Poll: American less respected under Obama
1. A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.
The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.
“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.
On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.
“The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.
Wisconsin AG charges ACORN with voter fraud
2. Five Wisconsin residents have been charged with criminal counts of voter fraud in the November 2008 general election, state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen announced today.
Two of those charged, Maria Miles and Kevin Clancy, are workers for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the embattled community group.
“The complaint alleges that Miles and Clancy submitted multiple voter registration applications for the same individuals, and also were part of a scheme in which they and other (special registration deputies) registered each other to vote multiple times in order to meet voter registration quotas imposed by ACORN,” Van Hollen states in the release. Dan Rather: Articulate Obama couldn’t sell watermelons
3. Dan Rather: Part of the undertow in the coming election is going to be President Obama’s leadership. And the Republicans will make a case and a lot of independents will buy this argument. “Listen he just hasn’t been, look at the health care bill. It was his number one priority. It took him forever to get it through and he had to compromise it to death.” And a version of, “Listen he’s a nice person, he’s very articulate” this is what’s been used against him, “but he couldn’t sell watermelons if it, you gave him the state troopers to flag down the traffic.”
_____________
Just last week I commented that something didn’t seem right with the intended resignation of Democrat Congressman Eric Massa. I pointed out that the Congressman voted against the health-care Bill and I was of the opinion that he was being set up. Well, here we are one week later and Congressman Massa is confirming my instincts.
The liberal Congressman from Massachusetts unleashes in this radio interview. He comments on how his Party is destroying the country, how the Unions are bribing and threatening Congressman, and how a naked Rahm Emanuel assaulted him in the showers of the Congressional gym. Listen to it for yourself.
From City Hall:
“I was set up for this from the very, very beginning,” he said, on what Massa insisted would be the last broadcast of the Sunday morning show on WKPQ 105.3 FM in Hornell. “You think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote in the health care bill? Then, ladies and gentlemen, you live today in a world that is so innocent as to not understand what’s going on in Washington, D.C.” According to Massa, the sexual harassment complaint stemmed from an incident during a wedding on New Year’s Eve last year. Sometime soon after midnight, Massa said, a drunken male staffer made a lurid comment to Massa about dancing with one of the bridesmaids at the reception. “A staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid. His points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, “Pal, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tussled the guy’s hair, and left.” Massa said that another staff member—disturbed by Massa’s statement—reported it to the House Ethics Committee. Massa said the staffer to whom he directed the comment never was involved with the complaint. “That staff member never said to me he felt uncomfortable,” Massa said. “He never came to me, he never said a word to me. In fact, he never went to anybody.” Massa said he learned that a complaint had been filed against him Feb. 8 but that he believed it was only over a minor campaign finance issue. Massa said he only learned of the sexual harassment complaint after he announced he would not run for re-election on Wednesday over what he says is a fatal recurrence of cancer. As for the charge that House Democrats set him up, Massa said he only came to belief after reading two articles on Sunday morning before his broadcast: An Associated Press article in which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer discussed the ethics investigation, and a Roll Call article about how the recent departure of several Democrats from the House would help pass health care legislation. Massa said he believes he was the swing vote that would decide the fate of the bill—and that Hoyer’s decision to disclose details of the investigation proves Democratic leadership was out to get him. With Massa’s resignation, Democrats now need only 216 votes in the House to pass the bill. Massa also described a profanity-filled conversation he had with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after he voted against the president’s health care legislation last year. Massa called on Emanuel to resign for his own use of profane language during the phone call. “Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn,” Massa added. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
“I was set up for this from the very, very beginning,” he said, on what Massa insisted would be the last broadcast of the Sunday morning show on WKPQ 105.3 FM in Hornell. “You think that somehow they didn’t come after me to get rid of me because my vote is the deciding vote in the health care bill? Then, ladies and gentlemen, you live today in a world that is so innocent as to not understand what’s going on in Washington, D.C.”
According to Massa, the sexual harassment complaint stemmed from an incident during a wedding on New Year’s Eve last year. Sometime soon after midnight, Massa said, a drunken male staffer made a lurid comment to Massa about dancing with one of the bridesmaids at the reception.
“A staff member made an intonation to me that maybe I should be chasing after the bridesmaid. His points were clear and his words were far more colorful than that,” Massa said. “And I grabbed the staff member sitting next to me and said, “Pal, what I really ought to be doing is fracking you.’ And then [I] tussled the guy’s hair, and left.”
Massa said that another staff member—disturbed by Massa’s statement—reported it to the House Ethics Committee. Massa said the staffer to whom he directed the comment never was involved with the complaint.
“That staff member never said to me he felt uncomfortable,” Massa said. “He never came to me, he never said a word to me. In fact, he never went to anybody.”
Massa said he learned that a complaint had been filed against him Feb. 8 but that he believed it was only over a minor campaign finance issue. Massa said he only learned of the sexual harassment complaint after he announced he would not run for re-election on Wednesday over what he says is a fatal recurrence of cancer.
As for the charge that House Democrats set him up, Massa said he only came to belief after reading two articles on Sunday morning before his broadcast: An Associated Press article in which House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer discussed the ethics investigation, and a Roll Call article about how the recent departure of several Democrats from the House would help pass health care legislation. Massa said he believes he was the swing vote that would decide the fate of the bill—and that Hoyer’s decision to disclose details of the investigation proves Democratic leadership was out to get him.
With Massa’s resignation, Democrats now need only 216 votes in the House to pass the bill.
Massa also described a profanity-filled conversation he had with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after he voted against the president’s health care legislation last year. Massa called on Emanuel to resign for his own use of profane language during the phone call.
“Rahm Emanuel is son of the devil’s spawn,” Massa added. “He is an individual who would sell his mother to get a vote. He would strap his children to the front end of a steam locomotive.”
____________
Last year Obama said that private and government health-care can coexist. To support his argument, he pointed to the US Post Office and FedEx. Let’s discuss this.
The Post Office announced that it was running a huge deficit and was exploring ways to keep it afloat. Some of the ideas being floated are to cut services to 5 days a week, reducing benefits to its employees, and increases rates. Is this what we can expect to happen with government run health-care; cutting services or in the case of health-care, not covering those things that are now covered by health-care; increasing premiums; and slashing the payments that doctors, nurses, and physicians receive for their work? I’m just asking. After all, Obama himself, used the comparison to support his case for government-run health-care.
Already, Obama has gone back on his word; the very word he gave in his address to Congress when Joe Wilson called him a liar. Obama stated that health-care would be paid for by those who paid their premiums. In the Senate bill being negotiated, there are a series of taxes that are being included. These taxes include an increase in the payroll tax. This is on top of the soon to expire Bush tax cuts that will see the average middle income tax increase by 7%. As a reminder, these were the Bush tax cuts:
In Obama’s budget, the President allowed for the expiring of these cuts while claiming that he “wasn’t increasing taxes on the middle class. In fact, Obama often touts his tax “cuts” he “gave” to the middle class that averaged around $400 per year. Again, the president has been a little loose with the truth. Those filing their 2009 taxes learned that this $400 was nothing more than a tax credit and would be deducted from their their 2009 return. In essence, you would have gotten the $400 back anyways.
The question should be asked, if Obama’s health-care bill will save money and increase services then why is he having to deceive and lie about its cost? Is his health-care program really going to cost us less? Let’s think about this. If Obama is promising me that his health-care plan will cost me less than my employer’s United Health-Care plan (I pay $138 a month), but he’s increasing my taxes by $302 per month how is this making sense? This health-care plan is not about reducing cost, if it was then we would have Tort Reform tied to any plan before the Congress, this is about the socialization of this country and that is why a majority of Americans are opposed to this legislation.
Let’s go back to the drawing board and develop a plan that covers pre-existing conditions, includes Tort Reform, rewards those who live a healthy life through diet and exercise, penalizes people like Obama who smoke, cuts fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare, and is run by the private sector.
From the Wall Street Journal:
A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again. *** The vehicle is “reconciliation,” a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal. Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion. “They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.” Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus. Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can’t sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far. Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children’s health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats. The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan’s 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn’t the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O’Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn’t used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction. The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn’t actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won’t vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn’t in fact law at all—and can’t become law without those amendments. President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that “The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role,” specifically citing health reform and cap and trade. *** Regrets, they’ve got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning. The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don’t like it, “then that’s what elections are for.” In other words, he’s volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.
A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can’t stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it’s good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.
*** The vehicle is “reconciliation,” a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.
Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they’ve failed to make their case through persuasion.
“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”
Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.
Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can’t sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.
Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children’s health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush’s 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.
The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan’s 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn’t the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O’Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn’t used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.
The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn’t actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won’t vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn’t in fact law at all—and can’t become law without those amendments.
President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that “The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role,” specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.
Regrets, they’ve got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning.
The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don’t like it, “then that’s what elections are for.”
In other words, he’s volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.
_______________
Buildings in Detroit are left abandoned.
So what’s in the news round-up for tonight:
1. Rep. Charles Rangel, the most powerful tax-writing lawmaker in Congress and a 34-year veteran of Capitol Hill, knowingly accepted Caribbean trips from a corporation in violation of House rules, the House Ethics Committee ruled Thursday. Shocker! Now will Nancy Pelosi and the rest of those liberal hacks demand that Charlie resign?
2. The number of Americans filing for initial unemployment insurance surged to just below the 500,000 level last week, and have climbed more than 12% over the past two weeks, the government said Thursday…. but, but, but Obama said the worst of the economic crisis was over and his recovery package was saving and/OR creating jobs.
3. Just moments before the afternoon session got underway, C-SPAN’s cameras picked up audio of Biden chatting casually with participants. “It’s easy being vice president — you don’t have to do anything.” Whomever Biden was chatting with said, “It’s like being the grandpa and not the parent.” “Yeah, that’s it!” replied Biden. Of course he doesn’t do anything, he’s a bumbling idiot and can’t be trusted.
4. Detroit Mayor Dave Bing said Wednesday he “absolutely” intends to relocate residents from desolate neighborhoods and is bracing for inevitable legal challenges when he unveils his downsizing plan. In his strongest statements about shrinking the city since taking office, Bing told WJR-760 AM the city is using internal and external data to decide “winners and losers.” The city plans to save some neighborhoods and encourage residents to move from others, he said. ”If we don’t do it, you know this whole city is going to go down. I’m hopeful people will understand that,” Bing said. “If we can incentivize some of those folks that are in those desolate areas, they can get a better situation.” Detroit can thank the unions and liberal leadership for its demise.
5. You may be upset or relieved to hear my news that Howard Stern definitely won’t be joining American Idol as the judge replacing Simon Cowell. Good, because as much as I respect Howard’s craft, he’d be completely wrong for a family show.
______________
Mass layoffs, consumer confidence at 1983 lows, more bank failures, and underemployment has hit 19.9%. This is change we can believe in. You would have thought that the election of Scott Brown would have sent a message to the Democrats that jobs are the number ONE concern of voters and yet, Democrats are still spending time pushing their flawed health-care bill. Clearly, government control of our lives is of more concern than creating jobs for this group.
- The median of forecasts from analysts polled by Reuters as for a February reading of 55.0. The expectations index fell to 63.8 from 77.3. The present situation index dropped to 19.4 from 25.2 in January, the worst since February 1983.
- The Labor Department said the number of mass layoff actions — defined as job cuts involving at least 50 people from a single employer - increased by 35 to 1,761. Mass layoffs had trended lower since August.
A total of 182,261 workers were affected last month. In January, 486 mass layoff events were reported in manufacturing, resulting in 62,556 workers filing claims for state unemployment benefits. It was the first increase in mass layoffs in manufacturing since August.
- The number of “problem” U.S. banks jumped 27 percent during the fourth quarter of 2009 to 702, the highest level since 1993 and a sign the industry’s recovery is still shaky, regulators reported on Tuesday.
- A new Gallup poll released Tuesday showed that, during the month of January, 19.9% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed.
According to the poll, which surveyed 20,503 adults January 2 – 31, those who were underemployed spent 36% less than those who were employed. Those underemployed spent $48 per day compared to $75 per day spending for those who were employed.
Remember, after 38 months of a Democrat controlled Congress and 13 months of Obama as President, this is change you can believe in. So I ask, are you better off today than you were 3 years ago?
___________
Many of you probably have never heard of Professor Phil Jones, but he is the scientist whose data Al Gore and many global warming alarmist used to push their climate change agenda. Based on his “data”, countries have invested 10’s of billions of dollars to “prevent” the catastrophic disaster that we were told would be caused by the “warming of the earth”.
In the latest revelation, Professor Jones has confessed that there as not been any “statistical” global warming for the past 15 years. In fact, the professor admits that the Earth was warmer during medieval times than now and suggests that global warming may not be man-made after all.
The latest U-turn has provided skeptics, such as myself, fresh ammunition to counter liberals and the progressives’ efforts to push forward legislation that would raise taxes on business that emit natural occurring CO2. We can anticipate that alarmist, like Al Gore who have made millions advocating and pushing faulty science, to distance themselves from Jones while still attempting to advance their agenda.
From Mail Online:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’. The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory. Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
\
I mean honestly, I thought I had read it all, but then THIS:
Who knew? Thank goodness, Vice President Joe Biden went on CNN to chat with Larry King Wednesday night. So many think things are not going so well for the Democrat administration, as The Ticket chronicled here. Many Americans recall the ex-Sen. Biden’s Democratic primary plans to give in to Iraq’s fractious factions and carve the country into three territories. And even more probably recall Biden’s boss’ plan to halt the Iraq war years ago. As long as it got started anyway without the permission of the then state senator. Plus, of course, the vehement opposition of the Nobel Prize winner to the 2007 American troop surge of you-know-who from Texas that Obama knew for certain was only going to worsen sectarian strife there. (See 2007 video here.)…. Well, of course, it didn’t turn out that way, thanks in large measure to the brave service of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who served in that war-torn land and helped peace to break out despite the loud political acrimony back home over their role. Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success. It seems that Biden, who’s from Delaware when he’s in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration’s greatest achievements. No, really. Here’s how Biden put it to Lar:
Who knew?
Thank goodness, Vice President Joe Biden went on CNN to chat with Larry King Wednesday night. So many think things are not going so well for the Democrat administration, as The Ticket chronicled here.
Many Americans recall the ex-Sen. Biden’s Democratic primary plans to give in to Iraq’s fractious factions and carve the country into three territories. And even more probably recall Biden’s boss’ plan to halt the Iraq war years ago. As long as it got started anyway without the permission of the then state senator.
Plus, of course, the vehement opposition of the Nobel Prize winner to the 2007 American troop surge of you-know-who from Texas that Obama knew for certain was only going to worsen sectarian strife there. (See 2007 video here.)….
Well, of course, it didn’t turn out that way, thanks in large measure to the brave service of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops who served in that war-torn land and helped peace to break out despite the loud political acrimony back home over their role.
Now, the Obama-Biden pair that opposed the Iraq war and its tactics and predicted their failure is prepared to accept credit for its success. It seems that Biden, who’s from Delaware when he’s in Delaware and Pennsylvania when in Pennsylvania, is certain now that Iraq will turn out to be one of the Obama-Biden administration’s greatest achievements.
No, really.
Here’s how Biden put it to Lar:
I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
I am very optimistic about — about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You’re going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You’re going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government.
I spent — I’ve been there 17 times now. I go about every two months — three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It’s impressed me. I’ve been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences.
Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration’s other “great achievements” were so far. No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election
Biden did not elaborate on what all the administration’s other “great achievements” were so far.
No doubt, Iraqis too are very thankful for that 2008 U.S. election
Is there truly no shame with these people? Do they honestly believe that the American people are so forgetful that we wouldn’t recall what they said just a few short years ago or do they believe that we are that stupid- as dumb as the Progressives? It’s amazing that all their failed polices they blame on Bush, but embrace all of his successes as their own.
It’s cold out there! Record breaking cold weather has swept the planet and snow accumulations have shattered all previous records. But… yes, it’s the result of global warming. Remember, these global warming alarmist are the same people who warned that the polar icecaps would be melted in 10 years and the snows of Mount Kilimanjaro would be gone in 2035… oh wait, the guy who wrote that report “accidentally” put the “0″ in the wrong place– it’s 2350. Yeah, we’re supposed to trust the ‘irrefutable” data of “experts” who can’t transcribe numbers properly.
A week doesn’t go by and we read of another scandal surrounding global warming… whoops, it’s cold so we’re being inoculated with “climate change”. I guess the Progressives have concluded that it’s hard to sell “global warming” when it’s below zero with 3 feet of snow outside. As more people are wising up to the fraud that is global warming, be prepared for the Progressives to change gears and instead of telling us that we are all going to fry from the heat and drown in our flooded cities that we need to take action to create jobs by going green– although there’s been a few studies out there that say that “cap and tax” actually costs jobs. Global warming was never about saving the environment, nor is going green about creating jobs, it’s about taxing you more in order to take more control of your lives.
The Democratic Progressive Caucus (DPC) is an organization comprised of about sixty Members of Congress. It was founded in 1991 by Rep. Bernie Sanders, former socialist mayor of Burlington, VT and member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA describes itself as, “the principle U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International.” ( www.DiscoverTheNetwork.org )
The DPC advances its communist agenda behind innocuous sounding phrases such as social and economic justice. The three core principles of The Progressive Promise are:
1. Fighting for economic justice and security for all. (Code for: We’re going to ‘eliminate poverty and suffering’ by taking away all of your possessions and redistributing them.)
2. Protecting and preserving our civil rights and civil liberties. (Code for: We’re going to ‘eliminate’ all differences and pound everyone down to the lowest common denominator).
3. Promoting global peace and security. (Code for: We—your Superiors—will finally feel secure and at peace once agendas 1-2 have been carried out to completion.) (Source)
In “Pelosi Leader of Progressive Caucus,” it was revealed: “Until 1999, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Following an expose of the link between the two organizations in World Net Daily, the Progressive Caucus established its own website.”
On the website of the DSA it boldly declares: “We are socialists…Democracy and socialism go hand in hand…wherever…democracy has taken root, the vision of socialism has taken root as well.” The DSA increases its influence and power by networking with the Democratic Party to advance social justice programs and policies such as affirmative action and Stalinist hate crime laws. “Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party.”
