What Is A Radical? What Is Not A Radical?

Apprently, the newsreaders at ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post and New York Times have the following views on what is radical and what isn’t:

People demanding that their Congressional delegations actually read a bill before voting on it is radical. Having dinner with someone who planted bombs at the Pentagon and Police Stations a la Bill Ayers is not.

Asking how a government that can’t run Medicaid, Medicare and Cash for Clunkers could possibly run the Health Care industry is radical. Yelling “God damn, America!” to a congregation that for 20 years included future President Barack Obama is not.

Clearly, the newsreaders of Old Media do not see the same reality that Joe and Jane Average American see. If anyone who represents any of the Old Media news outlets listed above wishes to disagree with me, feel free to respond to this blog post. I would love to hear from you.

Be sure to check out this video of Michelle Malkin predicting a backlash against Obama for his name-calling. Referring to mainstream Americans as “angry mobs” and other ridiculous names does not befit a man who pledged to “unite” America. Name-calling is a divisive tactic.

The video:

Michelle Malkin Says Obama Will Face “Huge Backlash” For Attacks On Citizens Against ObamaCare – Video 8/5/09
Freedom’s Lighthouse
August 6, 2009

Essay From A Retired Army Command Sergeant Major

Got this in an email. One thing about this CSM (Command Sergeant Major), he does not waste time getting to the point! This essay has been around for a long while, but the points made are still extremely valid.

(I checked this out on snopes.com but didn’t find anything to indicate that this wasn’t written by J.D. Pendry, US Army, Retired.)

“The Axis of Idiots”

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You’re the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war with us. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the USS Cole and the First Trade Center Bombing and our embassy bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam. Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You’ve accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq. You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam. You’re a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam , is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can’t win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa. Okinawa, John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn’t suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You’re a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You’re not a Marine, sir. You wouldn’t amount to a good pimple on a real Marine’s butt. You’re a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot, who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now you want to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraib in front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi’s torture chambers were open under new management. Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you’d show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the South Vietnamese led to a Communist victory there. You’re a bloated, drunken fool bent on repeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha, all while sitting on your wide, gin-soaked rear-end in Washington.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Russ Feingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers – the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers – cause to think that we’ll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer.

It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic Jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly: Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with the sub-human pieces of camel dung that torture and mutilate the bodies of American Soldiers. You can’t strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are all America ‘s ‘AXIS OF IDIOTS.’ Your collective stupidity will destroy us. self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don’t ever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam. If you want our Soldiers home as you claim, knock off the crap and try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I’m also questioning why you’re stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don’t deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who have the will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

Our country has two enemies: Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within.

J. D. Pendry – Command Sergeant Major, USA (Retired)

You’ve got to admit, nothing was served cold in that essay!

J.D. Pendry is the author of The Three Meter Zone: Common Sense Leadership For NCOs available at Amazon.com

Political Humor: Divorce Agreement

I got this in an email from my sister today:

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:

We have stuck together since the late 1950’s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let’s just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:

Our two groups can equitably divide up this country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

We don’t like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we’ll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).

We’ll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We’ll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO’s and rednecks. We’ll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood.

You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we’ll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters.

When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we’ll help provide them security.

We’ll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

We’ll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volkswagon you can find.

We’ll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I’m sure you’ll be happy to substitute Imagine, I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.

We’ll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we’ll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I’ll bet you which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

Sincerely,

John J. Wall
Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Barbara Streisand & Jane Fonda with you.

The sad part is that if the Dems succeed in inflicting socialism on the United States in such a way that it become irreverisble through the electoral process, what you just read above may actually happen and the U.S. will split into to distinctly separate nations with one nation embracing the disaster known as socialism and the other going back to the roots of our Founding Fathers. You can already see the beginnings of it from the states that are declaring their sovereignty from the Federal government.

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting

Here is more evidence that the big media outlets like the Washington Post and the alphabet networks do not cover the news in an objective and balanced way. On Tuesday, June 3, 2009, the 3rd Annual International Conference on Climate Change took place but not one single major news outlet covered it. Why? Because this conference was based on real science and would have shown evidence against the political agenda espoused by networks like CNN and NBC.

From Scott Harper of the Virginia-Pilot:

“We are seldom heard in the policy debate,” said Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute. “If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you’re likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else.”

Bast labeled as “popular delusion” the current conventional wisdom on the issue – that man-made emissions, notably carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating up the planet, causing sea levels to rise and is increasing the ferocity of storms and drought.

As such, the conference represents a lingering – and still powerful – sentiment that global warming is not such a big deal after all.

Instead, attendees argued, the slow and slight increase in air, water and atmospheric temperatures during much of the 20th century is part of a natural cycle of the Earth’s unpredictable, roller-coaster weather patterns.

How unpredicatable are the earth’s weather patterns? So much so that the global warming alarmist people have gotten their own predictions wrong. The earth has been in a cooling trend since 2003.

More:

Bast acknowledged that the conference was hurriedly organized, and moved from New York City to Washington, to counteract proposals from President Barack Obama for a “cap-and-trade” program aimed at fighting global warming by drastically limiting carbon emissions.

Bast and others described the proposed programs as a complete waste of money, with potentially crippling consequences for the economy, and without any attainable goals.

“How do you control the weather?” asked Bob Carter, an Australian scholar from James Cook University. “For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd.”

And this:

[S]cientist after scientist at the conference pointed out flaws and shortcomings in the calculations of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations sponsored group), especially its reliance on computer models to make forecasts.

One researcher, Roy Spencer, a professor at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, noted that the IPCC did not adequately calculate how clouds play a major role in ground temperatures.

When there are few clouds in the sky, temperatures typically are warmer, Spencer said, and when it is cloudy outside, conditions typically are cooler.

Is it possible then, Spencer asked, that decreasing clouds in recent decades caused the warmings recorded on Earth?

Spencer said he asked the IPCC about this and was surprised to learn that the organization had not researched this point and had assumed that cloud cover does not change over time but is fairly consistent.

