By Good Ole Boy/ Jim

January 9th 20010 Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a classified cable to U.S. embassies in England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to notify those countries of an upcoming launch of a Chinese missile interceptor two days later. The cable included launch sites and type of missle.  WikiLeaks made this cable known and retired Chinese general Xu Guangyu has stated that China has a plan for a surprise missile attack on the USA and that the leaked information had to come from spies on the ground. He also stated it would be hard to now have a surprise attack.

It is doubtful in my mind they have dumped their plans. They have been building up their army and naval forces to levels far above those needed for defense. While Obama weakens our countries nuclear forces China has been building up theirs.

As some of you know from Politics.com days I have been saying for years that China was planning on a war with United States.  In fact I have been saying this for about 10 years and gave the timeline for 10 to 15 years.  It now looks that in the next five years we may have war. I hope I’m not right but thing all point that way.

Duncan Hunter was on the house intelligence and defense committees and ran for president in 2008. He warned that China was building up forces and no one in the government’s was paying attention.

War with China would end up WW3 and many of the Muslim nations will align with China. It would be very, very costly in lives.

These sites will give you an idea of the size and power of their forces.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/default.asp

http://www.softwar.net/plaaf.html

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/china/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Japan, India,Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan have all had confrontations with China over rights in the South China Sea, which is rich in resources. A flashpoint for war could erupt very quickly.

Rick Perry is a RINO at best or very likely another Bilderberg anointed candidate as was Obama and we know how that is working out. Also he seems to be a politician of convenience, with no real Conservative convictions.  What he is not is a REAL Conservative. How and why some Tea Party people are supporting him is beyond me as he is counter to nearly all that the Tea Party stands for at least in deeds. What he is saying is another matter. For his actual deeds InfoWars has itemized 14 as seen below.

#1 Rick Perry is a “big government” politician.  When Rick Perry became the governor of Texas in 2000, the total spending by the Texas state government was approximately $49 billion.  Ten years later it was approximately $90 billion.  That is not exactly reducing the size of government.

#2 The debt of the state of Texas is out of control.  According to usdebtclock.org, the debt to GDP ratio in Texas is 22.9% and the debt per citizen is $10,645.  In California (a total financial basket case), the debt to GDP ratio is just 18.7% and the debt per citizen is only $9932.  If Rick Perry runs for president these are numbers he will want to keep well hidden.

#3 The total debt of the Texas government has more than doubled since Rick Perry became governor.  So what would the U.S. national debt look like after four (or eight) years of Rick Perry?

#4 Rick Perry has spearheaded the effort to lease roads in Texas to foreign companies, to turn roads that are already free to drive on into toll roads, and to develop the Trans-Texas Corridor which would be part of the planned NAFTA superhighway system.  If you really do deep research on this whole Trans-Texas Corridor nonsense you will see why no American should ever cast a single vote for Rick Perry.

#5 Rick Perry claims that he has a “track record” of not raising taxes.  That is a false claim.  Rick Perry has repeatedly raised taxes and fees while he has been governor.  Today, Texans are faced with significantly higher taxes and fees than they were before Rick Perry was elected.

#6 Even with the oil boom in Texas, 23 states have a lower unemployment rate than Texas does.

#7 Back in 1988, Rick Perry supported Al Gore for president.  In fact, Rick Perry actually served as Al Gore’s campaign chairman in the state of Texas that year.

#8 Between December 2007 and April 2011, weekly wages in the U.S. increased by about 5 percent.  In the state of Texas they increased by just 0.6% over that same time period.

#9 Texas now has one of the worst education systems in the nation.  The following is from an opinion piece that was actually authored by Barbara Bush earlier this year….

•  We rank 36th in the nation in high school graduation rates. An estimated 3.8 million Texans do not have a high school diploma.

•  We rank 49th in verbal SAT scores, 47th in literacy and 46th in average math SAT scores.

•  We rank 33rd in the nation on teacher salaries.

#10 Rick Perry attended the Bilderberg Group meetings in 2007.  Associating himself with that organization should be a red flag for all American voters.

