Quote of the Day Peggy Noonan: Voters Thought He Wasn't a Nut

Quote of the Day: Peggy Noonan

In 2008, the voters went for Mr. Obama thinking he was not a Nut but a cool and sober moderate of the center-left sort. In 2009 and 2010, they looked at his general governing attitudes as reflected in his preoccupations—health care, cap and trade—and their hidden, potential and obvious costs, and thought, "Uh-oh, he's a Nut!"

Linked by Reaganite Republican - thank you!

Scott Brown Tea Party Movement? Media Distorts Scott Brown Comment

Media eports tried to gain legs that Republican candidate Scott Brown, the Republican running for the people's Senate seat in Massachusetts, said he was "unfamiliar" with the Tea Party Movement.

Those reports were not true. TPM printed a CORRECTION:

Correction: State Sen. Scott Brown did not use the word "unfamiliar," that was how the Boston Globe characterized his remarks. But after watching video of the press conference where Brown was asked about the tea party movement, it appears he actually was unclear about the premise of the reporter's question, not the tea party movement itself.

The original Boston Globe article said this:

"The allegation that I vote 96 percent of the time with Republicans is inaccurate, but I'm proud of the fact that I've stood up against out-of-control spending and taxation in Massachusetts," he said.

He also claimed that he was unfamiliar with the "Tea Party movement," when asked by a reporter. [wrong]

View interesting video about Scott Brown at Samuel Gonzalez' The Last Tradition, and Right Pundits has some analyzation of Brown's tightening race against Democrat Martha Coakley.

Sarah Palin Gridiron Dinner Speaker: Sarah Palin Barney Frank Gridiron Speakers

Governor Sarah Palin will speak at the Gridiron Dinner on December 5th. Rep. Barney Frank is the invitee for Democrats. What a pairing.

 Sarah Palin

 Barney Frank

 

According to this report, the winter Gridiron is not public, and is considered off-the-record. Does that mean that absolutely nothing will leak? the spring Gridiron is usually a hilarious affair, depending on your sense of humor.

Palin will show up Saturday night as the author of the bestselling Going Rogue, and Franks shows up as the topic of a new biography: Barney Frank: The Story of America's Only Left-Handed, Gay, Jewish Congressman. His book was released in September 2009.

In Amazon's 100 Top Sellers

No. 1 Going Rogue with 66 days in the top 100

No. 11 Arguing with Idiots by Glenn Beck

No. 21 True Compass: A Memoir by Ed Kennedy

No. 40 A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity by Bill O'Reilly

No. 63 The Christmas Sweater by Glenn Beck

No. 68 Glenn Beck's Common Sense

No. 83 Liberty and Tyranny by Mark R. Levin

No wonder Liberals want their own best-seller list.

The Gridiron is the most prestigeous journalistic organization in Washington, D.C. The members represent major newspapers, news magazines, broadcast networks and news services. Membership is by invitation only, but I think FOX News is a member anyway. I hope we hear some stories about Palin's speech. Surely someone will talk.

Indymedia DOJ: Eric Holder subpoenas IP address of visitors

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has formally ordered Indymedia to turn over a list of all readers on a specific date, and was told the order could not be revealed without the authorization of the Attorney General. Update 11-10-09.

The order was issued via a grand jury supoena, according to this CBS report today.

U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison in Indianapolis demanded:

...all IP traffic to and from www.indymedia.us" on June 25, 2008. It instructed Clair to "include IP addresses, times, and any other identifying information," including e-mail addresses, physical addresses, registered accounts, and Indymedia readers' Social Security Numbers, bank account numbers, credit card numbers, and so on.

Kristina Clair provides server space for Indymedia.us. She was, not surprisingly, shocked.

Under long-standing Justice Department guidelines, subpoenas to members of the news media are supposed to receive special treatment. One portion of the guidelines, for instance, says that "no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media" without "the express authorization of the attorney general" - that would be current attorney general Eric Holder - ...

Here's the rest of the story:

U.S. Attorney Tim Morrison's office says the subpoena has been withdrawn, but look at this, Kristina Clair was threatened:

Morrison replied in a one-sentence letter saying the subpoena had been withdrawn. Around the same time, according to the EFF, the group had a series of discussions with assistant U.S. attorneys in Morrison's office who threatened Clair with possible prosecution for obstruction of justice if she disclosed the existence of the already-withdrawn subpoena -- claiming it "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

 Update 11-10-09:
Clair requested that Electrontic Frontier Foundation (EFF) look into the legality of the subpoena. They found that the text of a sample subpoena from the DOJ had been altered and the demand for IP addresses, dates, times, etc. was added.  EFF says this:

...it plainly violated the SCA's [Stored Communications Act] restrictions on what types of data the government could obtain using a subpoena.

EFF also confirms that a subpoena cannot order a person to keep the subpoena a secret.

EFF responded to U.S. Attorney Morrison and "invited" his office to seek a court order under a specific statute of the SCA. There were no takers on the court order, but a voicemail left for EFF agreed that Katrina Clair's "silence" was not "compelled," through prior action, but would be followed up with a request for a gag order that very day.

No gag order was sought. The next day, February 25th, EFF received a fax stating that the subpoena had been withdrawn. Read the whole story at EFF, which is very interesting, here.

Some discussion of unconfirmed informaton: Supposedly, a subpoena of this type cannot be issued without the approval of the U.S. Attorney General. Via television today, I heard that Holder had not signed-off on this subpoena, and perhaps that is why it was withdrawn. I can find no confirmation of Holder's approval needed, or if needed, him doing so, or that it was withdrawn because he needed to approve, but did not.


Thanks to wide-awake conservative, and master sculptor David Lemon. Visit him at Clay to Bronze.

Dick Cheney Center for Security Policy Speech: Dick Cheney Keeper of the Flame Award

Here is the text of former Vice President Dick Cheney speaking to the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C. Commentary coming. Just added the video.

Dick Cheney

Pull-out quotes for a fast read. Full text and video below:
(1) Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before....And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

(2) So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

(3) It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls....Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion [the U.S. dumping the promise of a missile shield].