The two revelations sparked more wry laughter from the audience.

“If a 1 percent change in cloudiness could trigger global warming, or global cooling, wouldn’t you think that’d be a pretty important thing to nail down?” Spencer asked. “They have never gone there.”

How interesting it would have been to see this covered on the Today Show or Good Morning America or some other news broadcast. But that would have meant doing damage to the leftist political agenda, even if it meant bringing some truth to an issue that many people seem to be completely ignorant of.

But, where global warming alramists are politicians (or scientists trying to win research grants) the skeptics are mostly scientists objectively looking at the data:

William “Skip” Stiles, a Norfolk environmentalist, was working as a congressional aide back then, and he remembers the committee hearings, the charges and countercharges of bias and flawed science.

“I will agree that these models are only as good as the data that goes into them,” Stiles said. “But when you think of all the shots these folks have had at this, and all the years of research by the IPCC – we’re talking 25 years! – you have to think we’ve reached some fairly solid conclusions that global warming is real and we, as humans, are playing a major role in it.”

Carl Hershner, a researcher and professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science who has tracked sea level rise in Virginia for years, expressed similar thoughts.

“One thing about science is that you never get rid of all the naysayers,” Hershner said. He described the IPCC as “an extremely conservative group” that “constantly looks at achieving consensus, and updates its findings regularly.”

Let’s get the politicians out of the debate and let the scientists discuss the full spectrum of data.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Global Warming? Not So Fast, Skeptics Say At Meeting
Scott Harper
Virginia Pilot
June 6, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If it weren’t for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male …”

Now, let’s say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman…”

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a “racist” and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren’t they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that’s racist?

Read this from Sean O’Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution.”

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.

More:

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O’Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

New York Times Kills Story Detailing Obama/ACORN Relationship And Violation Of Campaign Finance Laws

Now, you know that if this had happened to a Conservative Republican, the NYT would have run it as front page news for two weeks. But because Obama is a leftist socialist, the NYT spiked it.

Back in 2008, the Obama campaign conspired with the voter-fraud group ACORN to violate campaign finance laws. When the NYT learned of the story, they immediately buried it.

Powerline Blog has a very comprehensive report:

Times reporter Stephanie Strom was looking into ACORN, and she had a source, a former ACORN employee named Anita Moncrief. Moncrief told Strom that she had evidence of “constant contact” between ACORN’s Project Vote and both the Obama and Clinton campaigns:

On Sept. 7, Moncrief wrote to Strom that she had donor lists from the campaigns of Obama and Hillary Clinton and that there had been “constant contact” between the campaigns and Project Vote, an Acorn affiliate whose tax-exempt status forbids it to engage in partisan politics. Moncrief said she had withheld that information earlier but was disclosing it now that the conservative columnist Michelle Malkin was “all over it.”

“I am sorry,” she wrote, “but I believe in Obama and did not want to help the Republicans.”

A key part of Moncrief’s story was that the Obama campaign had furnished ACORN with lists of maxed-out donors so that ACORN could mine them for contributions. In fact, Moncrief provided the Times reporter, Strom, with such a list that ACORN allegedly obtained from the Obama campaign. Hoyt does not dispute that this story, if true, was evidence of violation of the campaign finance laws.

Now, you would think that a news outlet that claims to be the “watchdog of government” would have been all over this story and reporting it to the people. Not the NYT. They immediately began to cover it up in an effort to help Barack Obama get away with breaking the law during his run for the presidency.

New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt had been “investigating” the whole situation, but what he was looking at seemed to be completely different from what everyone else was seeing.

More:

The story became public because a Republican lawyer named Heather Heidelbaugh testified, apparently based on information she got from Anita Moncrief, that the Times had been working on an Obama-ACORN story but that “Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, ‘it was a game-changer.'” Hoyt undertakes to show that this charge was false.

He admits, though, that Strom’s editor, Suzanne Daley, “called a halt to Strom’s pursuit of the Obama angle.” So the Times did kill the investigation and any further reporting. The only question is why. Hoyt uncritically accepts Daley’s explanation:

“We had worked on that story for a while and had come up empty-handed,” Daley said. “You have to cut bait after a while.” She said she never thought of the story as a game-changer and never used that term with Strom.

But wait! Hoyt also relates that shortly before Daley pulled the plug, “Moncrief finally agreed to go on the record” and Strom had scheduled a meeting with her. It was when she called Moncrief to cancel the meeting that Strom allegedly told her that her bosses had killed the investigation to protect Obama. Obviously, if Strom was about to hit pay-dirt with an on-the-record witness, Daley’s assertion that she killed the story because Strom “had come up empty-handed” is false.

As I’ve said before. Only the most naive and gullible would believe that leftist news outlets like the NYT are fair and objective.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Killing A Story: How It’s Done
Power Line
May 17, 2009

You can read about Anita Moncrief’s involvement on-line here:

Fired ACORN Affiliate Staffer Links Donor List To Obama
Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
October 30, 2008

You can also watch a good video about this story over at Hot Air:

O’Reilly: How The NYT Buried An Obama/ACORN Expose Just Before The Election
Hot Air
May 18, 2009

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing

The tea parties were only the beginning, it seems. Now, state governments are stepping up and showing that they can hear the voices of the people, especially the voices of the Forgotten Man.

Consider the following:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

If you went to elementary school back in the 1970’s, like I did, then you will recognize from your 4th grade history lessons the words of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the Unites States of America.

Apparently, not everyone learned that lesson or their teachers failed to teach it. Whichever it is, several states are forcing that lesson back to the national forefront.

Henry Lamb wrote the following for Right Side News:

Nowhere among the enumerated powers is there authority for the federal government to be in the mortgage loan business – as in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the banking, or insurance business – as in Citibank, and AIG. Nowhere is there authority for the federal government to be in the health care business, or the animal identification business, or in the energy business, or in most of the places where the federal government is now flexing its regulatory muscles.

Many states are trying to remind the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama (a lawyer who should understand the Constitution) of this very thing.

