Monday, December 28, 2009


Adding a newly dramatic meaning to the phrase "Don't get your panties in a twist", a (thankfully) inept Nigerian man unsuccessfully tried to ignite his Al Qaeda issued underwear bomb on Northwest Flight 253. 

Heroic passenger Jasper Schuringa subdued the flaming jihadi and removed the burning device, saving over 200 of his fellow passenger's lives.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano came out quickly with a statement that the 'system worked'.  The uproar over this statement, after all of the missed opportunities to stop this terrorist - from visa issues to passport problems to airport security to his own father warning US officials of his son's radical jihadism - caused Napolitano to come out on the Today show this morning and claim all of those crazy right-wingers were taking her remarks "out of context".  She claimed that her 'system worked' comment was in regards to after the fact response, NOT security measures to stop the incident in the first place. 

I'm sure the passengers of Flight 253, as well as every person boarding a flight since the incident, will rest easy knowing that if they had been blown out of the sky, the FAA would have been prompt in notifying other flights and government agencies that a terror attack had taken place.  After all, the response is FAR more important than thwarting the incident in the first place, right? 

Once again, Napolitano (and, by extension, the Obama Administration) made an ass of herself with her half-cocked response before all of the information is in.  She also insisted this was a 'lone wolf', isolated incident.  Too bad Al Qaeda didn't get the memo.  Neither, apparently, have these people.

At what point is the administration going to finally realize that there really is a war on terror, and we are fixed squarely in the sights of radical islamic jihadis who will continue to attack us in any way possible?  Was this the mugging by reality that they so desperately needed to wake them up?  It certainly has illustrated, among other things, that the people appointed by President Obama are woefully inexperienced and poorly chosen for their positions.

Mutallab may not have succeeded in blowing that plane out of the sky (thank God), but he did succeed in scaring the crap out of all of us.  And that's the whole point of 'terrorism', isn't it?

Prolonged periods of fear and stress often lead to things like Stockholm Syndrome and appeasement to make the pressure ease.  Seems like our liberal brethren in high office have already succumbed....

We were not attacked in 2001 because of the most heinous Bush-monster, and the attacks didn't stop because al Qaeda lost interest after 9/11.  They attacked us before Bush took office and after he left office.  They have been unsuccessful so far because of diligence on behalf of law enforcement and private citizens.  This incident is proof positive that the ball has been dropped.  There is no one person to blame, it is a systemic failure, but the constant down playing of the terrorist threat by Ms. Napolitano and the administration in general has to have played a significant part in the relaxation of security across the board.  Why be vigilant when you are constantly being assured that there is no such thing as a war on terror or radical islamists or terror attacks?

The administration is in denial about the Ft. Hood killer being a jihadi, but this shot across the bow is so blatant that even they can't ignore it or spin it away.

Yes, Janet, there really are terrorists.  It's okay to believe; don't let the other kids tell you differently.

Being mugged by reality really sucks, I know, but it's time to take the lesson you've been handed and actually learn from it before lives are lost.

Friday, December 25, 2009


Merry Christmas!

I would like to dedicate this blog today to those who put their lives on the line for all the rest of us.  From our police and firefighters, here at home, keeping the peace and keeping us safe, to our military here and overseas, going into danger every day to keep us free. 

God Bless you all.

Without you, this nation would not be as great as it is.  You keep the forces of evil at bay, fighting for what is right on the streets of our cities and on foreign shores.  You embody the ideal of America - strong, honorable and proud. 

Thank you for your service.  God bless you and keep you safe, God bless your families, and God bless America!

Wednesday, December 23, 2009


Last week, the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact came out with an article titled 'Politifact's Lie of the Year: Death Panels'.  The article discusses the origin of the term - Sarah Palin's Facebook page - and the ripple effects it has had.  It talks about how ridiculous the claim was, how wrong, how politically motivated the whole argument was. 

But last night, Senator Jim DeMint, on the floor of the Senate, brought to light two things.  The first is the fact that there is, indeed, a rationiing board, called the Independent Medical Advisory Board (IMAB).  This board is charged with making sure the per capita growth rate of Medicare spending is reduced.  This will apparently not be done through rationing, though.  According to page 1004, the IMAB:

"shall not include any recommendation to ration health care"
Reeeally?  So, a recommendation to, say, restrict poor women under the age of 50 from getting yearly mammograms because it is 'wasteful' isn't rationing?  Not that anything like that would happen, of course.  Our government officials would never do anything as crazy as that

It's amazing how something so ridiculous and far-fetched, as supporters of the bill call death panels, keeps popping up.  Why does it keep mysteriously ending up in all of the legislation so far?  Because rationing health care is the only way to make this behemoth even remotely affordable.  And so the democrats keep putting it in.  When it is uncovered that the boards are back in, the knee-jerk reaction of the democrats is to denounce those who dare to mention their existence, calling them crazy, ridiculous, fringe, unhinged.  None of which explain why these boards keep ending up in their legislation.

As usual, they ridicule and deride, instead of attempting to explain or justify.  One would assume that is because there is just no explaining or justifying the rationing boards.  There are too many countries now that have them, and there is a plethora of horror stories about them.

The second thing is a rules change that Sen. DeMint exposed.  The Presiding officer decided that, although the wording of the subsection expressly uses the terms 'rules change', it is not, in fact, a rules change.

DEMINT: and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER: that is correct.

DEMINT: then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them. Thank you. and I do yield back.

This is not just unconstitutional.  It is a powergrab of breathtaking proportions.  Not only is it taking power from future congresses, it is taking power over all of our lives and making it nearly impossible to wrest it back.

For those who think this board is a harmless bureaucratic committee, think again.  There is a damn good reason why they have made this and only this unrepealable.  It's the only way to keep this nightmare of a bill from bankrupting the country down the road.  There must be rationing to keep it solvent - there are not enough doctors and nurses to care for us all, and there isn't nearly enough money to pay for it.

They are trampling all over our Constitution in order to make sure they have unchallenged power and control. 

That is not democracy; that is, as Senator DeMint so aptly put it, tyranny.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009


This is a great sign:

Let's make it prophetic, shall we?