#11 Texas has the highest percentage of workers making minimum wage out of all 50 states.

#12 Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue.  If Rick Perry does not plan to secure the border, then he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States.

#13 In 2007, 221,000 residents of Texas were making minimum wage or less.  By 2010, that number had risen to 550,000.

#14 Rick Perry actually issued an executive order in 2007 that would have forced almost every single girl in the state of Texas to receive the Gardasil vaccine before entering the sixth grade.  Perry would have put parents in a position where they would have had to fill out an application and beg the government not to inject their child with a highly controversial vaccine. Since then, very serious safety issues regarding this vaccine have come to light.  Fortunately, lawmakers in Texas blocked what Perry was trying to do.  According to Wikipedia, many were troubled when “apparent financial connections between Merck and Perry were reported by news outlets, such as a $6,000 campaign contribution and Merck’s hiring of former Perry Chief of Staff Mike Toomey to handle its Texas lobbying work.”

On Border Security- he is against a fence and ending “anchor babies”. He has Hispanic Democrats on his side, how Conservative is that?

Thanks to InfoWars and the tip from Dan/ChipBuffalo

Obama was able to get some of his Kenyan kin to get a witch doctor to bring back Joseph and have him hit the campaign trail for Obama and the Democrats. Here is a preview of the first for the 2012 campaign season.

Every now and then you still hear someone in the media bring up Global Warming while our climate is cooling. Even some of the former global warming people are coming out and saying we are going into a cooling phase, usually with the caveat that it would be cooler if not for global warming. None as of yet have said the whole concept of global warming was a hoax that was all about power and money as it was. None will say it’s chief proponent Al Gore profited handsomely for his efforts. He is a bigger criminal than Bernie Maddoff and may someday share a cell with him.

Ask people you meet about Climategate and usually you get a blank stare. Nothing out there points to global warming being a hoax as it does, but few have actually read the hacked e-mails. We owe the nameless Russian hacker for exposing this fraud, a medal is surely in order. Here are some of those  East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) e-mails that the liberal pundits said meant nothing , “Just scientific jargon and nonsensical chatter”. These are the actual emails with some having an  introduction comment and/or author of the e-mail and are not a part of the actual email, they have — to denote.  They seem pretty plain to me a hoax is in the making or just really bad science, judge for yourself.

The Cast Of Characters

• Mike Mann: American Physicist and Climatologist best know for the discredited Hockey Stick graph
  
• Phil Jones: Director of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England. He conveniently lost all the climate data when the shit hit the fan over the hacked e-mails, his ouster from the directorshipwas temporary after highly questionable whitewash of of his actions that got him reinstated.
  
• Tom Wigley: Climate scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) who becomes increasingly worried about the unfolding scandal
• Keith Briffa: Climate at (UCAR) an older conspirator whose blunders lead the others to all but abandon him.
• Ben Santer:a Climate Researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a dangerously arrogant and naive young conspirator in the United States
• Other conspirators: of varying degrees of complicity and integrity
  
• Skeptics and other unrelated parties

September 19, 1996: email 0843161829

–Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change–
I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

November 22, 1996: email 0848679780

–Geoff Jenkins was head of climate change prediction at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, part of the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office (national weather service). He writes to Phil Jones–

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures, with the early release of information (via Australia), “inventing” the December monthly value, letters to Nature, etc., etc.?

I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year, simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.

October 9, 1997: email 0876437553

–We now encounter one of the most insidious red herrings in the climate debate: how many thousands of scientists “endorsed” the views of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
With just months until the Kyoto Climate Conference, we find the germ of this idea fertilizing in an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart–

Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.

I would like to weigh in on two important questions—

Distribution for Endorsements—

I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.

November 25, 1997: email 0880476729

–Tom Wigley roundly criticises the eleven scientists seeking endorsement of their Statement.–

Dear Eleven,

I was very disturbed by your recent letter, and your attempt to get others to endorse it. Not only do I disagree with the content of this letter, but I also believe that you have severely distorted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “view” when you say that “the latest IPCC assessment makes a convincing economic case for immediate control of emissions.” …

This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed, balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science—when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords with the IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on the subject.