Oklahoma said it very plainly and unambiguously in their resolution of sovereignty:

“…the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”

So far, 21 states have passed similar resolutions or are planning to. Among those states are Washington, Minnesota and Michigan, none of which is a Republican stronghold. This indicates that this is not a left vs. right or Democrat vs. Republican issue. It is a people vs. the government issue.

The Federal government would do well to pay attention to what is happening. They ignore this issue and the tea parties at their own peril. Likewise if they continue to ignore the Forgotten Man.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

New State Sovereignty Movement Mobilizing
Henry Lamb
Right Side News
May 9, 2009

View From The British Media: Why Does Obama Hate America?

I’ve got to give the Brits credit for one thing. Their mass media isn’t afraid to tell it like it is. Whereas here in America our mass media is acting like Obama’s cheerleading squad, the Brits are not afraid to bring hard facts to the forefront and ask questions that would surely embarrass Obama.

Gerald Warner is one such journalist and penned the following column for the Telegraph back on April 24:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If only American reporters had such courage and fortitude to stand up to the socialist Obama like that. But, they will never ask hard, reality-based questions of The One.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Barack Obama And The CIA: Why Does President Pantywaist Hate America So Badly?
Gerald Warner
Telegraph UK
April 24, 2009

A Few Items About Barack Obama: Immigration, Budget Reporting And Obamanomics

It’s been a few days since I last posted. But, that is to be expected when you are the father of a four-and-a-half month old baby boy. Many times, your obligations to your family simply outweigh any other activity you engage in.

That said, let’s catch up on a few things that are brewing out there. (In a later post today, I’ll try to tackle Nancy Pelosi’s lies about her being briefed on waterboarding and a little something about states declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.)

First, Obama appears to have reversed his position on immigration. Contrary to his many promises during the campaign last year, he now supports “enforcement first” immigration policies. From the Washington Times:

[Obama] now says he can’t move forward with the type of comprehensive bill he wants until voters are convinced that the borders can be enforced.

Having already backed off his pledge to have an immigration bill this year, Mr. Obama boosted his commitment to enforcement in the budget released Thursday. The spending blueprint calls for extra money to build an employee-verification system and to pay for more personnel and equipment to patrol the border.

This security-first stance is not unlike that of President George W. Bush, Bush Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, who said their immigration bill failed in 2007 because voters didn’t trust the government to be serious about enforcement.

But Obama is still trying to convince illegal immigrant support groups that he wants to legalize illegals. Somewhere along the line, Obama must have realized that if he stays the course on such an explosive issue, the Democrat majority in Congress will be in greater danger in 2010 than it already is.

You can read the complete article on-line here:

Obama Reverses Stance On Immigration
Stephan Dinan
Washington Times
May 8, 2009


Obama seems to have come to another realization about the economy and is taking steps to hide certain things. Despite what he or any other politician says about the way things are going, people can walk through the downtown shopping districts of their hometowns or cities and see the truth.

They see business owners doing everything possible to stretch a nickel into a dime while the Obama adminstration and the Democrat-controlled Congress run up huge national debts by spending way more money that they have to spend.

So, in an effort to stem the tide of public opinion, Obama is issuing instructions to the press about how to report on economic issues. Obama is betting that Joe and Jane Average American aren’t smart enough to see reality and will instead believe whatever Old Media spoon-feeds them.

From the American Thinker:

Well, I guess it’s better than the $100 million he asked his department heads to trim a couple of weeks ago.

But $17 billion cut from a $3.4 Trillion budget is still a microscopic amount. Congress sneezes and spends $17 billion on Kleenex.

But the truly weird part of this story is the president of the United States instructing journalists how to report this story.

Brian Montopoli of CBS News quotes the president giving instructions in how to spin the miniscule budget cutting efforts of his administration:

As Steve Chaggaris noted in Hotsheet’s morning bulletin today, the news that the cuts totaled $17 billion “landed with a bit of a thud” in the media. Reporters stressed that the cuts made up “a tiny fraction” of the total budget and that they would be hard to push through; USA Today noted that the “proposed cuts are about one-fiftieth the size of this year’s $787 billion economic stimulus package – all of which was added to the deficit.”

In his remarks today, the president sought to change that tenor of that coverage. He mocked the notion that smaller savings are considered “trivial” in Washington and stressed that “these savings, large and small, add up.”

And he told journalists directly that they should stress the fact that the cuts are “significant” – a surprisingly direct appeal to reporters concerning which angle they should take in their coverage.


Update – Thomas Lifson adds:

Well, now it is out there for all to see. Obama sees the press as his flacks. I applaud the President for his honest and forthright acknowledgement that the White House press corps exists to publish flattering information about him, and has given up any pretense of objectivity. And if any of them from Fox News or the Washington Times or Examiner break the rules, they won’t ever get any more press conference questions. The New York Times will be enchanted to do his bidding.

It seems as if Obama would like to re-write economic history. He knows his policies will only lead to more dependency on the government and hence, greater government control over people’s lives.

Lifson’s remarks are right on the money.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Schools The Press On How To Report His ‘Budget Cuts’
Rick Moran
American Thinker
May 8, 2009


And finally, we have to ask: Is Obama intentionally hurting our economy, or is he simply naïve?

Austin Hill over at Town Hall looks at that very issue:

Okay. Let’s consider the possibility that President Obama is, simply, “a little naïve.” So was it this presumed “naivety” that led him to defy U.S. bankruptcy law, and insert himself in between a corporation and its secured creditors?

According to such law, a company in bankruptcy must pay its debts to its “secured creditors” before it pays its unsecured creditors. Not only that, in most cases, secured creditors can demand to be paid in full.

In the case of Chrysler, several of the institutions to which it owes money are banks that accepted government bail-out funds last year and earlier this year. Those banks are now enslaved to whatever President Obama and the U.S. Treasury Department tell them to do. So when Obama tells, say, “bank X” to “accept twenty-eight cents on the dollar as payment of the debt Chrysler owes you,” well, those banks are obliged to obey Obama, whether or not it makes financial sense to do so, and whether or not bankruptcy law allows that bank to demand more.

