By Byron York

Jacob Weisberg, of Slate and Newsweek. Weisberg argues that if Barack Obama manages to pass a national health care bill by January 20, 2010, the first anniversary of his inauguration, he will have “accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency.”

While Weisberg — who last made a splash by amplifying White House attacks on Fox News — gives Obama credit for other accomplishments, like the stimulus and putting America “on a new footing with the rest of the world,” he suggests that the success of Obama’s first year depends greatly on the passage of health care legislation. And while some advocates of the Democratic bills currently under consideration have tried to downplay the enormity of the changes the legislation would bring, Weisberg is entirely open about Obama’s goal of nationalizing health care, expanding government, and undermining the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

“We are so submerged in the details of this debate…that it’s easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change,” Weisberg writes. “For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government’s role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.”

READ MORE…..http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/

By Nancy Morgan

If a scandal isn’t reported by the media, does that mean it never happened?

For the millions of Americans who don’t watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, the answer is a resounding yes.

Last Friday, November 20, evidence came to light that “appears to show a conspiracy to falsify data and suppress academic debate in order to exaggerate the possible threat of man-made global warming.” Translation: The global warming movement rests almost entirely on the IPCC’s claim to represent the “consensus” of climate science. That entire movement now stands discredited.

In the face of this absolutely shameful and possibly criminal revelation of chicanery, deceit and manipulation of data, the mainstream media has stuck to their decades long policy of ignoring any evidence or opinion that challenges their firm belief that the world is undergoing a climate crisis. A crisis that can only be rectified if all global citizens drastically change their behaviour.

Despite these revelations, the AP’s science writer continued reporting on the worsening climate non-crisis, “Since the 1997 international accord to fight global warming, climate change has worsened and accelerated — beyond some of the grimmest of warnings made back then.” Scary stuff, if it were true.

CNN chimed in, reporting their own shocking headlines: Sea Level Rise Could Cost Port Cities $28 Trillion. Remember, this ‘news’ story was published after evidence had come to light that credibly challenged the very facts CNN was reporting. Yawn.

Six days after this scandal came to light, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NBC had yet to make their viewers aware of what is being called “the greatest [scandal] in modern history.” A scandal that could derail the whole concept of man-made global warming. And, coincidently, the $129 billion carbon market that rests on this shaky and manipulated data.

Also ignoring this scandal is our very own president, who announced last Wednesday that he will attend the long-anticipated, high-stakes global climate summit in Copenhagen. Obama’s climate czar, Carol Browner, announced on the very same day that global warming science is “settled.’ No need to even address those pesky e-mails that purport to show differently.

“I’m sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real,” said Ms. Browner. The 2,500 hundred scientists, by the way, are comprised mainly of United Nations bureaucrats who have a vested interest in the massive wealth re-distribution that they suggest as a solution to this non-crisis.

On Thursday, more evidence of climate chicanery came to light – but was again ignored by the media. Gerd Leipold, the outgoing leader of Greenpeace, admitted that his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.” Oops.

Also on Thursday, information surfaced that indicates Australia, also, appears to have been tinkering with raw data in order to make “global warming’ appear scarier that it really is.

Again, no mention was made in the U.S. media. Oh, CNN did finally acknowledged the issue yesterday by reporting that there was “very little context” in the e-mail evidence. CNN declined to publish any of the damning e-mails and they failed to identify any of those ‘leading scientists’ whose work has been shown to be a possible fraud.

Those ‘leading scientists’ then continued with business as usual, issuing another dire proclamation, “Tackling climate change will help prevent millions of deaths among people who are alive now and save the world for future generations.”

These same scientists then responded to the damning evidence to the contrary in the usual way. By attacking and discrediting the motives of the messenger. “We’re facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public,” said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

As of this writing, Fox News is the only national outlet reporting on this scandal. Website WattsUpWithThat and Canada Free Press appear to be the only media investigating the hacked e-mails that seem to show a decades long conspiracy to fudge climate data and squelch any and all opposing data and scientists.

The ‘garbage-in, garbage-out’ climate models the IPCC use as proof of global warming  now appear to be false. Global ‘leaders’ conveniently ignore the burgeoning scandal and continue to insist that unless a massive re-distribution of global wealth is immediately enacted, global warming will threaten every man woman and child on earth.

Americans can disagree on the extent of climate change and even question man’s role in it. The issue at hand however, is the fact that the media, whose job is to report facts, has declined to do so. The media, with Fox News as the only exception, have bought into Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” view of the so-called ‘global-warming’ crisis.

Father Earth, Algore sums it up best: “This is not a political issue, or a scientific issue or a psychological issue – it’s a moral issue. If anything it’s actually a spiritual issue.” There you have it. If you don’t agree with the unscientific ‘consensus’ than you’re a really stupid, bad and immoral person. The left has spoken and the media agrees. Case closed.

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com and she lives in South Carolina.

Read more from Nancy Morgan at Right Bias

By Noel Sheppard

As a result of the growing ClimateGate scandal, Penn State University is investigating Michael Mann, its high-profile professor on the sending and receiving end of controversial e-mail messages recently obtained from a British Climate Research Unit.

Mann, as one of the originators of the infamous Hockey Stick graph, is the climatologist at the very heart of the global warming myth.

As the creator of “Mike’s Nature trick,” a particularly damning phrase used in one of the e-mail messages in question, Mann is also a key figure in ClimateGate.

