Sunday, February 28, 2010


Tea party movement inspires similar group in Great Britain

America has always been a beacon of hope and freedom throughout the world. As Lady Liberty raises her torch on the horizon, the American Tea Party movement has inspired the citizens of Great Britain to join the cause of less taxation and less government intrusion in our lives.

Daniel Hannan, a British politician and member of the European Parliament, has taken the reigns to begin the British Tea Party. He has been an outspoken voice of less taxes and responsible government in Great Britain this past year. I applaud Mr. Hannan for having the bravery to speak out against a government that is sinking into the abyss of financial ruin as it drags it citizens along with it.

Could this be a trend that sweeps throughout the globe? This may just be the beginning of a snowball effect that resonates around the world. We have corrupt governments everywhere that have taxed their citizens to their knees. Can you imagine a global movement where the principles of America's Founding Fathers insight a tsunami of freedom and liberty?

Perhaps the sleeping giant does not only reside in America...

Katy Abram is the Arlen Specter town hall attendee who told him he has "awakened a sleeping giant." She can be followed at twitter/ and


President Obama Doesn't Understand Why His Policies Are Considered "Socialism"

President Obama says his policies are not 'socialist' or a government takeover. Apparently, taking over the largest American automaker, taking over the largest US bank, attempting a health care takeover of one sixth of the US economy and attempting to impose a trillion dollar Cap and Tax takeover of the US energy supply make him an "ardent believer in the free market."

Reuter reported:

President Barack Obama launched a vigorous defense of his economic agenda on Wednesday, rejecting critics who say it amounts to "socialism" and insisting his policies would boost U.S. competitiveness.

"Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, I am an ardent believer in the free market,"Obama said in prepared remarks to the Business Roundtable, a group of top corporate executives.

Struggling to reverse a drop in his popularity among political independents, he said his efforts to enact sweeping legislation to overhaul financial regulations and set caps on carbon emissions to fight climate change were not aimed at thwarting businesses. Obama pledged to work with the private sector to reinvigorate growth.

But he added, "We have arrived at a juncture in our politics where reasonable efforts to update our regulations, or make basic investments in our future, are too often greeted with cries of 'government takeover' or even 'socialism.'"


Ask Not For Whom the Bell Tolls, MSM: It Tolls for Thee

"Alinsky’s tactics were successfully employed for decades by unions, reporters, and liberals. With the birth of the Tea Party, Alinsky’s tactics were turned upon the secular progressives with a Ninja move by the right. Now boycotts turn to BUYcotts, bitchers turn to bloggers, and conservatives are behind the camera lenses. "

With a whiff of nostalgia, I can imagine the old time journalist with the smell of coffee and cigarettes wafting through the click and clang of the typewriter. Fifty years ago, a “journalist” had the ring of a dispassionate, creative, honest, fair, and trusted detective/storyteller. Fifty years ago, if you graduated from an accredited journalism school, you were presumed “unbiased.” Much as the physician takes an oath that she will “first, do no harm,” the “journalist” title meant that you were first, unbiased and balanced. Neutrality in the story was as necessary as it was assumed.

Sometime between half a century ago and today, something went very, very wrong.

We can speculate on what the “something” was, but we may never know for sure. Much like the wind blows, there is no discernible source, but still we know it blows. Journalism became slanted to the left to the degree that the right had almost no voice by the mid-1980s. Almost no voice, until Rush Limbaugh came on the scene. Almost 30 years later, the tables have turned. The problem for these journalists is that they have functioned robotically and cavalierly for so long, that they are not aware of the reality around them. Things have changed. Drastically.

At CPAC 2010, I watched as the Mainstream Media (MSM) lashed out at Andrew Breitbart again and again. He could hardly walk through the hall of the hotel without being accosted by trolling media elites who were anxious to bully him. I watched as they tried all the old Alinsky tactics over and over, but Breitbart beat them at their own game. When they got in his face, he smacked them down hard and fast. It occurred to me; they weren’t aware that everything has changed.

I am the conservative political analyst for a local radio station that has been around forever. I love media, and I love my job there. I work for a true legend in St. Louis media, who has managed to be very balanced in his approach to his craft. There is one older, very liberal MSM journalist who’s show is just after mine. My show is only a 15-minute spot, his is hours long. Since he is on after me, he has taken to using clips (some in context, some out) of my show and lashing out with pejoratives against me and other conservatives. Evidently, he had no idea that everything has changed.

These four points form the “Perfect Storm” that (I will argue) have forever changed journalism:

1) Andrew Breitbart, established Big Government, Big Hollywood, Big Journalism, and Breitbart TV, and conservative journalists and media personalities are crawling out of the woodwork! They report and they gain supporters in droves, and are growing.

2) The Tea Party has arrived. The Tea Party is cellular and organic, and yet the individual members are remarkably cohesive. The Tea Party is all about action, and members stand ready and willing to come up against anyone they perceive to be dishonestly reporting the news.

3) There is such a huge rise in the number of citizen journalists that I can’t even count the CJ’s that are in my local Tea Party. They are becoming more and more tech-savvy and emboldened. The new media is armed and ready with cameras, mics, pen and paper, and beautiful “bloghood.”

4) Alinsky’s tactics were successfully employed for decades by unions, reporters, and liberals. With the birth of the Tea Party, Alinsky’s tactics were turned upon the secular progressives with a Ninja move by the right. Now boycotts turn to BUYcotts, bitchers turn to bloggers, and conservatives are behind the camera lenses.

So, listen up, MSM! The old, liberal reporter at my station found out the hard way. Friends of mine who thrive on this stuff confronted him at a recent socialized health care rally. He became red faced and angry, and pushed the cameraman with a black gloved hand. All of it, of course, was caught on tape, because that’s what we do.


Prosecuted for Saving A Little Girl's Life

A girl flees from her home in fear for her life -- and law enforcement goes after the people who helped her. That's the situation in the Rifqa Bary case. The Columbus Dispatch reported this about Rifqa's friend Brian Williams: "An Ohio minister accused of driving a teenage runaway to a bus station last year has retained a lawyer as police say they're investigating whether anyone broke the law in helping the Christian convert leave home for Florida." And why did she flee to Florida? Because, she says, when her devout Muslim father found out she had become a Christian, he said to her, "I will kill you." And with Islam's death penalty for apostates, she had to take that seriously. But her father is not in danger of being prosecuted. Brian Williams is.

Law enforcement, in a perverse twist of reality, continues persecuting the Christians in Ohio who helped a teenage apostate escape the death threat (in line with sharia law) made by her family. They are investigating any "criminal wrongdoing with anyone involved in getting her from one location to another." How many other runaway cases are pursued in the way? How many other teenage girls in America have this attention paid to them by law enforcement? How many teenage girls who sell their bodies for sex and drugs for an adult pimp are pursued this way? And their pimps?

Back on January 19, Rifqa Bary was tricked into pleading guilty to the charge of being "unruly" in exchange for a dependency deal that the Bary parents and Omar Tarazi, their attorney chosen by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), later reneged on. And now we understand why Tarazi demanded a guilty plea from Rifqa in exchange for this meaningless deal: the Franklin County, Ohio, prosecutor, under pressure from Tarazi, is seeking to indict Brian Williams on two charges: contributing to the "unruliness" of a minor and "interference with custody," which carries a sentence of six months to a year.

Brian Williams was helping a girl who was afraid she would be murdered. Yet Rifqa's legal team seems unable to do anything to head off his, or to compel the court to punish Tarazi's duplicity in reneging on the deal. If the Islamic death penalty for apostasy were explained in court in light of Rifqa's situation, the Franklin County prosecutor would not pursue Brian Williams. Instead, Rifqa's legal team urged him to plead guilty to these outrageous charges at enormous personal expense. Who are they working for? CAIR?