(4) Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man [Putin] who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. 

(5) ...President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

(6) Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests [Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran]. 

(7) ...he [Obama] has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's [Iran] authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about. 

(8) Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. 

(9) the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime.

(10) Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security. 

(11) Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission. 

(12) ...signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause. 

(13) It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger.  

Here's the quote about the Obama administration saying the Bush admin had no strategy for Afghanistan. 

(14) Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.


In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it. 

(15) It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity. 

(16) When we faced that problem [captured terrorists] in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

(17) So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years.  

(18) There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.


(19)We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Text From Fox News:

Thank you all very much. It’s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I’m told that among those you’ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don’t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven’t had much that Don didn’t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is – the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country’s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that – with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire – and thought they had – a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous “Reset” button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

In the short of it, President Obama’s cancellation of America’s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won’t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States – doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit down with Iran's leader without preconditions. As President, he has committed America to an Iran strategy that seems to treat engagement as an objective rather than a tactic. Time and time again, he has outstretched his hand to the Islamic Republic's authoritarian leaders, and all the while Iran has continued to provide lethal support to extremists and terrorists who are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Islamic Republic continues to provide support to extremists in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. Meanwhile, the regime continues to spin centrifuges and test missiles. And these are just the activities we know about.

I have long been skeptical of engagement with the current regime inTehran, but even Iran experts who previously advocated for engagement have changed their tune since the rigged elections this past June and the brutal suppression of Iran's democratic protestors. The administration clearly missed an opportunity to stand with Iran's democrats, whose popular protests represent the greatest challenge to the Islamic Republic since its founding in 1979. Instead, the President has been largely silent about the violent crackdown on Iran's protestors, and has moved blindly forward to engage Iran's authoritarian regime. Unless the Islamic Republic fears real consequences from the United States and the international community, it is hard to see how diplomacy will work.

Next door in Iraq, it is vitally important that President Obama, in his rush to withdraw troops, not undermine the progress we’ve made in recent years. Prime Minister Maliki met yesterday with President Obama, who began his press availability with an extended comment about Afghanistan. When he finally got around to talking about Iraq, he told the media that he reiterated to Maliki his intention to remove all U.S. troops from Iraq. Former President
Bush's bold decision to change strategy in Iraq and surge U.S. forces there set the stage for success in that country. Iraq has the potential to be a strong, democratic ally in the war on terrorism, and an example of economic and democratic reform in the heart of the Middle East. The Obama Administration has an obligation to protect this young democracy and build on the strategic success we have achieved in Iraq.

We should all be concerned as well with the direction of policy on Afghanistan. For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly – and despite our success in Iraq – we’re hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.

Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.

President Obama has said he understands the stakes for America. When he announced his new strategy he couched the need to succeed in the starkest possible terms, saying, quote, “If the Afghan government falls to the Taliban – or allows al-Qaeda to go unchallenged – that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” End quote.

Five months later, in August of this year, speaking at the VFW, the President made a promise to America’s armed forces. “I will give you a clear mission,” he said, “defined goals, and the equipment and support you need to get the job done. That’s my commitment to you.”

It’s time for President Obama to make good on his promise. The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed forces are in danger. 

Make no mistake, signals of indecision out of Washington hurt our allies and embolden our adversaries. Waffling, while our troops on the ground face an emboldened enemy, endangers them and hurts our cause.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

It’s worth recalling that we were engaged in Afghanistan in the 1980’s, supporting the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. That was a successful policy, but then we pretty much put Afghanistan out of our minds. While no one was watching, what followed was a civil war, the takeover by the Taliban, and the rise of bin Laden and al-Qaeda. All of that set in motion the events of 9/11. When we deployed forces eight years ago this month, it was to make sure Afghanistan would never again be a training ground for the killing of Americans. Saving untold thousands of lives is still the business at hand in this fight. And the success of our mission in Afghanistan is not only essential, it is entirely achievable with enough troops and enough political courage.

Then there’s the matter of how to handle the terrorists we capture in this ongoing war. Some of them know things that, if shared, can save a good many innocent lives. When we faced that problem in the days and years after 9/11, we made some basic decisions. We understood that organized terrorism is not just a law-enforcement issue, but a strategic threat to the United States.

At every turn, we understood as well that the safety of the country required collecting information known only to the worst of the terrorists. We had a lot of blind spots – and that’s an awful thing, especially in wartime. With many thousands of lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all.

The intelligence professionals who got the answers we needed from terrorists had limited time, limited options, and careful legal guidance. They got the baddest actors we picked up to reveal things they really didn’t want to share. In the case of Khalid Sheik Muhammed, by the time it was over he was not was not only talking, he was practically conducting a seminar, complete with chalkboards and charts. It turned out he had a professorial side, and our guys didn’t mind at all if classes ran long. At some point, the mastermind of 9/11 became an expansive briefer on the operations and plans of al-Qaeda. It happened in the course of enhanced interrogations. All the evidence, and common sense as well, tells us why he started to talk.

The debate over intelligence gathering in the seven years after 9/11 involves much more than historical accuracy. What we’re really debating are the means and resolve to protect this country over the next few years, and long after that. Terrorists and their state sponsors must be held accountable, and America must remain on the offensive against them. We got it right after 9/11. And our government needs to keep getting it right, year after year, president after president, until the danger is finally overcome.

Our administration always faced its share of criticism, and from some quarters it was always intense. That was especially so in the later years of our term, when the dangers were as serious as ever, but the sense of general alarm after 9/11 was a fading memory. Part of our responsibility, as we saw it, was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America … and not to let 9/11 become the prelude to something much bigger and far worse.

Eight years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive – and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed. So you would think that our successors would be going to the intelligence community saying, “How did you did you do it? What were the keys to preventing another attack over that period of time?”

Instead, they’ve chosen a different path entirely – giving in to the angry left, slandering people who did a hard job well, and demagoguing an issue more serious than any other they’ll face in these four years. No one knows just where that path will lead, but I can promise you this: There will always be plenty of us willing to stand up for the policies and the people that have kept this country safe.