In related news, Democrat Rep. Parker Griffith has announced he is changing parties.  Effective immediately, he is now a member of the Republican Caucus.
"I believe our nation is at a crossroads and I can no longer align myself with a party that continues to pursue legislation that is bad for our country, hurts our economy, and drives us further and further into debt," Griffith said.
Rep. Griffith, a radiation oncologist, cites the health care legislation as the tipping point for his decision.
"I want to make it perfectly clear that this bill is bad for our doctors," he said. "It's bad for our patients. It's bad for the young men and women who are considering going into the health care field."
His record, thus far, has been more conservative than many RINO's, so he should be a welcome addition to the Caucus.
While the timing of his announcement was unexpected, Griffith’s party switch will not come as a surprise to those familiar with his voting record, which is one of the most conservative among Democrats. "He has bucked the Democratic leadership on nearly all of its major domestic initiatives, including the stimulus package, health care legislation, the cap-and trade energy bill and financial regulatory reform. "He was one of only 11 House Democrats to vote against the stimulus.
Democrats are coming out swinging, of course.
Liberals countered that Griffith was essentially a Republican all along, and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said he should give back the money Democrats have contributed to his campaign.
Funny, I don't recall Arlen Specter returning all of his contributions to the RNC when he switched sides, although he did say he would "upon request".  The FEC finally had to rule in favor of the Club For Growth back in June to send out letters to Specter campaign donors to urge them to ask for refunds.  Turns out he voluntarily only returned a mere $225,000, out of the $7.5 million remaining in his coffers as of June 30th, all of which were private donors - no word on whether he returned any monies given by the RNC.  I'd guess no.  The FEC gives with one hand and takes away with the other, though, because the ruling also stated that Specter is not required to return the contributions, even upon request, and all requests must have been made by Oct. 15, 2009.

Rep. Griffith should be held to the same 'upon request' standard, but here's hoping he is actually a man of principle and will return every socialist Red cent donated by democrats. 

Something tells me this will be a good fundraising year for conservatives, so he'll make it up later.


There is such a plethora of goodies today that it's hard to decide what to highlight.

First, lefty radio and MSNBC host Ed Schultz visited the 'Morning Joe' show on MSNBC last week.  During the broadcast, he noted that hosts Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough were getting feedback directly from the White House during the program. 

Apparently the White House wasn't happy with the fact that they had Schultz, Arianna Huffington and Howard Dean on the show - all three have come out against ObamaCare. 

So what did the hacks at MSNBC do to appease Dear Leader?

Put David Axlerod on for a lengthy segment at the last minute, of course. 

Which is more frightening - that the White House is in direct contact with tv shows, or that the shows are so eager to hop to the administrations bidding?  State run media indeed.  Check out The Radio Equalizer for the audio of Schultz talking about the incident on his radio show.

Also in the news is the Copenhagen Debacle.  Listening to the desperate spin on the abject failure that is the Climate Change Summit from the world-wide left is quite amusing.  A week's worth of pomp, circumstance, riots and blizzards all in the name of a science that is dubious, at best, right now.

Their arrogant posturing that the ClimateGate emails mean nothing is merely making matters worse.  If they had all come out in front of the revelations and admitted that there were serious questions about the procedures, tactics and science coming out of CRU and further admitted the science needed to be transparently reviewed, they might have come out of this with a lot less damage.  Their arrogance, blind denial, and offensive name calling of skeptics is  just deepening the hole they are in.

It almost seems like the blizzard was God putting in his two cents on the subject (much like the blizzard in Washington this weekend had to have been divine commentary on the health care bum rush).  The Gore Effect is a beautiful thing.

There is even more unsavory information coming out about AGW.  The head of the UN's IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, is apparently investing in green technology at a rather disquieting level.  But don't worry - there's no conflict of interest.  Really.  And if you don't believe me, you must be a flat earther.

The Goracle made an ass of himself (again) and had to make an official retraction of some of his alarmist rhetoric when the scientist he 'quoted' came out and denied he made the claims Gore is attributing to him.  It was extremely bad timing for him to be caught in so blatant a lie.  Ooopsie!

And, finally, Russian scientists are crying foul on the one institution that has managed to stay above the corrupt stench that is ClimateGate.  It seems the UK's  Hadley Centre has been manipulating and cherry picking data from Siberian weather stations - using data from urban areas (which always register a bit warmer than rural areas) and tossing out the rural numbers in order to make a better case for global warming. 

This is a big one, because the Hadley Centre, a division of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter has been the gold standard of AGW.  The IPCC relies heavily on their data - they, along with the CRU, created the reports on which the IPCC decisions are based. 

Of course there has been little media coverage of this latest outrage. 

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the Senate democrats passed a cloture vote on ObamaCare in the middle of the night - standard operating procedure, these days.  It makes sense, since these horrible bills would probably not survive the light of day.

Sure would be nice if the taxpaying public who is funding this monstrosity would be allowed to actually read it.  They are voting on a concept, at this point - several senators have said they haven't seen the actual bill yet.  If it is in writing, why isn't it being released for the public to read?  What really gets me is all the heat the Republicans are taking for not backing the bill.  Considering Congress is chock full of lawyers (especially on the left), they should know one never enters into a contract without reading it first.  How can the Republicans read it and make an informed decision on it if the Democrats refuse to allow them to see it?

'Cash for Cloture' has become the buzzword of the week, and for good reason.  Harry Reid feels that buying votes and depriving some Americans of certain perks lavished on others is just the way things are done in Washington.  So much for Change.  At least back in the good old days they used to hide their backroom deals - now they crow about them and pat themselves on the back. 

The lucky senators who cut multi-million dollar deals for their states think this will buy the votes of their constituents, but I think some might have surprises coming to them next November.

The jaw dropper in this whole drama is that the democrat leadership, headed up by Rahm Emanuel and David Axlerod of course, are insisting that pushing ObamaCare down our throats is going to get them reelected!

Honestly, I'm laughing too much to comment further on that one.

Since we're on the subject of blatant corruption, there is a new survey out that shows that banks who spent more money on lobbying ended up with more of the bailout cash, as did those banks in districts with Representatives on committees or subcommittees related to TARP.   At this point, that is just par for the course.

Nothing to see here, though - move along, move along.

Just sit down, shut up, drink your Kool Aid and stop questioning your betters already!

Saturday, December 19, 2009


My idiot congressman, Alan Grayson, is making an ass of himself yet again (via HotAir).

This time, however, instead of just being an insufferable ass, he is actually trying to get a private citizen fined and put in jail.  What is the offense, you ask?  The creation and support of one of my favorite websites, My congressman is

Yes, Grayson has demanded the DOJ investigate, fine and imprison Angie Langley of Clermont, FL.