They are wrong. Williams should not plea it down. Why should Brian Williams have a record for helping Rifqa? Yet the dhimmi media is right there reinforcing this outrage, like the cheering crowds at the gallows. The sharia-compliant Columbus Dispatch ran an AP story about Williams retaining counsel. The incompetent AP reporter, Andrew Welsh-Huggins, wrote: "The girl claimed she could be harmed or killed for converting to Christianity, a charge her parents, immigrants from Sri Lanka, have denied." The girl "claimed" -- got that? Everything that the unindicted co-conspirators at CAIR and the lawyer they chose for Rifqa's parents is reported as gospel. But a young girl terrified for her life whose words are supported by the sharia mandate of death for apostasy only makes "claims."

What kind of nation, what kind of society are we living in, when someone who helps a girl whose life is in danger is prosecuted for it? An Islamic one. Not so fast, buster.

I am proud to say that Robert Spencer and I were able to connect Brian Williams with the Thomas More Law Center. The Thomas More Law Center will be representing Brian Williams pro bono. The Islamic supremacists pursuing Rifqa Bary and the Christians who helped her will be met with a vigorous freedom of religion defense.

What wonderful news, that as he is prosecuted Brian Williams will be defended by legal counsel who understand that this is enforcement of sharia and are unafraid to fight the oppression and intimidation of the Islamic machine. This is in contrast to Rifqa's lawyers, who naively made numerous back door deals with her parents' CAIR-appointed attorney. Every underhanded dirty deal that Rifqa's lawyers made with the attorney for her parents was broken.

Why should CAIR be able to use our judicial system to send a message to non-Muslims that they will be punished for helping a Christian? Brian Williams, and Rifqa Bary, must prevail. If the Islamic machine succeeds in making an example of them, we are all in trouble. --PAMELA GELLER

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site and is former associate publisher of the New York Observer. She is the author (with Robert Spencer) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America (Threshold Editions/Simon & Schuster).


The Revolutionary Debt Bomb - And How the Founders Fixed It!

Is there anyone out there who doesn’t think our fiscal house is about to slide into the ocean?

Whether one accepts the government’s estimates of a national debt that nears $10 trillion, or whether one thinks the numbers provided by Richard Fisher of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which includes all the “unfunded” parts of Medicare (A, B, and D) at another $85.6 trillion, for a total of $95.6 trillion, the United States faces a staggering level of debt.[i] And Fisher’s numbers do not include Social Security, which now, for the first time, has seen its out-flows exceed its income, and which adds another $10 trillion (at least) to the totals. The Medicare debt alone would stick each American family of four with a bill of $1.3 million, or about 25 times the average household’s income. Taken together, these levels of debt exceed the Gross National Product of probably half the nations in the world put together.

But history offers some hope. The young republic of the United States of America faced an equally daunting debt bomb in 1788, and, perhaps given the new nation’s utter lack of credit history, an even greater challenge than we face today. But the Founders dug their way out to the point of fiscal solvency fairly quickly, and within a decade the nation was viewed as a sterling credit risk. How was this possible?

It began with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton—often a punching bag for some conservatives because of his big-government proclivities. But Hamilton knew that the only way to establish credit was to pay your bills. The situation confronting the United States, coming out of the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation, was this: states had issued their own debt—some more, some less than others—and the United States, through the Continental Congress had also accumulated debts. Hamilton insisted the nation had to pay them all, and that a policy of “assumption” was the only sure way to convince foreign investors that we were an honorable Republic and not a banana republic! Despite fierce battles, he carried the day in Congress: the U.S. would pay all debts accumulated by the national and state governments. But how? Hamilton’s genius showed in his next maneuver, as he knew he needed to attract the “monied men,” as he called them. He structured a “menu” of new bond/debt options, in which longer-term debts received higher returns. Thus, if an investor had little confidence in the United States, he took short-term bonds which paid off less; and if an investor thought the nation would survive and prosper, he bought long-term bonds with their higher payoff. Throughout it all, Hamilton, contrary to popular opinion, did not wish to see the country saddled with debt. He said debt “is perhaps the NATURAL DISEASE of all governments,” and his first actions as Treasury Secretary were designed to reduce the nation’s indebtedness.[ii]

Hamilton’s restructuring of the debt on the surface may have resembled what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of “Koli-for-nya” did in 2004, but only on the surface. Hamilton ensured that payments on the debt went to the oldest debt first, and through a “sinking fund,” no new debt could be contracted until the old debt had been settled—in essence setting the United States up with an “American Express” version of credit instead of a Mastercard/Visa “revolving” credit line. So while the U.S. indebtedness remained at about $83 million when Thomas Jefferson became president, the payments on interest remained at a minimum.

In part, Hamilton also knew that he could count on those whom he knew well—President George Washington, plus John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson (two men quite likely to hold the office in the future)—to limit spending and to practice federal frugality. Indeed they did. They ran the government with a handful of secretaries and a few hundred public officials; they carefully watched expenditures, with the largest being the construction of four large frigates under Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana for $15 million. Yet despite the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson still managed to slice more than one-quarter off the national debt.

All the Founders recognized that for the “monied men” to ally with the new nation, it had to honor its contracts (which it did through assumption); it had to establish a sound currency (which it did by adopting a gold standard and coining money along the Spanish system of tens and fives); and by paying its debts, which it did. By the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the nation had a surplus, but more important, it had a sterling credit record, and investment money flowed into the new nation. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Madison, and Jefferson had all adroitly kept the “Revolutionary Debt Bomb” from exploding, and instead leveraged it for the growth of future generations. The key was confidence—confidence in the fiscal frugality and restraint of the leaders, confidence by the business sector in the government. Do either of those exist today?

While the numbers are staggering, like all numbers they matter little compared to the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurship, investment, and business growth. A sunny Ronald Reagan dug the U.S. out of deep straits just 30 years ago. The Founders, operating with even less, founded a nation on confidence and freedom, and the lessons of history tell us that such turnarounds can occur if the nation is determined to once again defuse its debt bomb.

Larry Schweikart

University of Dayton

co-author, A Patriot’s History of the United States


[i]. Richard W. Fisher, “Storms on the Horizon,” Remarks before the Commonwealth Club of California, May 28, 2008.

[ii]. One of the best analyses of Hamilton’s program is in Charles Calomiris, “Alexander Hamilton,” in Larry Schweikart, ed., The Encyclopedia of American Business History and Biography: Banking and Finance to 1913 (New York: Facts on File, 1990).


Saturday, February 27, 2010

States Amend Constitutions To Ban Government Health Insurance Mandates

J. D. Longstreet—2/25/10

It was bound to happen. We warned about the sovereignty movement, early on in the Obama Regime's reign, that the states were serious about preserving their sovereignty. When over half the fifty states reassert their sovereignty any NORMAL person would say "WHOA! Wait A Minute! What's happening?" Not so, the Obama Regime. They have foraged ahead with their "Czarist", "Imperial" manner of governing and, guess what? The people, through their state governments, are rebelling.

OK, so the pitchforks and torches are not out YET, but, by golly, they are ready and waiting. Reports are becoming more persistent that conservative lawmakers, in about half the states, are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.

Here's the thing. We folks out here in the hinterlands (In my case, the swamp!) are not buying into the current conventional wisdom, which says that ObamaCare is dead. In fact, we are convinced that it is as alive today as it was before Brown won Kennedy's seat in Massachusetts. The Progressives/socialists are going to pass it into law. So, be prepared for it.

Incrementalism is the key. They will pass Obamacare one tiny bit at a time as parts of, or attached to, other bills moving through the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. It may take months, even years, but ObamaCare will become a reality in the United States.

