Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Monday, November 30, 2009


As Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee granted clemency to Maurice Clemmons, the man accused of killing four uniformed police officers in Washington state on 11/29/09 in a coffee shop. Clemmons was sentenced to 35 years in the early 90's for armed robbery and theft yet Huckabee let him go after 10 years. Recently, Clemmons was jailed for the the rape of a child.

What's most disturbing about Huckabee in this instance is not just that he let Clemmons free. It's that he has a very long history of setting prisoners free.

Michelle Malkin has probably done the best job of putting it ALL TOGETHER.

She posts multiple links to some of the Arkansas Leader articles on the subject.

THIS ONE is about Arkansas prosecutors expressing displeasure with the former Governor.

Or how about THIS ONE, which shows that Arkansas under Huckabee had more clemencies than six of its surrounding states combined.

HERE, the Leader has a piece calling for Huckabee to be held accountable for his shameful record in this area.

If ever there was an example for conservatives to set when it comes to party loyalty, this is it. Instead of defending Huckabee because he's a Republican, conservatives should show the highly partisan left that they will not play their game and diffuse their own cognitive dissonance with absurd rationalizations. Huckabee's political career is likely over because of this and it should be.



You can always tell when Gibbs is having a rough day by that long strand of hair he has hanging in his face. That said, you didn't need to see the strand to realize Gibbs was wrestling with the notion of having to defend the indefensible. The White House position on Climategate is obviously to dig in. That would seem to indicate that it is so invested in this fraud that it can't turn back now.

Utterly pathetic.

h/t to HAP

Sunday, November 29, 2009


Since Hugo Chavez lackey Manuel Zelaya was removed from the presidency forcibly on June 28th, the international community - including the Obama administration - has aligned and done virtually all it could to reinstate Zelaya. Interim president Roberto Micheletti has stood his ground and by all accounts, it's paying off. The Wall Street Journal reported that voter turnout for the elections held today has been very strong. That doesn't seem to bode well for Zelaya since he called for people to boycott the elections.
Voter turnout was seen as a crucial factor in persuading more countries to back the poll. Although it started out light, it appeared to pick up considerably, and Honduran election officials said it was high enough to keep the polls open for an additional hour. High turnout could represent another setback for Mr. Zelaya, who had urged supporters to boycott the poll.

Mr. Zelaya's removal at gunpoint in June caused a stir in Honduras and abroad, where the global community condemned the ouster as a coup. Honduras's political institutions, including its congress and supreme court, backed the ouster as the legal removal of a president who they said was illegally trying to get himself re-elected -- charges Mr. Zelaya denies.
Interestingly, both Zelaya and Micheletti are from Honduras' liberal party but the turnout and early returns indicate that a conservative candidate is going to win.
Neither of the two men claiming to be president during the past five months -- Mr. Zelaya and interim President Roberto Micheletti -- was on the ballot. Instead, Hondurans chose between Mr. Lobo of the conservative National Party and Elvin Santos of the Liberal Party -- to which both Mr. Zelaya and Mr. Micheletti belong.

The vote, seen as punishing the Liberal Party for the crisis, hands power to Mr. Lobo, a conservative rancher who was narrowly beat by Mr. Zelaya four years ago. "It's going to be Pepe this time," said Higenio Garcia Ponce, 74, an agricultural laborer who said he had just voted for Mr. Lobo. "There was a rupture in the Liberal Party over what happened with Zelaya."
Frankly, Micheletti is probably rooting for Lobo based on what he's had to deal with since assuming power - power he appears to be all too willing to relinquish (unlike Zelaya).

Micheletti should be considered a hero of Honduras. He has stood on principle and he has stood against the world. While he hasn't crossed the finish line yet, he appears to have won. The United States has already indicated that it will recognize the winner of this election.
Only the U.S., Costa Rica and Panama have said they will accept the winner, though other countries, including Mexico and Canada, appear to be leaning that way as well. The government is betting that U.S. recognition will lead other nations to back down from earlier positions. "They may not recognize the elections Sunday itself, but I believe they will at some point in the future," Mr. Lobo said Saturday.
If the results of this election come out the way it looks like they might, Micheletti will have been far more victorious than Lobo. What Micheletti will have accomplished with the election of a conservative and a smooth transition of power with the world against him is nothing short of Churchillian.

Well done, Roberto.

Read the ENTIRE WSJ piece.


Folks, it truly pains me to have to go to this level of discourse but the egregiousness of people like Paul Krugman cannot be pooh poohed or dismissed. Krugman was outed as a liar when it came to the public option some time ago. He was busted on tape and hasn't been sufficiently called on it by the media.

You can see the video of that for yourself right HERE.

Today, Krugman appeared on This Week with George Stephanopolous and dismissed the Climategate emails by saying there was "no smoking gun".

NOTE: Whenever you see someone say, "What they really meant when they said that was......" 9 times out of 10 it means that there was NOTHING taken out of context in the first place.

Newsbusters has the VIDEO. Be sure to watch the second video clip on the Newsbusters site and note how nervous Krugman looks toward the end when George Will is confronting him. Krugman goes for the mug of water more out of what appears to be nervousness than actual thirst.



Robert Spencer over at Jihad Watch was contacted recently by one of Nidal Malik Hasan's classmates. As Spencer points out, the preponderance of evidence almost makes this claim uneventful but in light of the cowardly rhetoric of the head of the Army, George Casey, it serves as validation for those of us who know the truth and continue to embarrass the likes of Casey with it. Here is the quote from a Doctor and former classmate of Hasan:
He was an outspoken jihadist. He stated publicly that Shariah Law came before the Constitution that he swore an oath to uphold. He did off topic presentations in public health classes on how the War on Terror was a war on Islam. Other courses, he justified suicide bombing.

