Alan Grayson's Greatest Hits DVD-on Taxpayers' Dime

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


Hat tip to Hot Air


"Who needs campaign funds?"


Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), the reigning Fousesquawk 2009 Jerk of the Year, is pushing hard to keep his Golden Penguin in 2010. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Grayson is using his congressional franking privileges to produce a DVD "highlighting" his first term and send copies to 100,000 households in his district at a cost (to the tax-payers) of some $73,000.

"Ah wunnerful, ah wunnerful, ah!"

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/politics/os-grayson-sends-dvd-20100728,0,7129697.story

Here is Grayson's "blockbuster" DVD entitled; "Getting things done for you.":

 


I sure hope those 100,000 households in Grayson's district enjoy that DVD. They and the rest of us are paying for it.

An Open Letter to Sgt. Art Eld, Orlando Police Department

Dear Sergeant Eld,

I write this letter to you because you were identified as the spokesperson for the Orlando Police Department in a story on false rape accusations that recently ran on NBC Channel Two in Orlando, both in their television broadcast and on their website.

There were some statements attributed to you by the station that raise some questions that I think need to be posed, given the gravity of the subject at hand.

You were quoted as saying, “We want victims to continue to report crime. We don’t want to spend endless hours and resources chasing ghosts.”

You added to that comment by saying, “False reports take personnel away from other calls for service, increasing the response time for real victims,” and that, “It also taints the jury pool in Orange county for true legitimate rape cases.”

Finally, you were quoted as saying, “False reports cause unnecessary fear in the community.”

With all respect to the dangerous and often thankless work done by police everywhere, and with great appreciation for your public call to address this problem, isn’t there something else that these false reports cause?

Like the lives of men devastated, their reputations and well being destroyed? Like innocent men behind bars?

I found it troubling that it appears you did not mention this, especially given the reality that so many men have ended up in prison, falsely convicted and paying an egregious price for lies that have been all too often carried to the courts by police that are either poorly trained, overly chivalrous or under skilled at what they are paid to do. I say that because something else that sheds light on these tragedies was also mentioned by Channel Two, but for some reason was not quoted from you or another direct source. The story said, “Cops said they don’t want to arrest the women, but feel they must.”

I found this to be a staggering statement, and quite telling.

I thought it was the duty of the police to arrest criminals, regardless of their sex? In fact, I am pretty sure that is true.

Why would your officers not want to arrest criminals that are causing such pervasive and destructive problems? Because they are girls?

Are the officers on your force confusing their squad cars with white horses, or has it been a matter of routine policy in the past to give women who make false allegations a pass on their crime?

Since the problem itself has grown to such proportions that the police department has to make public proclamations about its severity, it would seem safe to conclude that police inaction on false allegations has been a systemic problem all along.

What percentage of false accusers have been arrested and criminally prosecuted in Orlando in the past 10 years? The answer to that question will either exonerate the police department (and the D.A.’s office) or prove my point entirely.

Being a professional in law enforcement, I am sure you are aware of The Innocence Project. Are you aware that the crime for which most of their beneficiaries are proven to be innocent is rape?

I am also sure you are aware of how convicted sexual offenders are treated in prison, and the unspeakable things that can happen to them there.

Does this not make the veracity of allegations of critical importance in the criminal justice system, in which you play such a vital role?

But now we hear, from you, that those untruthful allegations are a problem because they cause an undue workload on police officers? Because people in the community get scared?

We will never know, Sergeant Eld, just how many men are languishing in prisons right now because a woman had consensual sex with them and later regretted it, or because, as we saw in the Hofstra case, a woman wanted to cover herself with her boyfriend- and because those types of claims are often treated by police as factual with no evidence. It is, just as the story said, an epidemic problem, and clearly not just with the women making the allegations.

Those men in the Hofstra case were saved by a video taken on a camera phone, but there have been many, many men not near so lucky.

Perhaps you should consider that it is not the public at large, or the average police officer, or even the unfortunate victim of a real rape that pays the price for false allegations. It is innocent men- men who have done nothing wrong, that bear the brunt of these easily accepted and usually unpunished lies, in the most horrific way possible.

Kind Regards,
Paul Elam
Editor-in-Chief
mensnewsdaily.com

Arizona and defending borders

Arizona has now been told they don't have a right to defend their own borders! Is anyone else alarmed at this? Where does a Federal judge get the authority to strike down a soverign states laws concerning protection of its borders or inquiring about the legal status of the people who are within those borders? Do you not get asked for your papers (drivers licence) whenever you are stopped for a traffic violation? Are they not allowed to ask for your insurance papers too? Of course they are. If we are to follow the logic of the far left and our Federal government these too should be a violation of our civil rights, shouldn't they? I mean, No police officer has the right to harrass me or you about our right to drive a car, or our ability to insure ourselves in case of an accident. Right? Oh wait, thats right.... our ability to drive is called a privledge not a right. But, being here illegally is a right and not a privledge. Isn't it? It must be considering the logic. And purchasing insurance is is a forced mandate by States upon those who they deemed "good enough" to be allowed to operate a vehicle. But, i guess anyone is good enough to be in our country no matter how they got here. We definitly shouldn't be allowed to ask for any proof of legal staus. Thats just plain ridiculous! No problem with asking for insurance papers though. Of course not.

Warmers are Anti-Science

Warmers are anti-science. Appeal to authority teaches nothing. Science is about why and how. Climate "science" is not real science. Its professors are not qualified or worthy to teach at American universities.

“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” is how the great Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard Feynman defined science in his article “What is Science?” Feynman emphasized this definition by repeating it in a stand-alone sentence in extra large typeface in his article. (Feynman’s essay is available online, but behind a subscription wall: The Physics Teacher (1969) volume 7, starting page 313.)

Immediately after his definition of science, Feynman wrote: “When someone says, ‘Science teaches such and such,’ he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, ‘Science has shown such and such,’ you should ask, ‘How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?’ It should not be ‘science has shown.’ And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but be patient and listen to all the evidence) to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at.”

And I say, Amen. Notice that “you” is the average person. You have the right to hear the evidence, and you have the right to judge whether the evidence supports the conclusion. We now use the phrase “scientific consensus,” or “peer review,” rather than “science has shown.” By whatever name, the idea is balderdash. Feynman was absolutely correct.

When the attorney general of Virginia sued to force Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame to provide the raw data he used, and the complete computer program used to analyze the data, so that “you” could decide, the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia (where Mann was a professor at the time he defended the hockey stick) declared this request — Feynman’s request — to be an outrage. You peons, the Faculty Senate decreed, must simply accept the conclusions of any “scientific endeavor that has satisfied peer review standards.” Feynman’s — and the attorney general’s and my own and other scientists’ — request for the raw data, so we can “judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at,” would, according to the Faculty Senate, “send a chilling message to scientists … and indeed scholars in any discipline.”