On the political left, it will still be asserted that tough interrogations did no good, because this is an article of faith for them, and actual evidence is unwelcome and disregarded. President Obama himself has ruled these methods out, and when he last addressed the subject he filled the air with vague and useless platitudes. His preferred device is to suggest that we could have gotten the same information by other means. We’re invited to think so. But this ignores the hard, inconvenient truth that we did try other means and techniques to elicit information from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and other al-Qaeda operatives, only turning to enhanced techniques when we failed to produce the actionable intelligence we knew they were withholding. In fact, our intelligence professionals, in urgent circumstances with the highest of stakes, obtained specific information, prevented specific attacks, and saved American lives.

In short, to call enhanced interrogation a program of torture is not only to disregard the program’s legal underpinnings and safeguards. Such accusations are a libel against dedicated professionals who acted honorably and well, in our country’s name and in our country’s cause. What’s more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation in the future, in favor of half-measures, is unwise in the extreme. In the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures keep you half exposed.

For all that we’ve lost in this conflict, the United States has never lost its moral bearings – and least of all can that be said of our armed forces and intelligence personnel. They have done right, they have made our country safer, and a lot of Americans are alive today because of them.

Last January 20th, our successors in office were given the highest honors that the voters of this country can give any two citizens. Along with that, George W. Bush and I handed the new president and vice president both a record of success in the war on terror, and the policies to continue that record and ultimately prevail. We had been the decision makers, but those seven years, four months, and nine days without another 9/11 or worse, were a combined achievement: a credit to all who serve in the defense of America, including some of the finest people I’ve ever met.

What the present administration does with those policies is their call to make, and will become a measure of their own record. But I will tell you straight that I am not encouraged when intelligence officers who acted in the service of this country find themselves hounded with a zeal that should be reserved for America’s enemies. And it certainly is not a good sign when the Justice Department is set on a political mission to discredit, disbar, or otherwise persecute the very people who helped protect our nation in the years after 9/11.

There are policy differences, and then there are affronts that have to be answered every time without equivocation, and this is one of them. We cannot protect this country by putting politics over security, and turning the guns on our own guys.

We cannot hope to win a war by talking down our country and those who do its hardest work – the men and women of our military and intelligence services. They are, after all, the true keepers of the flame.

Thank you very much.

Thanks again to Fox News for providing the text of this sobering message.




Dick Cheney - Center for Security Policy Speech

Marc Lamont Hill Fired: AIM Marc Lamont Hill: Cliff Kincaid Marc Lamont Hill

Cliff Kincaid, editor of Accuracy in Media (AIM) showed up at the News Corporation annual meeting on October 16th and asked Rupert Murdoch why FOX News hired Dr. Marc Lamont Hill? News Corporation is the parent company of FOX News. Rupert Murdoch is the CEO of News Corp. Dr. Marc Lamont Hill was a paid analyst for FOX News and appears, maddeningly and often, on Bill O'Reilly's The Factor.

Marc Lamont Hill

Kincaid was in the middle of raising a question that he has asked in a series of recent columns - namely, while properly questioning how the Obama Administration could possibly have hired Van Jones, with his radical background, how did FOX News hire Marc Lamont Hill as an analyst, when Hill had an easily documentable record in support of cop-killers. Before Kincaid completed the background for his question, News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch interrupted Kincaid to say that he appreciated Cliff's work on this matter, and that Hill had been "fired" last week.

On October 7, 2009 AIM reported this:

Marc Lamont Hill, the far-left hip-hop professor and paid Fox News Channel analyst, has a record in support of cop-killers. And now we have learned that he went on "The O'Reilly Factor" to defend black militants who held a March vigil in honor of Lovelle Mixon, a suspected rapist with a lengthy criminal record, who murdered four Oakland police officers. Hill said on Fox News that the activists, many of them from a communist organization, were protesting "police terrorism." Recall that Hill claims that cop-killer Assata Shakur, who fled to Communist Cuba after escaping from prison, is innocent. Hill has also declared his support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, another convicted cop-killer, who is on death row. Hill called him a "freedom fighter" and "political prisoner" devoted to "black liberation" and announced that the convicted killer would be contributing to Hill's website as a weekly contributor. "Welcome Brother Mumia!!!!" Hill said. The defense of the protesters in the Mixon case adds to the growing concern about this Fox News contributor, who is paid handsomely by the channel to appear on various Fox News Channel shows and is supposed to provide the appearance of fairness and balance.

From an article titled The Extreme makeover of Fox News analyst Marc Lamont Hill:

Who would plaster his Twitter page with police mug shot photos of convicted cop-killer Assata Shakur? Fox News contributor Marc Lamont Hill did. At least until David Horowitz and Accuracy in Media took notice and wrote about it. Now the page features photos of boxing great Muhammad Ali. Hill's MySpace page is also gone. There are other changes as well. The tributes to Shakur and black racist Khallid Muhammad, known as "America's Black Hitler," have disappeared from his web pages. The articles were saved, however, and can be found here. Remember that Hill had claimed that he hadn't written the tribute to the cop-killer, and that it had been posted under his name and written by someone else, even though it was signed, "Marc." The claim was difficult to take seriously. There was no confusion about the Muhammad piece, since it included personal references to Hill's growing-up years. That article concluded, "'I LOVE YOU AND MISS YOU DR. KHALLID."

AIM refers us to quotes by Khallid Muhammad, according to a new book by Fred Gielow:

Fred Gielow's excellent new book, "I Can't Believe You Said That!," has been published, with a section on Muhammad. Considering some of the statements reproduced in this book, one can understand why the tribute to him would be taken off Hill's website. But we are still left wondering why it was there in the first place. You will recall that Hill, who appears regularly on "The O'Reilly Factor," had described Muhammad as "a mentor, teacher, and revolutionary hero."