We complained to faculty, but the PC climate in the military prevented any action that might have been taken against him. Now there are 13 people dead and scores more wounded.
h/t to JW


Since the over 1000 emails from East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit were released to the internet on November 19th, there has been a whirlwind of activity surrounding what the emails say and who's involved. Thanks to this video, the latter is handled quite well. The players are many and when you factor in the definition of "conspiracy", it appears that's exactly what we've got here.

con⋅spir⋅a⋅cy  [kuhn-spir-uh-see] Show IPA
–noun, plural -cies.
1. the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

Video courtesy of WUWT

h/t to DOUG ROSS

Friday, November 27, 2009


Breitbart's Big Government website - along with P.I. Derrick Roach, who scarfed up 20,000 documents from the dumpster behind ACORN's San Diego office - is making life quite uncomfortable for Jerry Brown. First things first. BG posted a link to an interview Jerry Brown had on KABC on Tuesday, November 24th in which the host - Peter Tilden, asked him to comment on Roach's recovery of all of these documents.

As Charles Krauthammer said when referring to Eric Holder's attempt at explaining why Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was being tried as a civilian in NYC, Brown was incoherent. Here is THE LINK to the BG page that has the audio from the interview.

BG makes an excellent point about Brown's reaction to the 20,000 documents. Instead of viewing it as a boon to his investigation, thereby making it easier, Brown appears almost distraught by the fact that all of this evidence on ACORN has been exposed.
Considering this document dump occurred just a few days after the Attorney General had announced an investigation of this very same office, we anticipated his righteous anger at this obvious afront to the integrity of his investigation and the people of California’s right to investigate all evidence pertaining to the operations of ACORN.
Quite curious for an Attorney General to respond that way - unless you're Governor Moonbeam I guess.

Be sure to check out the latest documents Roach has posted on BIG GOVERNMENT. Jerry Brown is finding himself in quite the conundrum. In addition to being implicated by an audio tape that allegedly has the voice of ACORN California leader David Lagstein bragging that Brown's investigation of ACORN will find fault with the filmmakers and not ACORN - based on Lagstein's claim that he had access to communications from Brown's office. As Attorney General, Brown's troubles relative to that audio recording have increased tremendously as a result of these 20,000 documents retrieved from the ACORN dumpster.

You're urged and encouraged to check out this OTHER POST on Brown relative to his affinity for Community Organizing and his relationship with Jim Jones, of Jonestown fame. Jim Jones used Community Organizing style tactics to bully the San Francisco Examiner and Jerry Brown seems to have an unhealthy affinity for ACORN.

Thursday, November 26, 2009


Yes, the Secretary of Logic, Lynn Woolley will be taking the day off and leaving Studio "L" in Barrack's hands from 8am-11am CST on Friday, the 27th. Joining me on the show will be Ted Shoebat, author of "For God or For Tyranny" and John Ziegler, a conservative who has been fighting media bias and defending Sarah Palin in the process. His latest work is a film called, "Media Malpractice".

The best way to get the show would be to go to my HOMEPAGE and click on the button to the left that looks like this:

Remember, the show doesn't actually start until 8:05am CST.

If that doesn't work, you can always go to Lynn's BE LOGICAL site and click the 'Listen Live' link. Then again, if you'd like a podcast, just go to the show archives page a little later and download the entire show, free of commercials.

Or, as will be the case with most, don't read this post and don't pay any of this any attention.

Remember, visit the HOME PAGE

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


This one sent in by TimBO who, as yet, still does not have a Barrackaid #. For the 'Separation of Church and State' crowd comes this 1789 proclamation from our first president, George Washington. As you can see, Mr. Washington had quite a bit of reverence for Yahweh. Twice, in this rather short proclamation, Washington uses the words "prayer" and "God" twice each. Oh, who do you think he was referring to when he said, "Great and glorious Being"?

Here's an idea. How about our public schools incorporate this into their curriculum?

Thanksgiving Proclamation

[New York, 3 October 1789]
Page Image.
By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington

For those who question the veracity of this proclamation....

h/t to TimBO


No, your eyes didn't deceive you and I did not make a typo. There are currently 27 Amendments in the Constitution of the United States. However, I was sent an email by my good friend John that would make a pretty good 28th Amendment and would likely get passed if enough candidates included such a plank in their platforms.

Amendment 28
Congress shall make no law that
applies to the citizens of the United
States that does not apply equally
to the Senators or Representatives,
and Congress shall make no law that
applies to the Senators or
Representatives that does not apply
equally to the citizens of the United States

h/t to John G.


There are still hundreds of emails from the University of East Anglia University Climate Research Unit to sort through in order to get to the bottom of the Climate Change / Global Warming fraud but the most notorious to date - and probably destined to be the signature email of the scandal - involves the "Nature Trick" of Penn State University Earth System Science professor Michael Mann. The intent of the "nature trick" was to "hide the decline".

Hence, the title of the song set to a very familiar melody. Very Catchy.

The email is from Phil Jones, of East Anglia's CRU and just in case you haven't seen it yet, here it is:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

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


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX
University of East Anglia
The man you see pictured in this video is Dr. Michael Mann. Here is a LINK to his webpage. At the time of this post, his page boasts 28,405 visitors since 2005. Mann's likely not going to have to worry about hiding any declines when it comes to hits on his website.

h/t to HA


Andrew Cline at the American Spectator is providing a new twist to the throw-the-frog-into-boiling water theory (already debunked by Glenn Beck). The argument, I suppose, is that conservatives should be thankful for Barack Obama's election as they eat turkey this Thanksgiving. Why? Well, because he is causing people to become conservative in droves. I know it's hard to digest but here goes:
Conservatives have the country. Obama has the government. Given Obama's remarkably open and constant disdain for the people he was elected to govern, one can make an educated guess what their reaction will be the first time they have a chance to register their feelings at the ballot box.

For giving them such an unexpectedly early opportunity to correct the mistake they made last fall, the American people -- especially conservatives -- ought to be thankful for this president. He is an unapologetically aggressive liberal. For the right, that's a good thing. It means there will be no blurring of the ideological lines in the next two elections.

I understand the argument and it has a historical standard. The Carter years primed the pump for the Reagan years and the thinking goes that Obama - who is actually worse than Carter - is priming the pump for someone to the right of Reagan.