You would think that a president who was also a lawyer would know these things, right? So why would he intentionally go against the law? Is it deliberate, or is Obama really that uninformed about such things?

More:

President Obama has now demonstrated to the world’s investors that rules and laws don’t matter – – his personal and political preferences are what matter, and he will get his way, even if investors are denied their rights and damaged in the process.

If Obama’s objectve is to weaken the U.S., so as to make a “more fair world,” he’s well on his way to achieving that goal. Yet if Obama actually wants something other than a weaker U.S., then his naivety is something America cannot afford.

Amen.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obamanomics: Naive, Or Intentionally Destructive?
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
May 10, 2009

Manipulating The Terminology To Confuse People About Climate Change

So, when “global warming” turns out to be “global cooling” what is a leftist activist to do? The main thing they try to do is to muddle the argument by changing the terminology they use to describe their agenda and the reasons for their agenda.

The is why the United Nation talks about “climate change” rather than “global warming.” When it became clear that the earth was in fact cooling down and the people of this planet were witnessing record snowfalls and record cold temperatures, the left-wing climate activists knew they had made a mistake with the “global warming” theory and needed a way to tidy things up so that they wouldn’t lose their cause nor the millions of dollars in donations they use to pay their own salaries.

trendapril

From the New York Times:

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

That’s right. Instead of admitting that they’ve bought into a flawed and scientifically untenable theory, they try to confuse people with new terminology in the hopes that the new words will somehow make people believe in the cause again.

And here is how they are doing it:

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely.

Not only are they doing research on how to make the issue more confusing, they do it in secret so that no one would have a chance to analyze what was really going on.

But why are they scrambling to do this? What changed so radically that they have to make this radical adjustment in their language?

Read on:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists.

Despite shrill claims that the oil and coal lobbies are causing this, the truth is that Americans can look outside their windows and see what is really happening. They do not see a world getting warmer as the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) alarmists predicted. They see a world getting cooler and are trying to find the real answers as to why. That is what scares the left-wing environmentalists the most: that the truth might actually be revealed by legitimate scientists.

And how far has this gone?

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

I hope you notice the following clause from EcoAmerica’s quote: “… while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology.”

They want to avoid the science behind the issue. The studies of climatology, meteorology and astrophysics are not to be allowed into the debate. Why would they want these aspects kept out of the discussion? Because it would allow people access to more information and more data, most of which shows that global warming, global cooling and climate change are natural phenomena rather than man-made.

Also note that they are briefing members of Congress to use the same words and terminology, just like trained parrots.

You can access an excellent webpage with loads of answers to questions about the global warming/cooling and/or climate change debate here:

The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
JunkScience.org
August 2007

And you can access the New York Times article on-line here:

Seeking To Save The Planet, With A Thesaurus
John M. Broder
New York Times
May 1, 2009

Democrats Terrified Of Scientific Debate Over Global Warming Issues

Well, so much for “diversity” and trying to bring multiple points of view to the issues. And so much for any post-partisanship the Dems claimed would be their hallmark after the 2006 and 2008 elections. It is all straight-line partisanship now.

It all went out the window when the Dems chose ideology over science and refused to allowed an Anthroprogenic Global Warming (AGW) skeptic to testify before Congress concurrent with Al Gore. The UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton had been invited to testify before Congress at the same time as former VP Al Gore, but when the Dems learned that Lord Monckton was an AGW skeptic and was prepared to offer evidence that Al Gore and other Global Warming alramists were wrong in their analysis of climate change, they refused to allow him to testify.

What are the Dems afraid of? That a true scientific debate would make Al Gore look like a fool? If they are so convinced that Al Gore is right, wouldn’t they welcome such a public debate to further prove it? Why hide from such a forum?

From Climate Depot:

Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon.

“The House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

According to Monckton, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Energy & Commerce Committee, had invited him to go head to head with Gore and testify at the hearing on Capitol Hill Friday. But Monckton now says that when his airplane from London landed in the U.S. on Thursday, he was informed that the former Vice-President had “chickened out” and there would be no joint appearance.

Why would Al Gore be afraid of going head-to-head with anybody? Maybe because he has been found to be mistaken about a great many things:

35 Inconvenient Truths; The Errors In Al Gore’s Movie
Christopher Monckton
October 18, 2007

For example: Al Gore’s hysterical claim after Hurricane Katrina that global warming would make subsequent hurricane seasons even worse. The truth is that each hurricane season since 2005 has been much less intense.

Or another example: Gore hysterically claims that severe tornadoes are becoming more frequent. But, information gathered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) since 1950 shows a downward trend of severe tornadoes, not upward and Gore claims:

12

Apparently, the Dems don’t have the stomach to actually look through all the evidence and only want to allow such information that would further their own political agenda rather than actually provide good, complete information to the people. And they also don’t have the stomach to see Al Gore ripped to pieces for pushing junk science instead of real science.

It is embarrassing that the Dems refused to allow this debate. It clearly shows exactly how scared they are that the truth about climate change will actually come out and expose AGW as a huge hoax.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Refuse To Allow Skeptic To Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
Marc Morano
Climate Depot
April 23, 2009

Some Quick Thoughts On The Tax Day Tea Parties

I’ve been looking at the news and comparing the ways each network covered the Tax Day Tea Parties. Of course, left-leaning news outlets said every possible negative thing they could have said about the demonstrations, even things that were not true. It is those untrue items I wish to discuss here.

Item #1: The claim that Fox News orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events around the nation for a ratings boost.

The truth: Fox News simply covered the events, they did not orchestrate them. They presented the story in a fair, objective manner and were about the only network to do so. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all parroted the same lines over and over as if they were reading some talking points that someone handed to them.

0904150011

Item #2: The claim that Rush Limbaugh orchestrated the 800 or so Tea Party events arouind the nation.