In Gielow's book, Muhammad is quoted as declaring in1995, "This is the time of the black man's rise and the white man's demise." This quote is rather mild, compared to what he said in his 1996 "Kill the White Man" speech to a black audience: "...I say, goddamnit, we kill 'em all! [applause] You say, well why kill 'em all? Why kill the women? First, why kill the babies? They're just little innocent blue-eyed babies. Because g*ddamnit, they're gonna grow up one day to rule your babies. Kill 'em now." Fox analyst Hill has declared his belief that the brain aneurysm that claimed Muhammad's life was somehow deliberately induced by outside forces and that Muhammad was "assassinated."

As Maggie's Notebook contributor, and writer for the Examiner, Jim Simpson, says:

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has scored a victory for our side as significant as Trevor Loudon's exposing of Van Jones. He got racist radical Marc Lamont Hill, a former Fox News commentator, who rationalized cop killing on air, fired. We have a lot to thank Cliff for. He has helped expose Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn's likely involvement in fatal bombings and kept the heat up, and has brought to our side absolutely critical information about our domestic enemies you will be hard-pressed to find anywhere else. Go to his website. Look at all the incredible resources, and put in a donation! Cliff is one fighter we want and need to be at the forefront in this final battle for the soul of our country.

After watching Marc Lamont Hill's incredulous performance, defending the indefensible on FOX, and being treated with an extreme measure of respect for his opinions, I'm happy he is gone. Bring on the next Liberal.

Honduras - Last Bastion of Democracy

by Jim Simpson @ Truth and Consequences It is entirely in keeping with his communist heritage, philosophy and preferences that this despicable, destructive, miserable excuse for a non-President who today uses the alias Barack Obama, should side with Chavez and Castro against tiny Honduras. Many other Latin-American countries have been manipulated, pressured and subverted by the OAS, the Leftist press, and two-faced American diplomats into allowing communists to take over, with disastrous consequences for their people and the region. Honduras had the foresight and singular courage to get rid of Zelaya and his thugs before they had time to become irretrievably entrenched. It was a wise move, and entirely legal - NOT a coup. I have heard from American military personnel serving in Venezuela about friends in the Venezuelan military that have simply disappeared. Chavez is quietly murdering regime opponents while he nationalizes businesses and consolidates power. Similar things are happening in Bolivia and doubtless in Equador. But this is no surprise. It is doctrine for communist leaders to murder their opponents as soon as is practicable. Only then can they engage in the kind of unchallenged power grabs we have seen for example, in Venezuela. Surprisingly though, there are no Washington Post expose's, no breathless reporting from Anderson Cooper's 360, no interviews with regime victims on Larry King Live. Somehow all those storied "investigative journalists" in the U.S. media keep missing the scoops. Instead, they lambast Honduras for resorting to what can only be described as a last-ditch effort at survival. And our hapless "President" who last week wouldn't touch Iran's brutal oppression, suddenly finds the voice to demand "Justice" for Honduras's thug, Zelaya? Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has posted a great article on the AIM website describing how Hondurans feel about their betrayal by America. A worthwhile read. In the meantime, this might be the time to call and/or write your Senators/Congressmen and ask them to defy our anti-American President and his Leftist press lapdogs by showing support for this Democratic ally that is trying to save itself from the despots. Background: Lugar Clinton: Explain Honduras Foreign Policy Please Honduras Thousands in the Street: Michelletti Supporters in the Streets Zelaya Returns: Zelaya Retreats Honduras Defending Constitution: Defending Democracy Honduras Threatened with Banishment from Organization of American States Zelaya Returns to Honduras: Micheletti Government to Block Zelaya Plane Micheletti Still Denies Zelaya Entry: Zelaya Visits Hillary Instead Honduras: Last Bastion of Democracy

Obama's Real Connections to Venezuela's Chavez

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has provided an in-depth look at Obama's real connections to Venezuela's communist thug, Chavez. This is a stunning, horrifying read, and reveals the true danger posed by our Leftist lunatic "President," aka "The One." What we are really dealing with in Obama and his cabal is nothing less than a communist coup, brought to us through a stolen election, aided and abetted by a complicit press and a Corrupt, fellow-traveling Congress. Believe it. Something MUST be done, and there is precious little time left. The cartoon below should give you a cynical chuckle, if you can still laugh after reading Cliff's piece.

John Edwards Sex Tape: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Sex Tape?

Reports are abuzz that not only is Rielle Hunter's baby's daddy definitely the former Senator John Edwards', but there was a sex tape made as well. See 1-29-10 Update Below.

John Edwards - Rielle Hunter

Edwards has been out of the spotlight since his affair with Hunter was discovered during his 2008 run for U.S. President. You might remember that the National Enquirer "got it right," as they often do these days. The Enquirer reporter got all the info and hung at the hotel. They reported that Edwards was not only visiting Hunter, but a baby was part of the story also. The next day when Edwards tried to leave, he was confronted by National Enquirer reporters.

Shocked to see a reporter, and without saying anything, Edwards ran up the stairs leading from the hotel basement to the lobby. But, spotting a photographer, he doubled back into the basement. As he emerged from the stairwell, reporter Butterfield questioned him about his hookup with Rielle.

What a story that was. So here's what happened next: Andrew Young, a former aid to John Edwards claimed that Hunter's baby was his during the 2008 campaign - not Edwards. That was before the Young's book deal was signed. Funny thing, Andrew subsequently moved to a new home, unpacked and guess what he found? A videocassette:

Hunter had been hired by the Edwards campaign to videotape the candidate’s movements, but this one is said to have shown him taking positions that weren’t on his official platform.

The purported sex tape confirmed to Hunter that Edwards was even more reckless than he thought.

According to our source, Hunter confided to Young that she and Edwards talked about getting married should the candidate’s cancer-stricken wife, Elizabeth, pass away, even discussing what music they’d play at their wedding.

John Edward's wife, Elizabeth, was diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer while John and Rielle were filming their fun. I just have to ask: how did Andrew Young end up with the tape?

I predict Young's book will be a bestseller. Other Commentary on the despicable Edwards affair: Track-A-'Crat

Related and Background:  

Update 1-19-10 - See the latest on the sex tape - Rielle admits there is one!

Rielle Hunter and Edwards Sex Tape: Restraining Order - Rielle Admits Sex Tape 

John Edwards and Elizabeth Separated: Edwards Admits Fathering Rielle's Baby

John Edwards Most UnPopular Person Ever!