Although he doesn't mention her name, the implication Cline seems to make is that America's long term harm would have been in much greater jeopardy had Hillary Clinton been elected instead. In this case, Cline seems to be referencing Bill's time in office but comparing it to a hypothetical Hillary presidency isn't much of a leap either.
This is no Clinton administration. Governing from the middle and playing to the polls are not behaviors we've seen this year. The Obama team doesn't seem to want to hold power indefinitely. It wants to enact its agenda as quickly as possible, under the apparent assumption (usually correct) that massive expansions of government power are never reversed.
This is speculative for sure but depending on how much damage Obama and the Democrats in Congress do before the 2010 mid-terms, it's definitely a point well-taken. Hillary is much more seasoned and would have been more consciously calculating. She wouldn't be moving this fast but that's only because of that seasoning and appreciation for the triangulation that got her husband two terms.



More fallout from the CRU emails from East Anglia University - or should I say lack of fallout? In reality, this should be the biggest scandal since we started counting centuries with double digits. I heard a caller in to Rush's show yesterday liken it to 1492 when Columbus proved the earth was round. Yet the fallout here is in what's NOT being said and from whom.

Glenn Beck excoriates the media and points out that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC have all reported on this huge story a grand total of ZERO times.

If you didn't understand why this scandal is not being covered, it would be enough to have you institutionalized. However, take a look at some of the people appearing at Obama's state dinner this week.

Representing CBS: Katie Couric..

ABC's Robin Roberts...

NBC's most dapper Obama sycophant, Brian Williams...

And of course, the CEO of MSNBC parent company (General Electric) Jeffrey Immelt, who may just be one of the most despicable human beings exhaling CO2.

Obama has been right there with Al Gore virtually every step of the way in supporting this massive fraud. Proof is coming out that a plan so diabolical has been in the works for years and the media's silence can only point to their complicity in perpetrating it.

h/t to HAP

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


We all remember the images of the charred bodies of Americans hanging from a bridge in Fallujah, Iraq in 2004. Scott Helvenston, Wesley Batalona, Jerry Zovko and Michael Teague were ambushed while working in Iraq as contractors with Blackwater. Regardless of anyone's opinions about the war, four Americans were brutally murdered by savage barbarians that, in a rational world, would be considered part of the enemy, right?

Well, here's the outrageous part. Navy SEALS recently captured the mastermind of this savage act - so far, so good - and allegedly gave the scumbag a fat lip. Now the SEALS are facing criminal charges. FOX NEWS reports:
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.
Now Fat lip boy is acting like a whiney baby to garner sympathy, which is straight out of their hand book, which we actually obtained but continue to ignore. Instead of these SEALS being treated as heroes, they're facing a court martial.

For more on the 2004 savagery, CLICK HERE.

h/t to JAWA


This says a lot. It is very revealing on two levels. Level 1: this liberal at the Guardian, George Monbiot, is pained to admit it but says the CRU emails are very damaging. That alone speaks volumes about the overwhelming veracity of the evidence. But in true liberal fashion, admissions of guilt and being wrong are simply too much to bear.

That leads us to the second level of astonishment. Level 2: Monbiot decides to downplay the conspiracy talk and any "gotcha" claims by man-made global warming skeptics by crafting a fictitious email and pointing to it as an example of something that would finally convince him. these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is "the final nail in the coffin" of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email that confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn't have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
Wow. Confession and humility would be nice. Instead, Monbiot actually decides to first concede what is undeniable and then appears completely unable to process the sham he has bought. Rather than let the anger humble him, he somehow finds a way to re-channel it back to the same folks who tried to help him by seeking the truth about Global Warming - it's a FRAUD.

Amazing to watch someone actually write a fictitious email and then claim that such an email would be the only thing that would make him admit he was duped. Rather than read the more than 1000 real emails available, Monbiot writes and publishes one that doesn't exist and holds it up as a reason why he won't admit the truth. Ironically, Monbiot still ends up angry at himself while taking a slap at the skeptics by living vicariously through some person that doesn't exist.

Be sure to read MONBIOT'S fake email.

h/t to HA


I haven't posted Rasmussen's daily presidential approval index for some time because there hasn't been any drastic changes or new high / low water marks since July. However, that changed today. Obama has reached a new low in the approval index category with a -15 meaning 42% of those polled strongly DISAPPROVE of his performance while only 27% strongly APPROVE.

In addition to the passion index, Obama has matched his lowest overall approval. RASMUSSEN shows him at 54% disapproval and a new low of 45% approval.


I began this post intending to discuss an article in the New American about how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is having to admit that the Climate Change movement is a fraud but while reading it, discovered a link to all of the emails released by the East Anglia University hacker.

Check 'em out HERE. Please let me know if you find any super juicy ones. Email me at

That said, the NEW AMERICAN article is pretty good too.
Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Lies, coercion, intimidation, collusion, and destroying evidence. Go figure.

h/t to FR


Some people simply cannot be helped. When denial reaches down to a level this low, I'm thinking Divine Intervention may be the only cure. New York TImes reporter Andrew Revkin, when confronted with the mountains of evidence coming out of the University of Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) this past week, he actually attempts to spin it.

K. Daniel Glover at AIM has more:
The bias began in the headline, "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute." It avoided the substance of the scandal -- what the e-mails actually say -- and downplayed it to nothing more than just another he-said-she-said debate among global warming alarmists and critics.

Revkin took the same tack in the lead. The story as his biased mind saw it wasn't that scientists have been conspiring to "hide the decline" in temperatures that would undermine the theory of global warming but that the e-mails had given "skeptics" new ammunition to make that case.

Six paragraphs into the story, Revkin kicked his spin machine into overdrive. "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument," he wrote.
Translation: the fact that the hand of the perpetrator was actually caught in the cookie jar is not enough to convince those who believe cookies aren't being stolen.

Be sure to read the WHOLE THING, which includes pertinent links.