The truth: Rush may be the most popular talk radio host in the world right now, but I do not remember him ever putting forth one single idea or plan one little detail of any of those demonstrations. In fact, I don’t even recall his name being mentioned at any of the 800 events.

img_0330

Item #3: The claim that the rich orchestrated these Tea Parties in an effort to justify their own greed.

The truth: Well, I don’t remember seeing very many rich people on the television or Internet news coverage of the Tea Parties. In fact, I saw mainstream Joe and Jane Average Americans. I saw parents with children. I saw small business owners. If there were any rich people in those crowds, they blended in quite nicely.

img_0396

So, why am I bringing all of this up? Because these Tea Parties are not the end. There will be more demonstrations against the excesses of the current leftist-controlled federal government as time goes on. As Congress passes more “intolerable acts” and Barack Obama signs them into law, people will become more and more angry and demand that the government finally listen to them.

Now, far from trying to correct the above misconceptions, I actually want to see Old Media and groups like ACORN and MoveOn.org coninue to spread those lies. Why? Because it is a major advantage for our side if they do so.

As long as Old Media is assigning responsibility to the wrong crowd, the people who really did organize and mobilize these Tea Parties will be free to continue their planning and organizing unhindered and unfettered by distractions. They will be free to plan and organize new Freedom demonstrations for the coming 4th of July. Further, the more that the left attacks Fox, Rush and others, the more that the organizers and planners will know how big of an impact they really made.

So, to all the hate-mongers over on the left, please, continue shouting that Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Neal Boortz put these things together. The more you convince yourselves of that, the more you will leave the real planners and organizers alone to plan and organize more. It is the best thing you can do for our side.

84rules

Tea Party Messages Resonate Loudly Among Average Citizens (Photos Included)

Thomas Jefferson once said, “When people fear the government, that’s tyranny. When government fears the people, that’s liberty.”

The U.S. Government should take the time to understand what Jefferson said and to relate it to yesterday’s Tea Parties.

Those tea parties were not the elite coming together nor was it the rich coming out in an effort to keep their money. It was Joe and Jane Average American sending a message to D.C. That message is: “We’re fed up with your wasteful mismanagement of our money and your selling off of our children’s future.”

Look at the pictures below. They are randomly selected from the 800 or so tea parties that took place yesterday. You will not see fear of the government in these people’s eyes. You will see anger; an anger that can only be placated on the day when politicians in D.C. do the right thing. It does not look like that day will come under Barack Obama or with a Democrat-controlled congress. But that day will come soon.

Contrary to what the libs are saying about these events, they were not organized by Fox News nor were they put together by Rush Limbaugh. These were not Republican operatives. These were common men and women coming together for a higher purpose. They were not called to come, they came of their own volition. This is more than just a grass-roots movement. What we saw yesterday was the beginning of the Second American Revolution.

There were no riots. Police officers who were sent to maintain the peace saw nothing but peace.

The pictures:

s01g2s6948-r5zc9paf

piggybank

img_1552

img_1330

hfd-tea-party-11

090415034600teaparty5

090415034546teaparty7

It won’t stop here. People are angry at what the socialists in Congress and the White House are trying to do. The people will win in the end.

A Few “What Have I Done?” Moments

Have you ever seen the movie Bridge On The River Kwai? There is a scene where Alec Guiness (Colonel Nicholson) comes to his senses about having helped the Japanese build a railroad bridge and then asks, “What have I done?”

Such is happening today with people who supported Barack Obama during the campaign. They are now looking at the actions of the man they helped to put in office and are asking, “What have I done?”

In a column for the American Thinker, Cliff Thier looks at a few of these people.

Christopher Buckley wrote this on October 10, 2008:

I’ve read Obama’s books, and they are first-rate. He is that rara avis, the politician who writes his own books. Imagine. He is also a lefty. I am not. I am a small-government conservative who clings tenaciously and old-fashionedly to the idea that one ought to have balanced budgets. On abortion, gay marriage, et al, I’m libertarian. I believe with my sage and epigrammatic friend P.J. O’Rourke that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take it all away.

But having a first-class temperament and a first-class intellect, President Obama will (I pray, secularly) surely understand that traditional left-politics aren’t going to get us out of this pit we’ve dug for ourselves. If he raises taxes and throws up tariff walls and opens the coffers of the DNC to bribe-money from the special interest groups against whom he has (somewhat disingenuously) railed during the campaign trail, then he will almost certainly reap a whirlwind that will make Katrina look like a balmy summer zephyr.

Obama has in him-I think, despite his sometimes airy-fairy “We are the people we have been waiting for” silly rhetoric-the potential to be a good, perhaps even great leader. He is, it seems clear enough, what the historical moment seems to be calling for.

But, on March 1, 2009, here was his “What have I done?” moment:

Hold on-there’s a typo in that paragraph. “$3.6 trillion budget” can’t be right. The entire national debt is-what-about $11 trillion? He can’t actually be proposing to spend nearly one-third of that in one year, surely. Let me check. Hmm. He did. The Wall Street Journal notes that federal outlays in fiscal 2009 will rise to almost 30 percent of the gross national product. In language that even an innumerate English major such as myself can understand: The US government is now spending annually about one-third of what the entire US economy produces. As George Will would say, “Well.”…

If this is what the American people want, so be it, but they ought to have no illusions about the perils of this approach. Mr. Obama is proposing among everything else $1 trillion in new entitlements, and entitlement programs never go away, or in the oddly poetical bureaucratic jargon, “sunset.” He is proposing $1.4 trillion in new taxes, an appetite for which was largely was whetted by the shameful excesses of American CEO corporate culture. And finally, he has proposed $5 trillion in new debt, one-half the total accumulated national debt in all US history. All in one fell swoop.

Clearly, not the same Barack Obama he wrote about last year.

And how about David Brooks? Here is what he wrote on October 16, 2008:

And it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather – already has gathered – some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem.

And his “What have I done?” moment from March 2, 2009:

Those of us who consider ourselves moderates – moderate-conservative, in my case – are forced to confront the reality that Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.