John Edwards: Andrew Young's Book The Politician

John Edwards Sex Tape: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Sex Tape?

Elizabeth Edwards is Cherubim? Elizabeth Blogs about Rielle

John Edwards Blames His Own Celebrity

O'Reilly Geraldo Edwards: Disingenuous Grandstander

Tony Fratto on Obama Jobs Created...or not: Jobs estimates

Sorting out the phony numbers coming out of the Obama administration is something we are all struggling with. Tony Fratto is doing some explaining and it isn't good for President Obama unless you are wearing his special brand of magical rose-colored glasses.

Tony Fratto

Fratto is a former Deputy Assistant and Deputy Press Secretary to President George W. Bush. He represented the Bush Administration on international trade, financial markets, banking and international development and tax policy. Fratto has an impressive resume: along with serving on White House Staff, he was Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the U.S. Treasury and Communications Director on Senator Rick Santorum's congressional staff. There's no need for an impressive resume, however, according to Fratto. There's no need to be an expert to discount, completely, the Obama administration's cheeky claims. Currently, Mr. Fratto is a CNBC on-air contributor. Fratto says that Obama's "jobs created" numbers are pure fiction:

After nearly twenty years in Washington I thought I've seen every trick ever conceived, but the White House claims of "jobs saved" attributed to the stimulus bill is unrivaled. What causes the jaw to drop is not just the breathtaking deception of the claim, but the gullibility of the Washington press corps to continue reporting it.Here's an important note to my friends in the news media: the White House has absolutely no earthly clue how many job losses have been prevented because of the stimulus bill. None. Not Christina Romer. Not Jared Bernstein. Not Austen Goolsbee. Each of these distinguished economists would have failed Statistics 101 for making such a laughable claim. But we see them now repeating these assertions to reporters who have seemingly abandoned all skepticism. Forget that only a trickle of stimulus spending has yet made its way into the real economy. Set aside your views on whether or not the stimulus has any job-saving or -creating impact. And leave for another day the White House's failing to account for changing macroeconomic conditions and seasonal adjustments. There is only one necessary data point to make the "jobs-saved" claim: an accurate measure of expected employment levels in the future. That baseline data is critical to measure what the employment level would be in the absence of the stimulus. Unfortunately for the White House, they cannot possibly know that measurement within any degree of confidence -- and they know it. To understand just how unknowable this data point is, it's not necessary to be an economist, a mathematician or a statistician. You only need to know this: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) - thousands of the most professional and rigorous counters and analyzers of labor data in the history of mankind - makes TWO revisions of employment data for their ESTIMATE of the PREVIOUS month! And even then the reports are mere estimates - an annual benchmark survey is required to reset the nation's payroll baseline. That is, the best employment statisticians the world has ever known, people whose lives are dedicated to employment data, conducting labor surveys and research, constantly refining their complex models, have a difficult time telling you how many jobs were created in the PAST! In fact, monthly BLS revisions of past job creation estimates are routinely off by tens of thousands of jobs, and on occasion by more than a hundred thousand jobs. The annual benchmark surveys always reset employment levels by hundreds of thousands of jobs. And we're supposed to believe that the Council of Economic advisors have acquired the clairvoyant ability to estimate payrolls in the future? Please. Romer, Goolsbee and Bernstein are smart people, and yet they haven't learned from even their recent misadventures with payroll data projections -- having already experienced the folly of attempting to project the range of possible jobs levels if the stimulus were passed. Projecting job creation with any degree of accuracy was always inherantly impossible, and should never have been taken seriously. If I -- or even my predecessors in the Clinton Administration -- had tried to pull off this ridiculous gimmick we would have been run out of town. I don't even believe it's possible to look back and accurately measure the "job-saving" impact of Bush or Clinton Administration policies, let alone to measure in real time, or project into the future. On Friday the BLS will release its estimate of May job losses. They will also report their revisions for March and April. And White House officials will once again gear up the spin machine on how many jobs have been "saved". A self-respecting press corps would vigorously question the White House on their claims. We'll see if we have one.

Read more on the subject and Tony Fratto at the Wall Street Journal.

Hooray For Pallywood!

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle Pallywood you ask? What the heck is Pallywood? Where the heck is Pallywood? Pallywood, a portmanteau (word formed by joining two others and combining their meanings) of "Palestinian" and "Hollywood", is a buzz word that is used by pro-Israel media-watchdog advocates to describe "media manipulation, distortion and outright fraud by the Palestinians and other Arabs. The term has been publicized in part by Boston University professor Richard Landes, as a result of an online documentary video he produced called Pallywood: According to Palestinian Sources, highlighting specific instances of alleged media manipulation. In other words, it means a propaganda lie done by the Palestinians, eaten up by the Main Stream Media as truth and disseminated as the truth by the Main Stream Media. In Pallywood Landes shows Arab-Israeli conflict-related footage that was taken mostly by freelance Palestinian video journalists. He argues that systematic media manipulation (which he dubs "Pallywood") dates back to at least the 1982 Lebanon War, and argues that broadcasters are too uncritical of the veracity of Palestinian freelance footage. He focuses in particular on the case of Muhammad al-Durrah, a 12-year-old Palestinian who was widely reported to have been killed by Israeli gunfire in the Gaza Strip on September 30, 2000 at the beginning of the Second Intifada. The shooting was filmed by a Palestinian freelance cameraman and aired on the France 2 television channel with narration by the veteran French-Israeli journalist Charles Enderlin, who was not present at the incident. It made worldwide headlines and the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces was heavily criticized internationally, severely damaging Israel's public standing on the world stage. Landes questions the authenticity of the footage and disputes whether al-Durrah was killed at all, arguing that the entire incident was staged by the Palestinians. He asserts that the incident shows that "Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes."

Pallywood View at YouTube

If this was the only source of truth on the internet, then we would have a lot of work to do alone. But we have a couple marvelous resources at our disposal. One of them is Honest Reporting. Honest Reporting is a non-profit organization dedicated to bring out the truth in what is actually and truthfully happening in the Middle East, specifically Israel.

Honest Reporting View at YouTube

Another resource is Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). From their website:

Founded in 1982, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America is a media-monitoring, research and membership organization devoted to promoting accurate and balanced coverage of Israel and the Middle East. CAMERA fosters rigorous reporting, while educating news consumers about Middle East issues and the role of the media. Because public opinion ultimately shapes public policy, distorted news coverage that misleads the public can be detrimental to sound policymaking. A non-partisan organization, CAMERA takes no position with regard to American or Israeli political issues or with regard to ultimate solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The scope of the problem Inaccurate and distorted accounts of events in Israel and the Middle East are to be found everywhere from college radio stations to network television, from community newspapers to national magazines, and, of course, on the Internet. In recent years misinformation about the Middle East has also surfaced in fashion magazines, architectural publications, encyclopedias, professional reference works, geography textbooks, travel guides, and even dictionaries. Frequently inaccurate and skewed characterizations of Israel and of events in the Middle East may fuel anti-Israel and anti-Jewish prejudice. How CAMERA works CAMERA systematically monitors, documents, reviews and archives Middle East coverage. Staffers directly contact reporters, editors, producers and publishers concerning distorted or inaccurate coverage, offering factual information to refute errors. CAMERA members are encouraged to write letters for publication in the print media and to communicate with correspondents, anchors and network officials in the electronic media. CAMERA's combination of rigorous monitoring, research, fact-checking, careful analysis, and grassroots efforts have had a documented impact.

CAMERA has been trying to keep the media outlits honest and truthful in their coverage of events in the Middle East. So far they have had limited success. The last resource that I will mention is the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Many reports here on Monkey in the Middle come directly from them. You know its from them when you see this banner: If you click on the banner you will get a link back to the report from them. From their Website:

About Us The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian,Turkish, Urdu-Pashtu media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization. MEMRI's headquarters is located in Washington, DC with branch offices in London, Tokyo, Rome, Baghdad, Shanghai, and Jerusalem. MEMRI research is translated to English, German, Hebrew, Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese.

Three great resources for the truth against the lies of Pallywood and Arab media. With the help of Honest Reporting, CAMERA, and MEMRI, we all should be able to counter the lies that are being disseminated by Pallywood. Now here is where you come in. Get informed about the truth. Tell others about the truth. When you see false information on the news, contact them with an e-mail with the truth. If enough of us do that, the lies of Pallywood will be seen as what they are lies and lying propaganda. To contact the Media here are some useful links: Television CNN on their website Fox News can be contacted by email: yourcomments@foxnews.com, CBS News has a form at the bottom of their website that you can use. NBC News has a comment page for NBC and MSNBC news. ABC News has a comment page for its news service. Print The New York Times has a comment page. The Washington Post has a comment page for both its on-line paper and regular paper with phone numbers for both. The LA Times can be contacted by email: readers.rep@latimes.com Chicago Sun Times has a contact page with its address and phone number. You are now armed with the facts, lets all get out there to make the media tell the truth and not push the lies.

What Can You Do In 270 Seconds?

Cross posted by Findalis of Monkey in the Middle An interesting question needless to say. 270 seconds = 4 minutes. You can boil an egg. You can kiss your spouse. You can give your children a big hug. If you are Israel, you can destroy 40 Tunnels that connect Gaza to Egypt.

The IAF destroyed 40 tunnels that connected the Egyptian and Gazan sides of Rafiah (Rafah) in a bombing sortie that lasted 270 seconds Sunday afternoon. Plumes of black smoke mushroomed into the air one after the other as the IAF cast bombs at the tunnels which line the Philadelphi Corridor between Egypt and Gaza. The Corridor is supposed to be guarded by Egyptian forces but these have proven unable or unwilling to prevent large-scale smuggling of weapons and other supplies into Gaza. A high ranking military source said that all of the tunnels which have been used by Hamas to smuggle weapons have been destroyed. Observers said the IAF may have used U.S.-supplied "bunker buster" bombs to destroy some the tunnels. As part of the psychological warfare against Gaza, hundreds of residents of Gaza received recorded telephone calls in which they were warned: "You are in danger. In order to save your life and that of your family you must leave this place. This is a message from the Israel Defense Force." The top source said that the IAF has carried out 213 sorties over Gaza since Operation Cast Lead began, 56 of them by combat helicopters. Most of the sorties were carried out Sunday. He said that some of the tunnels were buried deep in the ground and their demolition was made possible thanks to accurate information supplied by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency). The source said that the fighting would go on for a long time and warned that we would see "difficult days" in the course of the operation.

Strange war this is. The enemy calls up the civilians in Gaza and tells them to take cover. When did Hamas ever do that for the people of Sderot. Day 2 of Operation Cast Lead is going well. Hamas still fires rockets into Israel, this time reaching as far as Ashdod, Israel is hitting military targets with precision and accuracy.

Gaza terrorists continued firing rockets at the western Negev Sunday afternoon, although the pace of the attacks had slowed by 4:00 p.m.

Three people, including a 12-year-old boy, suffered shrapnel wounds and several others suffered traumatic shock Sunday afternoon when the missiles bombarded the coastal city of Ashkelon at mid-day.

The terrorists are using 122-mm Grad-type Katyusha missiles, of the type that can reach a range of up to 40 kilometers. Several cars were also damaged after one of the missiles struck the southern end of the port city. The second missile landed in an unidentified location. Less than an hour later, two rockets exploded in the Eshkol region. No one was injured and no damage was reported.

Full Story

And the usual noise is coming out of Lebanon. Again the people of Lebanon will suffer for the actions of Hizbollah.

Hizbullah terrorists have vowed to open a second front against Israel in the north in retaliation for the IDF military operation against Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

Terrorist chief Hassan Nasrallah issued a statement on Hizbullah's Al-Manar television station Sunday, vowing that "northern Israel will burn as Gaza is burning." Nasrallah rarely appears in person; he speaks via a video hook-up from his hideout due to fears of assassination by Israeli agents, following the 2006 Second Lebanon War. Hizbullah officials were quoted in a number of Arabic-language publications on Saturday warning that they would not permit Israel to attack Gaza without retaliating. Last week seven Katyusha rockets were discovered primed and ready for launching in southern Lebanon, located near the northern border of Israel. All seven were aimed at targets in the Jewish State. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- anticipating such a reaction -- warned Hizbullah Saturday night in his speech informing the nation about the military operation in Gaza that any "others who may seek to take advantage of the situation would be wise not to."

Full Story

In 2006 the world saw the dead children but not the dead Hizbollah fighters. Reports say that Hizbollah was decimated with losses of over 60%. I believe those reports since Hassan Nasrallah ordered that no funeral for any fighter be shown on the news, only those for civilian casualties. Thus the world got an distorted view of the war.

This time it is different. This time the Israeli people are 100% behind this action. This time the media is showing more pictures of dead and wounded Hamas fighters (I will not give them the honorific of soldier). And this time Israel will prevail.

NEIGHBORHOOD BULLY View at YouTube

The Fight for Human-made Global Warming

Photo Credit: Reuters

The United Nations announced the release this week of a new "synthesizing" report that forms the basis for a new Kyoto protocol replacement treaty. The report employs a heightened rhetoric, warning of the dire risks of climate change and the significance of inaction by the World body. If you are familiar with U.N. rhetoric, then you will be puzzled at the possibility of heightened rhetoric.

...melting ice sheets that could lead to a rapid rise in sea levels and the extinction of large numbers of species brought about by even moderate amounts of warming, on the order of 1 to 3 degrees.

They missed the one about Obama calming the rising oceans. We needn't bother with that one anymore. Note to self: dash off a memo to Mr. Ban. Of this new and highly lauded report, the Director of the World Wildlife Fund's Global Climate Change Program says:

The pressure has been palpable — people know they are delivering a document that will be cited for years to come and will define policy.

Some believe the report understates "the trajectory of global warming and its impact," but Gernot Klepper of the Kiel Institute for World Economy says "In terms of emissions, we are moving past the most pessimistic estimates of the I.P.C.C., and by some estimates we are above that red line.” The best policy is to always ignore anything and everything the U.N. asserts. Back in the States, Capitol Hill just turned a shade greener, but no warmer, this week with Rep. Henry Waxman replacing Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich-15th) as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Energy and Commerce panel is one of the most important House committees, with sweeping jurisdiction over energy, the environment, consumer protection and health care programs such as Medicaid and the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Waxman has accused the White House of "muzzling" Government scientists, and is generally expected to wage war on more Conservative Global Warming viewpoints - including those of the Blue Dog Democrats. This shift in leadership places an aggressive approach to climate change in high gear. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger convened the Governors' Global Climate Summit, and stated: In the end, we are going to destroy the world" if greenhouse gases are not reduced. Arnold goes on to say this can be done in a way that will allow every country's economies to thrive, but...California is in financial ruin and has asked for $7 Billion dollars from the U.S. Government to bail the State out of imminent disaster. Nevertheless, the Summit went on. Here's another way to look at so-called global warming, but it probably isn't a money maker for anyone:

*****

Global Warming? Bring it On! American Thinker by Gregory Young

Dr. Gregory Young is a neuroscientist and physicist, a doctoral graduate of the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. He is currently involved with a privately funded think-tank engaged in experimental biophysical research.

The argument propounded by the dubious United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Warming (AGW) is willfully fraudulent. The report has been vigorously and critically undermined, scientifically denounced and found wanting from both notable scientists here and abroad.

In spite of this fact, it is likely that the new U.S. Democratic Congress and Administration will once again proclaim that they know better than we do about such things. Get ready for them to move surreptitiously under the guise of Global Climate Control in an effort to enhance their own legacies and pocketbooks. To be sure, the Left hears nothing but their own incestuous voices, despite the voices of clarity and reason that abound around them. And there are many, many distinguished dissenters against the charade of AGW.

Take for instance the Founder of the Weather Channel and eminent Meteorologist John Coleman who has stated:

There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces. 

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call "Interglacial periods". For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.... [where] the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming. 

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980's and 1990's as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where's the global warming?

There is an abundance of solid data to back these conclusions up. For example, new measurements from the NASA/ESA spacecraft Ulysses show that the sun's current period of low activity goes beyond an extended dearth of sunspots. Solar activity has dropped to the lowest levels since recording began some 50 years ago. Current experts, such as Veizer, Shaviv, and most recently Svensmark et al., and Patterson, suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. They convincingly argue that increased cosmic radiation acts as a catalyst for cloud formation in earth's atmosphere. This, in turn, leads to a general cooling of the world's climate if the pattern persists.

Ironically, during the 1970s while some (including NASA's James Hansen) were hysterically promoting the schizoid fears of a new ice age hitting the world in a few decades, a new frenzy over Global Warming and Climate Change was just beginning at Scripps Ocenaographic Institute in San Diego, CA. It was started by one of their most esteemed scientists Roger Revelle, the father of Oceanography. His work correlated the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2 (a laboratory defined greenhouse gas) to atmospheric warming. Revelle later moved to Harvard and encouraged his students, including Al Gore, to rehash the data.

Since then the research methods have clearly gotten out of hand. Many avenues of research have proven repeatedly useless. Even Roger Revelle understood that there were greater variables at play than the trace gas of CO2.

Before he died, Revelle gave interviews and wrote letters stating that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures. He told Omni Magazine, in March 1984, that "CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes" -- not cause them. One cannot argue that CO2 was a causative factor -- especially since CO2 was apparently following temperature trend -- not moderating it. It seems none of his followers, Gore in particular, heeded his words.

There is a huge problem with the idea that Carbon Dioxide, or CO2, is a globally polluting gas, much less one that causes climate change and global warming. Even though some data seemed to initially substantiate the AGW thesis, these ideas were later proven to be wrong. (Those derived from ice core data were especially damning.) Australian Climatologist Dr. David Evans has done yeoman's work on this issue.

Often forgotten in the argument is the fact that CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere. For every million molecules of other gases in the atmosphere (such as nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen), there are only 385 molecules of CO2.

It is a fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have varied widely over geological time. The peak was estimated to be some 20-fold higher than at present (+6,000 ppm) -- and the low about 200 ppm below today's. (Everyday office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.)

Meteorologist John Coleman perspicaciously asks:

How can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? How can a trace element possibly be the cause of systemic Global Warming? It can't. That's all there is to it; it can't.... Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

Increased levels of CO2 has more likely benefited all life forms on the planet, summarizes Coleman. Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion.

Robinson, Robinson & Soon, in their cogent 2007 published research paper found here, provided empirical evidence that invalidates AGW alarmists hypotheses. They also found overwhelming support for the general benefits that are derived from natural global warming. Here is the summary of their findings:

1- A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth's weather and climate. There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor green house gases as has been proposed. 

2- Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence - actual measurements of Earth's temperature and climate - shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. 

3- Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor greenhouse gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. 

4- While major green house gas H2O substantially warms the Earth, minor green house gases such as CO2 have little effect.... The 6-fold increase in hydrocarbon use since 1940 has had no noticeable effect on atmospheric temperature or on the trend in glacier length. 

5- Solar activity and U.S. surface temperature are closely correlated...., but U.S. surface temperature and world hydrocarbon use are not correlated. 

6- We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. 

7- Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Dr. Michael Griffin, the new NASA Administrator, looks at climate change in a refreshingly contrarian fashion. He has stated:

To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change.

There are other fundamental objections to the AGW theory:

(1) The infamous "Hockey Stick" statistical debacle, nicely summarized here, effectively cherry-picked data from tree rings to estimate temperature change over the past 1000 years. The report erroneously declared that the largest increases in world temperature occurred in the 20^th century. These results could not be reproduced by anyone. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) later found the statistical methods first employed inappropriate and the findings bogus.

(2) The reported NASA temperature data glitch discovered by Canadian Computer Analyst Steve McIntyre that wrongly kicked all temperature records up several tenths of a degree was a severe setback for AGW modelers. This software "failure" was overseen by one of AGW's fiercest proponents, the notorious Dr. James Hanson. NASA's GISS and Hanson have recently come under fire again for poor data collection methods and questionable accuracy.

(3) As recently presented in American Thinker, Lord Monckton competently summarizes for us that many of the highly publicized AGW "facts" are simple documented anomalies of natural climate cycling -- designedly misrepresented for the cause of AGW.

To wit: The Oceans are not catastrophically rising nor are they warming. In fact, the oceans have been cooling since 2003. The Snows of Kilimanjaro are not melting but ablating because of friction due to a cooling atmosphere and natural cooling trends. The world's 160,000 glaciers are not suddenly receding, but appear to be re-advancing, including those ice shelves in Antarctic and the polar ice sheets, all of which cycle regularly in ice mass. Lord Monckton, a science-journalist, provides even more evidence here.

(4) Finally let us not forget the astute investigation of automated weather stations by US Meteorologist Anthony Watts. Watts painstakingly discovered that a large fraction of the nation's 1,200 stations have been wrongly sited in man-made heat-absorbing centers. (Examples include locations on rooftops, on slabs of heat absorbing concrete, next to air conditioners, diesel generators and asphalt parking lots, even at sewage treatment plants. Some are located in areas experiencing excessive nighttime humidity, and at non-standard observing heights, including one actually sinking into a swamp.) Watts' discovery profoundly undermined the veracity of historical temperature data documented in the United States -- data that had been used by AGW proponents.

There are three indisputable and fundamental facts that were wantonly ignored in the UN's IPCC sham of a report. The UN breathlessly but insidiously "forgot" to include the specifics that:

(1) The Earth has largely benefited by past warming cycle's and that these previous "warmings" had nothing to do with man's activities. These earlier natural cycles were not catastrophic events; they were, in fact, beneficial to all life forms. They provided warmer and longer growing seasons, more areas available for crops, etc. We know, for instance, that Greenland was once green, that Eric the Red planted and grew grapes in what is now Nova Scotia, Canada, that the Romans planted grapes in England, etc.

(2) Solar/Sun Spot activity is the originator of most climatic change and most weather patterns on Earth. It is king. There is no larger factor of influence. CO2 influence is negligible and pales in comparison. CO2 follows the trend of temperature; it does not cause it.

(3) Subordinate to solar activity alone, atmospheric water vapor/cloud formation and movement is the largest known variable that influences temperature changes in the atmosphere of the earth, and the earth's oceans. Water vapor in the atmosphere is around 1000-10,000 times as important as atmospheric CO2.

These three quintessential and pivotal factors are not even discussed in the UN's IPCC report. This exclusion should raise a red flag in any intelligent mind. That's why so many of us are yelling from the rooftops about the absurdity of the report itself!

Instead of a true and open discourse, we see the daily dribble from the MSM and various liberally usurped science journals, dishonestly and falsely alleging a "consensus" when there is none.

Indeed, arrayed against the arcane burlesque of the United Nations IPCC with its politically selected 2500 Scientists, of which a core group of 600 exists, and a relatively small number of mediocre "scientists" here and there across the American landscape who have suddenly found notoriety or grant money in the global warming cause, are 31,072+ legitimate and viable scientists (of which I am one) who signed the American Petition Project declaring the Global Warming Hypothesis bogus found here, here and here. We openly refute the UN's conclusions.

Here's the Petition Statement we dissenters signed in opposition:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 

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

Let me assure you that we're not in good humor, nor take it kindly to be slurred and ridiculed by taking the other side in this debate. And our numbers are still growing. Indeed, we're angry that the vast majority of American Scientists will not be heard by the media. We're dismayed over the fact that the Global Warming fiasco has become politically popular and expedient to those left-wing politicians and power-brokers whose sole aim is to literally tax everything with a carbon footprint and give them control over all life, hidden within their PC guileful pretence to save the planet. They wish to save no one but themselves. And the tide turns further. Of the 2500 originally aligned scientists and putative authors of the UN's IPCC report some 500 are no longer faithful to Big Al's errand. Read more at American Thinker