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

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
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