And how about Matin Peretz, the Publisher of The New Republic? Here is what he wrote on January 31, 2008:

Obama’s points, which he has made many times, should reassure anyone who is concerned about what his presidency would mean for the security of Israel. And yet many are not reassured. They are alarmed by e-mails, saying that Obama’s middle name is Hussein (true, and so what?), that he is a Muslim and not a Christian (untrue, and so what if it was?), that he took the oath of office as a Senator on the Koran rather than the Bible (utterly untrue and, once again, so what?). All these charges have been aired and negated often enough that anyone interested in hearing the truth about them has heard it. But another charge, circulating on the Internet, has not yet been sufficiently refuted. This is that he has advisers on the Middle East who despise Israel.

Let’s take one example. There are all kinds of spooky rumors that a man named Robert Malley is one of Obama’s advisers, specifically his Middle East adviser. His name comes up mysteriously and intrusively on the web, like the ads for Viagra. Malley, who has written several deceitful articles in The New York Review of Books, is a rabid hater of Israel. No question about it. But Malley is not and has never been a Middle East adviser to Barack Obama. Obama’s Middle East adviser is Dan Shapiro. Malley did, though, work for Bill Clinton. He was deeply involved in the disastrous diplomacy of 2000. Obama at the time was in the Illinois State Senate. So, yes, this is a piece of experience that Obama lacks.

And his “What have I done?” moment from February 25, 2009, writing about the appointment of Chas Freeman:

Chas Freeman is actually a new psychological type for a Democratic administration. He has never displayed a liberal instinct and wants the United States to kow-tow to authoritarians and tyrants, in some measure just because they may seem able to keep the streets quiet. And frankly, Chas brings a bitter rancor to how he looks at Israel. No Arab country and no Arab movement–basically including Hezbollah and Hamas–poses a challenge to the kind of world order we Americans want to see. He is now very big on Hamas as the key to bringing peace to Gaza, when in fact it is the key to uproar and bloodletting, not just against Israel but against the Palestinian Authority that is the only group of Palestinians that has even given lip-service (and, to be fair, a bit more) to a settlement with Israel.

That Freeman would be chosen as the president’s gatekeeper to national intelligence is an absurdity. It would be as if I were appointed the gatekeeper to that intelligence.

But Freeman’s real offense (and the president’s if he were to appoint him) is that he has questioned the loyalty and patriotism of not only Zionists and other friends of Israel, the great swath of American Jews and their Christian countrymen, who believed that the protection of Zion is at the core of our religious and secular history, from the Pilgrim fathers through Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy. And how has he offended this tradition? By publishing and peddling the unabridged John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, with panegyric and hysteria. If Freeman believes that this book is the truth he can’t be trusted by anyone, least of all Barack Obama. I can’t believe that Obama wants to appoint someone who is quintessentially an insult to the patriotism of some many of his supporters, me included.

If only the mass media had done its job of fully vetting Barack Obama instead of being his cheerleader, these formerly “useful idiots” would not have so thoroughly humiliated themselves.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Formerly Useful Idiots
Cliff Thier
American Thinker
March 16, 2009

Are The Democrats The Teapot Or The Kettle? Dems Wanted Bush To Fail For 8 Years

payn090310_08_cmyk20090310024935

This is yet another example how the Dems and their media surrogates seem to think that we Americans don’t have very good memories or that we are not smart enough to see the contradictions in their words and actions.

The recent flap over Rush Limbaugh’s comments that he wanted to see Obama’s policies fail are more than enough proof of that. When Rush made his comments, the Obama White House panicked and tried to turn it into a national scandal. Unfortunately, like everything else Obama is trying to do, things worked out in the exact opposite manner. Ever since the Dems initiated their smear campaign, Limbaugh’s ratings have skyrocketed.

Now, contrast this with how the media reacted when the Dems publically stated that they wanted President Bush to fail. Bill Sammon at Fox News has a very interesting piece about that. From his column:

On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

“We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him,” Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: “They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails.”

Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: “Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!”

Well, the Dems certainly didn’t disregard it. For the next seven years, the Dems were publically stating that they wanted President Bush to fail. Even Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, went so far as to give moral support to the terrorists by proclaiming that in Iraq, “The war is lost!”

It even showed up in a Fox News poll taken in 2006. 51% of Democrats said they wanted President Bush to fail. From that poll:

poll-should-bush-succeed

It gets even worse when former Clinton pollster Craig Charney wrote the following:

A recent Fox News poll gets at the disturbing truth: A majority of Democrats say they want to see the president fail. […]

In other words, the rage extends way beyond the lip-pierced Deaniacs, aging hippies and other fringes of the Democratic Party. Lots of otherwise sensible people—suburban moms, hospital orderlies, schoolteachers, big-hatted church ladies—detest George W. Bush.

When these Democrats say they want Bush to fail, might this mean that they simply reject what they see as his far-right religious and corporate agenda? If so, it’s hard to see why independents—hardly right-wing zealots—hope he succeeds by 63 percent to 34 percent. Sadly, much of the Democratic Party wants to see this president crash and burn.

So, why do the Dems think it is okay for them to say that they want a Republican President to fail, but then cry foul when someone else publically says that they want a Demecrat President to fail?

We want to know: Are the Democrats teapot or kettle?

You can access the original articles on-line here:

Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush To Fail
Bill Sammon
Fox News
March 11, 2009

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll
Fox News
August 10, 2006

NY Post Hate Trap
Craig Charney
Charney Research
September 24, 2006

The Stem Cell Debacle: Ideology Over Science

If there was any doubt that Doug Kmiec is now officially a useful idiot, Obama erased them when he signed an order allowing taxpayer money to be used for research on embryonic stem cells.

Never mind the fact that embryonic stem cells have never successfully been used in any kind of therapy whereas adult stem cells have been successfully used in hundreds of different treatment for hundreds of thousands of patients. In fact, most physicians agree that embryonic stem cells are so unstable that the outcomes of treatments using them cannot be accurately predicted.

Such was the story of a nine-year-old Israeli boy who was treated for ataxia-telangiectasia, a disease that causes degeneration of parts of the brain, with fetal stem cells. those fetal (i.e. embryonic) stem cells developed into a brain tumor. Doctors removed the tumor, but it has been gradually growing back since the surgery.

From Scientific American:

The theory is that because these stem cells are fetal cells, they are designed to proliferate and give rise to new tissue, which means they have the potential to produce tumors. The case, write the authors of this week’s case study, should serve as a warning that more research is needed to gauge the safety of these novel therapies.

Other stem cell experts echo their concerns and worry that scientists don’t yet understand exactly how stem cells used in such treatments behave once inside the body. Treating neurological disorders with stem cells from fetal brains is a “great scientific goal to pursue,” but there is simply not enough evidence from animal studies, let alone human studies, to prove it is safe or effective for treating these diseases in children, says Sean Savitz, a neurologist at the University of Texas Medical School at Houston.

Scientific American predicted this is June of 2006:

Stem Cells: The Real Culprits In Cancer?
Michael F. Clarke and Wichael W. Becker
Scientific American
June 2006

But, is there any hope from any kind of stem cells?

The answer is: Yes. Adult stem cells offer a better hope than embryonic stem cells.

Savitz has just begun enrolling patients in a study on treating adult stroke victims with their own—adult—stem cells. The intent of the boy’s treatment must have been to use these fetal stem cells to regenerate tissue lost in certain areas of the brain, Savitz speculates, but he adds, “we don’t have a full understanding of how [brainlike] stem cells can generate different cells in the brain.”

Savitz says that the stem cells used in his trial are not likely to cause cancer because they are adult cells taken from bone marrow that die once they have accomplished their mission of repairing brain tissue. In their study, Savitz and his colleagues will remove cells from the bone marrow of patients 24 to 72 hours after they suffer a stroke, isolate hundreds of millions of stem cells from that marrow and then re-inject the stem cells into the bloodstream.

Once inside the body, the stem cells will migrate to the brain and promote new blood vessel growth, reduce inflammation, and rescue neurons at risk of dying, Savitz hopes. And once they have done their job, they will basically commit suicide—unlike fetal neural cells, which tend to set up camp and proliferate, setting the stage for possible tumor formation, he explains.

And Dr. Savitz is not the only physician that feels this way.

Dr. Bernadine Healy recently wrote a blog piece about why embryonic stem cells are obsolete. In her essay, she notes the example of the nine-year-old Israeli boy:

His experience is neither an anomaly nor a surprise, but one feared by many scientists. These still-mysterious cell creations have been removed from the highly ordered environment of a fast-growing embryo, after all. Though they are tamed in a petri dish to be disciplined, mature cells, research in animals has shown repeatedly that sometimes the injected cells run wildly out of control—dashing hopes of tiny, human embryos benignly spinning off stem cells to save grown-ups, without risk or concern.

That dream was still alive only a few weeks before this report. Within days of Obama’s inauguration, the Food and Drug Administration approved its first-ever embryonic stem cell study in humans: the biotech company Geron’s plan to inject highly purified human embryonic cells into eight to 10 patients with acute spinal cord injuries. (The cells are from a stem cell line approved by Bush because it predated his ban.) The FDA should now be compelled to take another look: Are eight to 10 patients enough, or one year of monitoring sufficient, to assess safety? And doctors who participate in the trial will have to ask what every doctor must ask before performing research on a human subject: Were I this patient, would I participate? Would I encourage my loved ones to do so?

I wouldn’t want any of my loved ones participating in something like this. Given the track record of embyonic stem cells, it seems more like a death sentence than any kind of avenue for hope.

Again, is there another ray of hope?

According to Dr. Healy:

To date, most of the stem cell triumphs that the public hears about involve the infusion of adult stem cells. We’ve just recently seen separate research reports of patients with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis benefiting from adult stem cell therapy. These cells have the advantage of being the patient’s natural own, and the worst they seem to do after infusion is die off without bringing the hoped-for benefit. They do not have the awesome but dangerous quality of eternal life characteristic of embryonic stem cells.

A second kind of stem cell that has triumphed is an entirely new creation called iPS (short for induced pluripotent stem cell), a blockbuster discovery made in late 2007. These cells are created by reprogramming DNA from adult skin. The iPS cells are embryonic-like in that they can turn into any cell in the body—and so bypass the need for embryos or eggs. In late February, scientists reported on iPS cells that had been transformed into mature nerve cells. While these cells might become a choice for patient therapy in time, scientists are playing this down for now. Why? These embryonic-like cells also come with the risk of cancer.

James Thomson, the stem cell pioneer from the University of Wisconsin who was the first to grow human embryonic stem cells in 1998, is an independent codiscoverer of iPS cells along with Japanese scientists. Already these reprogrammed cells have eclipsed the value of those harvested from embryos, he has said, because of significantly lower cost, ease of production, and genetic identity with the patient. They also bring unique application to medical and pharmaceutical research, because cells cultivated from patients with certain diseases readily become laboratory models for developing and testing therapy. That iPS cells overcome ethical concerns about creating and sacrificing embryos is an added plus.

So, what we have here is that adult stem cells offer better hope for treating ailments and induced pluripotent stem cells don’t have to overcome any ethical hurdles for use. Also, fetal stem cells have a track record of being unpredicatable and are known to cause cancer.

So, why are the leftists so intent on spending money and resources on embryonic stem cells?

Because its keeps the abortion agenda moving forward. No other reason.

If this were about medicine and science, the major push would be to fund adult stem cell research and iPS research.

You can access the two articles on-line here:

Fetal Stem Cells Cause Tumor In A Teenage Boy
Coco Ballantyne
Scientific American
February 19, 2009

Why Embryonic Stem Cells Are Obsolete
Dr. Bernadine Healy
U.S. News
March 4, 2009

Vice-President Joe Biden’s Attempted Hit Piece On Bobby Jindal Backfires; VP Tells Big Lie

One thing you can always count on the Democrats for is that whenever someone speaks out against them, the Dems will orchestrate a campaign against that person, usually with the help of the media, in order to somehow discredit that person and the Dems will use half-truths and outright lies when they can.