Vigilance is now more important than ever. We must watch the Congress as we would a chicken hawk over the chicken coop! If we turn our backs, even for a moment, they will swoop and we will have ObamaCare. We must keep the pressure on our Congresspersons and on our Senators. In my case I only have one Senator I can, sometimes, count on. One is a progressive Obama acolyte and a supporter of ObamaCare, and the other is a moderate Republican. So, one cancels the other out.

As you can see conservative folks here in North Carolina have to depend upon themselves when in conflict with the Congress. We "boondocks lobbyists" have become fairly accomplished at applying pressure to our Representatives and Senators -- especially those of us with conservative blogs. We take our arguments, not just public; we take them to the world!

I learned as a young broadcast journalist many, many, years ago the best way to bring pressure to bear on a politician was through public ridicule and public embarrassment. It will get to them when nothing else will.

For those of you reading this in countries other than the US, understand this: the states of the United States actually created the Federal Government to act as an agent of the several states. It was supposed to have very limited power over the states. (Check out The Bill of Rights - the first ten amendments to the US Constitution) It was supposed to act on behalf of the people of the states -- never against them -- as it is doing today. THAT is why the sovereignty movement amongst the states literally took off with state after state reasserting its sovereignty from the Federal Government. It is one step short of seceding from the US.

You are not hearing much about this in the mainstream media because they do not want to admit that it is happening, and, even more important, they do not want YOU to know that the people of the United States DO NOT LOVE THE CURRENT PRESIDENT of the United States! Understand this - the Mainstream Media in the United States is deeply in the pocket of the Obama Regime. The people of the several states ARE NOT!

The various state legislatures are taking steps to protect their citizen's from the socialist/Marxist of the Federal Government. That is why many state legislatures are amending the constitutions of those states to ban health insurance mandates on the people of their states.

I remain convinced that the economic situation of America is much worse than Americans are being lead to believe. This is one of those times when I hope I am wrong, but fear I am right.

Recent polls show the 71% of the American people feel their national legislature is doing a poor job of governing. That is an incredible number of Americans to have agreed on ANYTHING! It is an extremely important number.

We must "box-in" the Obama Regime, at least until the Mid-Term Election in November. That will be the most important election in the history of the country. It will decide whether Americans live as a free people or become slaves to a socialist/Marxist government. Believe me: PURGE is NOT too strong a word to use to describe what must be done -- at the ballot box -- on that most critical of days in American history.

J. D. Longstreet is a conservative Southern American (A native sandlapper and an adopted Tar Heel) with a deep passion for the history, heritage, and culture of the southern states of America. At the same time he is a deeply loyal American believing strongly in "America First".

He is a thirty-year veteran of the broadcasting business, as an "in the field" and "on-air" news reporter (contributing to radio, TV, and newspapers) and a conservative broadcast commentator.

Longstreet is a veteran of the US Army and US Army Reserve. He is a member of the American Legion and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A lifelong Christian, Longstreet subscribes to "old Lutheranism" to express and exercise his faith.

Destroying America from Inside the Classroom

Tom DeWeese—2/25/10

I have reported many times in the pages of the DeWeese Report about how public school classrooms are being used, not for the teaching of academic knowledge, but for behavior modification to change the student's attitudes, values and beliefs. Barack Obama is now driving to control classroom curriculum based on United Nation's Globalism. Many parents want to deny this is happening. "Not in my child's school," they tell me. If you still don't believe it's happening in EVERY school that takes public money, then read below, open your eyes, and know the truth about what happens to your child in the schools you send them to every day.

"My 14- year-old Daughter Pearl is a freshman at Ft. Myers High School and my 11-year-old daughter Lily is in 5th grade at Three Oaks Elementary. Here are some of the things they have relayed to me concerning what they have been learning in our public schools:

1.Lily said, "I would rather just shoot myself in the head because it would be a less painful death that to suffer and die from global warming."

2.Pearl has been studying the Watergate scandal for three weeks. She had to memorize the name of everyone involved (people I've never heard of) for a test.

3.Both girls have been taught to fear the extinction of the polar bears.

4.Both girls have had numerous lessons about various aspects of the Native Americans and the brutal treatment thereof.

5.Both girls have studied the Pueblo people and Mexican pottery.

6.Neither girl has spent much time studying our American forefathers.

----- Letter to the Editor from a parent in Fort Myers, Fl.

"This is not a church. It's a school and it's a public school. I have to do things that include every child. So what we do is celebrate winter." --- Principal Erik Brown, Walsh Elementary in Waterbury, Connecticut discussing the schools "Winter celebration" where even Santa Clause and Christmas trees are banned.

"By first grade I was sexually active with many friends. In fact, a small group of us regularly met in the grammar school lavatory to perform fellatio on one another." --- From a book entitled "Reflections of a Rock Lobster: A story about growing up Gay," by Aaron Fricke. Just one of the books included on a list issued for school use to promote homosexuality. The organization behind the list is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) founded by Kevin Jennings - now Obama's Czar for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

"How may citizenship change in the Nation's Third Century?" --- Question in the New Civics textbook entitled "We the People." The book is published by the Center for Civics Education (CCE) and was funded by the federal government. CCE received over $110 million in federal grants to produce the textbook which is now widely used in classrooms across the nation.

The answer to the above question on citizenship, according to "We the People" appears on page 202:

•"The achievements of modern technology are turning the world into a global village."

•"National corporations are becoming international."

•"The culture we live in is becoming cosmopolitan, that is, belonging to the whole world."

•"The issues confronting American citizens are increasingly international."

•"Issue of economic competition, the environment, and the movement of peoples around the world require an awareness of political associations that are larger in scope than the nation-state."

Do you see any room in that answer for learning about the strengths and virtues of national sovereignty? What conclusions will a child take from such indoctrination? As I said, the curriculum is about behavior modification to prepare the children to be global citizens - the Republic and all of its marvels - be hanged.

Tom DeWeese is one of the nation's leading advocates of individual liberty, free enterprise, property rights and back-to-basics education. For over thirty years he has fought against government oppression.

In 1988 Tom established the American Policy Center (APC), an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, VA. In 1992 Tom DeWeese became passionately involved in the fight for the preservation of American private property rights and against intrusive environmental regulations. He is also a recognized leader in the fight to preserve American national sovereignty from intrusive United Nations' policies on global governance. APC has also joined the fight to rescue American education from federal intrusion and the fight for American privacy rights against intrusive government data banks, and a national identification card.

He makes regular appearances on radio and television talk shows and has articles published in several national publications.

Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report

Free Kareem rally in Washington, DC

Free Kareem rally in Washington, DC February 23rd, 2010 Yesterday, the 22nd of February, it has been exactly three years since Kareem Amer was sentenced to 4 years in prison. On this occasion, a Free Kareem rally took place in Washington, DC to condemn for the 8th time (via a rally) our disapproval and disappointment with Egypt’s decision to keep Kareem imprisoned despite the bogus charges against him.

Below is a video of the event:


"Thanks America," Says Canada

Dear Michael Yon,

Today we were sent your story of February 14, 2010. The “unknown” Canadian is our son Danny. He is a 23-year-old soldier from Vancouver, Canada.

Your photographs were extraordinary and have impacted so many people here in Canada. There has been an outpouring of affection for the Americans who helped Danny in his moment of need. For that, we thank you for recording these acts of kindness into history.

Danny’s injuries were the result of an explosion on February 12, 2010. Four Canadian soldiers were injured and tragically one Canadian soldier was killed. Within 20 minutes of the explosion, Danny was airlifted by helicopter to Kandahar. Upon arrival he received emergency surgery that saved his life and prepared him for the flight to Bagram that you were on. After landing in Bagram, Danny was again airlifted by a US transport aircraft to the US Army run Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany. There he underwent additional surgery that closed up his wounds. Once stabilized, the Canadian government dispatched a Challenger jet to bring him home. This afternoon in Vancouver, the shrapnel that did all the damage to him was finally removed. Danny is now recovering in hospital.