Given his importance to the climate movement and all those involved including Nobel Laureate Al Gore, President Obama, and Congressional Democrats desperately trying to enact cap and trade legislation, it will be very interesting to see how this press release from Penn State gets reported in the coming days (h/t Anthony Watts via Marc Morano):

Professor Michael Mann is a highly regarded member of the Penn State faculty conducting research on climate change. Professor Mann’s research papers have been published in well respected peer-reviewed scientific journals. In November 2005, Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) convene a panel of independent experts to investigate Professor Mann’s seminal 1999 reconstruction of the global surface temperature over the past 1,000 years. The resulting 2006 report of the NAS panel (http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676) concluded that Mann’s results were sound and has been subsequently supported by an array of evidence that includes additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions.

In recent days a lengthy file of emails has been made public. Some of the questions raised through those emails may have been addressed already by the NAS investigation but others may not have been considered. The University is looking into this matter further, following a well defined policy used in such cases. No public discussion of the matter will occur while the University is reviewing the concerns that have been raised.

Here are a couple of key e-mail messages involving Mann:

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxx.xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx.xx.xx,t.osborn@xxxx.xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.

Cheers
Phil

Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxx
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxx
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email p.jones@xxxx.xxx
NR4 7TJ
UK

And (via Tom Nelson, emphasis his):

From: “Michael E. Mann” ,,,Subject: RE: IPCC revisions Date: Wed, 22 Sep 1999 12:35:24 -0400
…
Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points. And I should point out that Chris, through no fault of his own, but probably through ME not conveying my thoughts very clearly to the others, definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series.
…I had been using the entire 20th century, but in the case of Keith’s, we need to align the first half of the 20th century w/ the corresponding mean values of the other series, due to the late 20th century decline.

So if Chris and Tom (?) are ok with this, I would be happy to add Keith’s series. That having been said, it does raise a conundrum: We demonstrate (through comparining an exatropical averaging of our nothern hemisphere patterns with Phil’s more extratropical series) that the major discrepancies between Phil’s and our series can be explained in terms of spatial sampling/latitudinal emphasis (seasonality seems to be secondary here, but probably explains much of the residual differences). But that explanation certainly can’t rectify why Keith’s series, which has similar seasonality *and* latitudinal emphasis to Phil’s series, differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably concensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series.

So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that “something else” is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being “warmer” than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates and, thus, can undermine faith in the paleoestimates. I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder!

How will media report this?

Stay tuned.

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

  MATTHEW 1:20 An angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said,  “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.   She will give birth to a son and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his  people from their sins.”

  What is the true meaning of Christmas?  Today is the start of the Christmas holiday “Black Friday. “  People  going to stores and getting that computer game or that new cell phone with all the bells and whistles on it. For What? The all mighty dollar in retail stores. Not that I am picking on retail. What is the true  meaning of Christmas?

   Just as Matthew 1:21 stated, Joseph and Mary are to prepare for a child who will save us from our sins. Damnation in Hell at the end.  That is Jesus the savior. He is the reason we celebrates Christmas.  Not buying and spending.

   As  this holiday gets more commercial, we lose sight of this fact. He will save us from sin by forgiveness. He is the one we have to go to for help with our problems. For example a drinking problem; gamble too much; cheating on a spouse; or having a  life of crime. He is the one who will help us. We cannot do so on our own.

   We have to go to Jesus for that. Repent for our sins now while we have time to do so, not later.  He will assist us with problems such as getting a job for example in that bad time in our life. We have to approach and be humble in doing so. He isn’t a ATM machine that gives on command. That is not how it works.

  Finally, we have to keep God in our lives. It’s easy to lost sight on the Christmas holiday with flashy television ads and stores telling us to “Put it on credit.” Remember, that Jesus is the one we honor and that is important. In short, refreshing our souls from sin and the Devil in the end! Are you putting yourself in the Lord’s hands?

HAVE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR!

The deadline to pass the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) approached, and passed, last week, with the Senate extending debate on the issue until this week. The nation’s media was transfixed by the spectacle of the Liberal Party annihilating itself over what position to take.

In part, the Liberals’ problems stemmed from the fact that the Labor government accepted the Liberals’ proposed amendments, making the CPRS even more polluter-friendly than before.

But the Liberals’ crisis also revealed deep division over climate policy —between the party’s climate deniers and climate pretenders.

The pretenders, such as party leader Malcolm Turnbull, are no more serious than the deniers about acting firmly to stop climate change. Rather, they want to present the illusion of action to a public increasingly worried about global warming. The government settled for a pretend policy on climate change long ago.

Turnbull, the so-called opposition leader determined to support the government’s CPRS (after “browning” it down substantially), was due to face a party room leadership ballot on December 1.

With the Senate due to finish debating the CPRS that day, at time of writing it was foreseeable a new leader could change tactics, uniting the party around opposing the legislation.

The Liberals’ crisis has shifted attention and criticism away from the woefully inadequate CPRS.

For the big parties, climate change is just another policy issue. The debates and controversies about the CPRS are detached from the scientific predictions of pending climate disaster.

Yet while politics-as-usual went on inside parliament, a small group of committed climate activists outside spent their third consecutive week in an unusual protest for urgent climate action.