Monday, November 23, 2009


This is typical liberalism. Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar and hair-brained elitist who seems to have a difficult time staying organized is now crying about how libel laws should have more teeth. Aaron Klein writes about how Sunstein has also singled out Sean Hannity as a culprit that warrants re-defining libel. Sunstein apparently points to the Ayers / Obama relationship as an example in his book:
In his recently released book, "On Rumors," Sunstein specifically cited as a primary example of "absurd" and "hateful" remarks, reports by "right-wing websites" alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist Bill Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for "attacking" Obama regarding the president's "alleged associations."
With a position like that, it's no wonder Sunstein hasn't appeared on Hannity's radio OR television show. Anyone tasked with defending the position that Ayers and Obama weren't very close is simply defending the indefensible. The fact that Sunstein is one of Obama's Czars makes his position even more untenable. Think about it. Why would he attack the accusations that there was a significant relationship between Obama and Ayers while calling for tougher libel laws and refusing to defend his position?

Klein quotes an excerpt from Sunstein's book:
"In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone," Sunstein writes.
Hey Cass, where's that book tour? This is amazingly pathetic. Sunstein has the opportunity to set the record straight by using his book to publicly defend what's in it. But he doesn't do that. He simply uses his book to advocate policies that will silence those who disagree with him. As a professor with an office that looks like Pig Pen lives there at night, that's fine but as a Czar in the Obama White House, it's cause for concern.
Sunstein continues: "On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes."

Sunstein presents multiple new measures he argues can be used to stop the spread of "rumors."

He contends "freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective."
An incomplete corrective? What does that even mean?! Maybe the page with the definition can be found in Cass' office - Good luck finding it!

Lastly, you gotta love this backward logic:
"It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the 'freedom of speech,'" he writes.
Only a whacked out liberal would see free speech as something that results in squashing free speech.

Pretty obvious why he's not doing a book tour.




Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) appeared on Washington Times radio with Jed Babbin and Melanie Morgan to give his take on the recent release of over 1000 emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain that appear to prove what most already know - that the Global Warming movement is a farce and a fraud.

A point not lost on Inhofe is the timing of the surreptitious release of the more than 1000 emails that basically expose the Environmental movement for what it is - FRAUD. The World Summit in Copenhagen next month was dealt a significant blow by both the release of these emails as well as the timing of it.

Here is the transcript of the interview, which is also on Inhofe's BLOG if you want to follow along with the audio.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Senator Inhofe: This is a huge issue and of course we have the Gitmo issue and we have the, of course, cap-and-trade is now taking a new turn. Jed, if I could…

Jed Babbin: Yeah.

Senator Inhofe: Would you let me make one sentence?

Jed Babbin: Please.

Senator Inhofe: This is out of a speech that I made, Melanie, back on the floor of the Senate, and it was repeated, John Gizzi picked it up and put it in Human Events. This was 4 years ago, in talking about the science, cooking the science. I said I would discuss the “systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process by which an international body that claims it provides the most complete and objective science assessment in the world on the subject of climate change, the United Nations IPCC.” Now that was four years ago; so we knew they were cooking the science back then, and you’ve been talking about the, you know, what’s happened recently with the bloggers coming up with what they did, what they…

Jed Babbin: Let me interrupt you there Senator, because I think that’s a really important point. Ladies and gentlemen, if you haven’t followed that story, what Senator Inhofe’s talking about, in Britain, a blogger got into some of the official government records about climate change and how the measurements were being taken to show…

Melanie Morgan: And the politics behind it.

Jed Babbin: And the – well but they were basically saying, “Oh yea, hey, let’s make it look like Jim so-and-so did that, and let’s help him cook the books, and let’s change the data…”

Melanie Morgan: And “let’s beat up those who don’t agree with us.”

Jed Babbin: Yea, but it’s all a huge fraud! I mean, Senator, am I exaggerating?

Senator Inhofe: No you’re not. If you remember, mine was the hoax statement, and that was, what, five years ago I guess.

Jed Babbin: Well, we ought to give you a big pat on the back for being …

Melanie Morgan: Yea, you deserve an an ‘atta boy, and now you are finally being vindicated.

Senator Inhofe: Well, on this thing, it is pretty serious. And since, you know, Barabara Boxer is the Chairman and I’m the Ranking Member on Environment and Public Works, if nothing happens in the next seven days when we go back into session a week from today that would change this situation, I will call for an investigation. ‘Cause this thing is serious, you think about the literally millions of dollars that have been thrown away on some of this stuff that they came out with.

Melanie Morgan: So what will you be calling for an investigation of?

Senator Inhofe: On the IPCC and on the United Nations on the way that they cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.

Jed Babbin: Should somebody stop further spending on this until we get this investigation, Senator?

Senator Inhofe: Well, I don’t know how you do that, though, ‘cause we’re not the ones that are calling the shots. The interesting part of this is it’s happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn’t be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their time was good.

Melanie Morgan: Well, Senator, thank you very much for coming back and handling a little bit, a tiny little bit of heat from the kitchen.

Senator Inhofe: Okay.

Jed Babbin: Thanks very much Senator.

Senator Inhofe: Thanks, you bet.

Jed Babbin: Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma on the Environment Committee over there, and one of the real fighters.

Melanie Morgan: He certainly is…

THE HILL also reported on Inhofe's interview.


To set this one up, consider the flawed logic Nancy "Speech" Polici uses to arrive at the conclusion that she shouldn't answer the question. The question is whether or not Polici thinks OBL should be read his rights when he is captured. Her reason for not answering is that OBL has been loose for eight years and the question is inconsequential.

Next question.

h/t to GP


Insane taxes and stimulus packages that end up in the hands of special interests are apparently not enough for Team Obama. Nor is actually being in the White House. Campaign mode never stops. I received an email from one of the Obamautomatons that tried to sell me a pin that identifies me as a Community Organizer. I don't know what's more despicable - the fact that Obama is selling paraphernalia before his first term is 1/4 finished or that these ugly pins cost $5!

Don't worry. Shipping is Free.


Derrick Roach, writing for the Big Government website, shines the light on an entirely new dimension within the ACORN California scandal. To re-cap, On October 1st, California Attorney General Jerry Brown announced that he was launching an investigation into ACORN on the heels of the undercover videos by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles. Last Week, we learned that one of ACORN's lead Organizers, David Lagstein, was caught on audio tape saying things about Jerry Brown that, if true, would mean Attorney General Brown would be guilty of pre-determining the outcome of an investigation.

Here is the link to that AUDIO. The recording of Lagstein allegedly took place on October 15th.

Now back to Roach's piece. Days before Brown was to arrive at the ACORN office in San Diego as part of his "investigation", the office engaged in a massive DOCUMENT DUMP. Roach reports that the San Diego office, just days before Brown's arrival grabbed documents and ran for the dumpster on October 9th:
Shockingly, we now learn that the ACORN office in National City (San Diego County) engaged in a massive document dump on the evening of October 9th, containing thousands upon thousands of sensitive documents, just days prior to the Attorney General’s visit. has learned that not only did this document dump occur, but the documents in question were irresponsibly and brazenly dumped in a public dumpster, without considering laws and regulations as to how sensitive information should be treated.

I am a local licensed private investigator. I took it upon myself to keep an eye on what the local ACORN office was up to, in light of the release of the undercover videos. I retrieved these documents from the public dumpster.
Aside from the obvious irony of a man named "Roach" dumpster diving, ACORN and Jerry Brown are likely the ones to start running because the light switch just went on.

Not only does it appear that ACORN attempted to destroy evidence prior to an investigation but they did so in an incredibly irresponsible way, leaving social security numbers and highly sensitive data just lying around - not sure but that should also be a crime. Check it out. Here are some of items found by Roach:

SanDiegoACORNDocumentDumpScandal-100909-Document1 -

It would seem that Brown may have some more unpleasant facts beside the O'Keefe / Giles videos. Quoting Roach:
The laws governing how sensitive, personal information such as social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, immigration records, tax returns, etc. must be treated are very stringent, and thus it seems as if ACORN may have committed serious violations in that department alone, with thousands upon thousands of potential plaintiffs.
Uh, oh Jerry Brown.

Go figure. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seems more worried about trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City than in helping California Attorney General Jerry Brown investigate ACORN. Based on the alleged audio recordings from October 15th that could implicate Brown in obstruction of Justice and fraud and now a document dump just prior to Brown's visit, Holder is likely derelict by not investigating both Brown and ACORN.

Based on Holder's resume, don't hold your breath.

Be sure to read Roach's entire report. It includes photos of the document dump.



Someone once famously said, "A lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth can get its pants on". Thanks to what appears to be the publishing of over 1000 emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, the truth about Global Warming, er Climate Change, er Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) could be dressed and headed out the door.

It's a lot to sort through but the emails look legitimate and there has been some excellent work involved in breaking it all down. The overwhelming magnitude of emails that have been cross-checked at many levels appear at first, second, and third glance to simply bee too much to be debunked. The CRU has already confirmed through the BBC that their servers have been hacked into. Among others, PAJAMAS MEDIA has posted a copy of one of the emails that's getting quite a bit of attention:
From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@xxx, mhughes@xxx
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@xxx,t.osborn@xxx

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.

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


Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXXXX
University of East Anglia
Yes, it's from 1999 but when you use the words "trick" and "hide" in the same sentence, eyebrows and red flags will be raised. James Delingpole, writing in the LONDON TELEGRAPH had more on Friday, the 20th. He highlights a typical liberal tactic being used by the CRU folks in one email, which I've put in italics:
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
Rid themselves of this troublesome editor? In true leftwing form, when faced with the facts and the truth provided by an opposing view, the strategy of necessity is to discredit and silence its source. It's the same reason Al Gore avoids debate while saying the science is settled.

Moving on, the WASHINGTON POST actually has a decent article from the 21st in which they quote Myron Bell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who is known as one of those evil "skeptics":
"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."
The last two paragraphs of the WaPo piece appear to indicate that merely discrediting and quashing opposing views isn't always good enough for some of these people:
In one e-mail, Ben Santer, a scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, offered to beat up skeptic Pat Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, out of sympathy for Jones.

Neither Jones nor Santer could be reached for comment.
If you are accused of such behavior, wouldn't you adamantly debunk the claims? These guys might be excellent Community Organizing candidates.

Lastly, I thought this juxtaposition would fit right in. Believe it or not, Al Gore has a new book out. It's called "Our Choice: A Plan to solve the Climate Crisis". Tony Hake at the EXAMINER totally picks apart the book without even getting to the introduction. The book cover includes two pictures of earth - one of it today and the other of what it will look like if we don't listen to Allegory, er Al Gore. Here are the two photos:

As Hake points out, the ugly photo of earth was created by some supposed expert who believes that's what earth will look like if we don't reverse course. There are several problems with that according to Hake, who enlists the help of a hurricane expert from Florida State University:
The retouched image depicting our planet at some point in the future, contains images of five hurricanes. One storm off the coast of Florida is turning in a clockwise motion, an impossibility in the northern hemisphere. Another hurricane is shown near Peru and the equator, a place where hurricanes cannot form. It is also a bit ironic that so many storms are depicted when hurricane activity is currently at a 30 year low.
I found this excerpt particularly interesting relative to the effects of a rising sea level:
In the modified image, Cuba appears to be completely submerged. That would require a sea level rise of more than 6580 feet as that is the height of Pico Turquino on the island. Much of Florida as well is now under water as is a great deal of Central America.

The problem is that if there were indeed a rise of that level, Florida would be entirely gone as its highest point only reaches an altitude of 345 feet. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and virtually every single other state that borders an ocean (and many landlocked states) would be submerged. Even Denver, the Mile High City, would be under water although presumably its residents could escape to the Rocky Mountains.
I'm not sure how many more people need to be convinced of the truth - that Al Gore is a despicable human being who is perpetrating a fraud the likes of which the world may have never seen - but it's high time he be exposed for what he is to the masses.

h/t to HAP

Sunday, November 22, 2009


Since 9/11/01, there have been at least 22 Islamic terror attacks on American soil, with 46 deaths and 110 injured as a result. Thanks go out to the Jeff Head website for chronicling it. I'd love to see the odds of 22 Muslims just suddenly snapping and none of them having common ground with each other. All isolated incidents I'm sure.