This was Danny’s second tour of duty in Afghanistan and his platoon on this tour has had heavy causalities and injuries. Physically, Danny will overcome his injuries. He also has the support of his family, his friends and his community to deal with the emotional side of this war. Our hearts go out to those families who have had the loss of a soldier or who have had to deal with greater injuries.

Danny and his whole family are very grateful, and are actually overwhelmed, by the support he received while in US care. The Canadian military have also been wonderful. It is our intention to personally thank everyone who worked so hard to save Danny’s life. We have already made contact with Major Deborah “Lucy” Lehker to thank her.


Jim and Holly

The Complete Article

The Global Warming Establishment In Full Rout

I. Intellectual Climate Change

Just three months after Climategate broke, the global warming establishment is in full rout.

In the main link below, the folks at—the Climategate conspirators' mouthpiece on the Internet—find themselves under siege by a suddenly hostile British press. It's gotten so bad that they are now expressing "disappointment" as The Guardian begins to defect to the skeptic camp. And they are even complaining that the New York Times, of all places, is "an echo chamber for the climate disinformation movement."

Meanwhile, a very respected source, the Columbia Journalism Review has been egging on the American press to join in the frenzy, arguing that "outlets in the UK, India, and Australia have been eating the American media's lunch, churning out reams of commentary and analysis. Journalists in the US should take immediate steps to redress that oversight." Another journalism watchdog urges reporters to "follow the story wherever it leads" and not be held back by "fear of undermining policy action on global warming."

Back at RealClimate, all of the second-handed, consensus-worshipping groupthink of the global warming establishment is summed up in one sentence: "In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between." Remember that phrase: "people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas." Peter Keating couldn't have put it better. The rest of the article below is devoted to complaining that the global warming establishment can no longer dictate what "respectable people" are allowed to say.

What is also amusing about the webpage linked to below is that off to the right of the main text is a blurb for a climate alarmist's book, Global Warming:

Understanding the Forecast. The book's cover illustration features a giant chunk of ice. So let me see if I get the message: the forecast is that global warming will lead to giant blocks of ice?

"Whatevergate," Gavin Schmidt,, February 16

It won't have escaped many of our readers' notice that there has been what can only be described as a media frenzy (mostly in the UK) with regards to climate change in recent weeks. The coverage has contained more bad reporting, misrepresentation, and confusion on the subject than we have seen in such a short time anywhere….

In any public discussion there are bounds which people who want to be thought of as having respectable ideas tend to stay between….

Prior to the email hack at CRU there had long been a pretty widespread avoidance of "global warming is a hoax" proponents in serious discussions on the subject. The skeptics that were interviewed tended to be the slightly more sensible kind—people who did actually realize that CO2 was a greenhouse gas for instance. But the GW hoaxers were generally derided, or used as punchlines for jokes. This is not because they didn't exist and weren't continually making baseless accusations against scientists (they did and they were), but rather that their claims were self-evidently ridiculous and therefore not worth airing.

However, since the emails were released, and despite the fact that there is no evidence within them to support any of these claims of fraud and fabrication, the UK media has opened itself so wide to the spectrum of thought on climate that the GW hoaxers have now suddenly find themselves well within the mainstream. Nothing has changed the self-evidently ridiculousness of their arguments, but their presence at the media table has meant that the more reasonable critics seem far more centrist than they did a few months ago.

A few examples: Monckton being quoted as a 'prominent climate sceptic' on the front page of the New York Times this week (Wow!); The Guardian digging up baseless fraud accusations against a scientist at SUNY that had already been investigated and dismissed; Sunday Times ignoring experts telling them the IPCC was right in favor of the anti-IPCC meme of the day; The Daily Mail making up quotes that fit their GW hoaxer narrative; The Daily Express breathlessly proclaiming the whole thing a 'climate con'; The Sunday Times (again) dredging up unfounded accusations of corruption in the surface temperature data sets….

[E]ven more concerning is the reaction from outside the UK media bubble. Two relatively prominent and respected US commentators—Curtis Brainard at CJR [Columbia Journalism Review] and Tom Yulsman in Colorado – have both bemoaned the fact that the US media (unusually perhaps) has not followed pell-mell into the fact-free abyss of their UK counterparts. Their point apparently seems to be that since much news print is being devoted to a story somewhere, then that story must be worth following.

II. Intellectual Climate Change

The global warming hysteria is also collapsing in politics.

As I noted recently, advocates of cap-and-trade controls on carbon dioxide emissions have begun to drop the scientific rationale—because they know it won't fly any more—and they are now trying to sell energy rationing as if it's good for the economy because it would be a source of government-subsidized "green jobs."

Meanwhile, a major British power generator has decided not to shut down a giant coal-fired power plant because the British government can't afford enough subsidies to make "alternative energy" remotely feasible. So much for all of those "green jobs."

In America, the rebellion against global warming dogma is taking hold most firmly on the state level. The article below—in Britain's Daily Telegraph, of course—describes a series of lawsuits and state-level legislation meant to block the EPA from regulation carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, Arizona and Utah are dropping out of the Western Climate Initiative, an unconstitutional attempt by the states to negotiate their own international climate treaty and create a regional cap-and-trade scheme.

"Barack Obama's Climate Change Policy in Crisis," Philip Sherwell, Daily Telegraph, February 20

President Barack Obama's climate change policy is in crisis amid a barrage of US lawsuits challenging government directives and the defection of major corporate backers for his ambitious green programs.

The legal challenges and splits in the US climate consensus follow revelations of major flaws in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which declared that global warming was no longer scientifically contestable….

Oil-rich Texas, the Lone Star home state of Mr. Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, is mounting one of the most prominent challenges to the EPA, claiming new regulations will impose a crippling financial toll on agriculture and energy producers.

"With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy," said Greg Abbott, Texas's attorney general.

"Prominent climate scientists associated with the IPCC were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data.

"In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the IPCC cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science—so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy."…

Also last week, the United States Climate Action Partnership, a grouping of businesses backing national legislation on reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, suffered a major blow when oil firms BP America and Conoco Phillips and construction giant Caterpillar left the group.

The two oil firms, the most significant departures, walked out on the industry-green alliance protesting that "cap and trade" legislation would have awarded them far fewer free emission allowances than their rivals in the coal and electricity industries.

III. Intellectual Climate Change

Finally, the global warming hysteria is beginning to face resistance on the federal level. Recently several Democrats have joined with congressional Republicans seeking to deny the EPA regulatory authority over carbon dioxide. In a desperate attempt to stall that legislation, the EPA is now promising to delay its new regulations for at least a year.

But in another year, of course, Republicans are likely to control Congress. And Richard Pombo—former scourge of the environmentalist movement—may be back in Congress, though he will still have to get through a contested Republican primary.

Pombo held the line against global warming legislation in the House for the better part of a decade, and we all owe him an enormous debt of gratitude for staving off cap-and-trade just long enough for Climategate to come along. With Pombo back in the House and James Inhofe back in control of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we would have an excellent clean-up crew in place to fully exploit the intellectual climate change that has occurred in the past year.

"EPA Delays Start of New Rules on Emissions," Ian Talley and Stephen Power, Wall Street Journal, February 23

The head of the US Environmental Protection Agency said Monday the agency would delay subjecting large greenhouse-gas emitters such as power plants and crude-oil refiners to new regulations until 2011, and would raise the threshold for using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

After an outcry from state regulators and members of Congress, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the agency would also limit regulations for the first half of 2011 to emitters already required to apply for new construction and modification permits under the Clean Air Act….

Industry officials say regulating emissions such as carbon dioxide with the Clean Air Act could be overly burdensome to many energy-intensive sectors, such as steel mills and cement kilns, and regions that rely on coal-fired power.