When scientists color the science with their own personal views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics …. I find this extremely disturbing.

October 9, 1998: email 0907975032

-Rashit Hantemirov writes to Keith Briffa about the Russian trees that Briffa used for his tree-ring data: –

There is no evidence of the polar timber-line moving to the north during the last century.

– So no hallmark of climate change.–

November 16, 1999: email 0942777075

–Phil Jones to Ray Bradley, Mike Mann, Malcolm Hughes, Keith Briffa, and Tim Osborn, regarding a diagram for a World Meteorological Organization Statement: –

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temperatures to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

–This is the smoking gun on the biggest fraud perpetrated on the world.–

August 23, 2000: email 0967041809

–In this email we get an insight into how the politics of propaganda completely overrode the rules of good scientific practice, when it came to publications on “climate science”. Steve Schneider of the Department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University in the United States complains to a number of his international colleagues–

please get rid of the ridiculous “inconclusive” for the 34% to 66% subjective probability range. It will convey a completely differnt meaning to lay persons—read decisionmakers—since that probability range represents medium levels of confidence, not rare events. A phrase like “quite possible” is closer to popular lexicon, but “inconclusive” applies as well to very likely or very unlikely events and is undoubtedly going to be misinterpreted on the outside.

–Replies–

Steve, I agree with your assesement of “inconclusive”—“quite possible” is much better and we use “possible” in the United States National Assessment. Surveys have shown that the term “possible” is interpreted in this range by the public.

Great Tom, I think we are converging to much clearer meanings across various cultures here. Please get the “inconclusive” out! By the way, “possible” still has some logical issues as it is true for very large or very small probabilities in principle, but if you define it clearly it is probably OK—but “quite possible” conveys medium confidence better—but then why not use “medium confidence”, as the 3 rounds of review over the guidance paper concluded after going through exactly the kinds of disucssions were having now?

–This scenario in their own words is just as likely to be wrong as right. Odds you don’t gamble a county’s welfare and taxpayers money on.–

September 11, 2000: email 0968705882

–Filippo Giorgi, Senior Scientist and Head of the Physics of Weather and Climate Section of the The Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, writes to the other Lead Authors of Chapter 10 of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report.–

We said that one thing to look at was the agreement with the old data and thus I noticed that relaxing the criteria determining what “agreement” means would yield a greater agreement.

First let me say that in general, as my own opinion, I feel rather unconfortable about using not only unpublished but also un-reviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). I realize that Chapter 9 of the Report is including new stuff, and thus we can and need to do that too, but the fact is that in doing so the rules of the IPCC have been softened to the point that in this way the IPCC is not any more an assessment of published science (which is its proclaimed goal), but the production of results. The softened condition that the models themselves have to be published does not even apply, because the Japanese model, for example, is very different from the published one which gave results not even close to the actual … version …. Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might undermine the IPCC’s credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this. Anyway, this is only my opinion, for what it is worth.

September 22, 2000: email 0969618170

–Tom Crowley of the Department of Oceanography at the Texas A&M university writes to Malcolm Hughes and Keith Briffa, about the huge problems involved in trying to figure out if the various “temperature proxies” are measuring temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, or some other complicated combination.–

As I discuss in my … paper the “anomalous” late 19th century warming also occurs in a … tree ring record from central Colorado, the Urals record of Keith Briffa, and the east China … temperature record of Zhu.

Alpine glaciers also started to retreat in many regions around 1850, with one-third to one-half of their full retreat occurring before the warming that commenced about 1920.

So, are you sure that some carbon dioxide effect is responsible for this? May we not actually be seeing a warming?

–Malcolm Hughes’s response exemplifies the utter confusion of these researchers–

I tried to imply in my e-mail, but will now say it directly, that although a direct carbon dioxide effect is still the best candidate to explain this effect, it is far from proven. In any case, the relevant point is that there is no meaningful correlation with local temperature.