Participants in the Climate Justice Fast began their protest hunger strike on the parliament house lawns on November 6. Some intend to fast until the Copenhagen climate conference ends in mid-December.

Paul Connor was on day 19 of his fast when he spoke to Green Left Weekly. The big parties’ attempt to strike a dirty deal on the CPRS had not lessened his commitment to campaigning on climate change.

“Everything that has happened politically has reinforced what we are doing and why we are doing it”, he said.

“The battle for adequate science-based legislation is a very young one, and we have a long way to go. It’s not going to happen from that building [parliament house] up there until the people demand it. We’re seeing that the leaders are not going to lead. So we need to build a real social movement.”

Connor said the fast had received some media attention, particularly from overseas. However, he also said some journalists had told him they won’t cover the action because they don’t want others to emulate the fasters because it is dangerous.

“If society could only be as risk-averse about climate change as we are about fasting then we’d have noting to worry about”, Conner joked.

By Andrew Bolt

Senator Penny Wong. Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water.

Frank J. Tipler, professor of mathematical physics at Tulane University, on the true significance of Climategate:

The now non-secret data prove what many of us had only strongly suspected — that most of the evidence of global warming was simply made up. That is, not only are the global warming computer models unreliable, the experimental data upon which these models are built are also unreliable. As Lord Monckton has emphasized here at Pajamas Media, this deliberate destruction of data and the making up of data out of whole cloth is the real crime — the real story of Climategate.

It is an act of treason against science. It is also an act of treason against humanity, since it has been used to justify an attempt to destroy the world economy.

UPDATE

So quick that I missed it. But the (Australian) ABC’s 7.30 Report did ask Climate Change Minister Penny Wong one question about Climategate, and – just for the record – here is her complete non-answer:

KERRY O’BRIEN: Speaking of the science, very quickly, what’s your reaction to the emails from the East Anglia climate change research unit in Britain obtained by hackers, which sceptics are now using to claim that leading scientists are manipulating climate change data to get the outcomes they want to promote climate change. Did those revelations give you any pause for thought, any concern?

PENNY WONG: I looked to where the weight of the science is, where the consensus science is, and I look to the fact that our own scientific institutions in Australia, the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, the international scientific community. I look to …

KERRY O’BRIEN: But these are part of the international science community.

PENNY WONG: I look to these people. And it’s very clear that the weight of scientific opinion, the consensus science is that climate change is real, that human beings are contributing to it and we have to start to do something about it. The time for action is now.

So Wong’s answer is that she trusts the weight of the evidence that’s produced by a process that’s revealed as corrupt. She trusts a consensus that we now know was ahieved through intimidation, censorship and fraud. And that’s why Australia must have a great green tax on everything.

Wong is a denier.

UPDATE 2

Reader Aard Knox follows up my post yesterday on the confused David Jones, the warmist preacher who heads the National Climate Centre at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology:

Andrew, I followed up your pointer on David Jones who said:

Anthony – due to professional reasons – I am unable to comment on Bolt’s column. But as with most of his material it is rubbish.

Last night there was a lengthy, intelligent rebuttal of Jones’ statement which questioned amongst other thing how he could say “No comment” and then pass judgement on what you had written. The poster also cited historical records to show there is nothing unusual in the present weather pattern.

This morning it has been deleted and Jones has posted, in its place, the following:

This forum is for those who enjoy the weather. Many of us moved here because we tired of arguing with “sceptics” who have no interest in the weather, but rather use forums to promote political views. I’ve locked this topic.

If that’s how the planetweather site deals with reasoned debate – by allowing a poster (who I think was a first-timer) to lock down the subject – it has absolutely no credibility.

It’s debate, Jim, but not as you know it. A lovely insight, perhaps, in the kind of “peer review” that Jones prefers.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

This one quote sums up the way we SHOULD be doing health care reform:

“…do health care the right way — one reform at a time, each simple and simplifying, aimed at reducing complexity, arbitrariness and inefficiency.”

The stated reason of the democrats to undertake this massive takeover of the health care system was to “insure the 40 million uninsured.”

That number is misleading and inaccurate, but let’s assume for a moment that there are 40 million people who can’t afford insurance.  Tort reform and competition are the BEST ways to make it affordable, but let’s assume again for the sake of argument that the government needs to step in.

A family of four can get a pretty decent health insurance for about $400 per month.  That’s $4,800 per year for a family of four.  Now let’s assume an even worse case that the cost is $4,800 per person per year.  Multiply that times the 40 million claimed by the democrats to be uninsured and that comes out to $192,000,000,000.  That’s 192 billion dollars.

So if the government simply wrote those 40 million people a check to buy a PRIVATE insurance policy, it would be over 13 times LESS EXPENSIVE than the plan the democrats are pushing, and that’s using the most conservative estimates of the overall costs of $2.5 TRILLION.  Most think it will be much, much higher.

Again, looking at THE ORIGINAL STATED GOAL OF INSURING THE UNINSURED, I have to ask how can we possibly be going down this road and remotely think it’s a good way to go about it?

November 27, 2009

Kill the Bills. Do Health Reform Right

By Charles Krauthammer

Why Christianity is Wrong and Destroying America and the World

by Lucky the Liberal

Hello, I’m Lucky the Liberal.

I’m succesfful and have my own house and have many friends and parties in it all the time with educated people from universities and also buddhists come over and its all paid off its big im rich and I went to college, also im neutral because im an atheist therefore you should listen to me.