Ms. Jackson's decision could help Democrats who want to undercut a Republican-led proposal to block the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from stationary sources.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal

Friday, February 26, 2010

Obama Gives America The Finger


The Socialist Magic Negro Obama

President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.

February 25, 2010
Obama's Socialism
By Adam Shaw

Recently on "The O'Reilly Factor," Bill O'Reilly seemed very concerned about President Obama being described as a socialist by members of the right such as Rush Limbaugh. O'Reilly has often dodged calling the president a socialist, as if doing so would condemn Obama as a tyrannical dictator. It was discussed throughout the show with various guests, and O'Reilly frequently stated that yes, Obama is a far-left guy, but he didn't want to use the actual term "socialist." It would be too much.

Here in Britain we look at the continuing battle as to whether Obama is a socialist or not as a rather odd American quibble. In Britain we have no problem defining people as socialists, nor do people on the left have a problem calling themselves socialists. It is not that those of us on the conservative right do not believe that socialism is a bad doctrine. We do, and we see evidence of its continual destruction of the country on a day-to-day basis, but we have always had socialism living quite openly amongst us. We are therefore able to see and recognize it quite calmly as a day-to-day occurrence in politics, just as one recognizes the flu. We wish it didn't exist, but it does, and so we get on with our lives, trying to avoid catching it in the process.

When one looks back at the prime ministers that the British Labour Party has produced in the twentieth century -- James Ramsay MacDonald, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, James Callaghan etc. -- all have defined themselves as socialists at one time or another. Even the relatively centrist Tony Blair described himself as "Coming to Socialism through Marxism" and is a member of the Christian Socialist Movement. When one considers that Blair is widely considered to sit on the "right" of the Labour party, it becomes clear how deeply the Labour Party is rooted in socialism. Moreover, from 1918 until 1994, Labour's famous Clause IV of its Constitution defined its aim as follows:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that maybe possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means ofproduction, distribution, and exchange, and the best obtainablesystem of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

This succinct definition of socialism was seen as the defining purpose of the Labour Party and was printed on the back of every membership card. During Labour's so-called "shift to the centre" after Blair's ascendancy to the leadership in 1994, it controversially rewrote Clause IV to read,

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few.

Even amidst the fury of the hard left of the party, who saw the change as a movement away from the party's Marxist roots, the re-envisioned "New Labour" still defined itself as a socialist party (even if it squeezed "democratic" into the definition to soften the blow) and still does to this day.

The current Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has also defined himself as a socialist[1] and admitted to adhering to socialist policies, as do a great deal of his top Cabinet ministers, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling, who believes thatLabour should talk up the massive redistribution of wealth it has achieved, and the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, who stated recently that "[s]ocialism, as represented by the Labour Party, the Fabian Society, the Co-operative movement, is a tradition I can be proud of."

In Great Britain, and across Western Europe, it will not raise any eyebrows for a leading politician to describe himself as a socialist. Definitions of socialism range widely across the world, whether one is a democratic socialist, a socialist democrat, a liberal socialist, a Christian socialist, or thetheatrical "Luxemburgist Trotskyist, post-Trotskyist" of Christopher Hitchens. We in Europe know that the definitions of what a socialist is depend on the socialist. As British scholar Robert Service has commented on the subject of left-wing organization, "Grandiose names were chosen for organizations which were little larger than crepuscules"[2].

There are as many exact definitions of socialism as there are socialists. Yet they do have common characteristics. Love of big government, nationalization of industry, massive taxation, wealth redistribution, etc. all point towards socialism. Someone like the president would not even have to say he was a socialist in Western Europe; it would be assumed quite normally, without any fuss or conspiracy.

I have a lot of respect for Bill O'Reilly, but to a Brit who has seen his fair share of socialists and lives in a socialist country run by a self-described socialist party by a self-described socialist prime minister who has taken over for another self-described socialist prime minister, it is puzzling why self-described independents like Mr O'Reilly are doing backflips in an attempt to avoid the obvious fact -- President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.

All these verbal gymnastics that are used to avoid stating the obvious may be rather humorous for someone watching from over the Atlantic, but for Americans, such delusion is a very serious matter. It is important, not just for the American right, but for the American people as a whole, to realise just exactly who it is they have elected to office. With the approval numbers dropping almost daily for the president, it appears that it is sinking in for the generally center-right American public.

However, when people on the right start being "concerned" about describing Obama as what he clearly is, in part due to the hysteria that both sides of the political spectrum exhibit when the word "socialist" is used, then it damages the effectiveness of opposition to him. Instead of being able to define what Obama's aims are in his presidency, those on the left and on the right keep pushing Obama into a slightly left-of-center, non-ideological fog. Such a political move is deceitful, and it does not allow the American public to get a clear perception of just what they have voted into the White House.

Those of us across the pond who analyze American politics know exactly who it is you have in the White House. Obama is not some new post-political entity. Nor is he some form of Stalinist that will set up a USSA. He is a normal, well-spoken, charismatic socialist who in Britain would sit quite happily towards the left of the Labour Party alongside figures such as Tony Benn, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, and Ed Balls. To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, and it is not fear-mongering; it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it -- America has a socialist leading the country. Welcome to the club: It stinks!

Adam Shaw is an English writer specializing in politics and religion.

[1] See G Brown, Fair is Efficient: A Socialist Agenda for Fairness (London: Fabian Society 1994), in which he repeatedly refers to himself as a socialist.

[2] R Service, Trostsky, (London, Macmillan 2009) p.497



Tea Party Groups Declare Independence
Wednesday, 24 Feb 2010
By David A. Patten

Just when it appeared the various tea party organizations couldn't agree on anything, it looks like many of them have found common ground in support of a "Declaration of Tea Party Independence."

They primarily are declaring their independence from the political parties.

The declaration, posted on, is another sign the tea party organizations will continue to distance themselves from the Republican Party. More than 60 tea party leaders in more than 20 states reportedly have signed on to the new document. Among its highlights:

*It asserts that "profligate government spending and expansion of the government's power beyond what is constitutionally permissible" could lead to "economic collapse and tyranny."

*Many powerful interests are trying to "define this movement, to use it, to lead it, to co-opt it, to channel it, to control it, to defeat it," the resolution states.

*The tea party movement "embraces and serves people of all races, creeds, religions, and political affiliations," according to the document.

*It declares the movement's independence from the Republican Party, which it says "has in the past manipulated its conservative base to win election after election, and which then betrays everything that base fought for and believed."

*It adds that GOP party professionals are trying to use the tea party movement "for their corrupt and narrow political purposes."

*The document singles out so-called RINOs (Republicans in name only) for special antipathy: "We reject the RINOs' statist subversion of the principles of small government for which the Republican Party is supposed to stand."

*It warns GOP leaders that tea party activists "can make them lose" if the party is "disdainful" of the movement's goals.

*Its toughest rhetoric targets the Democratic Party, warning that its "power drunk junta" is trying to "impose a Socialist agenda on our republic."

Tea party leaders have expressed concerns that GOP leaders have been trying to co-opt the conservative grass-roots movement for their own political ends. Prominent Republicans, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, recently commented that tea-party activists should support establishment Republican candidates in this fall's midterm elections.



The Obama White House was trying to replicate a previous PR stunt that they thought was successful. In late January, President Obama showed up at a meeting of congressional Republicans and took their questions. At that event, he seemed poised and composed. The way the forum was organized—Obama up at the podium, with the members of Congress seated to his side and somewhat below him—combined with the respectful deference which the members of Congress showed for the office of the president, all gave him an advantage.

This led some people, particularly on the left, to get excited about what a great idea this was. They began proposing to make it a regular event, like Britain's "question time," when the Prime Minister goes down into the well of Parliament to answer questions—and jibes—thrown at him by members of Parliament. But this custom stems from British political history and institutions, in which the Prime Minister is a member of Parliament who gains and holds his office primarily because he represents a parliamentary majority.