March 2, 2001: email 0983566497

–Chick Keller, of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California at San Diego, United States, writes to Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Crowley, Jonathan Overpeck, Tom Wigley, and Mike MacCracken, pointing out problems in the historical temperature estimates obtained from individual “proxy” methods.–

Anyone looking at the records gets the impression that the temperature variation for many individual records or sites over the past 1000 years or so is often larger than 1°Celsius. … And they see this as evidence that the 0.8°Celsius or so temperature rise in the 20th century is not all that special.

–He then makes note of a trick that they have used to mask this effect.–

The community of climate scientists, however, in making averages of different proxies gets a much smaller amplitude of about 0.5°Celsius, which they say shows that reasonable combinations of effects can indeed explain this and that the 20th century warming is unique.

Thus, the impasse—one side the skeptics pointing to large temperature variations in many records around the globe, and the other side saying, “Yes, but not at the same time and so, if averaged out, is no big deal.”

But, just replying that events don’t happen at the same time (sometimes by a few decades) is the reason might not be enough. It seems to me that we must go one step further. We must address the question: what effects can generate large … temperature variations over hundreds of years, regional though they may be (and, could these occur at different times in different regions due to shifting climate patterns)? If we can’t do this, then there might be something wrong with our rationale that the average does not vary much even though many regions see large variations. This may be the nub of the disagreement, and until we answer it, many careful scientists will decide the issue is still unsettled, and that indeed climate in the past may well have varied as much or more than in the last hundred years.

–This remarkable statement—mailed to all of the key players in this scandal—shows that they knew, clearly, more than eight years before the Climategate whistle-blower released these emails, that the entire basis of their claims was on shaky ground.
In his last paragraph, Keller points out the elementary mathematical error in the “averaging trick”–

Also, I note that most proxy temperature records claim timing errors of … 50 years ahead or behind the correct date or so. What is the possibility that records are cancelling each other out on variations in the hundred-year timeframe due simply to timing errors?

–There are, in fact, many more mathematical reasons why the “averaging trick” is completely wrong; but Keller’s observation is completely correct, and by itself discredits the entire discipline of work establishing these “multi-proxy” historical temperature estimates–

May 2, 2001: email 0988831541.txt

–Mike Mann criticizes Ed Cook’s work with colleague Jan Esper—not for poor methods or invalid conclusions, but rather because it was being used publicly, before being able to be blocked through the peer review process. Firstly, he applies the “peer group pressure” argument–

We may have to let the peer-review process decide this, but I think you might benefit from knowing the consensus of the very able group we have assembled in this email list, on what Esper and you have done?

–Cook parries admirably–

Of course, I know everyone in this “very able group” and respect their opinions and scientific credentials. The same obviously goes for you. That is not to say that we can’t disagree. Afterall, consensus science can impede progress as much as promote understanding.

–Mann is taken aback, and tries a different tack–

I don’t in any way doubt yours and Jan’s integrity here.

I’m just a bit concerned that the result is getting used publicly, by some, before it has gone through the gauntlet of peer review. Especially because it is, whether you condone it or not, being used as we speak to discredit the work of us, and Phil and coworkers; this is dangerous. I think there are some legitimate issues that need to be sorted out ….

I’d be interested to be kept posted on what the status of the manuscript is.

–Cook responds with a level of integrity foreign to Mann’s mind-set–

Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

July 2, 2001: email 0994083845

–Ian Harris of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia writes to the Norwich Green Party mailing list, responding to a comment that natural events can cause climate changes that swamp any effects of mankind.–

We’re looking at an unprecedented acceleration in temperature … Even if it turns out to be naturally-occurring, who’s willing to take that chance? We should be trying to wean ourselves off of unsustainable energy generation and use anyway.

– Not to sure about the science so screw the taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of jobs more likely millions and “cause energy costs to skyrocket” Obama’s own words about Cap and Trade legislation.–

June 4, 2003: email 1054756929

–Ed Cook writes to Keith Briffa–

Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of mathematics that we use in our field (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your … reconstruction as the main whipping boy.

I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims.

–Rather sloppy records for scientific research–

If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of filter theory stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the mathematics appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of computer stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but never actually show how their method would change your reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated.

September 28, 2004: email 1096382684

–Andy Revkin, Environment Reporter for The New York Times, writes to Tim Osborn: Again, the take-away message is that Mann’s method can only work if past variability is the same as the variability during the period used to calibrate your method. So it could be correct, but it could be very wrong as well.–

By the way, von Storch doesn’t agree with Osborn and Briffa on the idea that higher past variability would mean there’d likely be high future variability as well (bigger response to greenhouse gases). He simply says it’s time to toss the “hockey-stick graph” and start again; he doesn’t take it further than that.

Is that right?

July 5, 2005: email 1120593115

–Phil Jones sends an article and a blog entry to climate scientist John Christy–

This quote is from an Australian at the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, Melbourne (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

–Phil Jones admits cooling but discounts it, that affronts his religious-like views of global warming. He calls himself a scientist and wants something to happen so he will be right. Sounds like a kid not a scientist and it hasn’t happened.–

August 5, 2005: email 1123268256

–Jonathan Overpeck writes to Tim Osborn, Eystein Jansen, Keith Briffa, and Oyvind Paasche, regarding increasing problems around the Medieval Warm Period.–

I hope you’re not going to kill me, but I was talking with Susan Solomon today, and she impressed me with the need to make several points if we can.

One issue … is whether we can extend the Medieval Warm Period graph to include the 15th century. I don’t read the blogs that regularly, but I guess the skeptics are making hay of there being a global warm event around 1450. I agree with Susan that it is our obligation to weigh in on issues like this, so… can we extend the graph to extend up to 1500? 

– The Medieval Warming Period was warmer than even the height of the recent natural warming period.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global-phenonmena-unprecedented-warming-or-unprecedented-data-manipulation/

November 15, 2005: email 1132094873

–Mike Mann writes to Tim Osborn, Phil Jones, and Keith Briffa–

I’m not sure if you guys are aware: McIntyre presented this poster at the Climate Change Science Program meeting. Apparently, they gave him a very prominent location, so that everyone entering the meeting would have seen the poster…

–Even a poster at a conference is enough to get the intelligence chatter going!
Tim Osborn replies–

Thanks for this, Mike. We’d spotted an earlier draft of his poster and were a bit concerned about this receiving prominence at the meeting. Did it arouse much discussion, do you know?

–Mann–
He almost had a point with a mathematical issue, but as we all know, that doesn’t matter at all in the end. The issue isn’t whether or not he’s right, as we all well know by now, but whether his false assertions have enough superficial plausability to get traction. In this case, they might, so it’s probably good to at least be prepared.

March 8, 2006: email 1141398437

Richard Alley writes to Jonathan Overpeck:

Do you know anything about the “divergence problem” in tree rings? Rosanne D’Arrigo talked to the National Research Council yesterday. I didn’ get to talk to her afterward, but it looked to me that they have redrilled a bunch of the high-latitude tree rings that underlie almost all of the high-resolution estimates, and the tree rings are simply missing the post-1970s warming, with reasonably high confidence. She didn’t seem too worried, but she apparently has a paper just out in the Journal of Geophysical Research. It looked to me like she had pretty well killed the “hockey stick” graph in public forum—they go out and look for the most-sensitive trees at the edge of the treeline, flying over lots and lots of trees that are less sensitive but quite nearby, and when things get a little warmer, the most-sensitive trees aren’t sensitive any more; and so the trees miss the extreme warming of the recent times, and can’t reliably be counted as catching the extreme warmth of the Medieval Warm Period if there was extreme warmth then.

–Trying to debunk through dubious supposition The hockey stick turned into a bullshit shovel is what happened. –

These are just a few of the more damning emails many more were as bad or nearly as bad for the man made global warming religion, but Google Climategate and you will find as many who trivialize them as those who call them a death knell to it.

The total news blackout by the mainstream media on Climategate when it happened is why the American people don’t know about it. In the rest of the world it was big news. The mainstream media too treats global warming like a religion and that news must of been apostate.

Al Gore has made millions pushing global warming and now is getting billions in grants to his Siver Springs Network. Man caused global warming is a hoax therefore getting Federal money which came from the taxpayers should be a crime. Hopefully Gore will spend some quality time in a cell with a big stinky guy that thinks Al looks cute.

If someone you ask about doesn’t know about Climategate and the hoax it is send them here for the skinny.

Thanks to John P. Costella access to these e-mails and characters involved. His entire post can be seen at http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/

A total scientific debunking of the psuedo-science of global warming can be found at   ahttp://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

A DEMOCRAT IN THE WOODS

A Democrat was walking through the woods.

‘What majestic trees!’ ‘What powerful rivers!’
‘What beautiful animals!’ He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a
rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 8-foot grizzly bear charge towards
him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer.
He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant moment, the Democrat cried out: ‘Oh my God!’

Suddenly time stopped. The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a loud voice
came out of the sky.

“You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don’t exist and even credit my creation to a cosmic accident.”
“Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?”
“Am I to count you as a believer?”

The Democrat looked directly into the light, and said: ‘It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a
Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a
Christian?’

‘Very well’, said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both
paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

“Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from Thy bounty through
Christ our Lord, Amen.”

Any other good Jokes out there?

Go girl, she has guts to be a conservative in the entertainment industry.

Communism has killed over 100 million people while socialism/Nazism 25 million. These people in the following article are too stupid or naive to understand what socialism/ communism really is. The writer of this piece includes some Cyrillic fonts which lead me to believe he is Russian and speaks from first hand knowledge.

Wake up America.

It will be in your town before you know it.

Now is the time to let it be known we are a FREE Country.

Enuf is Enuf!

Do you know what is going on in your own country?  Have you been sleeping with our national media?

Look at the pictures below…were they taken in Cuba ? Ven ezuela ? Bolivia ? Ecuador , Nicaragua , El Salvador , Argentina , maybe Puerto Rico ?

Nope… Los Angeles , USA just a few days ago…this is what happened while we slept…while we went nt to school, went to work, while we raised our families. While we watched CNN or CBS, ABC or NBC or listened to NPR or read the New York Times and never saw, read or heard a minute of coverage of this travesty…while we let our guard down and we let the Marxist/Socialist/Communist Left and Progressives creep into our schools, the unions, the media and our government…banners and posters with the images of Ernesto “Che†Guevara (Castro’s executioner) and Lenin would make Fidel Castro, Joe Stalin or Karl Marx proud to be an American!

A May Day rally in Los Angeles , co-sponsored by the SEIU and various communist groups, as well as other unions, reflected yet another step in the normalization of self-identified communist and socialist ideologies in the Obama era. Not only did the SEIU help to organize the rally in conjunction with communists, they marched side-by-side with communists, while union members carried communist flags, communists carried union signs, and altogether there was no real way to tell the two apart.Southern California citizen journalist and photographer “Ringo†was on hand to record the day’s events, and posted a full-length photo essay on his site Ringo’s Pictures. To bring this important photo essay to a wider audience, I present here a small selection of Ringo’s May Day pictures; visit his site to see dozens more photos from the rally.

When I tell people that public political rallies are more and more being led by communists and socialists, most folks simply don’t believe me. Aw, come on, you’re just giving decent protesters an extreme label, they say. No, actually, I’m not: The communists freely and proudly declare their affiliation.

And the SEIU has no problem marching arm-in-arm with them.

“Smash Capitalism†is a slogan the SEIU apparently endorses — or at least doesn’t mind marching behind.

In case you think the SEIU is some peripheral out-of-the-mainstream organization:

The SEIU devoted $28 million to Obama’s campaign, making the SEIU “ the organization that spent the most to help Barack Obama get elected president.†Furthermore, who is Obama’s favorite White House guest and one of his closest confidants?

The individual who has visited the Obama White House the most: SEIU President Andy Stern, who has visited 53 times.

Obama is closely linked with the SEIU.

The SEIU is closely linked with communists.

You do the math.

Did I say communists? Sorry, I meant Communists (with a capital “C†).

Note how the Communists that day (like the women on the right in this photo) carried solid red flags symbolizing their ideology. Keep that in mind as you view the next photo…

One of the SEIU leaders picked up a Communist flag and led a contingent of rank-and-file SEIU members. Everyone was OK with that.

The way you can identify the SEIU members in all these pictures: They’re the ones in purple t-shirts carrying blue-and-yellow signs.

So, as you can see, the communists and the union members intermingled as the march progressed.

In case you were wondering what the SEIU was saying during all of this, here’s a video of the SEIU chanting “Legalization or REVOLUTION!†Clear enough?      ( Jim/Good Ole Boy ” Bring it on SEIU, there are more good ole boys than SEIU and we are better armed”.)

And it wasn’t just the SEIU at the march — other “normal†unions like the AFL-CIO were on hand as well.

There were plenty of teachers’ unions attending too, and they brought along many of their public school students for some good old-fashioned communist indoctrination,.

Most of the idiots in the US who walk around with Che buttons or Che shirts do so simply because they foolishly think he’s “cool.†These hardcore communists carry his image not because he’s “cool,†but because he was one of the most radical revolutionaries who ever lived. Right up there with Lenin, apparently.

In order to have a more “civil dialogue†with their political opponents, the marchers made a puppet of a demonic Statue of Liberty aligned with the “Tea Bag Party.â€

OK, I guess Hitler comparisons are off the table for now — too many people have called it taboo. So what’s second best? The Devil!

Tell me the honest truth: If the Tea Party had marched in a rally behind a banner held up by fascists or neo-Nazis, don’t you think it would have been national news? But the nation’s biggest Obama-supporting political organization marched behind banners like these, and not a peep about it in the media. Hmmmm….

Until recently, the average American has regarded fascists and communists as equally noxious and equally malignant. As well they should have. But the drive these days by the left side of the spectrum is to make communism and socialism somewhat less remarkable and more palatable. For two years they angrily denied the Tea Party accusation that Obama’s policies and supporters had a socialist bent. But in recent months, as the accusation had started to gain traction, the new leftist tactic has become: “What’s so bad about socialism after all? You’re demonizing a very popular and respectable ideology!â€

Thanks to Dan/ Chip Buffalo for this material,  he is looking for the author so credit can be given.

The recent national attention on the Wisconsin legislature and Governor often showed them as bad guys out to destroy families. Many of the Democratic Wisconsin legislators fled to Illinois to keep any of those poor state employees to lose anything, most likely not out of any pity in their hearts but fear of losing their seats in the government. A friend in Peoria gave me some re-prints from the Illinois Tax Payers Association that show what Wisconsin and Illinois have in common, Democratic controlled governments and out of control state pensions that all the taxpayers pay for, but few can match as few have pensions in today’s  world.

I was not able to post them as the print became to small to be legible and am giving a range.

On the top 100 Illinois Government Pension Payouts ranged from $15,548 to a high of 33,535  monthly with salaries from $186,571 to 402,118.  These are not elected officials, civil service positions which are union, many of which are political patronage jobs.

If you are wondering why college costs so much and why property and state taxes are so high in Illinois and maybe your state it could be the salaries and pensions. The junior college in Peoria county, Illinois Central College  top 25 pensions range from $6,378 monthly to 14,376 monthly. These people are getting more in pensions than most in the area make at their jobs.

The Illinois State police can retire after 20 years and most of these are nearing retirement. The top 100 salaries ranged from $130,816 to 189,015 . Their pensions were not listed but 3/4′s of their ending salary is the norm in this state. Years ago when gang violence was very bad the state tried to get the State Police to work in the cities to combat the gang violence and most said they would quit and they scrubbed the plan. I guess it was too dangerous for them as they were used to giving speeding tickets. They also get a perk not listed, confiscated cars and trucks are picked up by troopers for little or no cost. The 4th amendment means nothing to them.  http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2009/05/il-state-police-keep-seized-hot-cars-for-personal-use/

This practice is rife with potential for abuse, pull over a car you like and throw a bag of dope in and the car is yours.

When I saw these figures for salaries and pensions I said OMG, I knew there was bloat in our government but that was unbelievable. Illinois is run by the Chicago Democratic  Machine and Wisconsin has been Democratically controlled too and I would bet they have similar statistics. Both states are also called welfare states with big money going to those who can’t work (few) and won’t work(many).               But that is another story.

Thanks go out to Art Palmer

Inflation is rampant, gas and fuel prices are rising. Unemployment is still hurting millions. Japan has suffered the worst natural disaster in their history. Events in the Middle East continue to flare up. Obama fills out his basketball brackets and then packs for a vacation in Rio. That pretty much is the situation at hand. Where is that Hope and Change?

I guess we can hope Obama would allow drilling on our coasts, Alaska, and the oil shale in Wyoming, North Dakota and surrounding states. This would end our reliance on foreign oil and provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and lower the cost of gas. Just the announcement would cause prices to drop. But I wouldn’t count on it happening. We are just supposed to Hope he will. He has fulfilled his promise to cause energy costs to skyrocket, at least he was able to tell the truth once.

Japan an ally can always hope the government will help, A real Leader of the Free World would be using the bully pulpit to bring people together to help Japan but it will be up to private organizations and the people of our country to render aid. Obama has shown a dislike for helping non-Muslim countries. He has time and again disrespected our friends whilel fawning over our enemies.

Obama thinks it’s time to pander to basketball fans then get back to the real business of his presidency, vacation. It seems the perks of the presidency matter more to Obama than the job does. He is acting like a narcissist with delusions of grandeur. He is not to be bothered with the problems of the lowly people, let them eat cake.

We can only wait for the Change that surely will happen in November 2012.

In the most recent of days, we learn that AOL and the Huffington Post have joined forces to the tune of 313 million dollars paid to the Huffington Post, and additional Millions to Arianna herself, plus Arianna Huffington is to take a leading role in the AOL hierarchy.

I question Arianna’s real role, Is it truly a metamorphism from ultra Conservative activist, to a left wing dissident mogul or is it all in the name of Entrepreneurism. One expects that many people, in their youth (not all) vacillating from one position to another, it is part and parcel of maturing, but Arianna was no spring Chicken when she changed sides. I do not believe anyone could accept her statement that the right had fooled, blinded, and bamboozled her. Her long history of involvement from her Cambridge days forward, would contradict those statements unless she could claim stupidity ….Which I seriously doubt.

In the beginning of the nineties she was part and parcel of Newt Gingrich’s Progress and Freedom Foundation, one cannot get more conservative than that. She voiced vociferous opposition to the government’s role in American lives, calling it “Big Government”, she was outspoken against immigration and called for restrictions, and not just on illegal Immigrants.

Her political activism was well-defined when she allegedly reinforced rumors about then President Clinton (the darling of the left) and a certain deceased ambassador, along with her calling for the resignation of Mr. Clinton, through her website Resignation.com. There are people out there who would say that she certainly had views that would be associated with the right wing, and yet in her book, Right Is Wrong, she refers to those with right-wing views as the lunatic fringe that Hijacked America.

There have been at least three public claims of Plagiarism; one claim settled out of court. In her earlier years, she gave political donations to Republican candidates, many of whom lost; maybe she got tired of criticism,and losing.

Whatever the reasons; Ms Huffington has managed to amass millions whilst shedding her conservative views, and opinions at the same time that she was embracing the far left. It would appear principles are not part of her adjenda.

Only in AMERICA with the Free Enterprise and a Capitalist system could this be attained, a system, I might add that Ms Huffington and her cohorts on the left disparage daily. I wonder if she realizes how truly blessed she is to live in this great Nation, a Nation that the left is intent on destroying.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

May God Bless Our Troops and their Families