Today we’ll be learning why Christians are bad people

One, Christians r bad bcuz they read teh bibLe alot and they keep saying God ovr n over.

number 2 also they did you notice they have way more websites and books then athiests? and so therefore they are lazy.

Three: they dont use theyre churches for homeless people and they should. If I were in charge of America I would convert all churches to homeless shelters.

Also Christians fundmentalists -  THATS the worst kind of christians – they deny evolution, big bang and spotaneuos life generation from soups puddles therefore they are stupid. They ahve no education and theyre hypocrites since they teach science but say theres no evolution big bang or sponteuos generations from soup puddles. Ok. So, do you see why liberals are way more smart and useful than Christians, specually the fundsementalist ones? See we don’t wastes time we speak the truth, we have facts and refrences, like this watch, look:

Richard Dawkins, who wrote Origins of Species,  bones in museums, and also a dinsaour creationist museam got shut down bcuz the owners didnt want to pay taxes which is clear proof they are wrong,

We are better at spelling and we had a survey that showed we’re smarter than religious people. Well some liberals are religious but its not much so that’s why I said we’re smarter than religious people. Oh and also we get along with the rest of the world better, so also yes therefore that’s proof we are right and the peaceful ones. More references: Multiple studies by scientists (and all scientists are libearls), so we have all the research and facts on your side.

So as you can see it’s liberals, who, advance the, world, make great technologies, are not the ranting ones, and we dont need to hear about Hell to do good and dont have sky daddies in the clouds. Oh yeah notice how Christians always right big paragraphs and say sooo much stuff and so YOU CANT READ IT!!!???

oH ALSO another huge refrence is wikipedia and it’s clearly the truth. Its better than all other encycleopdias because its got references for everything it says and none of the people in charge of it are bad they are all good because they are in charge. if they werent good why would they be in charge of it?

Also christians burned alexandrias library, bcuz they hate knowledge and they are primitive and simply like bacteria. Atheists didnt want to burn the library instead they wanted to make great civilizations and save lives. Atheists are perfect and never say or do anything wrong.

See I’m logical. Now stop wasting peoples money and time you stupid Christians and making global warming and melting icebergs with your Bibles and God talk!!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!! OH YEAH: GO OBAMA!!! HE’S FOR CHANGE AND CHANGE IS ALWAYS GOOD AND BEST!!!!

P.S. my name is really Smile Amani and I love to help peolpe on Yahoo Answers. My bests friends is Novangelis, Footprints in the Sand, Gorgeoustxwoman, Grim Jack, Tash, Batgirl2good, Pangel, Great Gazoo, Green Witch, Spike (I love you Spike what happened to you? Did you ever lose all that fat?),  Babbling Blue, Psuedodododia, Justin Asscrabs and we all think its funny to put babies in microwaves. Oh speaking of babies, stop preventing kids from aborting their babies you mean Christians! We need to teach rapists a lesson by killing their babies instead of letting them turn kids and women into baby machines which is why rapists rape! Also we can use their stem cells for science and we need to them to save real lives, not protolplasms festuses which arent even human! And one day maybe we can get so advanced that i can get stem cells put in my brain so that Im finally good at math and science and can help the world better and keep more babies from being born who will just be poor and pollute the world! 

Copyright Lucky the Liberal 2009-infinity.

Source:

atheist, no god no guilt

By Noel Sheppard

Scientists involved in the growing ClimateGate scandal were cited in an October climate change report prepared for the White House and Congress.

Titled “Our Changing Planet,” the 172-page document was created by The U.S. Global Change Research Program along with the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, and was submitted as a supplement to President Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget.

As such, its contents not only impact future and current legislation involving global warming, but also how tax dollars are spent to research and address it.

The report began with an introduction by White House science czar John Holdren, a man directly involved in ClimateGate (h/t Right Pundits via NB reader George):

Members of Congress:

We herewith transmit a copy of Our Changing Planet: The U.S. Climate Change Science Program for Fiscal Year 2010. The report describes the activities and plans of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) established under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The USGCRP coordinates and integrates scientific research on climate and global change supported by 13 participating departments and agencies of the U.S. government. [...]

The document describes a range of activities including examples of the USGCRP’s contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as progress in understanding Earth system components of the global climate system, how these components interact, and the processes and forces bringing about changes to the Earth system. [...]

USGCRP is committed to its mission to facilitate the creation and application of knowledge of the Earth’s global environment though research, observations, decision support, and communication. We thank the participating agencies for their close cooperation, and we look forward to working with Congress in the continued development of this important program.

Respectfully,

Dr. John P. Holdren,
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology

The subsequent chapters addressed a number of topics involving climate, and concluded with “Chapter References and Endnotes” where the following names appeared:

• Phil Jones, Director of the British Climate Research Unit
• Gavin Schmidt, NASA climatologist and climate modeler
• Michael Mann, Penn State professor and author of the Hockey Stick graph
• Benjamin Santer, Lawrence Livermore Lab climate modeler
• Raymond Bradley, professor at University of Massachusetts, Amherst
• Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
• Peter Stott, climate scientist at the UK Met office
• Tom Wigley, climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

To be sure, that papers by these scientists would be cited in such a report is by no means shocking. They have been preparing high-profile documents about global warming for years including for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In reality, it would have been shocking if this report DIDN’T include them.

However, what is disturbing is that America’s news media haven’t cross-referenced this high-profile report with all the names in the e-mail messages obtained from the computers of the University of East Anglia, and reported to the American people just how connected to the United States government these people are.

Or would that be too much like journalism?

Before you answer, consider how the press would be all over this report if the scandal involved policies advocated by leading Republicans that were not supported by the media, and the man in the White House was also a Republican.

Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters

Read more Great Articles at NewsBusters

From The Editors At Family Security Matters (FSM)

With the AP busy fact-checking Sarah Palin’s book and much of the rest of the media busy trying to trip her up at her book signings, a huge story
seems to have passed them by: ClimateGate.

FSM readers are likely aware of the fact that last week, someone hacked into the e-mail system of the University of East Anglia in the UK and exposed a series of e-mails that certainly seem like a conspiracy by some of the world’s top global warming alarmists to manipulate temperature data to reflect their hypotheses.

However, as Noel Shepard at Newsbusters pointed out earlier this week that several days after the scandalous news broke, neither ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, nor NBC had bothered to cover a huge story that is becoming bigger by the moment. He also notes that NPR seemed to be a part of the blackout. Here are some of the stories they did deem important within those few days:

* ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Friday did a very lengthy piece about Oprah Winfrey ending her syndicated daytime talk show
* ABC’s “World News with Charles Gibson” Monday did a lengthy piece on new revelations involving the marital affair of Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)
* CBS “Evening News” Saturday reported a ten-year-old pianist playing at Carnegie Hall
* CBS “Evening News” Sunday did lengthy pieces on the website FreeCreditReport.com not being free and the movie “New Moon”
* CBS “Evening News” Monday did lengthy pieces about defective drywall and a man who makes money wearing t-shirts
* NBC “Nightly News” Friday reported on Switzerland’s supercollider being turned back on
* NBC “Nightly News” Saturday did a somewhat lengthy report on food carts
* NBC “Nightly News” Sunday reported the release of British singer Susan Boyle’s CD, and then followed it up with another report Monday on her promoting it.

More “big news” as of this writing was about the couple who managed to crash the White House state dinner on Tuesday night, as well as the annual Black Friday shopping crush.

On Monday, Fox had done four reports alone and Rush Limbaugh was also all over the story throughout the beginning of the week. Fox also had actor and “climate change” believer Ed Begley, Jr. on with Stuart Varney to discuss the issue, and all Begley could do was shout over the host with various talking points.

So where’s the “mainstream media”? Fact-checking Sarah Palin and getting ready to breathlessly cover Obama’s upcoming trip to Copenhagen to discuss…global warming.

Aren’t they at all curious about the e-mails? We’re told that they, as professional journalists, are more qualified to cover the hard news stories than those cheeky bloggers. And yet – and yet – who is falling down on the job?

If the MSM is wondering why ratings and circulation continue to tank, they have only to look their own ideology in the mirror.

Read more excellent articles from Family Security Matters

By Hans Bader

On Saturday, (11-21-09) the Senate voted 60-to-39, along party lines, to press towards passage of a massive health care bill, by blocking a Republican filibuster.  Senators ignored the fact that the bill received a failing grade from health care experts like the Dean of Harvard Medical School, since it will raise taxes, deficits, and medical costs, while reducing lifesaving medical innovations.

Afterward, however, the bill drew criticism even from moderate Democrats who usually support the Obama administration, which backs the bill.  Veteran Washington Post editorialist David Broder called the bill a “budget buster in the making,” saying it will violate President Obama’s “pledge that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade.”  He pleaded with the Obama administration and Congress not to “pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.”

In the Examiner, a Democrat who backed Obama in 2008 criticized the administration for backing a health care bill that violates Obama’s campaign promises by raising taxes on the middle class, citing the bill’s many tax increases, such as its tax on uninsured people and taxes on cosmetic surgery and other medical procedures.

Earlier, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) criticized ObamaCare for driving up state spending and budget deficits, calling it “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”

Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson today called ObamaCare a generational rip-off.  Earlier, he noted that the health care bill is “hypocritical” and “dishonest” and aggravates the worst features of the “status quo.”

In the Senate, all Democrats voted for the bill.  But many received payoffs for doing so.  And there really are no “moderate” Democrats left in the Senate: most of its so-called “moderate” Democrats are not moderate or conservative on anything except on a handful of social issues needed to survive in a “red state,” like gun control.    —-

No Senate Democrat today deviates from the liberal party line as often as the moderate Democrats who once served in the Senate, like Senators Alan Dixon of Illinois and J. James Exon of Nebraska.

As I noted yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) lined up the 60 votes through payoffs to wavering Senators and powerful unions (some mismanaged unions will receive a taxpayer bailout of their health plans, to the tune of up to $10 billion).

The Dean of Harvard Medical School recently gave Obama’s health care plan a “failing grade,” saying it will harm America’s health and finances, and hamper medical innovations needed to save patients’ lives.  Dean Jeffrey S. Flier wrote in The Wall Street Journal that along “with dozens of health-care leaders and economists,” he had concluded that the bill “will markedly accelerate national health-care spending,” would harm care “by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies,” and would reduce “our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies” that save lives.

Other experts agree.  The health care “reform” bill backed by President Obama “would reduce senior care,” increase “medical costs,”  and “could jeopardize access to care for millions,” report health care experts at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.  The House recently passed a similar bill by the razor-thin margin of 220 to 215.

The bill will raise taxes on the middle class.  It will increase taxes on individuals, employers, and hospitals, impose new taxes on medical devices and cosmetic surgery, and levy a 40% tax on health-care plans above $8,500.  It will increase the deficit, drive up state government spending, and cost taxpayers at least twice as much as predicted.  It is one of the most expensive bills of all time.

It contains special-interest pork, such as payoffs for trial lawyers, and racial preferences that drew criticism from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The bill restricts national competition in health insurance, which is permitted in countries with cheaper health care.

ObamaCare spends money on frills like “cultural competency,” while cutting spending on crucial things like anesthesia.

“ObamaCare is all about rationing,” and tax increases, says one of Obama’s own economic advisers, Martin Feldstein.

Fact-checkers say Obama is lying about health care. Obama often contradicts himself. In the very same speech, Obama claimed that Medicare is “unsustainable” and “running out of money,” then contradicted himself by claiming that “Medicare is a government program that works really well,” making it a model for national health care.

CNN noted that Obama’s plan would take away “5 freedoms,” contradicting Obama’s claim that the bill will leave you free to choose your doctor and keep your healthcare plan without government interference.

The bill does nothing to curb massive waste and fraud in existing government health care systems like Medicare and Medicaid, even though it proposes to make massive cuts in Medicare (cuts so painful that most of them will never happen: year after year, Congress waives “the annual cut in fees paid by Medicare to physicians” mandated by an earlier law.  The cuts were added to the bill only to reduce its apparent cost.  As economist and former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin notes in The Wall Street Journal, the promised cuts to pay for ObamaCare will not happen: “Senate Democrats chose to ignore this reality and rely on the promise of a cut to make their bill add up. Taking note of this fact . . . destroys any pretense of budget balance.”)

Backers of ObamaCare have refused to cut medical costs through malpractice reform, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying that such reforms would save “only” $54 billion.  The Pacific Research Institute estimates that just one type of cost that could be reduced through malpractice-lawsuit reform — defensive medicine — costs around $200 billion annually (which is almost as much as France spends annually on health care for all of its citizens; like most countries, France has no punitive damages, and fewer lawsuits against doctors).

One reform opposed by the Democrats — setting up specialized health tribunals to hear malpractice cases — would be particularly helpful. Replacing uninformed juries with specialized health courts would provide more consistent rulings from case to case, eliminate meritless cases, reduce defensive medicine, and more speedily compensate injured people who truly are victimized by doctors’ carelessness. Such tribunals already exist in countries like “Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand.”

Martin Feldstein, one of Obama’s own advisors, has said that Obama’s health-care plan would explode the federal budget deficit and lead to “crippling deficits,” as well as “higher taxes, debt payments, and interest rates” that would cut America’s standard of living. Feldstein also noted that Obama’s health-care plan would harm people with insurance, and predicted that it would lead to massive tax increases. Other analysts have predicted that it will drive up medical costs and inflation.

Obama has relied on $2 trillion in imaginary savings to pay for healthcare “reform.”

Read more informative articles at OpenMarket.org

By Steve Bowers, Esq

Family Security Matters Resident Cartoonist Steve Bowers, Esq., is an attorney and a keen observer of America’s political scene.

   Eminent domain? Doesn’t it just sound all welcoming and friendly? The problem is, eminent domain is being used by tyrannical governments to throw people out of their own homes to make way for projects that bring in more tax dollars. Let’s see a history of eminent domain.

   Eminent Domain became law through the fifth amendment, and to a lesser extent, from the third amendment. The fifth states in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation…” The third amendment states in its entirety “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” This means that government cannot force, in times of peace, a homeowner to house troops in his home. The part ‘in a manner to be prescribed by law’ indicates the eminent domain part.

   Those two amendments were meant to protect homeowners from unlawful seizure of property by government. However, they have been turned on their heads to allow government to force someone out of their homes for any or no apparent reason. Case in point: Brooklyn, New York residents are fighting to keep their houses after they stood up to New Jersey Nets owner Bruce Ratner and told him they don’t want to give up their homes. Here’s the skinny. Ratner, real estate tycoon, wants a new home arena for the Nets on a $4.9 billion, 22 acre site in Brooklyn. That area is also home to a Transit Authority rail yard.

   But Ratner, coveting that land, decides to take matters into his own hands, going straight to the government to plead his case. Bingo. He hits pay dirt. The New York Court of Appeals upholds the state’s eminent domain laws and basically orders the people off their own land.

   Eminent domain has a sad history. In New London, Connecticut, Suzette Kelo was forced to sell her home (See Below)

to make way for a massive office building for drug maker Pfizer. He was living the American dream, owning her own house and loving it. She didn’t want to give it up. She fought all the way to the Supreme Court. Ultimately she lost. The town began their ‘revitalization’ project and demolished her beloved house. Result? Did the town add thousands of jobs, the unemployed became millionaires and the town became the newest financial capital of the world? No, in fact the office building was never built. Now we have an empty lot where several beautiful homes once stood.

   The truth is, liberal/progressive politicians have caused this. They have no respect for people or their freedoms if it in any way lessens the tax dollars coming in. Americans need to stand up to the evils of eminent domain and liberalism because just like Suzette Kelo, it can happen to us.

By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

These are dramatic times in Australia, mainly in the political arena, but the genesis of those political dramas lies with the Climate Change Debate, and the Government’s wish to pass Emissions Trading Legislation, oddly labeled as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. (CPRS) The Government’s wish was to have this passed before the Copenhagen Conference, even though if passed it will not come into effect until mid 2011. It now looks likely to fail for a second time in being passed by the Senate. The political fallout has achieved one thing, that being that it is now causing widespread debate in the wider community. The fallout from Climategate has only added to the debate, and now, at last, we are getting the debate we should have had all along. The revelations adding to Climategate are coming thick and fast now, as other areas are now being caught up in the widening net, and it looks like the UN may just have a pretty grubby hand in all this, as this post from Andrew points out.

Green journalists may ignore them, but scientists cannot. In fact, even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself is threatened by the Climategate emails.

Professor Mike Hulme is of the University of East Anglia from which the emails were leaked, and is named by ScienceWatch as “the 10th most cited author in the world in the field of climate change, between 1999 and 2009”. The leaked emails of IPCC authors show an organisation corrupted by a clique of warmist evangelists, and even Hume now says the IPCC may have run its course:

(The UN’s Copenhagen summit) is about raw politics, not about the politics of science… It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.

It is also possible that the institutional innovation that has been the I.P.C.C. has run its course. Yes, there will be an AR5 (fifth report) but for what purpose? The I.P.C.C. itself, through its structural tendency to politicize climate change science, has perhaps helped to foster a more authoritarian and exclusive form of knowledge production – just at a time when a globalizing and wired cosmopolitan culture is demanding of science something much more open and inclusive.

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

Upon his inauguration in 2008 as chief executive, Ronald Reagan would have announced his intention to commit 120,000 US troops toward the cause of ending  (what democrats have referred to as)  “the forgotten war”  in Afghanistan once and for all. History tells us that upon hearing this, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan would have immediately begun to devise a capitulation strategy.  What a difference vision and will play in the definition of a leader. President Reagan’s  inaugural announcement would have proactively provided  an  end to  the conflict without ever having to send one single additional US soldier to Afghanistan.

That’s how strength, confidence, and faith  deal with the issues of conflict and the challenges of war ….others dither and give the enemy great confidence.

Having missed his opportunity, Obama has lost twice….he  can neither return to a strategy of strength nor can he retreat from the promise of weakness.  Thus,  he traps himself into a plan to send an inferior force which will be ground up by a massing global army of  jihadists,  rushing  toward an open invitation for their eastern ideologies to succeed while western weaknesses are politically strong.

Lost twice…enabled by the strength of nuanced deliberations within a meditative, novice mind…

It’s a damned shame that the opportunity for African Americans to claim their long overdue place of honor in American government has been squandered with the election of Comrade Obama!

There are many who unlike Comrade Obama would have brought actual EXPERIENCE and VALUABLE contributions to the stregnth and security and future prosperity of our great nation.

I still have faith in your ability to do so!

Pavlov, Freud And Community Organizing

by

R.E. Prindle

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/11/24/racial-terror-in-denver-that-wont-make-national-news/

     I’m sure everyone will have heard of Pavlov and his famous dogs.  Pavlov introduced the concept of Conditioning to the psychological lexicon.  The concept sort of flies under the radar in Freud’s version of psychoanalysis but the Old Master Fudger was quite taken by it.

     The question for Freud was how do you condition a whole people to respond to stimuli as you want them to do using a less noticeable  method than a dinner bell.

     Let’s look at the this recent Denver Danger with fresh eyes.  What sort of conditioning of  White people is going on here and for what result?

     It is clear the Jews and Africans intend the destruction of the White species.  If you haven’t looked into Noel Ignatiev or Kamau Kambon as yet may I suggest you do so and take what they’re saying seriously.   They are not standup comics.

     The problem is how do you get the majority White population to allow a much smaller Negro and Jewish minority to march them into extermination camps without resistance?  Well, you condition them to not respond to provocation but to placidly accept it until they are conditioned to taking it.

     In Denver, for instance, and this is going on all over the country, a group of paramilitary Africans systematically crippled numerous White people on the streets of Denver.   Now, these were not spontaneous attacks.  The FBI was called in which means that ‘community organizers’ and agitators crossed state lines for violent purposes.  I smell Chicago here and Chicago leads to the Great Black Hope in Washington DC.  The techniques used were those of professional sluggers resulting in broken jaws and fractured eye sockets.  Takes a little skill to do that.  These were not casual assaults they were organized.  Perhaps people were being trained to  organize other ‘communities’ in other cities.

     The Denver Police Chief thought it best, or said it was to prevent White vigilante patrols or defensive action, to keep the White public uninformed of this paramilitary activity.

     Now, we are told that thirty some members of this ‘gang’ or organized community were rounded up in a sweep.  That must mean that the members of this organization have been known for some time.  We are led to believe that these organizers will be put on prison relief for twenty years.  Will they?  What will happen when the furor, as small as it is, dies down?

     Thus the White public is conditioned to accept this terrorization passively without resistance or retaliation.  More incidents will be occurring  with greater frequency.  In each instance Whites will be prevented from responding in kind to this race war.   In other words they are being conditioned to non-resistance.  Now, people will say that Jews are White so how can they be referred to as not White.  Let me refer you  to a notorious figure known as A.J. Weberman.  In his online biography he proudly proclaims that he is not White, he is a Jew.  There’s your rationale.