He is accusing her of lying to federal elections by saying she is a constituent of his, when Clermont is not in his district.  He seems to be claiming that she has started a political action committee (he calls it her 'committee' in his letter to AG Eric Holder) against him and should not be allowed to because she isn't really a constituent of his.

BTW, how rich is it that he is accusing Ms. Langley of being "utterly tasteless and juvenile"?  Pot, meet kettle.

As a political blogger, this concerns me greatly.  If the DOJ decides to honor Grayson's demand, it sets up a rather frightening precedent.  I am not a constituent of Nancy Pelosi's but I criticize her frequently - does that mean she will be able to put me in jail for it?  Or am I safe because my forum is the Ripley Report, not Queen Nancy is Insane or Pelosi is Power Drunk?

Many people will scoff at this, saying Holder wouldn't waste his time with something like this.  But let's remember that Holder is the man who has thrown out convictions against New Black Panther Party members, ordered the refunding of ACORN and is planning a three ring circus in NYC with the unnecessary, inappropriate civil trial of mass murdering terrorists who were captured on the battlefield.  His idea of 'justice' is horribly skewed, so don't be surprised if he finds merit in Grayson's claims. 

The fact that one of our elected officials is actively trying to imprison a private citizen for speaking out against him should not be forgotten.  The power grab of the democrats in this administration is reaching truly alarming proportions.

It seems 'Teacups' Grayson has morphed into the Queen of Hearts, shouting 'Off with her head' at the least transgression.

In my opinion, he is more like the Mad Hatter, and I personally can't wait to cast my vote next year and get his looney toons butt out of Congress. 

And Mr. Grayson, if you want to come after me for using my right to free speech, bring it on.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009


The Obama administration has announced that they will be moving Gitmo detainees to a federal prison in Thomson, Illinois.  Perhaps they are not sure what the term 'close' means.  There is a huge difference between 'closing' something and 'relocating' it.  Maybe because they have no real-world experience, they're a little confused.  If they did, they would know that if you close a business, that means it is done, finished, no longer in existence.  Relocation, however, means the business continues as it was before, just in a new location.

Apparently, a heavily guarded military installation is an inappropriate setting for violent terrorists captured on the battlefield.  What's really needed is a federal prison with union member guards (whose main interest is in cashing that paycheck, rather than national security), that will eventually be even more super-max than the superest super-max prison (super-duper max infinity, maybe?) available today. 

Administration lawyers have also made brief mention that there are some detainees who can't be tried for one reason or another, but can't be let go because they are such bad characters.  Bringing them to the states would cause the courts to clamor for civil trials for them in the interest of 'justice'.  Which means they need an alternative place to keep them.  Since other countries don't want a bunch of dangerous terrorists on their soil, finding a home for those dirtbags is proving tricky.  So, most likely, they will stay in the real Gitmo for a while longer yet.

Which means we'll have Gitmo North and Gitmo South.  So I guess you might say Obama has actually expanded Gitmo.

What really gets me, though, and I haven't heard much about this, is the fact that they are going to be moving these islamic extremists a mere 420 miles (just under 7 hours by car) from the largest muslim population in the United States - Dearborn Michigan.

This is not to say that all muslims are radical, but the truth is that there are radicals on our soil.  30% of Dearborn's population is muslim. Even if there are few homegrown terrorists, there are certainly those who are at least sympathetic to the cause.  How difficult do you think it would be to 'lose' a few foreign radicals in a population of roughly 30,000 muslims?  It only takes a few to aid and abet.

Planning a prison break a mere 420 miles away, with the entire US to hide in afterwards is a heck of a lot easier than planning one on a military base on an island 90 miles from the US mainland.  Once the prison break is effected, how hard would it be to melt back into that large population and prepare for the next jihad?

It is widely acknowledged that most muslims are peaceful, but, taking a look back over recent history, it is also easy to see that when the radicals among them lash out, the peaceful members rarely speak up.  The shoot out at a warehouse in Dearborn that took the life of a radical imam back in October was soundly condemned by certain sectors of the muslim community, who ralllied around the dead imam.  The moderate muslims remained silent on the issue, for the most part.

Even though most of the community has been born and raised in America, there are those who feel they are muslims first, Americans second, and we forget this at our peril

Supporters of closing Gitmo are fond of saying that the reason it needs to be closed is because it is a recruiting tool for radical jihadists.  So....moving it to Illinois is suddenly going to make it more acceptable?  Or is the point that we need to move them here so that we are forced to subject them to our civilian court system - practically guaranteeing that they will be freed and thus no longer a worry to the administration?

Well, until they are captured on the battlefield again or, God forbid, commit another terror attack on American soil.  I guess we'll just have to deal with that when it happens.

In an effort to find a silver lining in all situations, there's this - at least there will actually be some real job creation out of this mess, so that is a refreshing change.  Granted, they are dangerous, union only jobs, but why nitpick, right?

Focus on the silver lining (no matter how thin) and ignore the inconvenient truths.  It's the progressive way.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009


Al Gore, the High Priest of the Church of Gaia himself, was speechifying yesterday at the altar of Copenhagen.  His devoted global disciples listened in rapt adoration as he spewed forth his concrete scientific facts.  He spoke of one of the climate cult's favorite alarms - an ice-free North Pole.  (via The Times Online)

“These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

Unfortunately for his Holiness, his 'fresh' figures are not quite as fresh as he would like. 

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Ooops!  So what was the mix up?

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.
Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020. Mr. Gore took a 'ball park' estimate that 80% of the arctic would be ice-free in 6 years and turned it into a 75% certainty that there will be NO arctic ice in 5-7 years.  The acknowledged ambassador for global warming science is actively distorting the scientific facts on a world stage, and yet we are expected to believe all of the global warming alarmist hype.

What does the scientific community think of this latest faux pas?

This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Of course the greedy little piggies in Copenhagen ignored the issue.  I guess they are more focused on the trillion dollar collection plate they are trying to pass around this week - don't distract them with facts, please.

The thing that is the most surprising is that Gore's office acknowledged the error in the first place.  After all, this is the man who sees the British High Court rule that there are nine substantial errors in his movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' and that, in order to show it in schools, the children must be told that it is a political propaganda film, they must be told what the errors are and opposing views must also be presented, and all he gets from it is that the film is allowed to be shown in the classroom.  The man is just not big on admitting mistakes.  They really didn't have much choice on this one, though, since the scientist responsible for the data came out to correct the record.

It's refreshing to see someone more interested in their reputation and the science, instead of the political payoff of alarmism.  Kudos to Dr. Maslowski for standing his ground.

At best, ClimateGate is an argument for reviewing the science behind global warming alarmism, at worst it shows that the whole thing is a complete fraud promoted at the highest levels.  Gore's blatant misrepresentation of scientific data furthers the argument for the latter.

BTW, is it just me, or does it seem like Mr. Gore is trapped in some weird time/space continuum?  According to him, the ClimateGate emails are all over ten years old (even though some of the most damning ones are mere months old), and the 'facts' he recited yesterday were 'fresh' science (even though it turns out his 'facts' were ball park figures from a few years ago).

Careful, Mr. Gore, your desperation is showing again!


President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have been touting their 'mandate from the people' at every turn, implying that a vast majority of Americans support their far-left agenda.  That is really interesting, since Obama had to run as a centrist to win last November.  Hardly a referendum on far-left policies.

Remember during the campaign, when Obama's polls were crowed from the highest rooftops?  His campaign was constantly pointing to the polls, both in his primary battle with Hillary Clinton, and, later, the general election against John McCain.  Polls were so important that every word out of candidate Obama's mouth was first tested and polled before being uttered.

Now, however, suddenly the polls mean nothing.

Last week, for instance, Dear Leader's approval ratings on Gallup sank to a new low - 47%.  When asked about it, White House flack Robert Gibbs dismissed the poll in his usual snarky way.

"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor. Five days ago, there was an 11-point spread. Now there is a 1-point spread. I'm sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that."

I personally prefer Rasmussen polls to most others because they poll 'likely voters', as opposed to just 'adults'.  This gives a better snapshot of the frame of mind of the voting public - and after all, that's what politics is all about, right? 

Yesterday, Rasmussen's Passion Index, which charts the spread between those who strongly approve and those who strongly disapprove, reached a new low.  President Obama's passion index fell to -19.  Today's number is better, but, at -18, it sure ain't great.  His overall approval among likely voters is now at a dismal 44%, and disapproval sits at a new high of 55%. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's approval is just as bad.  Identified as just 'Nancy Pelosi', her favorables are 46% approve, 50% disapprove.  When you identify her as 'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi' they drop to 38% - 58% respectively.  Plenty of people may not know her name, but they sure know what she's doing.  As House Speaker, her passion index is incredible - a mere 9% very favorable, and a whopping 45% very unfavorable (as just Nancy Pelosi, her passion index is 14% - 36% respectively).

Harry Reid, up for reelection this year, is polling substantially behind every candidate running against him.   He holds a mere 43% of the electorate, while his republican challengers range from 47 - 49%. 

The health care bills are wildly unpopular (56% against, 40% for), no matter what the left might be spinning.

Support for Cap and Trade is deteriorating, and a full 71% of Americans think creating jobs is more important than global warming

Speaking of the economy, 76% prefer a free market economy, with 10% preferring government control.  Good thing the administration is fulfilling their 'mandate' on big government.  Way to read the polls, champ.

Considering the new election cycle begins in less than a month, it's rather amazing that they are being so tone-deaf.  They are screaming louder and louder about 'consensus' and 'mandate', majority and overwhelming support - the irony of Al Gore's statement on global warming 'deniers' is sweet.

“The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view".
Maybe he's building up an insanity plea.

The level of disregard for the true majority of the people is almost frightening.  Tens of thousands of protesters march on Washington, and they are dismissed as 'fringe'.  Lefty pundits say they are a fad, a phase, an insignificant blip that will soon fade. 

But the numbers don't lie, and they are sinking fast.

Helluva mandate you got there, Barry!

Monday, December 7, 2009


Today Harry Reid addressed the Senate in a bid to browbeat Republican  members into supporting ObamaCare.  After all, he can't seem to rustle up the votes amongst his own party - I guess there aren't as many dems willing to commit career suicide for HarryCari as he thought - so he has to try to 'woo' republicans.  So how did he conduct his wooing?  Did he offer to include some republican amendments?  Did he offer them a seat at the negotiating table?  Did he talk about the positive points of the bill?  (Of course not - there are none - that was a trick question!)

No, Dingy Harry decided to compare Republicans, on whom he blames the inability to pass legislation (Super majority? What super majority?), to the horrible naysayers who opposed abolishing slavery, giving women the vote, and Civil Rights.

Hey Harry - those were all democrats, you idiot.  Just like it is democrats who are holding up the current legislation, ironically enough.  But he wasn't chastising his fellow liberals, he was dressing down the GOP.

This is what happens when you allow liberals to revise history.  Just to give you a clue Harry - which you so desperately need - I will set the record straight for you.

First and foremost, the Republican party was created to abolish slavery.   That was the sole plank in the original and primary party's platform.  Democrats, however, were so desperate to keep slavery that they declared war for it.  Maybe you're not familiar with it, Harry.  It's called the Civil War.  Oh, and the Republicans won, slavery was abolished, to which the democrats responded by promptly started the KKK to keep the black community 'in line'.

Second, in 1872 the Republican National Committee officially added women's suffrage to their platform - the first national political party to do so.  The first presidential candidate to run on women's suffrage was Republican Theordore Roosevelt.  Women's suffrage giant Susan B. Anthony famously said, "I voted for the Republicans.  They gave us the vote."

Which finally brings us the the Civil Rights movement.  Wasn't it Democrat Strom Thurmond who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957?  Heck, still-sitting Senator Rober Byrd was a former KKK member who personally filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 14 hours.

So, Harry, always double check before you whitewash history - sometimes you end up tarring yourself with that brush instead.

Saturday, December 5, 2009


For anyone familiar with Al 'The Goracle' Gore's hysterical rantings about death, doom and destruction by anthropogenic global warming (AGW), it will come as no surprise that his allegations that AGW is causing the snows of Killimanjaro to melt are being investigated.

This is the nature of science, and a major reason why transparency is such an issue.  Scientists test each other's theories all the time. 

In the case of Killimanjaro, Gore has been using the image of its vanishing snow pack to illustrate the catastrophic changes AGW is allegedly causing.

Turns out, it's not so much AGW as natural cyclical climatic change.

Leon DeWinter of Pajamas Media covers the story.

Professor Sinninghe Damste’s research, as discussed on the site of the Dutch Organization of Scientific Research (DOSR) — a governmental body — shows that the icecap of Kilimanjaro was not the result of cold air but of large amounts of precipitation which fell at the beginning of the Holocene period, about 11,000 years ago.
The melting and freezing of moisture on top of Kilimanjaro appears to be part of “a natural process of dry and wet periods.” The present melting is not the result of “environmental damage caused by man.”

Professor Damste studied organic biomarker molecules in the sediment record of Lake Challa, near Mount Kilimanjaro, and reconstructed the changes and intensity of precipitation in this part of Africa over the last 25,000 years. They observed an 11,500 year cycle of intense monsoon precipitation.

In the dry period between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago, Kilimanjaro was ice-free.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there weren't any cars, factories or airplanes 12,000 years ago.  And yet, Killimanjaro was ice-free.  How can this be? 

The AGW house of cards is collapsing around his ears, and what is his response to it all?  According to the Times Online, Copenhagen isn't going to do enough, in Al's opinion.

The last paragraph in the article is the best:

He also brushed aside questions over the reliability of climate science that have followed the publication last month of leaked e-mails between climate experts. He claimed that the scientific consensus around climate change “continues to grow from strength to strength”. He added: “The naysayers are in a sunset phase with a spectacular climax just before they subside from view. This is a race between common sense and unreality.”
For once I agree with the High Priest of Gaia - this really is a race between common sense and unreality.  He is just confused as to who is suffering in unreality and who is showing common sense.  But, then again, it seems to be the the M.O. of his crowd - when in doubt, ridicule, shout down opposition, and make them seem crazy and fringe. Climategate is destroying the 'science' he has built his carbon credit scam on, but it's the 'naysayers' who are in a "sunset phase" and are going to soon "subside from view".

His 'facts' are being shot down left and right, but we are the ones in denial. 

Sure, Al.  Whatever you say.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009


The house of cards that is AGW is slowly collapsing, no matter how hard the neo-pravda media, the Obama administration and the UN's IPCC are desperately trying to spin it.

The ClimateGate scandal has finally claimed it's first victim. Patient Zero, a.k.a. Phil Jones, director of East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit is temporarily stepping down while an investigation is conducted.

"What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible," Jones said in a statement. "After a good deal of consideration I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director's role during the course of the independent review and am grateful to the University for agreeing to this. The Review process will have my full support.
Please note the 'temporarily'.  Because, of course, as soon as the investigation clears his good name of this groundless smear, he will be right back on the job.  Either the fix is in, or the man is delusional.  Considering his alarmist tendencies towards planetary doom even though he knows the science doesn't support that theory, I'd say it's the latter.

A potential second victim is lining up, too.  Michael Mann of Penn State is now under investigation by the university.

"I would be disappointed if the university wasn't doing all [it] can to get as much information as possible" about the controversy, Mann tells the Daily Collegian.
It will be interesting to see how these investigations progress.  The universities in question must be aware that the world is watching, so hopefully the investigations will be thorough, in depth, and above board.

I would expect these two investigations to be just the tip of the iceberg.

Sen. Inhofe, for example, has asked Sen. Boxer to investigate a possible conspiracy among prominent scientists essential to the climate change debate.

Considering her 'green agenda' position on the matter and her tactics on forcing the liberal agenda, even to the point of breaking committee rules, the chances of a transparent, honest, thorough investigation are slim, at best.  Let's hope Inhofe keeps a close eye on it.

There are other universities and distinguished scientific research centers that have been touched by this scandal and may possibly be investigated, such as the National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 

It's time to start following the money on this. As with most things these days, greed is a main motivator.   The 'green' in the green movement is money, pure and simple.  Universities are raking in money hand over fist with their climate research, and politicians the world over are looking at diverting trillions of taxpayer dollars to do with as they see fit.  Al Gore, who so far has kept a low profile on this boondoggle (I wonder when he will be cancelling his book tour, after this and this happened, though) has got a major horse in this race, but will the High Priest of Gaia get caught for his fraud? 

I'm sure if there were an email implicating him it would have come to light already, so the smoking gun would most likely be at the end of the money trail. 

The bottom line on all of this is that the global warming alarmists are losing the PR battle.  The house of cards is collapsing around their ears.  They tried to spin it, they tried to marginalize it, they tried to pretend it didn't happen or that it isn't important, but the story is picking up steam.  More and more Americans doubt the global warming theory, and have been for a while

Now we need to watch the politicians and see if they are going to face reality and put their global warming cash cow out to pasture.

UPDATE:  Well blow me down -
Leaked e-mails allegedly undermining climate change science should be treated as a criminal matter, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Wednesday afternoon.
Is anyone surprised that she is talking about investigating the hacking, not the widespread fraud revealed in the emails?  I'm having ACORN flashbacks.  It's getting to be more and more trouble to be a whistleblower these days.  I feel like I'm in a 1930's film noir sometimes....

Sunday, November 29, 2009


Well, the jig is up, and, in a last-ditch desperate effort, the shakedown gets a little more obvious.

UN Climate Chief Yvo de Boer is calling for rich nations to 'contribute' $10 billion a year in order to 'kick-start immediate action up to 2012'

The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.

This is a redistribution of wealth on a global scale.  What is this money for? 

In scores of nations, money will be needed to build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil-fuel to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power.

...In fact, much of the funding would go to "capacity building" — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns.

Upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States.
Wow.  Is it just me, or is that last line reminiscent of reparations, except this time the big, bad US has victimized not just the southern US, but the whole southern hemisphere?   

And what will be a main source of conversation at Copenhagen, you ask?  As if you didn't know:

Finance expert Ballesteros expects Copenhagen to narrow the focus of talks next year on sources for longer-term, richer adaptation funding, such as a levy on international air transport, sharing in proceeds from the growing trade in carbon emission allowances, or even a global levy on carbon emissions.
 In case you're not exactly sure what all of that means, it means non-elected UN officials will be levying world-wide taxes on all of the rich nations and distributing the wealth as they see fit. 

What is the oversight or checks and balances on this system? 

Sometimes there really are conspiracies of global proportions.  This scam, because of the ClimateGate emails, is a heartbeat from imploding, but our 'leaders' have become, surprisingly enough, even more brazen. 

Sadly enough, our leaders are merely bickering on price at this point - there is no talk whatsoever of whether the money is necessary or not and whether, in the face of the climate email scandal, the science is even legitamate at this point. 

Above and beyond all that, where is all this money coming from? 

Are the other countries going to pony up a fraction of the amount, and expect us to pick up the tab again - as usual? 

Will we have to borrow the money they expect us to pay from China?  And if so, doesn't the fact that we have to borrow the money automatically put us into the 'poor' category?

We must put pressure on our elected officials to halt all funding of AGW projects until the science is further investigated.  There is far too much corrupt information coming to light.

We must be loud and implacable in the face of this attempted global coup. 



How conveeeeeeenient.

It turns out that East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit has disposed of all of their original raw temperature data.  To be fair, this happened back in the 1980's, before current director Phil Jones took over, so this is not another mark on his record, but it is a mark on the record of the CRU.  Via the Times Online:

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

This means that all 'baseline' information other researchers use will have been 'filtered' (read: altered) by CRU.  Hardly an unimpeachable source, these days.This is a common practice in the scientific community, but the raw data is generally considered to be a part of the record and is preserved as well. 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Why didn't they transfer the data to an electronic format and archive it?  This is Science 101, guys.

Scientists often check each other's work and sometimes find things previously overlooked.  That is the nature of the much vaunted peer review.  But in order to legitimately be able to do that, the data sets must include the original raw data.  What if the mistake is made in that crucial first step - the processing of the raw data?  What if something is overlooked?  The results would be skewed before researchers even started.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

What the CRU have done is not just illustrate how unscientific they really are, but also how long they've been that way.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.


A great Sunday funny - hat tip Brenna M!!

Thursday, November 26, 2009


The heat is on at East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit.  According to the UK's Mail Online, the pressure is on for the head of CRU to resign due to his role in the ClimateGate scandal.  A leading environmentalist, George Monbiot, is calling for Phil Jones to quit.

'I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken,' he said. 'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
'There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.
'Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'

So far, Jones has refused calls for his resignation, stating,

'We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.

'Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

'I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that.;
Hmmm...really?  Is that your final answer, Mr. Jones?  You might want to rethink it.  No, technically they didn't delete it - they just lost track of it.  Not that he didn't try to get some of them deleted. 

There is also a possibility that the emails were released because of the FOIA requests.  The had apparently been assembled by East Anglia staff.  Why were they actually released and why is Jones saying they were hacked?  Well, maybe they accidentally released the stuff they were supposed to bury, and are trying to say it was a crime in order to make themselves the victim and try to distract from what the emails contained.  Or maybe they really were hacked, and the accidental release is just another rumor.

At least we know the emails are real now.

And things are starting to happen.  Like investigations.  Hopefully the British authorities will check into the much larger crimes perpetrated by those scientists, and not just if or who hacked the emails.

As Pat Michaels so aptly put it, "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud."

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


Uh-oh.  ClimateGate has hit YouTube.  The neo-pravda media are refusing to mention the scandal, but I have a feeling it's about to go viral:

It's time to contact the media and DEMAND they start investigating this scam.  This is a criminal enterprise that could potentially cost us trillions of dollars.  I am keeping a close eye on this issue.  I think not only should there be investigations, but that those involved should face jail time.  I'd love to know what the Goracle (Mr. Consensus) knew about all of this.

In his usual tone-deaf way, the Annointed One has said that he will be going to Copenhagen for the climate talks and says that they are nearing a deal

CBS has actually reported on the issue, so there is hope that it might be picked up by the rest of the media.

Yeah, I know, I know, there I go, being an optimist again...

Oh, and if the phrase 'Hide the Decline' has tickled your fancy, you can now get the ClimateGate T-shirt!  Captialism - it's a beautiful thing!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


Unbelievable.  Three Navy SEALs are facing charges today after apprehending a high value target in a secret mission in  Iraq - the alleged mastermind of the killings of four Blackwater USA security guards in 2004.

Yes, the SEALs are facing charges. 

Apparently, the apprehension went a bit roughly and the terrorist in question was punched in the face. 

So the guy who killed and mutilated four American citizens (including hanging their bodies from a bridge for the world press to document) gets a bloody lip, and now the heroes who took him off the street are facing court-martial. 

The Obama/Holder/KSM legacy with a little Abu-Ghraib chaser. 

This PC garbage during wartime (or are we not at war in Iraq anymore?  I haven't heard hardly anything about it since January) is ridiculous. 

The UN, NATO and our Congress are turning our miliary into world police.  They are not police, they are military.  In a warzone.  During wartime.  And bad things sometimes happen to bad people.   

The whole story isn't out on this, so we don't know when the alleged punch took place and the circumstances surrounding it.  There will be updates, I'm sure. 

Stay tuned....

UPDATE:  I forgot to mention that a few years back, our forces were able to 'liberate' an al Quaeda playbook.  Check out items one and two on the list of things detainees should do if captured:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
 Seems like Mr. Abed is just following his playbook to the letter, and the military and the Obama administration are playing right along. 

Good to know the enemy knows how to exploit our weaknesses.  Really inspires confidence, expecially in light of the upcoming KSM circus.

Monday, November 23, 2009


Pajamas Media's Victor David Hansen wrote a great essay that is just too good not to share.  Please click the link and check out the whole article.  This piece is about the five reasons people voted for Obama:

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

He then went on to discuss how those same factors that were so vital to getting Obama elected are now moot.  In short:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

So what does this all mean?  How will the massive deception that was perpertated upon this country in 2008 effect future elections?

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.
God willing.

Sunday, November 22, 2009


Well, Saturday Night Live stepped up to the plate and knocked it out of the park:

Mr. President had better get used to puckering up, 'cause, just like Hu Jintao, I and millions of other taxpayers like to be kissed BEFORE YOU DO SEX TO ME!!!


Saturday, November 21, 2009


'Debate' is taking place on Capitol Hill as we speak on the HarryCari health 'reform' bill.

Mary Landrieu is the big winner this time around, with her $100 million 'Louisiana Purchase' payoff. Beltway insiders write this off to politics as usual, but for the rest of us who are going to have to fork up that $100 million (not to mention the $4.5 trillion for this piece of garbage bill), politics as usual just isn't cutting it.

Most moderate democrats are saying they will vote for debate because, really, what will it hurt? Debate is good, debate is what makes this country great.

The problem is, voting for debate opens this horrible bill up for a 51 vote approval, and 97% of bills that are voted into debate are passed.

At 2:30 pm, Sen. Lincoln has said that she will vote yes on proceeding with debate. That means Reid has his 60 votes.

God help us.

UPDATE: Well, they passed it and it is now on the floor for debate. This bill is a monstrosity on many levels, and hopefully the more moderate democrats will finally realize that and vote against it when it comes up for a final vote. I'm not holding my breath, though. After all, they are full of grandiose visions of making history, and God knows stroking their egos is more important than the welfare of the country. How in the world did Harry Reid manage to keep a straight face when he came out after the vote and said that the bill 'saves lives, saves Medicare and saves the American people money'. It must have been a joke.

Much like this bill.


There have been some crazy goings on in California this week. UCLA students have been protesting a 32% hike on tuition. UC Davis students have joined in the fun, as have UC Berkely students. No surprise there. Also not surprising, there have been near riots, and about 100 people have been arrested.

According to, "Regents say they had to raise fees because the cash-strapped state government can't meet the university's funding needs."

My favorite quote, from economic student Sarah Bana to the school board: ""You are jeopardizing California's future." "

It's always painful to watch people get mugged by reality, but there is also an ironic humor to it as well. Raising tuition is what is jeopardizing CA's future, not all of the crippling social programs liberal putzes who graduated from CA universities have forced on the state.

A future Obama administration official in the making stated ""We are bailing out the banks, we are bailing out Wall Street. Where is the bailout for public education?" asked UCLA graduate student Sonja Diaz."

When in doubt, bail it out, right? Liberals must think the US government can just pull money out of thin air. Oh, wait....

Another young woman, Laura Zavala, said that, ""It's not fair to students, when they are already pinched.""

Welcome to the world of the American taxpayer under the Obama administration, honey.

Friday, November 20, 2009


Christmas sure came early this year! Instead of elves, though, we have hackers to thank for it.

I've been dying to post on this all day.

Hackers got into email accounts for a major climate change research center in the UK, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. When it comes to climate change research, they are one of the biggies. But now a decade's worth of emails have been leaked from this highly regarded facility onto the web, and boy, is it juicy.

The emails discuss manipulation of climat change data, because apparently the data wasn't supporting the theory. Now, I'm no scientist, but I thought the data was supposed to either prove or disprove theories. This blatant manipulation of data to force it to support a theory is a lot of things, but science it is not.

You know what's great about all of this? What it must be doing to the people behind such posts as this one. Oh, how I would love to be a fly on the wall in Al Gore's mega CO2 footprinted mansion. He has a new book out right now, and so there is a wealth of material from the past month or two of him talking about how passing climate legislation is practically guaranteed to bring down the temps. Maybe because he knows it's just a matter of showing the real numbers? More fun about the book tour in a minute.

East Anglia is coming out swinging, though. The spokesperson 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.""

They are attempting to plant the seed of doubt, and mentioning the police instantly turns them into a victim. Which they are, considering their files were hacked. But if these emails are true, then the real victims are the taxpaying citizens of the world who have been forced to comply with government mandates costing billions of dollars.

Thank God this came out before the Copenhagen summit. That summit could potentially cost us trillions of dollars and possibly our sovereignty. Hopefully this scandal will at least cause people to take a step back from the cliff and take a good long look at what's going on.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Stay tuned!

Oh, I almost forgot - the Goracle, on his media blitz for the new book, is touting geothermal energy. It's hard to take him seriously, though, when Mr. Science misstates the temperature of the earth's core. By a few million degrees. Hey Al - according to the Dept. of Energy's Ask a Scientist webpage, the earth's core is considered to be between 3,000 and 5,000 degrees Celsius. If it were 'several million' degrees, earth would be a star, not a planet.

Seems like the High Priest of Gaia needs to brush up on his science.

Better not do it at the CRU!

UPDATE: Sorry, the Hadley Centre is not one and the same with East Anglia's CRU. The Hadley Centre gets its information from the CRU and the emails in question are from the CRU. I have changed the post to reflect that.

UPDATE II: Not only were the CRU 'scientists' falsifying information, they were apparently also throwing their well respected weight around making sure scientists with differing opinions were not given a forum for their papers to be published - and then scoffed at their lack of published papers as proof they and their scientific opinions were not taken seriously. According to Pajamas Media, "The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information."

I highly recommend you read the whole article. It includes links to the actual emails as well as a summary of the scandal.

Thursday, November 19, 2009


HarryCari is being analyzed, and boy, is it scary. The word 'tax' is used 183 times.

That can't be good.

It allegedly would cover an additional 31 million Americans for a total of 94% insured. But, at a cost of $2.5 trillion, I'm thinking it would be an awful lot cheaper to just flat-out pay for nice Cadillac plans for the 31 million. Heck, let's throw in the remaining 6% uninsured for good measure - it would still be cheaper than the horror story that is HarryCari!

Now Harry is taking a page from Nancy Pelosi's book and is trying to force a vote on a Saturday night before a holiday, preferring to wear down rather than win over. How much time is being allotted to navigate a 2,074 page piece of legislation that will reshape 1/6th of the economy? 10 hours.

God help us all.


I don't know if you've heard, but Sarah Palin is on a book tour.

So far it is really paying off for her. The book sold 300,000 copies on the first day, she is dominating the news cycles, people are waiting for hours in the cold to see her, and, best of all, her favorables are up.

Democrats are quite understandably...concerned? worried? freaking out? about the whole thing. As with most people, they are turning to impulsive self-comforting by....fundraising.

One of them has apparently gone off the deep end, and another is cheapening their own brand in a desperate bid to cheapen hers. The offensive thing about that cover isn't so much the picture - yeah, it's sexist, but at least they chose a flattering picture - it's the byline. "She's bad news for the GOP - and everyone else, too" Wow. No, there's absolutely no slant whatsoever to that article.

What I love about this is that the media are so desperate for ratings that they are giving her the forum she needs to set the record they created straight. It's a beautiful thing.

The Oprah and Barbara Walters interviews were huge for her (and Oprah) and she was in the driver's seat the whole time. She was calm, relaxed, approachable and open. The first part of her interview with Bill O'Reilly was good - more serious than the first two, but very effective - I look forward to seeing the other two. Her interview with Sean Hannity got phenomenal ratings, and she came across as relaxed, sassy, and smart. So far, she has been appealing, honest and friendly, and the rising approval ratings reflect that.

Judging from Chris Matthews' coverage of her book tour, the tingle up his leg has turned to tinkle down his leg. You know their backs are up against the wall when they toss out the race card. Apparently attracting mostly white people completely de-legitimizes her popularity and makes the thousands of people who came to see her into a smaller group somehow. I'm sure the few people of color who do come out to support her will be lambasted as 'trying to be white', or 'betraying their people' or plain old 'misguided', so does it really matter if there were any there anyway?

It all sort of reminds me of a weasel gnawing off it's own paw to get out of a trap. They are looking at their own demise, but just can't seem to stop.

It's rather pathetic and sad.

It's obvious that they are afraid of her, and it's obvious they are right to be. I find a sweet irony in the fact that Obama's biggest supporter, Oprah, may have well handed his biggest adversary her most effective success to date.

Sweet, indeed.


Let me be frank - I'm not a huge fan of Lindsey Graham. I think he is one of those wishy-washy RINO types that have helped the liberals with their progressive agenda.

But every now and then, he surprises me.

Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.

It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.

Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.

Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?

Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.

They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.

Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.

Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.

This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


The CBO came out with the preliminary numbers on Harry Reid's health care proposal - $849 billion. The liberals will be crowing about how it comes in under Obama's quote of $900 billion.

Yeah, 'cause that's a bargain.

The most glaring problem with this number? They neglect to mention the taxation starts 4 years before the program is implimented, which leads one to believe the successive decades will see massive deficits. Unless they are planning on having 4 years of every decade 'off" to recharge the account.

Considering the accounting tricks that have been unearthed in the House, I wouldn't put it past them at this point.

The second biggest problem with this bill and it's scoring is that information is constantly changing; the numbers are being massaged before our very eyes. The press has received their copies, but nothing is on line yet. God only knows what horrors reside in those 2,074 pages.

I'm sure I'll be blogging more on it in the days to come. The HarryCari horror story of the day?

The CBO is trying to be as accurate as possible, but that's pretty hard to do when information is being withheld or hidden. What, for example, happened to the 'doctor fix'? You know they've got to sneak that in somehow.

Also, how can something costing $846 billion save $127 billion over 10 years?


I feel like I'm in a Fellini movie.


Things are really heating up in chilly Upstate NY. The 23rd district, to be exact.

Apparently there are some serious...anomalies in the vote results. According to an email sent out by Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate:
  • his campaign received faulty information on election night,
  • inspectors read numbers incorrectly over the phone,
  • a loss in Jefferson county has turned into a 400+ lead,
  • not one but four districts incorrectly entered his vote total as zero.

So far, a 5,000+ 'win' for Owens has trimmed down to 3,000+, with 10,000 absentee ballots to go. The odds are good that Owens will still end up the victor, since Dede Scozzafava was still on the ballot at the time they went out. Of course ACORN and the unions seem to be involved, according to the Hoffman campaign. No concrete proof yet, though, so the jury's still out on that.

What surprises me is that no one seems to be talking about the legitimacy of Owen's vote for PelosiCare - perhaps because even without his vote it would still pass. But it certainly does illustrate the desperate measures Pelosi and co. are willing to sink to, all the way to allowing an uncertified civilian to vote for Congressional legislation.

The fact that the State Board of Elections Communications Director John Conklin sent a letter to the House Clerk explaining there was no winner yet in NY-23, no matter what the press are reporting is getting zero play. What's next, Nancy swearing in some buddies for the day to pass amnesty and 'working out the details' of the vote's legitimacy later? She seems to be playing politics pretty fast and loose lately, no?

Taken alone, this incident could be considered a minor glitch. But combined with the hyper-partisan strong-arm tactics, the manipulation of the press, the demonization of dissent, the KSM kangaroo court they are planning on setting up and the utter lack of concern - nay, disdain - for what the majority of America wants, this is starting to really look like a dictatorship. I'm just not sure who the dictator is - Obama or Pelosi.

Is there such a thing as a co-dictatorship?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


"The great thing about this administration is that all of the conservative theories about liberal policies are being proved over and over. The latest petri policy? The Recovery.Gov website. This thing is actually even more of a boondoggle than first anticipated.

And that's saying something.

So far, billions of dollars have been spent, and unemployment is still at 10.2%. The number of 'inaccuracies' on the website are jaw dropping in their obviousness, right down to whole districts that claimed jobs created don't even exist. Kudos to ABC for actually reporting something for a change. We must pat them on the head in encouragement for the good things they do just as much as we smacked them on the nose for the bad. It's the only way they'll learn, you know.

My favorite one? The one where 25 jobs were created but zero stimulus money was spent. Hmmm, maybe Obama really is The One, cause that's a friggin' miracle!

I also love that the people counting the stimulus jobs count as stimulus jobs. What a scam!

The real problem is that everyone is focused on these crazy stories, but no one is talking about where the money is really going. Those are some pretty big numbers, so I think that is a far more important question. So much for transparency, accountability and ethics.

The argument that has been proven by all of this is that they can't even manage a website, let alone the whole program (which is obviously a failure) , and yet there are those out there who are willing to put 1/6th of our economy and our health and well being into the hands of the same idiots who enacted this mess. (BTW they just proved the argument that rationing is a part of our future with the governmental recommendation that women shouldn't get yearly mammograms until age 50, instead of 40)

They may be able to shrug off Medicare/aid, the post office or the VA by saying they didn't enact those things and this time it will be different, but between the stimulus and Cash for Clunkers, I think we've gotten a big enough taste of how it will be if they really start running things. It's not a coincidence that Congress's approval rating among crucial Independents is down to 14%.

These people couldn't run a Popsicle stand, but 47% of Americans think they should run our health care. This actually proves a liberal theory, for a change - a vast number of the voting public are complete morons.

UPDATE: Awesome - even the NAACP, La Raza and the AFL-CIO are complaining to Obama about the lack of jobs from the stimulus bill. I wonder when they will be demonized for daring to speak out against The One and his schemes....

I do have a problem with their requests, though.
"They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”"
Considering the first stimulus was supposed to give increased spending for schools and roads and fiscal relief for states and localities, I'd say trying it again with Porkulus II would be just throwing good money after bad. As for the federal jobs program, well, we all know by now how well the federal government handles such programs, so that would be just another ineffective government program. Eventually they will realize the only way to encourage job growth is to lower taxes, pull back on the oppressive, expensive legislation, and let the free markets do their thing instead of having their federal fingers in every body's pies. I'm sure if they don't figure it out by Nov. 2010, the voters will make sure there are people in place who will.