In our system, the Congress and the chief executive are independent and co-equal branches of government. The one does not have to answer to the other. So that's not really what a presidential "question time" is about. It is not about the president answering to Congress, because he doesn't. It's not about him serving as the leader of a legislative coalition, because he doesn't lead it. The Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader perform that function. So what is it about, in our system? It's about turning relations between the president and Congress into a campaign-style debate.

In his State of the Union address, President Obama denounced the idea of a "permanent campaign." Knowing Obama, you should be able to guess what comes next: it turns out that a few days earlier, Obama had summoned his campaign manager, David Plouffe, back to the White House to try to save the health care bill. And so Obama is planning a series of PR stunts and face-offs with congressional Republicans, like a permanent series of campaign debates.

Except maybe it won't be a series, after all. The first "question time" was not really a success, because it didn't move public opinion polls on the health care bill, nor did it move any votes in Congress. Nothing Obama has done in the past seven months has succeeded at that goal. But it seemed like a success, to an Obama White House in campaign mode, because Obama looked good and sounded good, because he upstaged the Republicans, and because the political class in Washington generally approved of his performance.

So Obama went into today's summit on the assumption that because he came off well before, he would come off well again. It didn't exactly work out that way.

I did not watch all six hours of the event, and I don't feel the least bit guilty about it. But I saw enough to get a general impression. For one thing, given that Obama planned this on his home turf, so to speak, he oddly gave up all of his advantages. At the previous meeting with Republican leaders, the special nature of the event and the way that he was positioned up at the podium gave him a special deference that restrained Republicans from really taking him on. But if you want to make these confrontations a regular event, suddenly it's not so special any more. And at this summit, that was underscored by the way that the president was seated behind a long, low, U-shaped table on the same level with everybody else. Visually, what this conveyed was: I'm not really in charge here. And while the previous event was relatively short, this summit dragged on for six televised hours. No politician, no matter how skilled, can maintain charisma and composure for that long. It is almost calculated to break any kind of oratorical spell Obama could cast over the proceedings.

And this time, with a little more warning, Republicans were able to put up some of their best debaters and really come prepared to wallop the administration's proposals. In this regard, I thought the key event of the day was a brief speech by Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, who has emerging as the rising star of the past few months. And you can see why. Ryan is the top Republican on the House committee responsible for the budget, so he has become the point man on deficits and government debt.

In this presentation—you really have to watch it—Representative Ryan thoroughly exposes the dishonest accounting of the health care bill, showing how it breaks the budget and violates the president's own promises. He ends by advocating that Congress start over from scratch and reform health care by giving more power back to the people—and that Democrats should listen to the majority of the public on this issue.

When you watch the video, notice Obama's face. He does not look like a man confident and happy to be there. He looks chagrined and deflated. See also Obama's reaction as Senator Lamar Alexander demolishes the idea of bypassing the filibuster with a straight partisan "reconciliation" vote. Obama is trying to remain carefully expressionless, but he looks like a man taking a beating.

A few weeks ago, I posted a piece by Jack Wakeland on how the Tea Party movement has taken all of the fun out of being a statist politician. Well, congressional Republicans just took all of the fun out of being President Obama.

Most people did not and will not watch all six hours of the health care summit. Instead, they will see it in short clips on the evening news and on the Internet. And the exchange with Ryan is one of the clips they will see.

But as Yuval Levin points out, some people were watching the whole thing. "The purpose of this spectacle is not so much to move the public as to move Democratic members of Congress…, and they are seeing their leadership fail to make a straightforward case for the Democratic approach to health care."

For six months, I really poured on the steam on the health care debate, producing more than 20 articles on the issue. Since January 19, when Scott Brown became the 41st vote the Republicans needed to block the health care bill, you may notice that I have stopped making the issue a priority. Why? Because the bill is dead, and the Democrats are lying to themselves if they think they can revive it. The latest lie they told themselves was that somehow the president could pull out such a marvelous performance at this summit that it would change public opinion and embolden House Democrats to push the bill through. But if she ever has the guts to actually schedule a vote, I think Nancy Pelosi would find that she falls well short of a majority for the bill. And today's event didn't gain her any more votes.—RWT

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist (TIA) and contributor to The Freedom Fighter's Journal

Thursday, February 25, 2010


Bottom line at health summit: lots of smoke
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Cue the cameras. President Barack Obama and his Republican arch foes will argue their case on health care overhaul at a bipartisan summit expected to stretch out for a solid six hours on live, daytime television Thursday for millions of Americans.

Expect them to collide, not come together. Without a no-nonsense referee to slam the gavel on mind-fogging jargon, not to mention apocalyptic rhetoric, some viewers might wish Judge Judy was presiding.

Obama is hoping to resurrect his signature issue and restore his reputation as a different kind of politician who can deliver real results. Congressional leaders of both parties are worried about self-preservation and political control in the November elections.

The goal for Obama is to draw a glaring contrast between the big bill he's backing and the limited steps Republicans are willing to take, hoping he can fire up anxious Democrats for what may be their last chance in a generation to provide health insurance coverage to nearly all Americans. They have the votes, but do they have the will?


"Tea Party Patriots Need Simple Book," Says Jarrett



That is all! Thanks for playing, now run along and try to steal more property in Chi-Town for the Olympics!

Obama's top aide: Need 'simple booklet' to educate tea partiers (Because we're simple)

World Net Daily ^ 2-24-10 Aaron Klein

Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 12:52:16 PM by launcher

A simple booklet explaining President Obama's health care and economic policies may help those in the tea party movement better understand White House initiatives, suggested Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's closest advisers.

Jarrett blasted the tea party movement as an "anti-government" organization that thrives on scare tactics.

Jarrett made the comments last week at a John F. Kennedy School of Government forum.

At the event, an audience member compared the tea party movement and anger at Obama's policies with people who initially resisted computers because of their "failure to understand" the new technology. The questioner explained simple booklets eventually helped to educate the public on computers.


Another Failing Biofuel ``Miracle``

Dennis T. Avery—2/24/10

CHURCHVILLE, VA-My wife is complaining about our increased costs at the supermarket. I remind her that every pound of meat, milk, and butter we buy requires several pounds of corn to produce-and biofuel mandates have shoved the corn price up from about $ 2 per bushel to $3.60. Many hog producers, dairymen, and egg farms have gone bust due to the inevitably higher cost of feed for livestock.

The higher food costs come on top of the already-higher prices we pay at the pump for the lower-energy ethanol being mixed with our gasoline.

Now, comes word of another failing biofuel "miracle." Thousands of farmers in the developing world were told that biofuel from an oily tree fruit, jatropha, could be grown on marginal land. Thus it could produce massive amounts of renewable fuels without competing with food crops.

Now it turns out the experts were wrong about jatropha growing well on marginal land. Jatropha will grow on marginal land, but it needs good land to produce economically viable yields. Indian farmers, for example, find the forecast yields of 2-5 tons per hectare are actually less than 2 tons.

Meanwhile, millions of jatropha trees are being grown instead of food on farms from Ghana and Guatemala to Mozambique and India. EU companies have reportedly leased 5 million hectares of land for biofuel production, much of it in Africa, where it will compete with already-inadequate food production and threaten unique wildlife.

Major question: In the name of all that is environmentally holy, why are we trying to grow fuel crops on "marginal land"? Marginal land is where the world's wild species live. There isn't any "spare" land anywhere in the world.

Fuel crops are a fundamentally bad idea because we get so little fuel per acre. The U.S. burns 135 billion gallons worth of gasoline per year, and corn produces about 90 gallons worth of gasoline-equivalent per acre per year. How many million acres of corn ethanol would it take to make a significant difference in our "energy independence"?

We're already farming 37 percent of the earth's land area, and unless research double per-acre food yields again, we'll need to clear another 30-50 percent of the earth's land surface just to feed ourselves in 2050. Count on at least 8 billion people, with at least 7 billion of them affluent enough to demand meat, milk, and pet food.

Europe is making biodiesel out of its rapeseed crop-but also importing lots of palm oil from Indonesia. There, thousands of Great Apes (orangutans) are being slaughtered to make room for the palm seedlings. This is conservation?

Ironically, some of the farmers who have planted jatropha are finding no one wants to buy it because the costs of refining and distribution are too high. The oil giant BP, for example, has pulled out of a planned $50 million jatropha joint venture in Africa. "As other technologies came up," said a spokesman, "we looked again at whether jatropha was going to be the best biofuel source that could be scaled up. We have decided to look elsewhere."

Thus far, no alternative energy source works well. Nuclear power seems to be the best hope and the Obama administration is finally adjusting to that reality. Even inadequate, erratic sources such as solar panels and wind turbines are less destructive to conservation than using scarce land for biofuels.

Dennis T. Avery was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the national intelligence medal of achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book, Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues ( post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421.



Relatives of patients involved in the report hold pictures of their loved ones

David Rose, Health Correspondent Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.

The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.

Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”

A system of professional accreditation for senior managers would be considered and the Mid Staffordshire trust might lose its foundation status.

Some NHS chief executives have received six-figure redundancy packages or moved to other trusts despite poor performance. Martin Yeates, the former chief executive at Mid Staffordshire, received pay rises that took his annual salary to £180,000, while standards at the trust deteriorated.

The Liberal Democrats claimed that he had also received a payoff of more than £400,000 after stepping down last March, though Mr Burnham said he had received “no more than his contractual entitlement”.

The Care Quality Commission, the NHS regulator, said that the trust under its new management was now “safe to provide services”. But it still had concerns about staffing, patient welfare, the availability and suitability of equipment at the trust, and how it monitored and dealt with complaints. The inquiry made 18 recommendations for the trust and the wider health service, which the Government accepted in full. They include a new review of how regulators and regional health authorities monitor NHS hospitals and a report on “early-warning systems” to identify failing trusts.

But the families of those who died or suffered poor care branded the inquiry a “whitewash” and repeated calls for a full public investigation. The Conservatives accused ministers of trying to blame managers rather than taking responsibility for problems with national targets.

Julie Bailey, who founded the victims’ campaign group Cure the NHS after her mother died at Stafford Hospital, said that the handling of the scandal was disgraceful and unacceptable.

“It is time that the public were told the truth about the very large number of excess deaths in NHS care and the very large number of avoidable but deadly errors that occur every day.”

The NHS Confederation, which represents health trusts, said: “The responsibility for the way this hospital was run rests with its board, management and staff but, as the report says, the framework of targets, regulatory systems and policy priorities it worked within are also very important.”


Wednesday, February 24, 2010



Inhofe Vs. Boxer On CLIMATEGATE

RUSH LIMBAUGH: This is Boxer-Inhofe this morning in Washington, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. James Inhofe said this.

INHOFE: One of the largest newspapers over there said this is the most significant scientific scandal of our generation. Yet global warming alarmism has been sold on the very notion that man-made greenhouse gases are causing environmental catastrophes, Himalayan glaciers melting and all that stuff. But now we know there's no objective basis for these claims that I've just talked about. The Obama administration then is moving ahead with a massive job killing tax for no good reason. The minority report shows the world's leading climate scientists acting like political scientists.

RUSH: We got a problem up there? Everybody sounds like they're underwater with our sound bites, or are we just doing this on purpose today to cause more attention to be focused on the sound bites? I haven't gotten an answer on this yet. We'll just keep playing 'em. (interruption) Okay, oh, it's not our equipment, it's a lousy copy, I'm told. Well, I don't need another copy here. I'm very tuned to the way people sound and I know that the Senate's not doing this hearing underwater with scuba tanks. All right, here's Boxer now, a portion of her remarks.

BOXER: In my opening statement, I didn't quote one international scientist or IPCC. I quoted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, I quoted NASA. I think they know what they're talking about. And the AAA, in this case the American Association of the Advancement of Science, we've been keeping records for 130 years, and we've had the warmest decade in that time. And we can track the ice. So two things I wanted to dispel. We are quoting the American scientific community here and we are talking about facts on the ground, what's been observed over the last decade because climate change is about decade to decade, not day to day.

RUSH: Right. And there's been a decade and a half of no warming since 1995. NOAA is as corrupt as the IPCC is. NOAA is as corrupt and James Hansen at NASA is as corrupt as Phil Jones. It's a worldwide cabal. So this is their out now, this is their out. (imitating Boxer) "No, we're not relying on those frauds over there in Great Britain, no, no, no, we're relying on the American frauds because they're our frauds and we're going to go patriotic on this. Our fraud scientists are Americans, so that's who we're listening to, we're not listening to the other guys." Let's go back, October 29th, 2007, Boxer using day-to-day observations to say global warming was happening.

BOXER: He also remarked that the most optimistic climate models for the second half of this century suggest that 30 to 70% of the snow pack will disappear. Now, no wonder we have people visiting our offices who are just already hurting from the recreation industry in this nation. They see what's happening, they see the handwriting on the wall. We have to act.

RUSH: Yeah. So there she is using day-to-day activity to cite global warming as something that is happening. And March 19th of last year, here she is quoting this fraudulent, corrupt UN group, the IPCC.

BOXER: Looking at the United States of America, the IPCC clearly warned that unchecked global warming will lead to reduced snow pack in the western mountains, critically reducing access to water, which is our lifeblood.

RUSH: Okay, so last year the IPCC was gold, that was the gold standard. Now screw the IPCC. No, no, no, no, we're not relying on them, we're relying on Americans. Inhofe's got 'em here by the shorts, folks, but they're not going to give this up. This is a political issue to them every bit as important as so-called health care reform is. By the way, one more on this. This is this morning at the same Senate committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee -- and, by the way, I didn't notice Boxer sounding underwater in those two bites, but the bites that are coming from today clearly show Boxer and Inhofe and we'll find out here in a second, Lisa Jackson, if she's underwater. We're in so much debt, hell, everybody's underwater, underwater in their houses, Washington's underwater in their jobs, their job performance. Anyway here's the EPA director, Lisa Jackson, and she's a far left-wing fringe activist, and Inhofe says to her, "One of your quotes was that the EPA's view that, 'the scientific assessments of the IPCC represent the best reference material for determining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues of climate science.' Do you still agree with that?"

JACKSON: I think it's out of context, Senator. The IPCC is certainly important. It represents multiple lines of evidence and much data.

INHOFE: Okay. Do you still believe, as you've stated before, that the IPCC is the gold standard for climate change science?

JACKSON: The primary focus of the endangerment finding was on climate threat risk in this country. The information on the glaciers and other things doesn't weaken or undermine the science that EPA reviewed to look at the endangerment to human health and welfare.

RUSH: Of course not. Why should it? Why should news that's proven to be fraud have any effect on what we're doing here? The Himalayas, screw the Himalayas, the Himalayas aren't here. And so we don't care about the Himalayas now.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Global Warming Fraud

Alan Caruba—2/23/10

As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming.

Whole industries such as automobile manufacture had demands and limits put on them. Some states required utilities to buy "carbon credits" to offset their use of "fossil fuels." The list of things attributed to global warming expanded to the point of total absurdity.

The codification of the fraud into law began with the Kyoto Protocol, an element of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change whose purpose was to fight a global warming that we now know was not happening.

The data to support the fraud came out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that specialized in distorting climate data in every way possible to emphasize a normal warming cycle and then to minimize any indication of a new cooling cycle dating to around 1998 or earlier.

The IPCC data, released periodically in reports purporting to be the work of some 2,500 scientists from around the world, were actually based the handiwork of a few academic centers such as the Climate Research Center (CRU) at East Anglia University in England, Penn State University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and climate modeling from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

Other participants in the fraud were NASA's Goddard Institute and NOAA, both of whom produced claims, predictions, and questionable data to support "global warming."

In the U.S. alone, I have heard figures in the area of $50 billion that have been spent on "climate change" over the course of administrations dating back to Clinton. In England, between 2006 and 2008, the government spent the equivalent of nearly $14 million (U.S.) on publicity stunts to convince Brits that global warming was real.

It is legitimate to ask if global warming has not in effect been a criminal enterprise.

The Kyoto Protocol required the nation states that signed onto it to commit to a reduction of four "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons and perflourocarbons. These gases occur in minimal amounts in the Earth's atmosphere which is composed primarily of 95% to 97% water vapor!

The cost of accepting this commitment is measured in several ways, not the least of which was the sale of "carbon credits" to utilities and to industrial enterprises that would permit them to function outside the limits imposed. The exchanges created for this purpose prospered but it increased the cost of providing electrical energy and the manufacture of all manner of products.

The limitations, however, did not apply to either China or India, both of which were exempted, as were undeveloped Third World nations.

The climate change fraud also affected major U.S. corporations, none of whom wanted to appear to be opposed to it. However, on Tuesday, February 16th, BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar all announced they were dropping out of the Climate Action Partnership that advocated energy-rationing. Some of the millions squandered on various global warming and "environmental" projects and groups came from the bottom line of corporations across the nation.

At this point, any corporation that speaks of "climate change" in its advertising and other public statements is part of the global fraud that originated in the United Nations Environmental Program.

The carbon emissions limitations also served to justify huge public subsidies for U.S. producers of wind and solar energy, called "clean" energy. Several nations, such as Spain, Germany and Great Britain, invested heavily in these alternative energy sources only to discover that they were massively inefficient and unreliable.

At the same time, the global warming fraud in the United States limited the building of coal-fired plants to generate electricity when, in fact, coal provides 50% of the nation's electricity needs. Combined with fears of nuclear energy dating back to the 1970s, the United States has essentially starved itself of the energy it needs.

According to a recently released study by the National Association of Utility Regulatory Commissioners, the U.S. gross domestic product would lose $2.36 trillion and American consumers will pay an additional $2.35 trillion for energy if the oil and gas on federal lands remain off-limits through 2030. This constitutes a form of energy and economic suicide!

A British newspaper, the Daily Mail in a recent interview with CRU Prof. Phil Jones, revealed he knew there had been no "statistically significant" warming for the past fifteen years. Little wonder Prof. Jones and the CRU refused to honor UK Freedom of Information requests for the data on which the IPCC claims were based. He and others who provided IPCC data are under investigation.

In essence, the IPCC reports were all fraudulent and all were used to advance the global warming fraud. That is why President Obama's claim of "overwhelming evidence" of climate change, i.e., global warming is particularly troubling.

It is essential to understand that the "Cap-and-Trade" legislation passed by the House and waiting for a vote in the Senate is based on the IPCC reports and the threat by the Environmental Protection Agency to begin regulating carbon dioxide emissions throughout the nation have no legitimate basis in science.

There are still billions at stake if global warming-related laws, projects such as wind farms or the requirement that ethanol be added to every gallon of gas purchased are permitted to proceed or continue.

Global warming as an issue or basis for any law or expenditure of public funding no longer exists.

It's long passed the time when the nation's news media should stop referring to it as anything other than a fraud perpetrated on the people of the world.

Alan Caruba is a widely syndicated commentator. His weekly columns and more can be found on his blog, Warning Signs, and he is the founder of "National Anxiety Center", a clearinghouse for information about "scare campaigns" designed to influence public opinion and policy. Caruba founded the Center in 1990, having been a business and science writer for many years, in addition to being a public relations counselor who has worked with many leading think tanks, corporations, and trade associations.

Alan is founding member of the National Book Critics Circle; he also posts a monthly report on new books at Bookviews. In addition, he is a longtime member of the Society of Professional Journalists, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, and the National Association of Science Writers.

A popular guest on radio and television, Caruba is available to address groups on the topics about which he writes, including environmentalism, energy, education, national security and sovereignty, property rights, and Islam.

Democommies In Deep Denial On Global Warming

February 23, 2010
Desperate Democrat Warmists Deep in Denial
Marc Sheppard

On the very same day that the EPW minority released a report [PDF] citing “unethical and potentially illegal behavior by some the world's leading climate scientists,” the ruling majority promised “to make policy based on [the same discredited] science.”

It was like watching shopkeepers wading through knee-deep water to tape a handwritten “open for business” sign to their cracked and filthy front windows after days of devastating storms.

Only the storms in this story carried unusual names. Like Climategate and Glaciergate and Amazongate.

And the shopkeepers were named Boxer and Sanders and Whitehouse and Jackson. And what they were selling was suntan lotion -- despite four months of non-stop rain and snow, and a confession from their top manufacturer that the ointment was neither necessary nor effective.

Such was the scene today as desperate Democrat warmists used the occasion of a FY2011 EPA budget hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to promote – of all things -- carbon regulation.

Before the committee sat EPA chief Lisa Jackson, whose proposed budget for next year includes an “increase of more than $43 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed at taking action on climate change.” Ranking member James Inhofe (R-OK) asked Jackson – whom he accused of attempting an end-run around the Senate -- how the significant errors and non-peer-reviewed statements recently uncovered in IPCC AR4 might impact upon her pre-regulation Endangerment Findings and whether she still considered the discredited IPCC to be the “gold standard of climate science.”

Jackson’s initial evasive response was that her findings (that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health and welfare) were based on many sources, not just IPCC.

But when Inhofe pointed out that over 40 of the 67 sources cited in the finding’s Technical Support Document (TSD) were directly from the IPCC, Jackson changed her tune. The IPCC was never actually discredited, she claimed. Besides, the peer-review process keeps them objective.

Of course, the IPCC has lost all credibility to all but die-hard believers and the CRU emails proved that IPCC scientists have made a mockery of the peer-review process.

Needless to say, Jackson’s wasn’t the only voice of unremitting unreason.

Bernie Sanders feigned outrage at “national leaders rejecting basic science,” then equated current inaction on climate change to such in the 1930’s against Hitler which, the Vermont “independent” slowly enunciated -- caused millions of lives.

And the always whacky EPW Chair Barbara Boxer demonized her Republican “colleagues” for attacking not only the IPCC, but also “our most admired institutions” right here in America. She was referring, of course, to NASA and NOAA, both of which have also had their share of credibility problems of late.

Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) not only agreed with Boxer on the laughable infallibility of NASA and NOAA, but also added that virtually all American scientific organizations agree that the AGW science is unequivocal, citing “special interests” as the only holdouts to the truth. This after Inhofe had reminded the panel on more than one occasion that repeating “the science is settled” over and over doesn’t make it so. That even one of the movement’s top leaders – Phil Jones himself – had recently admitted that “the vast majority of climate scientists” don’t believe the debate to be over.

And the man who’s been right all along about the AGW hoax also reminded madam chair and company of the $300-400 billion a year cap-and-tax would cost regardless of whether legislated or regulated. As well as the insanity of imposing such a job-killing price tag on an already shaky economy and job-market based on reports springing new holes in their facts nearly every day.

Boxer just shook her head and mumbled something about extreme weather and droughts.

Inhofe smiled, recognizing his adversaries for what they were -- frantic shopkeepers trying desperately to market their hopelessly out-of-date wares.