The list of people that the Dems have done this to is too long to recount here. But, the latest victim is Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Here is what Vice President Joe Biden had to say after Governor Jindal gave the response to Obama’s State of the Union address.

According to KSLA News:

Wednesday morning on the CBS Early Show, Vice President Joe Biden asked, “But what I don’t understand from Governor Jindal is what would he do? In Louisiana, there’s 400 people a day losing their jobs.”

But Biden’s claim is a lie.

More:

“In December, Louisiana was the only state in the nation besides the District of Columbia, according to the national press release, that added employment over the month,” said Patty Granier with the Louisiana Workforce Commission.

“The state gained 3,700 jobs for the seasonally adjusted employment,” Granier said of the most recent figures.

Those numbers are available on Louisiana’s employment website, laworks.net.

I can think of only one reason why Joe Biden would tell such a blatent lie. It is the beginning of yet another campaign to discredit a public figure who opoosed the Democrats. I think Joe Biden knew it was a lie but told it anyway knowing that CBS would do nothing to correct him.

If anyone from CBS wishes to defend the actions of the Early Show, please feel free to respond to this post. In a similar manner, if anyone at CBS was able to confirm where Joe Biden got his information from, again, please respond.

You can access the original article on-line here:

Reality Check For Vice President Joe Biden
Fred Childers
KSLA Channel 12
February 25, 2009

Fact-Checking Obama’s Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama’s statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else’s feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: “We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It’s a plan that won’t help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values.”

THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn’t said so.

Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it’s important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed.

“I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed.”

Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it’s not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn’t afford.

“I think it’s just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans,” Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: “And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it.”

THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany’s Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It’s hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can’t get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: “We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before.”

THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us “hope and change.” What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: “We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade.”

THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don’t mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House.

Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won’t be 10 years from now.

And don’t forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama’s above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won’t have to work to pay off our debt. I don’t know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: “Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn’t afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day.”

THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn’t only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn’t gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: “In this budget, we will end education programs that don’t work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don’t need them. We’ll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we’re not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don’t use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn’t make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas.”

THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That’s all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama’s proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress.

Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama’s ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama’s plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: “Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation’s supply of renewable energy in the next three years.”

THE FACTS: While the president’s stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone.

In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: “Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, “It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error.”

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama’s entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama’s Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Hassan Chop: The Faces Of Those Who Were Killed For ‘Honor’

Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs has a blog entry entitled Losing Our Heads ……

Within this blog entry you will find pictures. Pictures of girls and young women who were full of beauty, life, potential and free spirit. These same girls were killed by members of their own families simply because the girls did not want to submit to the sexist, male-dominated restrictions that Islam places on women.

And our so-called mainstream media has not any courage whatsoever to report these killings. They will report so-called hate-crimes, but never would anyone at the likes of NBC, ABC, CBS or CNN nor at the Washington Post or New York Times ever want to “offend” the Muslims.

Look upon their faces here:

Losing Our Heads …………….
Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs
February 15, 2009

Take for instance, the case of Aasiya Z. Hassan, wife of Muzzammil Hassan who launched the pro-Muslim Brdiges TV network in an effort to promote a positive image of Islam. He beheaded his wife because she “disobeyed him.”

I’m sure Islam looks really appetizing to women right now.

From the Buffalo News:

Aasiya Hassan had filed for divorce and obtained an order of protection on Feb. 6, barring her husband from their home in Orchard Park, police said.

“There had been problems before — there had been prior incidents of physical abuse,” said Corey Hogan, whose law firm, Hogan Willig, represented Aasiya Hassan in the divorce proceeding.

Hogan said discussions were being held about continuing arrangements for the couple’s two children, ages 4 and 6, and two older children, ages 17 and 18, from Muzzammil Hassan’s previous marriage.

The family lived on Big Tree Road in Orchard Park.

“Obviously, this is the worst form of domestic violence possible,” Erie County District Attorney Frank A. Sedita III said Friday.

But you will never hear about this on any of the major networks.

You can access the complete story on-line here:

Orchard Park Businessman Charged In Beheading Of Wife
Fred O. Williams and Gene Warner
Buffalo News
February 14, 2009

Debbie Stabenow Wants ‘Hearings’ For Fairness Doctrine Censorship

Check out this exchange between Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and radio host Bill Press:

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

First, it is a well-known fact that attempts to bring back censorship under the guise of a “Fairness Doctrine” are nothing more than attempts to squelch the opposition’s point of view.

But even more interesting is that Stabenow want hearings on the issue.

I say: “Bring it on!”

I’ll bet that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Monica Crowley and Mark Levin will have a five-way fist fight to see who will be the first to march into those hearings and rake those Senators over the coals.

The conservative talk radio hosts who do show up and testify will expose every hypocrisy and every double-standard people like Stabenow hold. For example, why does Stabenow want “fairness” brought to talk radio but is perfectly willing to allow programs like Today Show, Good Morning America, Larry King and newspapers like The Washington Post and New York Times, to continue to be biased towards the leftist-liberals?

That is exactly the type of hypocrisy that would be highlighted during these hearings.

Further, talk radio hosts will bring to the fore-front many stories that television and print media largely ignored. For example, why did the media give Obama a pass for his relationship with the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright but came down so hard on Sarah Palin for her main-stream religious views? Why was Obama not fully vetted by the media while an Army of reporters stormed Alaska looking for any dirt they could find?

These and other issues will come to light if Stabenow really does hold these hearings.

I say: “Let’s do it! Let’s start peeling back the onion!”

It would be one of the best things to happen in America in a long time.

You can access the transcripts and a video on-line here:

Sen. Stabenow Wants Hearings On Radio ‘Accountability’; Talks Fairness Doctrine
Michael Calderone
The Politico
February 5, 2009