     Soon neighborhoods will be invaded while Whites stand passively by as homes are looted and they and their neighbors beaten.   Then when White ‘troublemakers’ who write critical blogs are rounded up and sent to extermination camps for their own holocaust, Whites will have been conditioned to accept this crime without demur.

      Now, anyone who believes Africans don’t harbor a desire for revenge for slavery; or don’t think Jews feel shame for their passive acceptance of extermination had better reexamine their beliefs.

     The future is plain before you.  Will you accept your Pavlovian and Freudian conditioning and acquiesce in your own destruction?  I fear it.

Political Correctness is LIBERAL CENSORSHIP!

…No elaboration is necessary!

Tonight I watched “Band of Brothers” again. It is an unforgettable story of just one company of soldiers during the Invasion of Europe during WWII. All of their dedication and efforts and suffering and sacrifice…As remarkable and horrific as they were…Only represent the smallest fraction of the greater story. Their actions were repeated by many men. In many conflicts. All on our behalf.

The Nation that these men fought so hard to defend has dishonored them by recklessly abandoning the  course they have set for us and the principles they have fought and died for.

This nation has allowed vile political and ideological forces to  gain first a foothold within our political parties and government. And now they have been elevated to the highest positions of the U.S. Government.

Your support for Liberal and leftist radicals is a direct slap in the face to all good men who have ever served or great nation.

Perhaps you should ask yourselves if you have ever been…or ever will be worthy of the privilege of receiving the freedom and benefits that they have provided to us all.

There is still time to change your twisted and selfish ways.

There is still time to seek the truth…rather than to fuel the lies of those who pretend to offer you HOPE and CHANGE.

The 2010 Elections are not far off.

Do the right thing for a change…REMOVE the Liberals and Leftists and Marxists and Socialists from every level of political power and influence.

Vote for Democrats and Republicans and Independents who are willing to represent time-honored values and principles. Not selfish and deceptive ideological failures such as Socialism!

Former Premier Bill Vander Zalm speaks out against the HST at a rally besdide the Vancouver Convention Centre Saturday.
Photograph by: Arlen Redekop, Canwest News Service

The media have been circulating a story since last night that the Conservative Party intends to introduce legislation next week that would put the issue of the tax harmonization between British Columbia, Ontario, and the federal government to rest. At least in federal circles. Reuters originally released a document revealing that the Conservatives want to test the Liberal Party resolve over the HST issue.

Parliament would be asked to confirm the right of provinces to enter into such a contract with the government, and if the opposition votes it down, then the HST would die. But if the Liberals back the legislation it could be a “problematic” situation for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.

“Parliament’s decision on the framework legislation will be certain and final,” according to the document. “This legislation will have the support of the Official Opposition or it will not. If it does, we expect the bill to win approval before the Christmas recess.

“If the framework legislation is rejected before Christmas, we will not revisit the issue. Not next year. Not after the next election.”

The media has cynically framed this as an ultimatum made to the Liberals in order to either have the opposition accept the legislation, or else humiliate Michael Ignatieff for being forced to take a stand on the HST. This is because Mr.Ignatieff has been confusing in his statements about the HST, referring to it as the “Harper Sales Tax”, but also promising not to repeal the tax if his party gained power.

Not so fast, says Macleans columnist Paul Wells, via his blog. The Conservatives have released a statement to their caucus, which mysteriously found it’s way forwarded to the media, saying that this move is not politically motivated:

Dear Caucus Members:

A front-page story in the Globe and Mail [the one quoted above] gives an unfortunate and inaccurate impression of our tax-harmonization framework policy.

The Government will introduce a tax-harmonization framework in order to respect provincial decision-making and to honour commitments made to Premiers McGuinty and Campbell.

Contrary to what the story implies, we are not proceeding in this manner to embarrass, box in or gain an advantage over the federal Liberals.[...]

So there you have it. The Conservatives are bringing the HST debate out into the open, but not for crass political gain, as so many pundits have surmised. This recent denial by the Conservatives is, of course, also subject to skepticism and debate.

According to the Globe and Mail article so reviled by the Conservatives in their email to “Caucus Members”, the Bloc Quebecois have signalled they would defeat the HST legislation, and since we already know where Jack Layton’s heart lies, that would leave the Liberals with the final say.

Not according to a recent article in Bloomberg today, which says that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has worked out a deal with the separatists that would allow for the legislation to pass.

“The Bloc will support the motion,” Pierre Paquette, who leads the party’s day-to-day operations in Parliament, told the press. Of course it’s purely based on self-interest, as usual. Quebec would receive financial compensation from the feds, just like Ontario and B.C. if the HST goes through. Since it already harmonized with Ottawa, it hasn’t received financial compensation.

So to those people living in Ontario and British Columbia: How do you like decisions made about your province being decided by a political party with no interest in being in Canada?

Comrade Obama is marching America directly into the hellish fires of Marxism and Socialism. Many of you were or continue to be  blinded by his way with words. You were ready for his promise of change. Some still believe he can deliver! And his delivery is well under way. The cost of the fulfillment of his promises will be the destruction of the greatest nation known to mankind.