According the Faculty Senate of the University of Virginia, “science,” and indeed “scholarship” in general, is no longer an attempt to establish truth by replicable experiment, or by looking at evidence that can be checked by anyone. “Truth” is now to be established by the decree of powerful authority, by “peer review.” Wasn’t the whole point of the Enlightenment to avoid exactly this?

Read the rest at: The Difference between ‘True Science’ and ‘Cargo-Cult Science’

Cannabis Minister Roger Christie Refused Bail in Religious Freedom Case

Americans across the nation are wondering why the DEA and IRS have the time and funding to arrest people like Roger Christie, especially when the law of his state specifically says otherwise. Last November a law was passed that makes adult use of marijuana on private property the “lowest law-enforcement priority” on the Big Island. The law is in effect, however it has not proven to be the safety net that Hawaiians might have hoped.

Roger Christie served on the board of the advocacy group that drafted the initiative. Some believe that all the special attention paid to Christie and his congregation is a reaction to his outspoken advocacy, and that he recently testified in court, apparently just weeks ago.

“It may have been that, after the 1st raid, Roger had gone back to business as usual, and the feds chose a stronger response. This is bad news indeed, as the feds have a 95% conviction rate. They don’t bring charges unless it’s a “slam dunk”,” commented a friend of Christie’s.

Read the whole article: Cannabis Minister Roger Christie Refused Bail in Religious Freedom Case

Another Environmental Scientist Bails on Man-Made Global Warming

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement.

In a hard-hitting and exclusive new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.

Watch Rancourt video here.

“I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said.

“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he stated.

Environmental censorship

Rancourt’s dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.

Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm. (Note: Rancourt also ridicules environmental concern over acid rain and the ozone hole. See below)

“They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists…looking for lies to hitch onto.”

“The modern environmental move has hijacked itself by looking for an excuse to stay comfortable and stay away from actual battle. Ward Churchill has called this pacifism as pathology,” he explained. “If you are really concerned about saving world’s forests or habitat destruction, then fight against habitat destruction, don’t go off in tenuous thing about co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Actually address the question; otherwise you are weakening your effect as an activist.”

Gore’s film makes him ‘ill’ ....

Read the rest: Another Environmental Scientist Bails on Man-Made Global Warming

Living, breathing document?

Have you ever heard that our Constitution is a living, breathing document? That it was written so long ago and the founders could not possibly conceive of the world we live in today. Therefore we must change our view of the Constitution to fit an ever-changing country. I have heard this argument all too often from otherwise intelligent people. In my study of our founding I cannot find this theory put forth by any of the founders writings or in our founding documents. So where did this idea come from? We can find it's roots going back as far as John Marshall's Supreme Court where he served as Supreme Court Chief Justice from 1801-1835. Where much to the dismay of many delegates of the Philadelphia Convention, and among others, he supported Federal supremacy over State laws and over-expansive reading of the Constitutions enumerated powers. This was the antithesis to the understood meaning of the recently ratified Constitution! In the famous case of Mc Culloch vs. Maryland, Marshall set forth a precedent that strayed from the ratifiers understanding of State power, and tries to prevent states from passing laws that violate the constitution. At the heart of his opinion, Marshall cited what was the beginning of "implied" powers on behalf of the Federal government. His opinion stated: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding." and was intended, as he said "to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs … ." Yet this was only the beginning of the Supreme courts assault on the Constitution and States rights. And only an inkling of what was to become known as a living breathing Constitution. There are however, many places in the founders writings, Debates, and our founding documents themselves that can prove that a living, breathing Constitution is not what the founders intended. In the State ratification debates over adopting the new Constitution, and most extensively in the Virginia ratification debates, the delegates argued back and forth on the issue of whether or not the States were giving up their sovereignty to a centralized government. This was a central issue to ratification. The States would never have agreed to the Constitution if they thought they were relinquishing sovereignty to a national or consolidated government. Patrick Henry, serving as representative to the Virginia convention said this about the adoption of the Constitution: "I beg gentlemen to consider: lay aside your prejudices. Is this a federal government? Is it not a consolidated government for almost every purpose? Is the government of Virginia a state government after this government is adopted? I grant that it is a republican government, but for what purposes? For such trivial domestic considerations as render it unworthy the name of a legislature. I shall take leave of this political anatomy, by observing that it is the most extraordinary that ever entered into the imagination of man. If our political diseases demand a cure, this is an unheard-of medicine." In other words, the new government would be a consolidation of power not a Federal one which would leave the power to the States. Henry was not alone in his fears of the Constitution being a plan of consolidation. George Mason was adamant about this as well. During debates over the power to lay taxes given to the new legislature he had this to say, "Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause (power to tax) clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other." What he was saying was, the power to tax would be the power to destroy the States. And the very idea of a national government with so much power was the opposite of what the states and their people wanted to see. Adding to this he later remarked, "But my principal objection is, that the Confederation is converted to one general consolidated government, which, from my best judgment of it, is one of the worst curses that can possibly befall a nation. Does any man suppose that one general national government can exist in so extensive a country as this? I hope that a government may be framed which may suit us, by drawing a line between the general and state governments, and prevent that dangerous clashing of interest and power, which must, as it now stands, terminate in the destruction of one or the other." In more simple terms he said, consolidation is a bad idea. That a national government is not the best solution for such a large country. And there needs to be a line drawn between the State and Federal governments to ensure the Federal government would not destroy the States. When it came to the new governments powers Patrick Henry said this about the "sweeping clause" also known as the necessary and proper clause, " The sweeping clause will fully enable them to do what they please. What could the most extravagant and boundless imagination ask, but power to do every thing? I have reason to suspect ambitious grasps at power. The experience of the world teaches me the jeopardy of giving enormous power." In other words, he thought future congresses would abuse this clause to take for themselves powers that were not given to them by the Constitution. Most interestingly, the strongest rebuttals to these concerns came from James Madison who was the principle author and idea man behind the Constitution. So if any one man can tell us what the Constitution is supposed to mean it would be him. He had this to say about the delegates concerns over the sweeping clause, "What new terrors can arise from this particular clause? It is only a superfluity. If that latitude of construction which he contends for were to take place with respect to the sweeping clause, there would be room for those horrors. But it gives no supplementary power. It only enables them to execute the delegated powers." What he was saying, is that the congress can only exercise the powers expressly given to them. They cannot read more into it than that. He too was not alone in his proclamations that the new government had only the powers given it and nothing more. Virginia Governor Edmond Randolph said, "If I did believe, with the honorable gentleman, that all power not expressly retained was given up by the people, I would detest this government. But I never thought so, nor do I now. If, in the ratification, we put words to this purpose, "and that all authority not given is retained by the people, and may be resumed when perverted to their oppression; and that no right can be cancelled, abridged, or restrained, by the Congress, or any officer of the United States,"—I say, if we do this, I conceive that, as this style of ratification would manifest the principles on which Virginia adopted it, we should be at liberty to consider as a violation of the Constitution every exercise of a power not expressly delegated therein." Or to put it simply, he never thought that the new government would have any more powers than what the Constitution said it would. The words of the Constitution mean what they say. And if they add a clause that said as much then the States could consider it a violation of the Constitution if congress assumed powers not given to them. Even with these reassurances, the States were not convinced that they would retain most of their powers. This is why the States insisted that a Bill of Rights be applied to any new plan of government, and that's what the Constitution is….. a plan of government. Without a Bill of Rights further limiting the federal government, the States feared the Constitutions enumerated powers would be misinterpreted to extend beyond their actual purpose. The most important amendment in preventing "implied" powers is the 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In understanding the reason behind the adoption of a Bill of Rights we have one of the largest reasons to dismiss the concept of a living breathing Constitution. If the States wanted to ensure the Federal Government did not over-step its bounds and assume powers not given to them, why then would they want the Constitution to mean something different in the future than it did when they ratified it? They would not. The Constitution means what it says. Simple as that. In support of securing the State and its people their rights, Patrick henry had this to say, " It was expressly declared in our Confederation that every right was retained by the states, respectively, which was not given up to the government of the United States. But there is no such thing here. You, therefore, by a natural and unavoidable implication, give up your rights to the general government." He was saying, in the Articles of Confederation (the original contract between the States and the General Government) they had a clause saying that every power not given to the General Government was retained by the States and their people. This was not in the new contract (the Constitution) so how did we know it meant what it said other than by implication? And how could we know what rights were meant to be kept in the States? We couldn't. Mr. Henry also expressed concerns about adopting the Constitution before amending it to clarify this issue. He said, "With respect to that part of the proposal which says that every power not granted remains with the people, it must be previous to adoption, or it will involve this country in inevitable destruction. To talk of it as a thing subsequent, not as one of your unalienable rights, is leaving it to the casual opinion of the Congress who shall take up the consideration of that matter. They will not reason with you about the effect of this Constitution. They will not take the opinion of this committee concerning its operation. They will construe it as they please." In argument to the concerns of Henry, Virginia delegate George Nicholas made this point, " If thirteen individuals are about to make a contract, and one agrees to it, but at the same time declares that he understands its meaning, signification, and intent, to be, (what the words of the contract plainly and obviously denote,) that it is not to be construed so as to impose any supplementary condition upon him, and that he is to be exonerated from it whensoever any such imposition shall be attempted,—I ask whether, in this case, these conditions, on which he has assented to it, would not be binding on the other twelve. In like manner these conditions will be binding on Congress. They can exercise no power that is not expressly granted them." Henry was saying the Federal government would misconstrue the meaning of the Constitution and assume implied powers, and Nicholas was saying that they could not. Either way, the question of intent and meaning was absolute, and not supposed to be subject to a changing interpretation. If the adoption of a Bill of rights was a way to expressly prohibit the Federal Government from assuming powers not delegated to them. And the Constitutions ratifiers were worried about the meaning of its words and clauses being misconstrued, how can it be supposed that its meaning should change with time? Or that this was the founders intentions? It cannot. However, the founders did understand that we live in a changing world, and the Constitution may need to be altered from time to time. They also knew they did not have a perfect Constitution by any means. After all, man is infallible and so to would be this document. So they left us a way to change the Constitution whenever the States and the people thought it was necessary. Through the amendment process. Whenever the situation deems necessary, the Constitution can be amended to reflect the will of the people, or solve an issue that may arise, and to correct any mistakes that were overlooked. This process requires a three-fourths majority of the States to concur before an amendment is ratified. One might argue that this process is too long and time-consuming to keep up with our country today. But, it was meant to be slow so that we don't just change the Constitution so hastily that we cannot consider its effects. By requiring three-fourths of the States approval for passage of an amendment, protection of the States and their peoples rights are more secure. If we were to allow just a small group of judges to decide when the Constitutions meaning is changed, how could we be sure our rights are secure and won't be interpreted as non-existent tomorrow? Obviously we couldn't be sure. The fact that there is an amendment process at all indicates to most reasonable people, that the idea of a living breathing Constitution is a false one. It just doesn't make sense that the founders would leave us a way to change and update the Constitution and then turn around and say it can be reinterpreted at the will of the courts as the times change. A classic example of how much power our Federal Government has assumed today compared to just under a century ago is alcohol prohibition. In 1917 Congress proposed the 18th amendment to outlaw the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors" in the United States. Obviously they understood that they did not have it within their power to just pass a law prohibiting alcohol, they needed to amend the Constitution itself. And the States had to agree to ceding that authority to Congress. Which they did by ratification in 1919. Then in 1933 Congress passed the 21st amendment which transferred the power back to the States. The States ratified it that same year and prohibition was ended. Today however, the Federal Government decided they don't need to ask the States permission to prohibit such things. Take the issue of illegal drugs. They have been outlawed by the Federal Government just as alcohol was in the early 1900′s. But this time they felt no need to amend the Constitution to assume this power. The debate as to whether or not drugs should be legal is unimportant here. What is important is the "implied" power that the Federal Government has taken on this matter is contrary to the Constitutions limits on Federal authority. Why would you need an amendment just 89 years ago for alcohol prohibition, but today no amendment is needed for drug prohibition? It doesn't make much sense does it? Does the Constitution fall under the category of a living, breathing document? Absolutely not. As we have seen, the Constitutions ratifying delegates were concerned about this issue. The question of meaning and intent was absolute. The argument was whether or not the Constitutions meaning would later be "implied" to mean something else. Subsequently, the first congress took steps to prevent misinterpretation and secure the States and their people their rights by adopting a Bill of Rights. Also included, was a process to change the Constitution when necessary. With this power given to future generations, the need to reinterpret the meaning of any clause in the Constitution as the times change is completely unnecessary. If the Constitution can be reinterpreted to fit the mood of the day then why even have the Constitution? Does it not defeat the entire purpose of our Constitution? I would say it certainly does. Therefore, I can only conclude that those in power who subscribe to this false doctrine only use it to further their own ideology and political will. And it has only led us to a more powerful central government and loss of liberty. Until the States and the people put a stop to this, it will only get worse. Our liberty is becoming what is limited, not the government as intended.

Olbermann: Tea Partiers = Ku Klux Klan

Go figure Keith Olbermann would say something as stupid as this one.

What a piece of work...

Frank Rich Distorts the Sherrod Story

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Frank Rich


New York Times writer Frank Rich is a liberal ideologue who never lets truth get in the way of his ideology when he writes his op-eds. In yesterday's column in the NY Times, he puts his own spin on the Shirley Sherrod fiasco.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/opinion/25rich.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=frank%20rich,%20july%2025,%202010&st=cse

Rich, of course, makes reference to the errors committed by the White House and the NAACP, but like all liberals, the real wrath is reserved for Andrew Breitbart and Fox News. Watch as Rich implies and leaves it to the reader to infer:

"The smear might well have stuck if the white octogenarian farmer saved by Sherrod
24 years ago was no longer alive and if he didn’t look like a Norman Rockwell archetype. Only his and his wife’s testimony to her good deeds on CNN could halt the lynching party. Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture who fired Sherrod without questioning the video’s patently spurious provenance, was far slower to reverse himself than the N.A.A.C.P. Good for him that he seemed genuinely chagrined once he did apologize. But an executive so easily bullied by Fox News has no more business running a government department than Ken Salazar, the secretary of interior who let oil companies run wild on deepwater drilling until disaster struck. That the White House sat back while Vilsack capitulated to a mob is a disgraceful commentary on both its guts and competence. This wasn’t a failure of due diligence — there was no diligence."

Excuse me, Mr Rich, but you are misleading the reader. You are trying to leave the impression that Fox News drove this firing. They did not. By the time Fox News ran the story on TV, Ms Sherrod had already been forced to resign. Bill O'Reilly, in running the excerpted tape, stated that Ms Sherodd "must resign immediately." (The next night after learning of the whole video, he apologized.) When Sean Hannity followed O'Reilly on the air Monday, he announced the firing, which was then breaking news. Glenn Beck urged caution without seeing the while tape for its full context. If anyone "bullied" Vilsack, it was the White House.

Secondly, the only mob that Tom Vilsack capitulated to was allegedly the mob at the White House who were (according to Sherrod's conversation with Cheryl Cook), demanding her immediate resignation "since it was going to be on (Glenn) Beck that evening". Finally, since the full tape came out, Fox News has reacted appropriately, conceding that Sherrod's description about helping the white farmers was not racist. Did they err in not waiting for the whole speech to emerge? Sure. Everybody did, myself included as a blogger. The NAACP's error was worse since all they had to do was review their own video.

Then Rich goes on to try and make the case that it is the Republican Party that is racist because of their association with the Tea Party. To support that argument, he drags in that Capitol Hill protest and repeats as fact that several people in the crowd were hurling racial slurs at black congressmen, though no tape can be found to substantiate it despite a $100,000 reward by (yes, the boogey man) Breitbart.

Rich, of course, is a skillful writer who can write sentences that leave a definite impression with the reader. Here he leaves the impression that Vilsack was bullied by Fox News to fire Sherrod when he clearly was not. In the same thought, a few lines down, he refers to "a mob" in such an artful way as to leave the reader with the impression that "the mob" was Fox News when it was really the White House.

Is this what they teach in journalism school?

Goldman Reveals Bailout Cash Went Overseas

During the Bailout fiasco that went down last year in our country, a lot of Americans are wondering...where did my taxpaying dollars go in the bailout?

Well, it looks like we have an answer and it is one that will anger a lot of Americans.

From the USA Today:

Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia.

Asked the significance of the list, Grassley said, "I hope it's as simple as taxpayers deserve to know what happened to their money."

Most of us were angry at the bailout in the first place. It should not have been done, and certain companies needed to fail in order to preserve the free market.

But this news brings anger to a lot of minds and rightfully so.

We say we put trust in the politicians that handle our money (but we don't) and trust that the money given to companies like Goldman Sachs would be treated with respect, but that is not the case.

We shouldn't be trusting the politicians to give out our money and shouldn't trust these scum for wasting our money overseas.

When will someone stand up and stop this crap??

Sen. John Kerry Skips Town on Sails Tax

For some reason this story really made my day.

Apparently, Sen. John Kerry, who is one of the biggest supporters of raising taxes on the American people has now done things a little different on his end to avoid high taxes on the purchase of his new yacht.

From the Boston Herald:

Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.

Isabel - Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage - was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.

But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.

If this doesn't make your day, then I don't know what will.

This just shows the big hypocrisy of our politicians in Washington. You represent a state and can't even handle the taxes your probably put into place. However, the ordinary citizen is the one that will have to suffer at your hand of destruction.

The Obama Deception Censored...But Back Up

The other day the popular internet video "The Obama Deception" which has reached 6 million views was hacked and removed from You Tube. The owner of the channel that had the video up was able to stop all of his video's from being removed by somebody, and convinced You Tube to put "The Obama Deception" back up on the site as it was.

Whomever it was that removed the video must have been scared by the messages contained in the video...so in an effort to shed light on who Obama really is and who he is working for, we will give you an opportunity to view the video once again.



If this is your first time seeing this video, you are probably shocked and not that surprised.

If you have seen this video before, pass this along to all of your friends and family who have not seen the video.

Lets make them even more scared and revel the truth about Obama and all of the corrupt politicians that are plaguing Washington.

Shockeroo-Liberal Journalists Conspired to Squelch Jeremiah Wright Story

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Chris Hayes


If you want another example of how the liberal media tries to bury stories that go against their agenda, read this article by Jonathan Strong in conservative commentator Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller. It involves efforts by numerous liberal journalists to bury the Jeremiah Wright story during the 2008 election.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-about-rev-jeremiah-wright/

One of the main players, Chris Hayes deserves mention. He writes for the left-wing The Nation and is one of the regulars on MSNBC shows like Keith Olbermann's Countdown and Rachel Maddow's show. Chris is always there to bash some conservative/Republican figure or cause because, he, like his MSNBC hosts, is a left-wing ideologue.

That's fair enough, but if Hayes (and others) is engaged in sweeping news stories under the rug and hoping they will die from inattention, he is hardly a professional journalist. He is more along the lines of a Dan Rather. Rather deliberately floated a story about George W Bush, based on forged documents, in a desperate effort to bring about Bush's electoral defeat. This story, if true, means that liberal journalists tried to manage the news to bring about Barack Obama's electoral victory.

Of course, you can argue that Carlson is a conservative commentator, and therefore, the story is bogus. Perhaps. I would suggest, however, that we all should want to learn the truth beind this story. If true, then our media is in pretty sad shape.
But you knew that already, didn't you?

Didn't you?

97% of Scientists Do Not Believe in the Theory of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming

By Roger F. Gay

As I mentioned in Al Gore Appears–Note to Warmers: No More Do-Overs!:

If at first they don’t succeed then they will deny and lie again! And that goes for the second time, the third, the fourth …. You get it – as never-ending as Florida recounts; it goes on and on until responsible people step in and put a stop to it.

From the ardent Internet believer in global warming “theory” who can’t provide any real scientific evidence, to the East Anglia researchers who insist that Climategate is merely a misunderstanding, to IPCC defenders who claim their reports are only in error by a few insignificant typos, to Al Gore still battling the imminent destruction of planet Earth by the evil “global warming pollutants,” there can never be too many chances to ignore defeat and start all over again – from the beginning.

OK … now … certainly if you've tried to follow the warmers arguments at all, you remember the claim of a “scientific consensus.” It was showcased in Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. Supposedly, all credible scientists were absolutely certain that the things he said in his movie were true; just as surely as gravity exists and the earth is round.

It's part of the basic propaganda formula. Claiming that everyone who's anyone believes … is sometimes called the bandwagon technique. In this case, the “everyone” refers to scientists, and that adds an appeal to authority, another propaganda ploy. (related article on these techniques and others) Al Gore was very direct. “This isn't me claiming these things,” he insisted. (I'm not going to watch the movie again to make sure I have this word for word, but it's accurate.) “These are scientists.” And he went on to quote figures from a published article on how many articles had been published that referred to global warming.

Then Al Gore's claims were reviewed. Lists of factual errors and speculations in his film were created, some longer than others. A British judge found misinformation and made it the law of the land to reveal and discuss them when showing the film to school children. It turned out that the paper on which the consensus claim was based misrepresented what scientists had said in their papers, and why they had even bothered to mention global warming. (Follow the money. The federal government was writing grant offerings in a wide variety of fields requiring its mention.) And even if the paper had been accurate, it had little very little to do with Al Gore's specific claims.

Over 30,000 scientists signed a petition urging the United States to reject the Kyoto agreement, stating:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

Additional petitions, such as the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change included scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders who had reviewed the evidence and affirmed that climate change is natural and normal and that carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant,” among other things.

Various surveys were conducted among scientists and practitioners in earth and atmospheric sciences showing much weaker support than warming propagandists had claimed. And then came Climategate, exposing the fraudulent science that had some scientists and so many non-scientists believing that something more had been going on than actually was. Belief in catastrophic man-made global warming dropped like a rock in all quarters.

Did I say global warming propagandists always want to start over again no matter how many times they lose the debate? Yes I did, and here we go.

Before quickly commenting on the cause, take a look at the effect. USA Today titles a June 22 article Report: 97 percent of scientists say man-made climate change is real. Excerpts:

The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity.

The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is "very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth's average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century."

…..

As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.

The study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provided a hit-list of scientists whom the authors claim should not be believed on the subject of global warming. Holy politically motivated blacklist!!!! This is exactly the complaint made by credible scientists about the bias in scientific publications on climate; one of the elements of the scam highlighted by Climategate emails. Warming propagandists make systematic efforts to shut other scientists out to keep their fraudulent work from being exposed.

The authors hand picked the 1,372 scientists in their review, a small portion of the 10s of thousands of scientists who have weighed in on the subject, and made up their own criteria for determining agreement with the IPCC and for determining who's credible and who's not. If the public pays much attention to this paper – I personally guarantee you'll be hearing more about the bias, misrepresentations, and misleading illogic that this paper has to offer.

Meanwhile, the IPCC is in critical condition. Warmers are trying to save it, and start up the eternal do-overs to bring it some credibility in the eyes of the non-scientific public - or at least give cover to continuing political efforts on Cap-n-Trade and government takeovers through PR tricks like reorganization and instruction manuals for good conduct. Why isn't there a law demanding that these people let the dead horse rest in peace?

• A List of 750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Global Warming Scam : 2010 is Not the Hottest Year

By Roger F. Gay

Warmers and Democrats are once again getting overheated by their own propaganda; claiming 2010 is the hottest year on record. The current Cap-n-Trade promotional reads something like this (from The Hill blogs):

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported Thursday that the January-June period was the warmest worldwide on record, based on average land and ocean temperatures.

The NOAA data, which is based on records dating to 1880, ....

From NOAA's webpage:

NOAA: June, April to June, and Year-to-Date Global Temperatures are Warmest on Record

The monthly analysis from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which is based on records going back to 1880, is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides government, business and community leaders so they can make informed decisions.

If you'd like to see a graph, click here.

According to Marc Morano at Climate Depot, the 10th of a degree difference they're talking about is the result of cherry-picking data.

Besides – this is summer, and what they're talking about is weather, not climate change.

But aside from the normally expected counter-analysis to warmist claims from those who are actually scientifically competent, there is a particular phrase in the new promo that immediately catches my attention - on record.

What record?

Even the most recent fake British inquiry into the behavior of scientists at East Anglia had to admit that their data was “misleading.” Now one needs merely to take notice of the copy-paste arguments of rank and file warmers. NOAA has routinely presented results corresponding to those of East Anglia.

One of the most important facts discovered in relation to Climategate was that East Anglia's Phil Jones went to great effort to falsify temperature records throughout the world, asking its caretakers to replace their data with his fake data and for permission to present his fake data as original data from them. The United States, NOAA included, was not on the very short list of countries that said no. (And while we're at it, NASA – i.e. the godfather of the global warming hoax James Hansen at Columbia – is also not on that list.)

The Climategate conspirators have all gone back to work as if nothing happened. Warmers are once again using their products as talking points to promote arbitrary tax increases and government take-overs. Are they really expecting the rest of us to believe any of it? (Keywords: “hockey stick”, “trick”, “hide the decline”)

Special note: I correctly predicted this warming back in February: Climate: New Warming Expected, An Obviously Unbiased Report

Shame on the NAACP

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


As predicted, the NAACP, the once-proud civil rights organization, went ahead and played racial politics at their convention this week in Kansas City by issuing a (somewhat watered-down) proclamation calling on the Tea Party to cull its ranks of racists. Their head, Benjamin Jealous, "quoted" the recent Capitol Hill demonstration where black congressmen and women were allegedly called the n-word-even though no video of the incident can corroborate that claim. By choosing this low road, the NAACP has shown that it is no longer a credible civil rights organization, rather an arm of the democratic party.