Here's the CHART:

Uh, excuse me, but wouldn't it seem that the politically correct whack jobs haven't a leg to stand on? Not sure who I'm angrier at most - those who engage in PC despite these recurring slaps in the face or those who tolerate PC in the first place.

h/t to FR


Gotta admit. This one is darn funny and dead-on accurate (with the exception of an American looking Chinese president). The truth is China is getting justifiably angry with the United States over this administration's reckless spending. In light of the fact that our economic survival depends on China buying our debt and China's economy is dependent upon our ability to pay them back, they may be just as angry at Obama as clear thinking Americans who actually understand where money comes from are.

Enjoy. Nicely done by SNL.

h/t to HA


I don't know what's more disturbing - the fact that if Matthews actually DID interview Nidal Malik Hasan, this is probably exactly how it would go OR that there are so many Americans stricken with Stockholm Syndrome (a disorder in which hostages align with their hostage-taker as a survival technique). A consequence of SS is the shared enemy of the hostage-takers and their hostages becomes entities who are trying to help the hostages.

Clearly, Matthews is easily diagnosed. Political correctness is the Hostage-taker and Matthews is fully entrusted with doing its dirty work. Another symptom of someone with SS is that they realize their behavior is out of whack but at the time they're engaged in it, it seems relatively normal. Only after they snap out of it, do they look back and realize how wrong they were.

I'm not holding my breath that Matthews will regret the "leg thrill" anytime soon but he should really try to watch this interview with an objective eye. That said, his giving Hasan the benefit of the doubt in this interview by suggesting he yelled, "All of you to the snack bar" instead of "Allahu Akhbar" says it all.

Chris, there really are people out there who are trying to help you!

CLICK HERE to see the interview.

h/t to JAWA


I'm not really sure what to make of this after reading the story. Rep. Patrick Kennedy (son of the late Ted Kennedy) was told by Bishop Thomas Tobin in February, 2007 that he would not be served communion, presumably because of Kennedy's stance on abortion. Most recently, Kennedy supported a provision in the healthcare bill that would allow federal funding of abortion.

What's confusing is that Kennedy apparently decided to go public with what most would perceive as an embarrassing predicament best left private, especially for a politician. CNN reported:
Kennedy opposed a provision that restricted the use of federal money for abortions, but voted in favor of final passage of the bill that included that language.

In an interview published Sunday, he told the Providence Journal that Tobin had barred him from receiving Communion and instructed priests in the diocese not to administer the sacrament "because of the positions that I've taken as a public official."

In his statement, issued in response to the Kennedy interview, Tobin said his advice to the congressman was "pastoral and confidential," and he was surprised that Kennedy chose to discuss it publicly.

"I am disappointed that the congressman would make public my request of nearly three years ago that sought to provide solely for his spiritual well-being," he said.
So why would Kennedy go public with this? I'm sure there are possibilities I'm not thinking of but I can't help but wonder if this was a conscious effort by Kennedy to make life uncomfortable for the Bishop and by extension, the church.

That said, I hope Tobin stands strongly behind his decision, especially if Kennedy is attempting some form of vicarious intimidation. The community orgs are usually all too willing to bully people.

Friday, November 20, 2009


While the title of this post is not a quote, it is clearly the implication former Attorney General John Ashcroft is making about the notion that trying Khalid Sheikh Muhammad as a civilian in NYC was Eric Holder's call. Ashcroft makes it pretty clear that the current Attorney General doesn't have that power. It would mean that the AG has the authority to demand that the Secretary of Defense hand over POW's to the civilian court.

THE HILL has the story:
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who held his position during the Bush administration from 2001-2005, said that Holder lacked the legal standing to decide to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other terror detainees to federal courts in New York City to stand trial.

"The attorney general doesn't have the authority to mandate that the secretary of Defense turn somebody over to him and yield jurisdiction so that something that would have been done in a military setting is done in a civilian setting," Ashcroft told the Christ Stigall show on KCMO radio this morning.
As if it wasn't already known how Obama got as far as he did. He's done so by voting "present" and keeping his fingerprints off of his own boneheaded and destructive decisions.

However, this is exactly what those in the know cautioned about. As a legislator, it's much easier to pass the buck but as a president, there are times when it's simply impossible to do so. The decision to try the mastermind of 9/11 in a civilian court appears to be one of them.
"I believe that this is a decision that comes as a result of the president making the decision, or if not making the decision, allowing an attorney general to do what he normally doesn't have the authority to do, and could only do at the acquiescence of the president," the former AG and former Missouri senator argued.
Anyway you slice this one, this appears to have been Obama's call.

h/t to FR

Thursday, November 19, 2009


Before I get to Matthew Vadum's article, let me introduce the name David Conn. I have had multiple conversations with him and his story is fascinating. In 1969, Conn was approached by two people he knew were members of Jim Jones' cult in the Bay area. One of those people thought Jim Jones was the greatest thing since sliced bread (Insert family feud buzzer here) and the other was extremely troubled by what Jones was doing. This prompted Conn to investigate further.

For years, Conn ended up doing the investigative journalism that true journalists wouldn't do. Jones may have been certifiable but he was also politically connected and very powerful. According to Conn, "If you were in politics, you didn't get very far unless you knew Jim Jones." Conn was a blogger without a computer or internet access. He attempted several times to inform the authorities and the media. Not until 1972 did a reporter take note, writing 8 articles using Conn as his primary source. That reporter's name was Lester Kinsolving and he wrote for the San Francisco Examiner. After four Kinsolving articles appeared in the Examiner in 1972, Jones sent his henchmen down to the Examiner in true Community Organizing style (according to Conn) and bullied that paper into backing off. Ultimately, that's exactly what they did and the four additional articles on Jones were never published by the Examiner (although yours truly has access to them).

In the summer of 1977, about a year and a half prior to the Jonestown massacre on November 18th, 1978, Conn met with Dennis Banks and Lehman Brightman in the middle of the night to warn them both of how their affiliation with Jim Jones could damage the American Indian movement (they were both American Indians). Unbeknownst to Conn, both were closer to Jones than he thought. Brightman ended up blowing Conn's cover and phoned Jones. Here is a LINK to the transcript of that call (scroll to Part 4).

At the time, Jim Jones was the Chairman of the Housing Commission. According to Conn, the morning after his meeting with Banks and Brightman, Jones collapsed while leading an HC meeting and had to be whisked away via ambulance. "I still have my suspicions that Jones may have been present personally in the house when I had that meeting with Banks and Brightman," says Conn.

In any event, after Conn's cover had been blown, the media began showing interest in the story and Jones began re-locating his cult to Guyana. Conn believes there were two things that spooked Jones. The first was that Conn mentioned he had been in touch with a Treasury agent during his meeting with Banks and Brightman. In reality, he had been in touch with an ATF agent but Conn believes Jones grew very concerned that the IRS was after him. The other thing Conn believes bothered Jones immensely was the realization that someone had been onto him for that long without his knowledge. "Jones was incredibly narcissistic and a control freak," says Conn. "I believe to this day that the fact that someone knew what he was up to for that long without his knowledge and / or ability to control the situation disturbed him to a great degree."

Read David Conn's account of the DOWNFALL OF JIM JONES here.

So where does Jerry Brown come in? In 1977, Jerry Brown was the Governor of California and Conn is convinced that he looked the other way when it came to Jones. "There is no way Jerry Brown got to where he is," says Conn, "without knowing what kind of person Jim Jones was. I know for a fact that Brown made multiple visits to Jones' temple."

On top of all this, if Brown was truly interested in legitimately pursuing Jones, all he had to do was refer to or contact the San Francisco Examiner.

Onto Vadum's article in the AMERICAN SPECTATOR. Speaking of Community Organizing, Brown has always been a big fan.
The New Left crusader known as Governor Moonbeam when he was the state's chief executive from 1975 to 1983 has had close ties to the group for years, according to a former ACORN official.
Remember what Conn said about Jones sending his henchmen (community organizers) down to the offices of the San Francisco Examiner in 1972 to bully the newspaper into backing off.

Now, in 2009, we're learning that there is a very real possibility that Jerry Brown may be setting a pre-determined outcome in his ACORN investigation relative to James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles exposing them as enablers of prostitution and the sex slave trade.
Adding to Brown's woes, ACORN's lead organizer in San Diego, David Lagstein, was caught on tape suggesting Brown's investigation was a sham.

"The attorney general is a political animal as well," Lagstein told a Democratic gathering last month. "Every bit of communication we've had with [Brown's office] has suggested that fault will be found with the people that did the video and not with ACORN."

Brown's office was also revealed to have recorded reporters without their consent, an apparent violation of state law.
Is it possible that O'Keefe and Giles could be punished for unauthorized recording while the attorney general's former flak, Scott Gerber, who taped reporters, gets off scot-free?
Not to use an old American Indian metaphor but there appears to be smoke signals being sent from, of all places, San Francisco.

I had the opportunity to interview David Conn back on OCTOBER 4TH



Quite the juxtaposition here. In 2001, New York Senator Chuck Schumer couldn't have been more adamantly opposed to trying Islamic jihadists who killed American civilians in civilian courts. In fact, the 2001 Chuck Schumer and the 2009 are polar opposites. It never ceases to amaze me how these dirtbags live with themselves. They know they're liars and they never seem to come clean.

Check out this quote from the WASHINGTON TIMES from an article printed yesterday that quotes the 2001 Schumer from a transcript of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
First, the Government must have the power to use even the most sensitive classified evidence against these suspects without compromising national security in any way, shape, or form. In addition, those who commit acts of war against the United States, particularly those who have no color of citizenship, don’t deserve the same panoply of due process rights that American citizens receive. Should Osama bin Laden be captured alive—and I imagine most Americans hope he won’t be captured alive. But if he is, it is ludicrous to suggest he should be tried in a Federal court on Center Street in Lower Manhattan.
Yes, that was Chuck Schumer in 2001.

Fast forward to November 18th, 2009. After opening his facial orifice in front of a microphone that captured his dreck and amplified it, Schumer was approached and questioned about his support of KSM being tried in NYC in a civilian court. His response was to walk away and attempt to avoid the obvious and glaring contradiction. The fact that real journalists don't seem to be interested in engaging in such tactics aside, check out the guy who comes to Schumer's rescue at the end. He reminded me of Danny Noonan in Caddyshack after Ted Knight threw the golf club. Chucky probably will repay him somehow.

h/t to HA

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


A bit ironic that the title of this segment is "Five minutes or less" and the revealing part begins at almost the five-minute mark exactly. This guy provides the quintessential example for the problems a nation runs into when it does not adequately identify the enemy. With his rhetorical questions, he is clearly attempting to excuse Hasan's massacre of 14 infidels.


h/t to JAWA


If Lindsey Graham's actions matched his rhetorical skills, I'd definitely feel more passionate about supporting him in this exchange. I have a problem getting behind a Senator who is justifiably grilling a guy like Holder when that Senator is in support of Cap & Trade legislation while also being known as Senator Lindsey Grahamnesty.

That said, looking strictly at this exchange, Graham has Holder in a pickle. If Khalid Sheikh Mohammad is going to be tried in Federal court, he is entitled to Miranda rights - rights he wasn't awarded. The logical follow-up for Graham is whether or not bin Laden should be mirandized if he were captured tomorrow. The fact that Holder can't answer that question sufficiently boxes him in.

Holder is building quite the resume for himself.

1.) Marc Rich pardon
2.) Pardoning of FALN terrorists
3.) Pardoning 2 members of Weather Underground
4.) Partner at Covington Burling, a firm that represented Gitmo detainees
5.) Opening the door for CIA prosecutions
6.) Charges dropped against Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia
7.) Trying KSM in NYC

If you need help identifying the most absurd positions Holder is taking, check out the guy sitting behind Graham. His facial expressions will tell you.

h/t to JAWA


Truly a conservative boxing match between moderate David Frum and strong Sarah Palin advocate John Ziegler. Laura Ingraham moderates the debate impartially. If Frum has any regrets about the debate, it's the fact that he didn't read the book because several times after making a claim, Ziegler would respond by telling Frum to read the book. That tactic left Frum defenseless each time and he had to re-calibrate.

However, for a microcosm of the conservative vs. moderate movements, LISTEN to the interview. In the end, Frum comes across as deathly afraid of a Republican loss in 2012 and thinks Palin would guarantee one. Ziegler, conversely, comes across as an advocate for igniting the passion in the conservative movement almost as much as a Palin defender, especially toward the end when he smacks down Frum with a comment about the Republican party needing to support its warriors instead of its traitors.

h/t to HA

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


The Onion does it again, making a not-so-big leap, mocking Obama's teleprompter reliance. The report on the teleprompter breaking down at the Obama dinner table comes early on but be sure to stick around to the end of the video because there are some incredibly funny lines that come from the Onion's White House correspondent about Obama having his anger translated into teleprompter-friendly verbiage.

Oh, and there's also that embarrassing moment in the pumpkin patch.

Obama's Home Teleprompter Malfunctions During Family Dinner


Monday, November 16, 2009


This one comes courtesy of Barrackaid #13. Very interesting 'inside baseball' read into what's quite possibly going on between the United States and China. The United States needs China to continue buying our debt and China needs to continue doing so. At issue is whose needs are greater. Based on Joseph Trevisani's take at FX Solutions, all you have to do to determine that is look at who is giving up more?

The answer would be the U.S.
The American President would like China’s cooperation on the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, a more flexible currency policy for the yuan, open trade and continued Chinese purchase of American debt. He is likely to obtain only the last, the price for which will be all the others.
A little further into the article, it becomes a little clearer why:
President Obama will reassure President Hu that Washington takes its debt obligations seriously, that it is about to become serious about controlling Federal spending and that it holds to a strong dollar policy. President Hu will promise not to withdraw Chinese support from the Treasury market. The Chinese will pretend to believe the Americans and the Americans will not press them on any other topic.

The price for China’s continued support of the US debt market and by extension of the administration’s domestic agenda is American acquiescence in all international topics of importance to China. For the Chinese it is an excellent trade, a chance to neuter its greatest international adversary for the price of an investment it would probably have to make anyway. The basic fact of the trade is that China feels it has choices and the United States fears it does not. As long as a Chinese withdrawal from the US debt markets is more frightening to Washington than to Beijing China will have the upper hand in this relationship.
One would think that Obama is getting a very real lesson in how the free market works courtesy of the Chinese, yet when you couple Trevisani's last sentence with the soaring and record budget deficits Obama has managed to amass in less than one year, it really makes you wonder.
President Obama’s visit to Beijing is an acknowledgement of the new status quo in the world economy. China will set the terms of her trade for the world until the United States regains control of its own budget.
Be sure to read the WHOLE THING.

I wonder what Anita Dunn thinks about all this.

h/t to Barrackaid #13


This adds an entirely new dimension to the broader problems relative to not effectively identifying our current enemy. In 2001, Anwar al-Aulaqi was an Imam at the Dar al-Hijra mosque in Northern Virginia. Not only did three of the 9/11 hijackers catch some of his inspirational sermons firsthand but so did Fort Hood Islamic terrorist Nidal Malik Hasan. Aulaqi fled to Yemen in 2002. What happened in 2007 provides a potentially disturbing and at the time, unknown turning point.

A WAPO article paints the picture of Aulaqi being more like a sort of Islamic spiritual mentor over the last year than anything else. In fact, it's quite possible that as Hasan was struggling to accurately interpret the essence of Islam, Aulaqi's counsel may have had some way of pushing him over the edge. Considering that Aulaqi came out and called Hasan a "hero" after the attacks, would it be all that surprising?

Now for the disturbing part. Quoting from the Post article:
The thick-bearded, white-robed Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, served as an imam at two mosques attended by three of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers -- Virginia's Dar al-Hijra and another in California. Aulaqi, who is in his late 30s, is also fluent in Arabic. U.S. officials have accused him of working with al-Qaeda networks in the Persian Gulf after leaving Northern Virginia. In mid-2006, he was detained in Yemen, his ancestral homeland, at the request of U.S. authorities. He was released in December 2007.
Hasan began communicating with Aulaqi in 2008 and there are reportedly between 10-20 emails between the two. The logical question just begging to be asked is if Hasan would have carried out the massacre if not for Aulaqi's counsel? What would have happened had Aulaqi not been released?

Be sure to read the entire WAPO article as it is the result of a third party interview with Aulaqi.

h/t to HA


Not in the literal sense but in the figurative sense. While talking with Fox News anchor Jane Skinner of the Fox news channel, O'Reilly plays a clip of Pat Robertson identifying Islam itself as the problem instead of radical terrorists who practice Islam.

Now for the tightrope. After O'Reilly plays Robertson's quote, he distances himself from Robertson by saying this:
I continue to believe most Muslims are good people all over the world and I'm not saying that to be PC (Politically Correct). I think that's true.
Then, before pitching it back over to Skinner, he builds Robertson up by saying he believes he's an honest man but that....
I'm not sure that helps the country.
Aside from sounding politically correct - which he denied being only moments earlier - O'Reilly is doing all he can to dismiss Robertson's claim without having the intellectual courage to explore the facts of those statements. O'Reilly is obviously more concerned about wishing something to be true rather than exploring the facts to determine if his conclusion is true.

Another disturbing aspect of this video is when Skinner refers to Muslim groups that came out after the shooting and condemned "what Hasan had done". This is a perfect example of not digging deep. One of the groups that "condemned" what Hasan had done was CAIR, which was an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial and has ties to both Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is intellectually dishonest for both Skinner and O'Reilly to take the public statements of groups like CAIR at face value. It also perfectly illustrates O'Reilly's erroneous tactic of drawing conclusions based not on truth and facts but on what "helps the country". It doesn't take long to discover that the most obvious reason for why Muslim groups would come out and condemn Hasan would be to create the exact perception O'Reilly and Skinner seem to have bought hook, line, and sinker. Someone should tell O'Reilly that sometimes the truth hurts but that doesn't mean it should be avoided.

John Nampion at the David Horowitz NEWSREAL blog has more on this.

h/t to Barrackaid #7
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive