Views on the News
November 28, 2009
Views on the News*
That sucking sound you hear is Barack Obama’s credibility and popularity flushing down the toilet. Though President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from unemployment to health care to Afghanistan. The Obama juggernaut is fragmenting upon the jagged outcroppings of American popular resistance. The basic problem is that the American people are increasingly questioning the President's credibility. Obama is spending this money not to improve the economy, but rather to restructure American society, dismantle our free-enterprise system, and impose in its place a command-control economy and political system in which life's decisions, including our private healthcare, are dictated from Washington. The “stimulus” is stimulating very little except government. With unemployment over 10% and expected to rise for months to come, Obama offered no new ideas. He says his White House jobs summit will break new ground, but critics are already dismissing the summit as a political gimmick. Obama says the “stimulus” has saved or created 640,000 jobs, but only 7% of Americans believe it has created any, as more and more of these jobs are revealed as outright lies. For many Americans there's a basic disconnect - a President who promises to trim the budget but only seems to want to spend and spend. By 2017, just to pay the interest on the deficit will cost the taxpayers $700 billion, the equivalent to a new Bail Out, each and every year. Obama has repeatedly promised health care reform that will not increase the deficit, but a mere 19% believe him. The President held his ninth meeting with his war council, a full month after Dick Cheney accused him of “dithering” over the decision, and the President says it's still several weeks away. John Bolton has referred to President Obama as America's first post-American President since he is pursuing the rest of the world's interests in relation to America instead of pursuing America’s interests first. The Gallup poll shows Obama’s Approval numbers falling steadily since February, and his Disapproval numbers also rising steadily. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as President and 42% Strongly Disapprove giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -15 which is the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this President. The American people overwhelmingly believe that the economy is the top priority but Obama continues to push everything on his agenda over any concrete plans to grow the economy of create new private sector jobs. A left-wing governing majority that ignores the polls, the protests, the tea parties, the taxpayer rallies, and the latest election results is an unexpected gift to the right.
(“CBS Catches Up with Conservatives and Realizes Obama Has ‘Credibility” Problem” by Brent Baker dated November 24, 2009 published by News Busters at http://newsbusters.org/node/34561
“Biden is Right: Obama Administration is Our Worst Nightmare” by David Limbaugh dated November 24, 2009 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/Biden_Obamacare_debt/2009/11/24/290238.html
“Thankful for Obama” by Andrew Cline dated November 25, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/25/thankful-for-obama
“America’s Rebirth” by Peter Ferrara dated November 25, 2009 published by The American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/11/25/americas-rebirth )
The lesson of the 2009 elections was not that the mood of the electorate is anti-incumbent, but anti-spending and anti-government over-reaching and 2010 elections can turn this country back around. Barack Obama is practicing a malevolent strategy for destroying our economy and our system of government. Democrats will do whatever is necessary to convince voters that their relentless pursuit of their hyper-liberal agenda will reduce the deficit in the hope that voters won’t stop them until it is too late. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. First the banks were bailed out to the tune of trillions of dollars with no oversight, and banks continue to fail all over the country and lenders are not making any commercial loans, causing more business failures. Second GM was given billions of dollars and GM is still losing billions each year. Third the misleading "Cap and Trade" scheme is designed to cap all CO2 emissions at a level 83% below the current level of emissions and further punitively taxes any additional CO2 emissions, and the result will be dramatic job losses, a huge tax to the consumers who will have this tax burden passed on to them in higher consumer costs, and negligible impact on global warming. Fourth Obama is trying to takeover the health care industry even though 89% of Americans are very satisfied with their current insurance plans, and the result will be higher costs, lower quality care, and increased deficits. Fifth Obama’s slavish devotion to Global warming has been disproven with manufactured data, incorrect data, and suppressed data and the result will be astronomical energy costs, loss of jobs, and no measurable improvement in global warming. The real goal of "healthcare" legislation, the real goal of "cap and trade," the real goal of "stimulus" is to rip the guts out of our private economy and transfer wide swaths of it over to government control. These initiatives are vehicles for change, but they are not goals in and of themselves, except in their ability to deliver power, and will make matters much worse, for that is their design. The ultimate goal is to leave Americans so discouraged, demoralized and exhausted that we throw our hands up in defeat. Obama’s enormous increase in the size of government and the generational theft resulting from his deficit spending has awakened the sleeping giant of voters’ most basic instinct: to keep what they earn. The good news is Congressional Republicans have finally woken up and coalesced into a viable political alternative as the “Party of No” refusing to support this disastrous government over-reach. Just as the Perotistas did in 1992, the Tea Partyers threatens to remove from office those politicians who choose to continue spending more than voters are willing to have the government take from them, their children and their grandchildren. Key to winning is to focus on “bread and butter” issues and having not just rhetoric, but ideas and solutions. Republicans must choose to be bold because if they promise to repeal and not just whittle at the Obama spending spree, they can capture the political energy of the Tea Partyers and the Republican base. If Republicans propose small cuts and tinkering with what Obama has done, and if they don’t reach out to the angry independents the Democrats may yet get away with it. If Republicans choose to be bold and promise they’ll roll back the nationalization of healthcare, the financial industry and the automakers, they can win in 2010 and beyond.
(“GOP Governors Emphasize Results Over Rhetoric” by Mike Memoli dated November 21, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/21/gop_governors_emphasize_results_over_rhetoric__99260.html
“Cloward-Piven Government” by James Simpson dated November 23, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/clowardpiven_government.html
“Roll Obama Back” by Jed Babbin dated November 23, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34524
“The Five Obama Fails” by Adam Sparks dated November 28, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/the_five_obama_fails.html )
Sarah Palin scares the heck out of the power elites for obvious reasons. First, she is unpredictable, charismatic and fully her own person. Any politician who can bypass the gatekeepers of power is going to cause anxiety among the gatekeepers. Second, she is conservative in a traditional, grassroots way that borders on populism and populists, also, cause anxiety among elites. Third, she is an evangelical Christian, which among the liberal establishment places her just above a Satanist. She is the thing the feminist movement and the left-liberal establishment most fears - a strong, independent, right to life woman who thinks for herself. Finally, she sells because whether you love her or hate her, people are fascinated by her. Her book, Going Rogue, deals with her Reagan-esque goals of smaller government, greater self reliance, and the delicate balance between work and family. Many Americans see her as a vehicle for their anger and disgust at Washington, and the Palin phenomenon is part of a larger trend of turning against the Establishment across the board. There are many signs of voter resentment and the result could be a tide of hostility that will turn Washington on its head in next year's midterm elections and maybe in 2012. Palin is naturally gifted and smart, but that doesn't mean she has the depth or experience yet to lead the nation. Palin, as a conservative woman, will never get the benefit of the doubt, so she must cultivate the skills necessary to transcend the rancor that will always follow her. If Palin wants to be president, she would do well to start doing the heavy lifting on policy and history that will help her withstand the attacks, fair or not, that are sure to come. A little more time reading and thinking and a little less on the talk shows would be a good thing. She needs to surround herself with the brainiest conservatives around for a year or so to deepen her reach. If it is true you can measure the greatness of a person, by the greatness of their enemies, than Palin surely has greatness in her, but she must continue to season if she wants to be successful long-term as a national political force.
(“Why They Fear Sarah Palin” by George Shadroui dated November 23, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/23/why-they-fear-sarah-palin/
“Trouble is Brewing for Obama, Democrats in 2010” by Kenneth T. Walsh dated November 25, 2009 published by U.S. News & World report at http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/11/25/trouble-is-brewing-for-obama-democrats-in-2010.html )
There is a growing fear that the federal government is retreating from the free-market economic principles of the last half-century, and in particular the strong growth policies that began under Ronald Reagan. While some of the Obama economic programs started with Bush, the Obama Administration has advanced them to insane levels. Logic, economics, common sense and history must be defied to believe a recovery is possible in this environment. The nation's standard of living will be substantially lowered unless changes in policies are forthcoming. A review of the economic policies instituted by President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress lends credibility to this concern:
· Even among previous stimulus efforts, the 2009 stimulus stands out for its ineffective targeting and sheer size. Virtually none of the stimulus spending was directed towards encouraging broad-based private investment, and thus failed to encourage true economic growth.
· It is a near certainty that Democratic-controlled Congress will allow most of the tax cuts of 2001-2003 to expire on Dec. 31, 2010. Marginal income tax rates, capital gains rates, dividend rates and death-tax rates will increase—significantly.
· Upsetting decades of accepted bankruptcy law, the administration leveraged TARP funds to place unsecured and lower priority creditors like the United Auto Workers union in front of secured and higher priority creditors. This intervention has arguably had the effect of stifling investment as wary investors watched political considerations trump the rule of law.
· Disregarding its impact on quality and access, the health care plans will surely cost well over $1 trillion over the next decade. The "pay or play" payroll tax and a surtax on incomes over $500,000 will tend to depress investment and the creation of new jobs.
· The proposed cap-and-tax legislation is looming, which will cost taxpayers $800 billion.
Beyond instilling tremendous political uncertainty into economic decision-making, these policies ensure that deficits will shatter all previous records. Anyone who believes the Democratic Party's recently expressed concern over the deficit should look at the relentless growth of spending on its watch. When you repeal the Reagan economic program, you repeal its results. The reason that Obamanomics will not and cannot work is because an economy cannot be managed from the top. Economics is a bottom-up process that depends upon individual incentives. Critical incentives have been diminished or destroyed by recent economic policies. Fear, uncertainty, threats, tax increases, penalties and violations of the rule of law are merely some of the conditions anathema to entrepreneurs, small business and large business. Businesses will not hire, invest or expand in a climate of disincentives. No commands from on high can force economic activity. That was a lesson that should have been learned from Eastern Europe and the former USSR. If these disincentives are left in place, our economy will continue to shrink and our standard of living will continue to be diminished. Capital has no nationality and will start to flee our shores. Talent will follow. America will not recover from this economic downturn until businesses and individuals have a more favorable incentive structure, but it is unlikely that the Obama Administration will reverse course and put in place the structure necessary to foster such a recovery.
(“Why No One Expects a Strong Recovery” by Jeb Hensarling and Paul Ryan dated November 19, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574537490451978558.html
“Why Obamanomics Will Not Improve the Economy” by Monty Pelerin dated November 23, 2009 published by American Thinker at http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/why_obamanomics_will_not_impro.html )
History tells us that the bursting of the housing bubble caused the financial collapse of 2008, but the housing bubble actually began in 1997 as the result of government policies that lowered mortgage-lending standards to increase home ownership and may be resurrected by the same culprits. The watershed moment was the 1992 Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, also known as the GSE Act. To comply with that law's "affordable housing" requirements, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would acquire more than $6 trillion of single-family loans over the next 16 years. Congress's goal was to force these two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to purchase loans that had been originated by banks—loans that were made under the pressure of another federal law, the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), to increase lending in low- and moderate-income communities. The 1992 GSE Act was the fuse, and the trillions of dollars in subsequent CRA and GSE affordable-housing loans would fuel the greatest housing bubble our nation has ever seen. The goal of the community groups such as ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) was to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to loosen their underwriting standards, in order to facilitate the purchase of loans made under the CRA. A provision was inserted into the law whereby Congress signaled to the GSEs that they should accept down payments of 5% or less, ignore impaired credit if the blot was over one year old, and otherwise loosen their lending guidelines. The result of loosened credit standards and a mandate to facilitate affordable-housing loans was a tsunami of high risk lending that sank the GSEs, overwhelmed the housing finance system, and caused an expected $1 trillion in mortgage loan losses by the GSEs, banks, and other investors and guarantors, and most tragically an expected 10 million or more home foreclosures. As a result of congressional and regulatory actions, the percentage of conventional first mortgages (not guaranteed by the Federal Housing Administration or the Veteran's Administration) used to purchase a home with the borrower putting 5% or less down tripled from 9% in 1991 to 27% in 1995, eventually reaching 29% in 2007. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac acquired $1.2 trillion of loans from banks and other lenders from 1993 to 2007. This amounted to 62% of all such conventional home purchase loans with a down payment of 5% or less that were originated nationwide over the same period. Fannie and Freddie also acquired $2.2 trillion in subprime loans and private securities backed by subprime loans from 1997 to 2007. ACORN and the other advocacy groups succeeded at getting Congress to mandate "innovative and flexible" lending practices such as higher debt ratios and creative definitions of income. The serious delinquency rate on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's $1.5 trillion in high-risk loans was 10.3% as of September 30, 2009, which was about seven times the delinquency rate on the GSEs' traditional loans. Fifty percent of the high-risk loans are estimated to be CRA loans, with much of the remainder useful to the GSEs in meeting their affordable-housing goals. The flood of CRA and affordable-housing loans with loosened underwriting standards, combined with declining mortgage interest rates—to 5% in 2003 from 10% in early 1991—resulted in a massive increase in borrowing capacity and fueled a house price bubble of unprecedented magnitude over the period 1997-2006. Now the same people, Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, and community groups who enabled this crisis initially are pushing Congress to expand CRA to cover all mortgage lenders, credit unions, insurance companies and others financial industry segments, and to reinvigorate HUD to mandate low income mortgages again! Instead of fixing the known root causes of the housing and financial crises, Congress appears to be consciously trying to ignore history and repeat its mistakes in order to create another housing bubble and corresponding financial catastrophe.