Instead of getting on the public soapbox, would it not have been better for the NAACP to have organized a closed door meeting with leaders of the Tea Party or at least those people considered to be most influential within the Tea Party? Everybody could have aired their complaints, discussed the controversial incident, and come up with some sort of agreement or understanding that would act to unite-rather than divide our people. Perhaps, they could have even had that "long-awaited" public discussion about race that Eric Holder was talking about last year when he said America was a "nation of cowards" when it came to the racial issue. Speaking of Eric Holder, where's he been lately in the wake of all this New Black Panther Party controversy out of Philadelphia? Perhaps, he has joined his own Witness Protection program. At any rate, the NAACP chose the low road preferring to talk about "racist elements" within the Tea Party-elements they cannot document. Even if some fringe individuals were to be discovered showing up to a Tea Party rally, how can one condemn an entire movement because of the presence of a few kooks who happen to show up?

The NAACP has also been linked to reported efforts to have the Obama administration and the Justice Department drop all charges against the New Black Panther Party in the Philadelphia case-which was done. Had they any credibility, the NAACP would have urged prosecution to show their true commitment to voting rights since, historically, that was one of their main grievances in the days of Jim Crow. It would have demonstrated their commitment to the principle that the law works equally for all.

I also find it interesting that defenders of the action taken by the Justice Department have resorted to two tactics; first, to minimize the incident and claim that no actual harm was done; that it was an isolated incident, and that the NBPP is a tiny fringe group made up of kooks. (A tiny fringe group that has acted as bodyguards for that other famous kook, Cynthia McKinney, former congresswoman from Georgia.) The other tact is to attack J. Christian Adams as a disgruntled conservative and Bush supporter-without addressing his allegations. Now comes 24-year-old Newsweek writer David A Graham with an op-ed in which he also describes Adams and two other figures in this saga as...


WHITE.

It's a Perry Mason moment, folks.

The larger question which the media, Congress and yes, the NAACP should address is the alleged (informal) policy of the Justice Department not to prosecute civil rights violations if the victim is white and the perpetrator is black as in Philadelphia. This is a question that Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez and Holder should be asked about before Congress under oath. It's also a question that White House officials who were present at any reported meetings on this topic should be asked under oath. Who might that be? We can start with Dep. Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, who actually signed off on the decision to kill the Panther case. White House visitor logs show that he had some meetings during the spring with Dep. White House counsel Cassandra Butts which coincided with the legal developments in the case. Of course, we have no record of what was discussed in those meetings, but I am confident that Mr. Perrelli and Ms. Butts can clear that up to the satisfaction of all...under oath.


President Obama came to office hailed as the "post-racial president", the man who was going to unite us all. Instead, he and his adminisitration have badly divided the American people up to now along ideological lines. Now that divide is taking a dangerous racial turn as it appears increasingly apparent that he, Holder and others like the NAACP prefer to play racial politics at a time when we need it least.

Global Warming is Creepy (Dennis Miller)

Randall on NAACP resolution calling Tea Party RACIST

NAACP is both RACIST and IRRELEVANT

White House/NAACP Involvement in Black Panther Dismissal

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


The Washington Times has done what few if any other media organs have done; they have published a time line of events involving the Department of Justice dismissal of charges against the New Black Panther Party thugs who showed up at a Philadephia polling place in the 2008 elections armed with para-military uniforms, billy clubs and plenty of racist epithets. This time line raises disturbing questions not only against Eric Holder's Justice Department, but also against any involvement in the White House and/or NAACP in the decision to dismiss that case.

The below editorial by Bryan Myrick of Redcounty.com in March 2010 has links to the article by the Washington Times and their January reporting of the timeline of events.

http://www.redcounty.com/obama-holder-and-black-panthers-post-racial-america/37625

One might ask why the mainstream media has not been all over this. (Then again, one might not.) Perhaps, that is the excuse Rep. Brad Sherman might have used two days ago at a town hall meeting in Reseda, California when he told his audience that he was "unaware of the case".


(Breitbart TV)

That is a preposterous statement. Sherman, a Democrat, is fully aware of the situation involving charges of anti-Semitism at UC-Irvine (of which I often write). To his credit, he has followed the situation carefully and made public statements critical of the university. Yet, he is unaware of the New Black Panther case? Well, if he doesn't read the Washington Times when he is in Washington or watch Fox News, how would he know? (That is meant sarcastically.)

But back to the Administration. If the (post-racial) White House got involved in this case, why? Perhaps, the key to understanding it lies in that old guy named Jeremiah Wright, who the majority of the nation chose to ignore during the last election.

And what about the NAACP, an organization that was born out of issues like black voting rights in the South? Why would they seek to have charges dismissed that are a mirror image of what black would-be voters had to endure before the Civil Rights era and the Voting Rights Act? As we speak, the NAACP is holding its annual convention in Kansas City and expected to issue a statement accusing the Tea Party movement of racism. If these reports are true, then the NAACP will be guilty of gross hypocrisy for the entire country to see.

How can the rest of the media ignore such a major story right under their collective noses?

(Don't answer that.)

Rand Paul Under Fire for Poor America Remark...But Is He Right?

Rand Paul, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat in Kentucky, is under fire for a remark that he made about the poor population in America.

From Fox News:

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul says the poor in America are "enormously better off than the rest of the world," citing an old Cold War film that showed even impoverished homes had color televisions.

Paul's recent remarks at his first forum with Democratic opponent Jack Conway stirred some anger in impoverished pockets of Kentucky, where as many as a third of residents live in poverty.

The libertarian-leaning Paul addressed the issue of poverty by alluding to a decades-old, anti-American propaganda film by the Soviet government designed to criticize the free-market system.

The real question that should be asked, instead of blasting Paul for his remarks, might be, is he right?

The answer is absolutely!

In America we do have an issue with our economy, which has caused great sums of Americans to fall out of the middle class and into poverty. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is hard to address the issue in a free market system. However, compared to the rest of the world and the people that live in poverty in other countries, America has it better off.

They are jumping on Rand because he is a threat to the establishment, and any other time a candidate could say such a thing and not have one word muttered about the quote. They know that he is right, but they fear somebody like Rand Paul, because they know he will win!

Rand Paul is exactly the guy we need to challenge the establishment in Washington and Kentucky and their poor residents will greatly benefit from his leadership!

Debt and Deficit Commission Says We Will Destroy America From Within

The commission that President Barack Obama put together to look at the countries debt and deficit has come to a serious conclusion that has been known to most fiscally responsible people...the debt is going to destroy our country!

From the Washington Post:

BOSTON -- The co-chairs of President Obama's debt and deficit commission offered an ominous assessment of the nation's fiscal future here Sunday, calling current budgetary trends a cancer "that will destroy the country from within" unless checked by tough action in Washington.

These two gentlemen are absolutely right...we are destroying our country with our debt and the out of control spending that takes place in Washington. As I write this, the national debt stands at $13.1 Trillion.

They are correct...there needs to be tough action in Washington to curb this impending destruction. David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States, has been warning about this cancer for some time. However, people like Barack Obama and the leaders in Washington could care less about the situation because it hurts their radical agenda. They put together these commissions just to give the perception of doing something about the problem, but he and they will ultimately ignore the recommendation of the commission.

Steps need to be taken to rid Washington of the people that are destroying it and to fix this debt situation. I will be proposing something as we get closer to the November elections that I think will radically change the way Washington looks in terms of the type of people who are serving....stay tuned!

Motor-Voter Registration-Another Scandal

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk


J. Christian Adams, the ex-DOJ lawyer who has blown the lid on the voter intimidation scandal at Justice, has also written an interesting piece in Pajamas Media about the so-called motor-voter law that enables people to register to vote in certain states as they get their drivers' licenses at the DMV.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/lawlessness-at-the-doj-voting-section-told-not-to-enforce-purging-the-dead-or-ineligible-from-voting-rolls/?singlepage=true

There is another twist to this that deserves scrutiny. In California during the past several years, there has been a Democrat-led move to allow illegal aliens to obtain drivers' licenses, supposedly in the interest of having safer roads. Virtually every year, "One-Bill" Gil Cedillo, a Democrat from Southern California, introduces just such a bill.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to see what will happen if you have motor-voter registration at DMV coupled with allowing illegal aliens to get drivers' licenses.

"Uhhhhh......yeaaaah."

Lessons From LeBron: What Clevelanders Should Really Be Pissed About

With all the talk about Lebron leaving Cleveland to play for Miami, there are a lot of people in Cleveland that feel betrayed and upset, but what should Clevelanders really be pissed about?

Well Reason T.V. explains:

"Michael Steele Talks About Fight Club"

Last week Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican Party, suggested we need to pull out of Afghanistan. The neo-cons in the Republican ranks blasted him for this comment and have called for his resignation.

We believe however that Steele is right. We have spent to much time and money for a war that was already won years ago and now Obama needs a war in order for him to be re-elected.

Here is a great analysis from the Southern Avenger about the whole situation:

ALEX JONES: As United States Collapses, Media Worship LeBron James...

He is absolutely right...we need to get our priorities straight!

Donald Berwick, Robert Gibbs, Redistribution and Rationing

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk



Robert Gibbs



President Obama is now making a recess appointment of Donald Berwick to oversee Medicare and Medicaid. The purpose of the recess appointment is clear; Obama wants to avoid a confirmation hearing on Berwick in which this man's ideas ands previous statements would be brought to the fore; namely, thet Berwick has expressed support for the idea of rationing health care to people based on their age and the whole cost-effectiveness of treating the elderly. He has also stated that any quality system of health care must involve distribution of wealth.

In the below White House press briefing this week, WH spokeshole (and professional comedian) Robert Gibbs treats reporter Fred Lucas like an errant school child (to the laughter of other reporters) when Lucas asks him if Obama agrees with statements made by Berwick.



Well, regardless of whether or not Republican congressman Paul Ryan made a similar statement, this is also what Berwick has stated (2008 in the UK). In the below video, Berwick speaks of redistribution of wealth.



In the below article, Berwick (in an interview) addresses health care rationing (see p2).

http://www.biotechnologyhealthcare.com/journal/fulltext/6/2/BH0602035.pdf?CFID=578


Mr Gibbs; let's forget about what Paul Ryan said on the topic and get back to Mr Berwick's statements on redistribution and rationing, OK?


"OK!"

Yet Another Climategate Review : Global Warming Fears Not Based on Science

By Roger F. Gay

As CNN explains it; “An independent report released Wednesday into the leaked "Climategate" e-mails found no evidence to question the "rigor and honesty" of scientists involved.” That seems to be the general conclusion offered by Muir Russell, chairman of the select group of political insiders who conducted the review.

The review focused on “the behaviors of the scientists in the climatic research unit in the University of East Anglia,” which was at the center of the Climategate scandal. Russell provided a carefully worded public statement on the review.

“Those behaviors have been commented on in the light of a release – an improper release of emails in the autumn of 2009, not long before the Copenhagen conference. We went through this very carefully and we concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists. And that's a comment about the processes that they went through to produce their work, to handle their data, to have their work peer-reviewed, and so on. A lot of what they do makes a big impact on the advice that goes to policy-makers, both domestically and internationally, and we concluded similarly that these behaviors that were the subject of criticism had not affected the impact on the policy advice. What we did however conclude was that they had not shown sufficient openness in the way in which they responded to requests for information about what they were doing, about the data they were processing, about the stations they were analyzing, and so on. And we've made a number of recommendations both for them and for the University of East Anglia in terms of how it manages its freedom of information process, and how it manages its risk process.”

It's a bit of a brain-sneezer to imply that the researchers operated generally as good and proper scientists in the way data was handled, their work was produced and reviewed, and then state that they were deficient in providing information essential to the processes. If the data can't be confirmed and the details of work aren't explained, it's not science. A series of unsupportable statements promoting an idea isn't science, it's a marketing campaign.

In view of the facts, criticizing their work for insufficient openness is quite a downplay on the complete disregard for managing critical data that's been clearly shown, the extended effort to hide real data, the extended effort to replace real data collected independently in various countries with their own fake data, and the critical data allegedly lost when the East Anglia operation came under public scrutiny.

The reviewers do comment on East Anglia's Phil Jones' email in which he explains that he used a “trick” to “hide the decline”; referring to the strategic use of unmatched data to hide drops in temperature to support alarmist “global warming theory.” They found that data submitted to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1999 was “misleading,” with important implications for the IPCC's Third Assessment Report. They then downplayed with more carefully worded spin. “Reconstructions” or “to splice data” is not misleading per se (ok, generally speaking), “but we believe that both procedures should have been made plain.”

I will agree with Muir Russell statement on a couple of points. First, the behaviors exposed for a wider public via the Climategate emails did not damage my judgment of the integrity, the honesty, or the rigor with which the East Anglia group had operated as scientists. I was one of many who already had a good understanding of what was going on. The emails only provided additional confirmation of what was already known. The damage had already been done. My opinion of them could not have gotten any lower.

Secondly, I do not believe that the particular instances of misconduct highlighted by the Climategate emails had much “affected the impact on the policy advice.” Political insiders and knowledgeable scientists already knew that the “science” behind the global warming scare was fake. One might say that Climategate revelations may have impacted the effect without affecting the impact. (Is that double-talk enough for everyone?)

Andrew Montford, author of "The Hockey Stick Illusion," said the report was pretty much as he had expected. "I don't think anyone was expecting Russell to reach any other conclusions than the one he did. It was set up with a preordained conclusion in mind," Montford told CNN.

But no matter how unlikely it is that the review will be seen as credible, warmers hope it can help resuscitate the dead horse that is their propaganda campaign, which comes as no surprise either. Literally, trillions of dollars are at stake and it was never thought that the scam would disappear easily.

Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at London's Imperial College said: "It seems to me that we've had a lot of reviews, and yet again the science has come out as remarkably robust.” You have to admire his chutzpah, I guess, coming to that conclusion on the basis of reviews that haven't probed into the science at all.

Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” representation of global warming used in Al Gore's propaganda film was subject to a review at the University of Pennsylvania following Climategate. He was the originator of the “trick” used to “hide the decline” (thus producing a warming graph shaped like a hockey stick). Subjected to only a superficial review that did not actually probe into serious allegations of fraud (something in common with this new review), the resulting non-conclusions have been characterized by alarmists as Mann's “vindication.”

Mann also said he hoped the new report would put the "bogus, manufactured scandal behind us." That is also quite unlikely. Perhaps unlike the UK, Americans will not passively accept neutering by PR. Pushed by the fact that Barack Obama produced global warming law by administrative rule (via the EPA), states are currently filing lawsuits and initiating investigations of their own. Several state legislatures have already issued resolutions against EPA enforcement. These investigations could be much more objective and probing and will undoubtedly include the work of Michael Mann. States may also investigate Mann and potentially prosecute alleged fraud in applications for research funding. Al Gore is currently dodging a Senate investigation that could lead to criminal indictment.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 1 of 4)

This is part one of a four part discussion on Libertarianism with a guy who I'd guess must be terribly popular among readers of Conservative for Change: Nobel Laureate (in economics, not the Peace Prize) Milton Friedman. You can easily find the other three parts on YouTube.

Thomas Jefferson Lives....and He Is Ron Paul!

presidential historian, Doug Wead, has suggested that Thomas Jefferson lives still today....and that is through Ron Paul.

From Fox News:



It is funny how the anchor disagrees so much with this thought process...they just don't understand the movement that Ron Paul has started.

TSA To Block Websites With “Controversial Opinions”

In what seems to be one of the biggest attempts to censor the internet, the Transportation Security Administration has deemed it necessary to censor from their computers any website that might have a controversial opinion (which could include this website).

From InfoWars.Com:

The Transportation Security Administration will block all websites that contain “controversial opinion” from its federal computers in the latest example of how Internet censorship is expanding in both the private and public sector as the federal government prepares to push through a power grab that will empower President Obama to shut down the world wide web with an emergency decree.

“The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency’s computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a “controversial opinion,” according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.”

The new rules came into force on July 1, and prevent TSA employees from accessing such content, though what is deemed “controversial opinion” is not explained. Undoubtedly, the ban list will include websites which specialize in criticism of the government and federal agencies.

We have known for years that the government has talked about the possibility of censoring the internet to thwart opinion, but this is the biggest it has ever gotten. The TSA feels it needs to protect its employees and shut them out from any other opinion that will probably damage the reputation of the TSA...and it is not like they have a good one anyway.

We now that times are troubling when acts like this are taking place. When will we be able to get back to the way things use to be....or when people actually had the freedom to make sound decisions for themselves and not have some government tell them how it should be?

Should States Hold New Constitutional Conventions?

The idea that government has gone to far to infringe our rights as citizens of this country is starting to take hold amongst the electorate. Too many times do we see the ordinary citizen pushed aside for corporate greed or corrupt politicians. So the question is now coming up...do our states need a new constitutional convention?

The Washington Post today had a very interesting article about the state of Maryland and how they will have a question on their November ballot to wash their Constitution and start with a brand new document....is that the right way to go?

With July Fourth complete, it's time to face a real test of independence: If you have the right to tear up and rewrite your constitution, should you?
This Story

It's not an academic exercise this year in Maryland. It's a question on the November ballot.

Maryland is one of 14 states with a constitutional requirement designed to make voters decide at least once a generation whether to start over. The protection goes back to the Founding Fathers and the thinking that, every now and then in a healthy democracy, the People probably have to shake things up.

There is root in the rhetoric of our founding fathers to suggest that this type of path should be taken. Thomas Jefferson (in my opinion the best founding father) once said "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." He was one of the first to suggest that something like this should happen.

Does something like this protect the rights of the citizenry? This is probably a question that has never been asked of children in school, but it is one to consider. I would take a guess and say probably. We need to step back every once in awhile and analyze the way we are living. Is the government taking to much of our rights? Is it worth it to keep the Constitution we currently have in our state?

We will see, and with the direction that American thought is going in this country, this is something that can be very plausible.

Planner of 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre Dies

Gary Fouse
fousesquawk








On Saturday, Mohammed Oudeh died in kidney failure in Damascus. His funeral was held in the nearby Yarmouk refugee camp, where his coffin was carried by a crowd of about 500 mourners. Oudeh (73) was also known as Abu Daoud. So who was this man Oudeh, and why was he given a hero's funeral? He was one of the key planners of the 1972 Munich Olympics massacre that resulted in the deaths of 11 Israeli athletes and one German policeman. For that, Oudeh, unrepentent to the end, was given a hero's send off (above).

Here are some photos of Oudeh's handiwork in 1972.


Israeli Olympic team victims



During standoff at Olympic Village



Israeli team apartment




Fuerstenfeldbruck Airport after final shootout

That is what earns you a place of honor in the pantheon of Palestinian heroes.

July 4th: American Independence!

Today we celebrate our independence from Great Britain and the start of the greatest nation on the face of the earth (The actual independence day was July 2nd when the Contential Congress voted and approved Independence). We fought against tyrannical rule and we fought for our freedom and liberty. Now more than ever we need to reflect on the reasons we are a country and evaluate if we need to fall back onto those values today.

It should be a requirement to read the Declaration of Independence every July 4th, but that would be hard. The good citizen should just chose to read and reflect on where we once were and where we are going.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

— That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such....

.... is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of....

...large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
Declaration of Independence

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare,

That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton ###