALIN: Well, you wonder, you wonder because history proves what will work and you wonder if they're realizing that and if it's just perhaps a stubbornness at this point that they are so committed to going down this road of growing government and interjecting the Feds' control in the private sector more and more, which will prove to be more failure.


I don't know if it's obstinate thinking that they're engaged in right now or if they truly just do not believe what the free market, free enterprise economic solutions are that built up this country.

RUSH: Do you think this is going to be a major issue in the congressional elections in 2010, and if so, how would you advise Republicans to pursue it?

GOV. PALIN: It better be a major issue, absolutely.

Of course, national security will be, too, and hopefully we'll talk a little bit about some of the decisions being made in that arena that cause so many of us concern but, yeah, the economy, that's what it's going to be because it's all about jobs, it's all about Americans who are hurting right now and what those solutions are that are so obvious, so commonsense that need to be plugged in.

And those are Republican, they're commonsense conservative principles that we just need to apply.

RUSH: New York-23 is being portrayed as a race in which you and I -- because we supposedly went up there -- handpicked Doug Hoffman, he supposedly lost, even though that race, they still haven't finished counting the votes. It's two weeks! This is not Chicago. They haven't finished counting the votes.


He says he wishes he could un-concede now. But they're trying to diminish conservatism, and I think in the process intimidate the Republican Party from going in that direction. What's your read on New York-23?

GOV. PALIN: I think this is exciting. It's encouraging. No matter the outcome even with his recount of some of those, well, uncounted ballots, it's exciting that the race is going to be even closer, and it's a clearer and clearer picture that what Americans are seeking, even in a district there in New York, they are seeking commonsense, conservative solutions to all the challenges that we're facing. I'm glad to see this.

RUSH: So the positive thing there is that the Republican Party was rebuffed in nominating essentially a RINO, a liberal?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think what you saw there is -- and of course it's not just the Republican machine, it's the Democrat machine, too. You know, if you're not the anointed one within the machine, sometimes you have a much tougher row to hoe and that's what Hoffman faced. He was the underdog.


I think great timing for him, though, to stand strong on his conservative credentials and essentially come out of nowhere and prove that an American without that resume, without that machine backing can truly make a difference in an election like this.

RUSH: Well, now, you used the term, "If you're not the anointed one by the party machine, you're the underdog and you have a tough row to hoe."


Based on things that I read, the Republican establishment would not anoint you to be a nominee of their party should you choose to go that way. I'm not asking you the question because I know you're not going to answer and give away what your plans are in 2012.

GOV. PALIN: (chuckles)

RUSH: Do you consider yourself one of these unanointed ones within your own party?

GOV. PALIN: Well, to some in both parties, politics is more of a business. It's not so much a commitment to an agenda or a person or values or issues. It's more of a business -- and, no, I'm not a part of that. So if they're going to keep using that way of thinking in their decisions on who they anoint, who they will support or not then, no.

I'll never be a part of that.

But hopefully we're going to see a shift with independents, with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party, and we're going to get back to what the issues are, what really matters, and then hopefully we're going to go from there, which will be much fairer to the electorate.

RUSH: All right, independents, slash, third party. A lot of people -- mistakenly, in my view -- are looking at New York-23 as evidence that, see, a third party could actually do well. But that's not a good example because there was no primary there. As you said, the party bosses chose Dede Scozzafava on the Republican side and a Democrat.


Had there been a primary, New York-23 would not have been constituted as it was. So what are your thoughts now on the viability of a third party if the Republican Party can't be brought around?

GOV. PALIN: You know, to be brutally honest, I think that it's a bit naive when you talk about the pragmatism that has to be applied in America's political system. And we are a two-party system.


Ideally, sure, a third party or an independent party would be able to soar and thrive and put candidates forth and have them elected, but I don't think America is ready for that.

I think that it is... Granted it's quite conventional and traditional, but in a good way that we have our two parties, and I think that that's what will remain. And I say that, though, acknowledging that I'm not an obsessive panther, I understand why people -- good people like my own husband -- refuse to register in a party.

Todd's not a Republican and yet he's got more commonsense conservatism than a whole lot of Republicans that I know because he is one who sees the idiosyncrasies of the characters within the machine and it frustrates him along with a whole lot of other Americans who choose to be independent. But in answer to your question, I don't think that the third party movement will be what's necessary to usher in some commonsense conservative ideals.

RUSH: Now, you mentioned independents. We need to get independents. Independents right now are abandoning the Democrat Party. They did so in New Jersey. They did so in Virginia. And the White House pretty much proves this because the White House was out prior to the election saying, "Ah, Republican Party identification in polls is as low as it's ever been."


Therefore, for Republicans to win these races there had to be independents moving in their direction. Now, I know you're not in politics now but you have political experience. I'm not in politics. I've never gone out and gotten votes.

I've always been curious about the professional politicians' insistence that we go out and "get independents." Sure you want to shore up the base. But these magical, whatever it is, 20% of people that are not identified or do not self-identify themselves with either party, what's the way to get them?

GOV. PALIN: I think just naturally independents are going to gravitate towards that Republican agenda and Republican platform because the planks in our platform are the strongest to build a healthy America.


We're all about cutting taxes and shrinking government and respecting the inherent rights of the individual and strengthening families and respecting life and equality. You have to shake your head and say, "Who wouldn't embrace that? Who wouldn't want to come on over?"

They don't have to necessarily be registered within the Republican Party in order to hook up with us and join us with that agenda standing on those planks. In Alaska, about 70% of Alaskans are independent. So that's my base. That's where I am from and that's been my training ground, is just implementing commonsense conservative solutions.

Independents appreciate that. You're going to see more and more of that attraction to the GOP by these independents as the days go on.

RUSH: If the GOP articulates what you just articulated. I've always believed the way to get them... Reagan got them by just being who he was, articulating conservatism.


Conservatism is nothing different than the founding principles of the country. Therefore, the key to getting independents is Republicans who can articulate those beliefs.

GOV. PALIN: You know another key to this, too, is to not hesitate duking it out within the party. This is what I appreciate about the Republican Party. We have contested, aggressive, competitive primaries.


We're not like this herd mentality like a bunch of sheep -- with the fighting instincts of sheep, as Horowitz would say -- like some in the Democrat Party; where, heaven forbid, you take a stand and you oppose somebody within your own party because it's the right thing to do.

I appreciate that in the Republican Party. Some on the other side say -- you know, they're observing what goes on in the GOP and say -- "That's infighting, and they can't get along, and there's no consensus there."

No. This is healthy debate, good competition that makes candidates work harder. It makes for a better product, if you will, at the end of the day. I appreciate that about our party.

RUSH: We are talking to Governor Sarah Palin. We take a brief prosperity time-out. We'll be back and continue with Governor Palin right after this.
Photobucket

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And we're back. Our remaining moments with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, starting her book tour today. Let's talk about your book tour, your career in general, Governor Palin. Who are you trying to reach, and for what purpose, with the book and your book tour? What's your goal here?

GOV. PALIN: I'm not trying to reach the liberal elites in this country, and it's a good thing I'm not trying to, because I'm not succeeding there. Just everyday, hardworking Americans who want government back on their side and I want to help them have their voice be heard. And the book is all about that, and the book is about my record and my accomplishments as a mayor and as a governor that kind of lay the foundation for Americans to see where it was that I was and how I got to where I am.


It was just a lot of hard work and it was a lot of very commonsense measures that I undertook politically and practically speaking, and the book is about that, and hopefully people will read it and enjoy it and learn something from it.

RUSH: What's our biggest energy challenge as a country? Do you believe at all or some or a lot in the modern-day go-green movement of solar and wind and all of these nefarious things that really don't produce anything yet?

GOV. PALIN: I think there's a lot of snake oil science involved in that and somebody's making a whole lot of money off people's fears that the world is...


It's kind of tough to figure out with the shady science right now, what are we supposed to be doing right now with our climate. Are we warming or are we cooling?

I don't think Americans are even told anymore if it's global warming or just climate change. And I don't attribute all the changes to man's activities. I think that this is, in a lot of respects, cyclical and the earth does cool and it warms.

And our greatest challenge with energy is that we're not tapping it to the abundant domestic supplies that God created right underfoot on American soil and under our waters.

It's ridiculous that we are circulating hundreds of billions of dollars a year in foreign countries, asking them to ramp up production so that we can purchase it from them -- especially from the regimes that can control us via energy, using it as a weapon against us, potentially.

It's nonsense that this administration and past administrations haven't really understood yet that inherent link between energy and security. I think more and more Americans are waking up to the fact, though, and we will hopefully see changes there soon.

RUSH: Vice President Biden chided you, saying, "It's a little bit more complicated," Governor Palin, than "Drill, Baby, Drill," which is one of your chapter titles. What's complicated about drilling for oil?

GOV. PALIN: Exactly. What is complicated about tapping into abundant, safe domestic supplies that could provide stability for our country and security for our country? I know Alaska has billions of barrels of oil underfoot, and we have the natural gas that's waiting to be tapped, too; and other states do, too. It's not that complicated.


It's political, and that's what is the shame in this, is that for political reasons we're not allowing to tap these domestic supplies.

RUSH: What are your thoughts on the congressional health care reform bills going through the House and the Senate?

GOV. PALIN: Well, we don't really know, do we, what's in that Senate version, the Senate consideration? It will be soon but we have no idea of costs. We don't know how many will be insured. We're waiting to hear that.


We don't know if the tax funding of abortions will be in this new version that's sitting over on the Senate side. We don't know if those who choose not to purchase this government-mandated level of coverage will face jail time as punishment.

There are so many questions unanswered.

I don't like the idea, in general, of the federal government thinking it needs to take over health care -- which essentially this is -- and control one-sixth of our economy.

Not when there are commonsense solutions to meeting health care challenges in our country, like allowing the intra- and interstate competition with insurers, tort reform, cutting down on the waste and fraud that the Obama administration insists if we just did that we'll pay for this one-point-some trillion-dollar health care reform package. So lots of commonsense solutions that need to be plugged in before ever considering federal government taking it over.

RUSH: You mentioned earlier you wanted to talk about national security, that you hoped it came up. Well, here it is: What do we face? What are our threats, and are we prepared, or not?

GOV. PALIN: Well, I think domestically a threat that we're facing right now is the dithering and hesitation in sending a message to the terrorists that we're going to claim what Ronald Reagan claimed. Our motto is going to be: "We win, you lose."


The way that we do that is allow McChrystal to have the reinforcements that he's asking for in Afghanistan. That sends that message to the terrorists over there that we're going to end this thing with our victory.

We need to start facing Iran with tougher and tougher sanctions that need to be considered. We need to work our allies with the Iranian issues, like Britain and France and not allow access to favorable international monetary deals. That's a great threat that I think would kind of shake up Ahmadinejad and get him to listen.

We need to look at halting Iran's imports of refined petroleum products. They're quite reliant on imported gasoline, and we need to use that hammer to wake up the leadership there, too. Those are two big challenges that we have right now, domestically and in naming those two countries, Afghanistan and Iran. Two big challenges there, too.

RUSH: Thirty seconds: Immigration. Can you do it in 30 seconds before we have to go?

GOV. PALIN: I can't do it in 30 seconds but just know that... You know, let me put it simply: Illegal immigrants are called "illegal" for a reason. We need to crack down on this. We need to listen to the border states where the governors there have some solutions and we need to get serious about that.

RUSH: Governor Palin, thanks very much. It's been a pleasure. It's been fun. Thanks for last week as well and good luck on what I know is going to be a life-changing book and book tour.

GOV. PALIN: Hey, thank you. Keep up the good work.

RUSH: Thank you.

GOV. PALIN: And all the best to all your listeners.

END TRANSCRIPT

It's Time Obama Apologize to 1945 Germany

From Ameican Thinker

It's Time Obama Apologize to 1945 Germany
Lee Cary

In China, President Obama apologized for America ... again. The problem with frequent apologies is that they soon beg the question: Where does one stop, once one starts?

In China, “He acknowledged America's shortfalls and went out of his way to welcome China into a role of global leadership. He even ducked the only edgy question - from his ambassador, Jon Huntsman - about the great ‘firewall’ of China.” He apologized for the way “women in America” are treated by “men with old fashioned ideas about women.” China censored some of his remarks about them censoring others’ remarks. What a surprise!

In a recent posting, AT Readers contributed richly to A Lexicon of Political Speech. Given the President’s propensity to apologize for America, it’s time we offer the White House suggestions for more Obamapologies.

Otherwise, we’ll eventually have to apologize to all those to whom he fails to apologize for not having apologized to them.

Here’s one suggestion: It’s time Obama apologize to the German people for having foisted upon them governments they did not choose for themselves at the end of World War II.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis) was the duly elected ruling party in the 1932 German elections. They legally, by German law at that time, became the power brokers of the Third Reich. Okay, some of what they did when they got power was questionable, but, hey, the German people did vote them in. And, as we are often reminded, elections do have consequences.

After the end of World War II, new political systems were imposed on West and East Germany. So, it’s time that our President delivers this apology.


“As the President of the United States of America, and on behalf of the American people, I apologize to the German people for having participated in the imputation of not one, but two political systems on Germany the end of World War II.

First, we apologize for being complicit in the imputation of a totalitarian government on East Germany by our former ally, the Soviet Union.

Second, we apologize for joining with our primary European allies, Britain and France, in forcing a Western style democracy s on West Germany. In doing so, we engaged in industrial-strength meddling in the internal affairs of post-World War II Germany.

It was, in retrospect, an unfortunate exercise in blatant hegemony. And, for this reason, we, the American people, whom I represent since they elected me, just as Germans once elected Adolf Hitler, do herein apologize for our arrogant meddling.

We’re sorry.”


There are, no doubt, other opportunities for Obamapologies. You’re invited to offer suggestions (without citations). I’ll add them to a list I’ll mail to the White House as representing recommendations from me and some of my unidentified “friends.”

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Obama All 'Wrong' on 9/11?

From FoxNews.com

Bush Attorney General:
9/11 Trial Offers Jihadists Platform

Michael Mukasey, the final attorney general in the Bush administration, defended military tribunals, asserting that they were created for this kind of case and noting that they were used during and after World War II.

Mukasey, the attorney general at the end of President Bush's second term, ripped his successor's decision to prosecute the Sept. 11 conspirators in a federal court, saying the trial will give jihadists a forum and could compromise delicate intelligence.

Mukasey, in an interview with Fox News, called the civilian trial announced Friday by Attorney General Eric Holder "the wrong place, under the wrong circumstances, in the wrong forum."

"After 9/11, we recognized that we were at war," he said, arguing that military tribunals were created for this kind of case and noting that they have been used since the Revolutionary War and during and after World War II.

"There are forums that allow the presentation of evidence in a controlled atmosphere, where you can limit access to classified information, and where you can receive evidence gathered on the battlefield, not necessarily under the kinds of conditions in which police gather evidence in a conventional case," he said. "That's not true in federal court."

On Friday, Holder announced that the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo detainees will be tried in federal court in New York for their alleged role in the attacks that killed 2,976 American civilians -- saying the U.S. will seek the death penalty against the defendants.

Holder said he decided to seek justice against the suspects in federal court rather than a military tribunal because the attacks targeted civilians on U.S. soil. But Mukasey and other critics say the attack was an act of war that should be prosecuted in a military tribunal.

Mukasey said it's unlikely that Mohammed will be acquitted because of his confession and other evidence linking him to the attack. But he added that same evidence could present problems in federal court.

"The real problem is that there is other evidence that may very well come from classified sources, that would be easier to handle in a military tribunal, much harder to handle in a civilian tribunal," Mukasey said.

He added that the trial also puts the terrorists on the kind of stage they seek.

"They want to be on a big stage and there's no bigger stage than New York," he said.

____________________
This idea that these terrorists, these scum of the earth, these murderers, deserve ANY consideration is something only a 'bleeding heart liberal' would consider.

Giving them an 'audience' is absolutely the worst possible thing that could happen. They should be tried by a war crimes court just like the Nazis were, and Guantanamo is the perfect place!

Oh, sure, Americans are supposed to be compassionate and considerate of their fellow human beings, bet these jihadists mean to kill us all!

They believe that their 'religion' is THE ONLY way!
Americans and all un-believers are infidels and MUST be killed!

Bringing them to American soil is a disgrace and a dishonor to those killed on September 11. 2001, to our soldiers that have died in this War on Terrorism, and those still fighting in the field!

Liberalism IS a mental disorder!
They're ALL crazy!

Obama and his Socialism MUST be stopped!

Friday, November 13, 2009

If Obama Is So Bright, Why Does He Keep Drawing the Auto Insurance Analogy?

From The Center For Individual Freedom

If Obama Is So Bright, Why Does He Keep Drawing the Auto Insurance Analogy?
By Timothy H. Lee

Photobucket
Since Barack Obama charged into the spotlight with his 2004 keynote speech at the Democratic National Convention, we have received constant instruction from our high cultural arbiters about Obama’s supposed intellectual prowess.

Never mind that when speaking without his teleprompter, Obama typically appears ineloquent and befuddled when forced to think on his feet. Or that despite having taught Constitutional Law, he has confused rudimentary provisions of the Constitution itself.

To his apologists, Obama’s elevated chin and inspirational cadence from behind his teleprompter are conclusive evidence of his brilliance. National Endowment for the Arts Chairman Rocco Landesman even lionized Obama as “the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.”


But if those sycophants are correct, why does Obama constantly say things that are so facially absurd? Examples are legion, from his misstatement that the world stood “unified” during the Cold War to his suggestion that our economic difficulties somehow derive from structural flaws within the healthcare, education and energy sectors that overactive government must now “fix.”

But his recent habit of analogizing automobile insurance with health insurance may set a new low for someone so supposedly brilliant.

In an interview this week with ABC News’s Jake Tapper, Obama declared that Americans should be forced under penalty of law to purchase health insurance under the House legislation, just as we’re allegedly required to purchase auto insurance already:


“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance, and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand-dollar hidden tax that families all across America are burdened by, because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty… Penalties are appropriate for people who try to free ride the system and force others to pay for their health insurance.”

There are just a few problems with this theory, which should be obvious to anyone who has devoted serious thought to the matter.

First and foremost, it is not true that “everybody has to get auto insurance” in America. If you voluntarily choose not to own an automobile, you are not forced to purchase insurance. In contrast, ObamaCare would force every American to make a purchase that many freely choose not to make for a variety of reasons. This is so obvious as to render his declaration facially preposterous.

Second, it’s not always true that we collectively “subsidize” people without auto insurance or health insurance. If an uninsured motorist inflicts damage to another driver, or an uninsured citizen falls ill, they can be held personally responsible to pay the costs that they’ve incurred.

After all, widespread health insurance is actually a recent phenomenon in American history, as citizens traditionally paid healthcare debts just like any other form of debt. Most people possess assets and future income from which they can pay costs without shifting them to taxpayers at large.

There are obviously instances in which indigent citizens are unable to pay auto accident or healthcare costs, but it’s simply inaccurate for Obama to assume that such costs are always involuntarily dumped onto other American citizens.

Third, we aren’t on the same slow-motion course toward a government monopoly of auto insurance that would commence under ObamaCare. The auto insurance market remains fairly healthy due to free and open competition, whereas Obama insists on a public “option” that would inevitably become a public “mandate” after taxpayer-subsidized government insurance and draconian regulations ultimately drive private health insurers out of business.

Fourth, what provision in the Constitution empowers Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to commandeer the healthcare sector and command private citizens to purchase health insurance?

What would the Founding Fathers have thought of the prospect that sanctimonious federal officials could compel purchases of specific goods or services? The Constitution empowers the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, but that’s a far cry from dictating to every single American citizen that he or she buy something or face fines or imprisonment.

Auto insurance is very different because it is governed by state law, not federal law. And as noted above, American citizens can abstain from purchasing auto insurance by foregoing their privilege of driving, but ObamaCare would not allow such freedom – every citizen would have to make that involuntary purchase.

When asked by a member of the press what provision of the Constitution justified this compulsory provision, Nancy Pelosi could only glibly reply, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” If an obvious answer existed, Pelosi would presumably be capable of providing a simple answer.

But no – the Speaker of the House of Representatives couldn’t even answer that fundamental question.

The auto insurance analogy is pure sophistry, and it’s frightening that our nation’s highest elected officials are fatuous enough to thrust it upon the American people.

______________________

WAKE UP AMERICA!

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Representative Steve King (R-IA) Rips Obama's "Gangster Government"

Obama To Purge Republicans From Civil Service

From RedState.com

Obama Administration Intends to Purge Republicans From the Civil Service

Remember how the Democrats reacted when the Bush Administration started replacing U.S. Attorneys? At least they were actually political appointees employed at the will and whim of the President.

...The federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to purge the federal government of Republican civil servants all in the name of purify the federal bureaucracy.

You can read the OPM memo
here

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

Under his new rules, made retroactive for five years, the Office of Personnel Management will examine civil service employees who got their start as political appointees in the Bush administration and terminate those employees.


The order is retroactive to 2004, that moment when a number of Republican congressional staffers and others sought to embed into the second Bush administration right after the election.

According to John Berry, the Director of OPM:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5, United States Code.


OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.

I have delegated decisionmaking authority over these matters to career Senior Executives at OPM to avoid any hint of political influence.

The memorandum goes on to apply this change to civil servants who were political appointees in the last five years, in effect freezing these employees out of other positions, denying them promotions, and forcing them out of their jobs.

No one is allowed to stand in the way of Barack Obama’s agenda, including his own bureaucracy. This is what happens in third world kleptocracies and totalitarian regimes.

This is scary stuff.

Just for perspective: remember the Democrats threatened to throw Bush administration people in jail for firing United States Attorneys who happened to be Democrats.


In that case, it was clear as crystal that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President and he can fire them whenever he wants. In this case, these people are now civil service employees who do not serve at the pleasure of the President and cannot be fired just because they are Republicans. in fact, the law is very clear on that point.
_____________________________

This guy wants to 'fundamentally change America' alright...
He wants America to become a banana republic and have 'the state' nationalize all business and enterprises!
AND, he wants to freeze-out Republicans in the process!

Wake Up America!

Lou Dobbs Quits CNN!

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The President of Resentment

From American Thinker

The President of Resentment
By James Lewis

Some people have a government, and some governments have a people, said Ronald Reagan. We are being turned into a nation where the government owns the people.


It is the demagogic heirs to the dreadful history of slavery who are now trying to turn the tables; Obama is a slave-master in the making.

He looks the part, he acts the part, and behind the scenes, his commissars are making it happen.

Obama has never displayed his bitter, long-harbored resentment toward America quite as obviously as he did after the Fort Hood massacre. The president couldn't figure out how to respond with the dignity befitting his office.

_______________
I happened to be going through the Washington, D.C. airport a couple of months ago when I heard a lot of people clapping and whooping in a little demonstration.


When I looked, I noticed a single elderly French horn player sitting on a folding chair and playing patriotic tunes to enliven a parade -- if you can call it that -- of elderly wheelchair-bound vets from World War Two coming off their plane: the Greatest Generation, as even Tom Brokaw called them.

They looked shrunken, most of those lifelong handicapped vets, wearing baseball and VFW caps, but some of them left their wheel chairs and walked through the reception as the old horn player did his tunes. My eyes started to tear up and I walked over to join the applause as these real saviors of the West went on by.

They were greeted by a little reception committee and then went on to what was almost surely their last celebration with their buddies from the war. And that octogenarian horn player kept on playing his patriotic tunes.

Some of the bystanders joined in the applause, but there were some who made a display of their indifference and contempt as well.

It was an interesting lesson in our split society.

One young man jauntily walked away from the little homecoming demonstration, prancing in the opposite direction --
-- a little counter-demonstration all by himself.

Those old vets in wheelchairs had no meaning for him.

They were just mean old white guys, or something equally bizarre.

The most democratic army in history, the one that brought together Italians, Jews, Germans, Poles, and yes, blacks and Japanese Americans and everyone else, all of them scared of dying but convinced that their country was imperiled by some pretty evil characters in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union.

So they fought and died, sometimes in great numbers.
Bob Dole got his lifelong wounds in the murderous Italian campaign, just like John McCain got his shoulder-bones broken in the Hanoi Hilton. Some of those World War II guys were wounded for life, and some of them were now being rolled in wheelchairs before our eyes.

They meant nothing to the contemptuous young man who pranced away from them.

That's a small metaphor for this administration.


The young counter-demonstrator had no idea about the sacrifices of the Greatest Generation, the lethal dangers the country confronted after Pearl Harbor, and the heroism of our soldiers, sailors and marines.

He'd no doubt been told from childhood onward how evil White America really is.

Yes, those WWII soldiers represented an imperfect democracy, but it just happened to be the best one on earth. And those young soldiers knew that because of their own family histories, because American history was still taught in all the schools, and because they were good and decent people who were shocked by the vile regimes conquering Europe and Asia, ruthlessly killing millions of innocent civilians as they went.

It was a huge resurgence of barbarism, and their very souls cried out against the injustice of it all. They were Americans.
It wasn't necessary to explain things to them.
They got it.

And so the high school girls stayed home to watch their sweethearts go off to war. Some of their men came back, often shell-shocked, but they didn't talk about the war. They went back to their lives and tried to pursue happiness.


A lot of them never came back.

And then some guy named Joe Stalin exploded the first Soviet nuclear bombs, an A-bomb and an H-bomb.


After all of their pain and homesickness and sacrifice, another totalitarian enemy had infiltrated the U.S. government, up to and including the White House staff.

Those infiltrations were real, as we now know. They were not just the wild imaginings of Tailgunner Joe McCarthy.

So Americans became angry and frightened by this new danger, especially because the State and Federal bureaucracies, the teachers, the media, and the universities were penetrated by the Stalinist Left and their front organizations.

For the first time in human history, a single Soviet bomber could fly from Europe to New York City and obliterate all of Manhattan with the push of a button.

Americans were outraged and frightened by this new threat, and they supported a vigorous anti-Communist movement led by people like Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Joe McCarthy, Dwight Eisenhower, and a host of others.

For some decades the American people defended themselves vigorously and effectively against the Stalin-directed fifth column that threatened their lives and freedom.

Today we are seeing a Second Cold War, but the enemy is within, just as it was after World War II.


We are seeing outright front organizations again.
"J Street" is a classic example; it should be called "J Front."
It's a fraud, claiming to represent people who never voted for them.

George Soros, who sets up many of these phony organizations, is a man who accommodated the Nazis, among other distinctions.

He has never displayed a smidgen of guilt for his role in the the disposition of Jewish possessions after their owners were arrested and sent to death camps -- men, women, and children.

Normal Holocaust survivors feel tremendous guilt; Soros sounds jaunty and devil-may-care about the murderous cannibalism of those years. He made out well and started his long road to fortune.

Today he is financing Obama's "Coup from Above" with the same insouciance with which he betrayed his Jewish relatives in Hungary.

There's a story to be told there.

But don't expect the media to tell it.

The American people are hearing a call to arms -- not literal arms, for our system can self-correct.


But we have to out-organize and out-pressure the Left.
They have called us "the enemy" ever since Alinsky's little book radicalized the revolutionaries of the Boomer Left (and this only after the violent revolutionary groups were suppressed).

When somebody really considers you an enemy, you have no choice: either you return the compliment, or you get overwhelmed by the new Chicago Mob in D.C.

The Left has shown how to win from a minority standpoint.


According to a recent poll, American conservatives have a two-to-one majority.

They are constantly undermined by the political Left: ridiculed in the media, demeaned in the schools and universities, and outmaneuvered at the state and national level by Leftists who are far nastier and far more ruthless than ordinary, decent Americans.

This is a struggle for the country.
We need to toughen up.

The first lesson is to start telling the truth without fear.

Shout it out.
Demonstrate.

Tell your truth to your relatives that you've been trying to be nice to all these years. Make it pleasant and polite, but firm.
Don't yell. Just talk and talk and talk.

Yes, you can stand out from the crowd. Half of your listeners will privately agree with you if you state your case well, and over time they will find the courage to speak up, too.

The second lesson is to build up a cadre of leaders -- in the media, in politics, in the educational system, everywhere.


We have at least one charismatic leader now in Sarah Palin.
That's why she is under constant, vicious attack from the Left.
That's why they burned down her church in Wasilla.

They fear her.
I love her for the enemies she has made.

There are many other good people, but a charismatic political talent comes just once in every generation. She needs and deserves support.
So do others.

When conservatives betray American conservatism, let them know you will vote against them, and support their conservative opponents in all the ways that work.


Don't get nasty and hysterical. Just be calm and firm.

The third lesson is to organize, organize, and organize.


That's how the Left did it.
Tea Parties are good; the Heritage Foundation is good. There are many good organizations, and we need to support them with our dollars and our voices.

We need to mobilize conservatives into active pressure groups around their greatest concerns. Web freedom is a crucial one right now. So is free radio and TV.

When the Left attacks Fox News or Rush, we have to raise a gigantic fuss on their behalf. The media cannot be allowed to ignore our demonstrations. We have shrugged our shoulders and allowed far too many good people to be attacked.

The elections of 2010 will be a major survival test.

If Americans fail that test, we will become Britain in its catastrophic decline under fifty years of socialism.

A new Ruling Class will arise, just as it has in socialist Europe, and they will not care one bit about the people.

They will import hostile voters from third-world countries. They will forge alliances with Islamists, as they are already.

America will be helpless, and all the hostile forces around the world will know it. They will all try to push us under. If we are governed by a domestic fifth column, then North Korea, Russia, China, Iran, Hugo Chavez, the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood...all of them will beat us down.
Real democracy is just not their thing.

At the U.N. we see kleptocracies in charge. Behold our future if we do not act. Chicago and Detroit stand as warnings.

Conservatives are individualists, so we have to do something unusual: organize, organize, organize.


Local and national.
Even international.

We have friends in the British media looking for us to stand up and defend civilization, just as they stood up against Hitler when we were still dithering.

Some of our friends are in Australia, in Canada, and yes, in France. Around the world there are millions who get it. We can be American patriots with allies all around the world. They need leaders and vocal support just as much as we do.

And we must militantly defend the freedom of the web. The Stalinoids will attack it viciously, just as they will attack talk radio and Fox News. We are fighting the same enemy Ronald Reagan fought. We have to do it just as intelligently and vigorously as he did.

The word "activist" used to be a media word for the Left. It's high time to make it work for American conservatives.

Become an activist or lose your country.