(“ACORN and the Housing Bubble” by Edward Pinto dated November 12, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574459763052141456.html )
The House health care “reform” was over 1,900 pages and the Senate health care “reform” was over 2,000 pages and chances are that no one in Congress will even read it, much less understand it! The first thing medical professionals learn is “First, do no harm” but Congress ignored this maxim to remake the health care system into a bureaucratic nightmare. A report issued by the Social Security and Medicare trustees showed that the combined unfunded liability of the two programs has now reached $107 trillion which is seven times the size of the U.S. economy, and it could go higher, as Medicare and Medicaid spending have consistently increased 2.5 percentage points faster than per capita GDP since 1970. Democrats cannot or will not see that much of what is wrong with America’s health-care system is government-caused. The bills currently under consideration in the House and Senate will cost taxpayers more than $3 trillion over the first ten years of their existence. They will burden the entire U.S. economy with new and burdensome taxes, stifle medical advances, and diminish the quality of care, and even then will not cover all of the uninsured. The major flaws of both the Pelosi and Reid Bills are:
· Both the House and Senate bills would create a new government-run health care plan, a so-called public plan, intended to “compete” with (smother) private insurers in a new health insurance exchange. The result: widespread erosion of private insurance and substantial consolidation of federal control over health care through the exchange.
· Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance that will create a one-size-fits-all federal health plan that will drive up the cost of everyone’s health insurance premiums.
· Both the House and Senate would dramatically expand eligibility for Medicaid and extend generous taxpayer-funded subsidies to the middle class. Combined, such commitments are the biggest cost items in the bills would result in scores of Americans dependent on the government to finance their health care.
· Both the House and Senate bills would impose an employer mandate for employers who do not offer coverage and for those whose benefits do not meet a new federal standard. An employer mandate would hurt low-income workers and would stifle much-needed economic growth.
· Both the House and Senate bills would require all people to buy health insurance. Those individuals who do not purchase government qualified health care coverage would be subject to new tax penalties and potentially jail time.
· Both Senate and House bills use budget gimmicks and unrealistic savings to make their proposals fit under the $900 billion limit put forth by the President.
As history has proven, government health care programs end up costing much more than first promised. Under the Senate health care bill, the CBO found by 2019 taxpayers will be paying $196 billion per year to subsidize other people’s health insurance coverage, but there still will be 24 million uninsured people in America. Having misdiagnosed what ails us, the Democrats are now poised to fix an overly bureaucratic, regulated, and entitlement-heavy system by delivering much, much more of the same. The newest Rasmussen poll finds public support for the health care reform bills down to 38%. Of the 56% who now oppose the plan, 43% are "strongly opposed." Among senior citizens, 60% are against it. Only 16% say they think it will lower health care costs with 60% saying it will increase costs. 54% think quality of care will decline. The AMA used to represent four out of five physicians, but now that they support the Democrat plans the AMA membership has fallen to only one out of five physicians. The AARP is the largest senior citizen advocate organization, but they too are bleeding members after they publicly endorsed the Obama health care reform bills. After all is said and done, government-run health care is inefficient, ineffective, and unaffordable!
(“The Five Flaws of the Reid Health Bill” by Nina Owcharenko dated November 19, 2009 published by Human Events at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34497
“CBO: By 2019, Taxpayers Will Pay $194 Billion a Year for ObamaCare, But 24 Million People Remain Uninsured” dated November 19, 2009 published by Cybercast News Service at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/57454
“The People Say No” dated November 23, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513328
“Nurse Ratched Democrats” by Mona Charen dated November 24, 2009 published by National Review Online at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2Y3NzNlMzI4ZGIwN2U3MTBmMjAzOWFhMjNkNDU3ZDQ= )
Despite all the smoke and mirrors to disguise the real cost of this health-care “reform,” the bottom line is that taxes (fees, penalties, etc.) will rise dramatically to pay for this Democrat government takeover and will impede our economic recovery. According to Americans for Tax Reform, the Senate health care bill uses the word "tax" no fewer than 183 times, "taxable" 164 times, "taxes" 17 times, "fee" 152 times and "penalty" 115 times. The repeated references are clear indications of how bill supporters plan to fund an overhaul that, we are supposed to believe, will bring health care costs down. Below is a list of the tax increases Congress and the Administration have proposed to finance health care reform. This list includes taxes in the bill passed by the House, the bill being debated by the Senate, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to pay for health care reform:
· An income surtax on taxpayers earning more than $500,000 a year,
· An excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans that cost more than $8,500 a year for individuals or $21,000 for families,
· An excise tax on medical devices such as wheelchairs, breast pumps, and syringes used by diabetics for insulin injections,
· A cap on the exclusion of employer-provided health insurance without offsetting tax cuts,
· A limit on itemized deductions for taxpayers with a top income tax rate greater than 28%,
· A windfall profits tax on health insurance companies,
· A value-added tax, which would tax the value added to a product at each stage of production,
· An increase in the Medicare portion of the payroll tax to 3.4% for incomes great than $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married filers),
· An excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages including non-diet soda and sports drinks,
· Higher taxes on alcoholic beverages including beer, wine, and spirits,
· A tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage of up to 2.5% of their adjusted gross income,
· A limit on contributions to health savings accounts,
· An 8% tax on all wages paid by employers that do not provide their employees health insurance that satisfies the requirements defined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
· A limit on contributions to flexible spending arrangements,
· Elimination of the deduction for expenses associated with Medicare Part D subsidies,
· An increase in taxes on international businesses,
· Elimination of the tax credits paper companies take for biofuels they create in their production process--the so-called "Black Liquor credit,"
· Fees on insured and self-insured health plans,
· A limit or repeal of the itemized deduction for medical expenses,
· A limit on the Qualified Medical Expense definition,
· An increase in the payroll taxes on students,
· An extension of the Medicare payroll tax to all state and local government employees,
· An increase in taxes on hospitals,
· An increase in the estate tax,
· Increased efforts to close the mythical "tax gap,"
· A 5% tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures such as Botox treatments, tummy tucks, and face lifts,
· A tax on drug companies,
· An increase in the corporate tax on providers of health insurance, and
· A $500,000 deduction limitation for the compensation paid by health insurance companies to their officers, employees, and directors.
The full list of taxes proposed to pay for health care reform is provided because taxes currently left out of the Senate or House bills could reappear at any point. Both the House and the Senate bills require that states cover a larger percentage of their people under Medicaid — a joint state and federally funded program. The idea was to force the states to cover a big part of the healthcare bill for treating poor people, which will cause sharp increases in state taxes. Raising taxes at any time is economically harmful, but doing so during a severe recession is reckless. The higher taxes in the health care plans would depress economic activity and delay recovery. When the recovery does finally come, it would be weaker than it would have been without all the tax increases and economic growth would remain lower because of these damaging tax increases.
(“…With Taxes Galore” dated November 19, 2009 published by Investor’s Business Daily at http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513043
“Taxes proposed to Pay for Health Care Reform” by Curtis S. Dubay dated November 20, 2009 published by The Heritage Foundation at http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2706.cfm
“ObamaCare Will Trigger Huge State Tax Hikes” by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann dated November 20, 2009 published by News Max at http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Obamacare_tax_hikes/2009/11/20/289211.html )
A “whistle-blower” in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which "human-induced global warming" claims have been advanced over the years revealing their logic as “junk science.” The revelations, that prominent members of the scientific community have been deliberately falsifying data, have shaken the scientific reputations of some of Anthropogenic Global Warming’s (AGW) major proponents, to their roots. Unlike the social sciences, where agendas and opinions often substitute for "facts," the hard sciences are supposedly pure, objective and rational. Here numbers don't lie, statistically demonstrable trends aren't self-serving conjecture, and the only agenda behind these scientific inquiries is a pure, unfettered, search for the truth. By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia, in some respects the international clearing house for climate change "science," observers are now in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable. The global warming hoax has its roots in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an instrument of the United Nations Environmental Program, for whom global warming was the open sesame to achieving a one-world-government by scaring nations into signing a treaty that would control their use of energy, the means of producing it, and require vast billions to be sent to less developed nations in exchange for “emitting” greenhouse gases. The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information. The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question. The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK. It appears that the three scandals are:
· First, a real attempt by a small group of scientists to subvert the peer-review process and suppress dissenting voices - This is at best massively unethical.
· Second, a willingness to manipulate the data to make a political case - This is certainly misconduct and possibly scientific fraud.
· Third, an actual conspiracy to prevent data from being released as required by the Freedom of Information Acts in the US and UK - This is a federal crime.
These emails and the data associated, taken together, raise really important questions about the whole scientific structure of AGW.
· Is the data really valid?
· Has the data been effectively peer reviewed and have attempts to falsify been fairly treated?
· Is CO2-forced AGW really the best hypothesis?
The saddest fact is that the mainstream media has chosen to ignore this scandal thaqt undermines a scientific community and its political agenda. Obama administration climate czar Carol Browner rejected claims that e-mails stolen from a British university show that climate scientists trumped up global-warming numbers, saying she considers the science settled and will ignore the “inconvenient truth.” Until these integrity questions are answered, the various attempts to “deal with the climate change crisis” have no acceptable scientific basis. "Science" can no longer be trusted to be objective since it has been proven to be no different from the base, venal, agenda-driven bilge we see in the mainstream media, whose purpose is not to educate and inform, but to protect and advance a private agenda.
(“Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean?” by Charles Martin dated November 22, 2009 published by Pajamas Media at http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/
“Global Warming Meltdown: Climategate” by Alan Caruba dated November 23, 2009 published by American Daily at http://americandaily.com/index.php/article/2592
“The Skeptics Are Vindicated” by David Warren dated November 25, 2009 published by Real Clear politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/25/the_skeptics_are_vindicated_99296.html
“The Day Science Died” by Phillip Ellis Jackson dated November 25, 2009 published by Intellectual Conservative at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/11/25/the-day-science-died/
“Climate czar rejects doctored data claims” by Stephen Dinan dated November 26, 2009 published by The Washington Times at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/26/browner-rejects-doctored-data-claims//print/ )
The decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York criminal courts makes no legal sense and can only be explained by Democrat partisan politics trumping concern for America's security interests. Attorney General Holder acknowledged that these defendants could have been brought to trial in civilian court or before military tribunals. The legal status of the al-Qaida bigwigs, none of whom are U.S. citizens, was that of unlawful combatant. In attacking the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they committed an act of war, but did so in a manner which deprives them of prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Convention of 1949. To be recognized as lawful combatants, irregulars must meet four criteria, the Geneva Convention states: The criteria are "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." The al-Qaida bigwigs fail to meet three of those four criteria, and thus, under international law, are entitled only to such "rights" as their captors are willing to extend to them. Instead President Obama and Attorney General Holder have decided to give them the rights of American citizens. The most consequential of those rights is that of discovery - the right of American defendants to see the evidence the prosecution has against them. Prosecutors will be forced to reveal U.S. intelligence on KSM, the methods and sources for acquiring its information and his relationships to fellow al-Qaida operatives. The information will enable al-Qaida to drop plans and personnel whose cover is blown. It will also enable al-Qaida to detect our means of intelligence-gathering and to push forward into areas we know nothing about. The concern isn't hypothetical since Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the blind sheikh, Abdel Rahman, after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was required to turn over to defendants a list of 200 possible co-conspirators which was delivered to Osama bin Laden within days of its production as a court exhibit. McCarthy declined to prosecute another suspect in that bombing for fear the intelligence loss through discovery outweighed the benefits of a conviction. To fail to turn over intelligence sought through discovery is to run the risk that KSM and his co-conspirators might be acquitted on a technicality. Releasing them from custody would be political poison for Democrats. The administration would have to keep holding them even if they are found not guilty. That would make a mockery the main reason Holder has given for trying them in federal court: that a civilian trial would showcase American justice. Even if no vital intelligence is disclosed to al-Qaida, a civilian trial will be a propaganda fest, as was the trial of the "20th hijacker," Zacarias Moussaoui. The real reason for a civilian trial is that President Obama hopes KSM and his lawyers will attack the Bush administration and its interrogation tactics. Our enemies must be thrilled. We are willingly handing them an opportunity to inflict economic harm on New York City, keep their cause in the headlines, gather new intelligence, create new terror strategies, stimulate recruiting, celebrate new-found rights, and foist a fresh round of pain and suffering upon their victims. According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, only 34% of Americans support the decision to try the al-Qaida leaders in a federal district court. 64% said they should be tried by a military commission, as the Bush administration planned to do. The decision is unlikely to grow more popular with time and a highly publicized trial will remind Americans of the 9/11 attacks, something Democrats have been encouraging us to forget.
(“Eric Holder’s Baffling KSM Decision” by David Beamer dated November 20, 2009 published by The Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547681569546414.html
“Obama’s Vendetta Against Bush” by Jack Kelly dated November 22, 2009 published by Real Clear Politics at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/22/obamas_vendetta_against_bush_99262.html )
* There is so much published each week that unless you search for it, you will miss important breaking news. I try to package the best of this information into my “Views on the News” each Saturday morning. Individual issue updates this week include: