Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith Switches To GOP

By JOSH KRAUSHAARPOLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican. According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith's district in northern Alabama. Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010. Read the rest at Politico

Carbon Credit Fraud

Fraud in Europe's Cap and Trade System a 'Red Flag,' Critics Say By Joshua Rhett Miller The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading is an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion -- a massive fraud that lawmakers and energy experts say should send a "red flag" to the U.S., which approved cap-and-trade legislation over the summer amid stiff opposition. Read the rest at FoxNews

Mosque To open Its Doors At 9/11 Ground Zero

By Chelsea SchillingA new Islamic mosque will open its doors just steps from Ground Zero where Muslim terrorists murdered 2,751 people in the name of Allah on Sept. 11, 2001 – and its leading imam, who conducts sensitivity training sessions for the FBI, has reportedly blamed Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians. The five-story building at Park Place, just two blocks north of the former World Trade Center site, was the site of a Burlington Coat Factory. But a plane's landing-gear assembly crashed through the roof on the day 19 Muslim terrorists hijacked the airliners and flew them into the Twin Towers in 2001. Read the rest at WorldNet Daily

The Federal Reserve And The Usurpation Of The Constitution

Article 1, section 8 -- The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the authority to delegate the above clause to a private banking firm. By the very nature of this clause, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, yet this institution is so deeply embedded into our financial system system, abolishing it would more than likely be more trouble than it's worth. With that in mind, everyone should support Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed and see what they have been up to for all of these years.

So, where did the Federal Reserve come from? How and why was it unconstitutionally implemented to do what Congress is supposed to do? To answer that, we have to go back to the late 1800's and a little island off the coast of Georgia called Jekyll Island and the group of millionaire financiers that bought it.

In 1886 a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a hunting club and winter retreat and by 1900 the club's members boasted 1/6th of the worlds wealth; names like Vanderbilt, Pulitzer and Astor to name a few. Heads of state were refused admission to the club, such as Churchill and President McKinley.

During the first decade of the 1900's we were in the midst of a recession much like today and in 1907, the New York Stock Exchange fell to almost 50% from its peak in 1906. This sudden drop in stocks caused the Panic of 1907 or better known as the 1907 Banker's Panic, which was allegedly caused by J.P. Morgan. Other reasons include a failed attempt to corner the market of the United Copper Company and the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company. The panic spread nationwide causing many banks and businesses to collapse, thus causing runs on banks and trust companies.

Prior to the Panic of 1907 there were several others in the early and mid 1800's. In May of 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission to look into the panic and to research legislation to regulate banking. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI), who was the chairman, left for Europe and stayed for almost two years to study their banking systems.

In 1910, seven wealthy financiers left by train from Hoboken, New Jersey to Jekyll Island. Supposedly, none of these men referred to each other by their last name as noted by Frank Vanderlip of the Saturday Evening Post:

"There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive, as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. 'We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time...where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South. Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply MUST NOT HAPPEN, or else all our time and effort would be wasted..."

These seven men were:

Nelson Aldrich - Republican whip and father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr.

Charles D. Norton - President of the First National bank of New York.

A. Piat Andrew - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Frank A. Vanderlip - President of the National City Bank of New York and representing William Rockefeller.

Henry P. Davison Sr. - J.P. Morgan Partner.

Benjamin Strong - Head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust and later chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Paul M. Warburg - Partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company and representing the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe.

Paul Warburg was the chief drafter of the plan and it was a relatively simple one using sophistry and deceit. The United States wanted no part of a central bank, so rather than attaching those two words to it they merely gave it another name and it was to be largely controlled by Congress, but, the majority of the members was selected by private banks that owned its stock.

The reason why Americans didn't want anything to do with a central bank was due to the economic chaos going on in Europe. What they witnessed at the time in Europe was large scale deficit spending causing wide spread debt, much like what we are seeing today.

At any rate, the deception was to prevent the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, where a system of twelve regional banks was created and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlling the entire system. The President was to select the board and its chairman, however, Colonel Edward House noted that the board would serve a term that would "put them out of the power of the President."

The power given by the Constitution to coin and regulate money was thus usurped and placed in the hands of private bankers, who could then expand and contract credit as they pleased and to whomever they wished.

Hoax and Change - The Biggest Joke Since Carter

Campaigning on a centrist platform from one side of his mouth to the opposition and campaigning on a platform of fundamentally transforming a great country to his supporters on the other side of his mouth, President Obama has shown us nothing but arrogance and narcissism. After all, how does one claim we are a great country on the one hand and then states that it needs to be fundamentally transformed. A bit oxymoronic, isn't it?

At any rate, let's take a stroll back in time and we only need go back a year.

- New Hampshire, June 22, 2007

"Sunlight before signing". "When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as the president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it."






Repeating it on his website he said, "Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."

Shortly after his inauguration, he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act only 2 days after it was passed.

On February 17, 2009 he signed a 1,000 page $787 billion "stimulus" package, just one day after it was passed.

- Elimination of the capital gains tax

According to The Barack Obama's Comprehensive Tax Plan, he promised to "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses." To drive the promise home, two of Obama's advisers, Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman notified the Wall Street Journal just weeks prior to the elections that the tax cuts included "the elimination of capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-ups." In reality, small business investors were only allowed to exclude 50% of gains while Obama's "stimulus" package reduces the liability, thus raising the exclusion to 75%.

- Postponed 401(k) penalties

Remember the IRA and 410(k), $10,000 no penalty withdrawal promise?

"Since so many Americans will be struggling to pay the bills over the next year, I propose that we allow every family to withdraw up to 15% from their IRA or 401(k) – up to a maximum of $10,000 – without any fine or penalty throughout 2009. "This will help families get through this crisis without being forced to make painful choices like selling their homes or not sending their kids to college."

It was never included in the $787 billion "stimulus" package.

- No jobs for lobbyists

November 10, 2007. Des Moines, Iowa

"I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president"

Or how about this: "I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race. I don't take a dime of their money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

Yet, Obama is of the opinion that his own rules don't apply to him.

- No more pork barrel spending. Earmark reform

Oxford, Mississipi. "We need earmark reform. And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

When the $787 billion "stimulus" bill was signed into law, remember this, "Now, I'm proud that we passed a recovery plan free of earmarks." US News and World Report found eight earmarks in it.

The $410 billion omnibus bill had 9,000 earmarks that totaled an estimated 7.5 billion. Congresses excuse? It was "unfinished business" from the year before.

- Homecoming for the troops in 16 months

Remember this campaign promise? "I will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months." This would have put a withdrawal date of May, 2010.

In February 2009, he stated, "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By Aug. 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end."

- Lip service to pro choice advocates. FCA

July 17, 2007. Planned Parenthood Action Fund, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." To date, it has never been mentioned and this is good news for pro life advocates.

- The $4,000 college credit

Obama promised to make college "affordable for all Americans" when he announced his American Opportunity Tax Credit.

"This universal and fully refundable credit will ensure that the first $4,000 of a college education is completely free for most Americans, and will cover two-thirds the cost of tuition at the average public college or university and make community college tuition completely free for most students. Recipients of the credit will be required to conduct 100 hours of community service."

In reality, the $4,000 AOTC only offers $2,500 for up to two years an doesn't require any community service.

And my all time favorite:

- Transparency

Remember this lie?

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government. Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing."

Do I really need to go down this road? Now, this doesn't leave President Bush off the hook, however, he's not president now is he?

Recently and in true narcissistic fashion, he told Oprah that he gives himself a B+ so far as president. So, accelerating Bush's spending, doubling unemployment, taking over lending corporations and banks in true Marxist style and waiting on government run health care to pass, I guess that would be a B+...if you're a Marxist.

However, if you are a free market, get out of the way government capitalist, then he would merit an F - to the tenth power.

Oh, yeah. If you're out of a job, lost your home and had your hand out during the 2008 presidential campaigns, I have one question for you:

How's that hope and change workin' out for ya? Before you find yourself at a ballot box come 2012 and you voted for Obama, you may want to let your intelligence guide your hand, rather than your emotions.

Presidential Approval At A New Low

Daily Presidential Tracking PollThe Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -18. Read the rest at Rasmussen

Rush Limbaugh Makes The Connection

Now we know why he is right 99% of the time. Rush Limbaugh nails it in one by comparing anthropogenic climate change/global warming and whatever it's going to be called next, to the big tobacco scandal in the 90's.

And they both tie in to manipulating the research data.

When is science not science, even though the methods may be sound? When the data is being withheld from other researchers and the data is manipulated to support a preconceived notion, or to make something out to be not as bad as it really is.

On his radio show yesterday, America's truth detector and Doctor of Democracy played this exchange between the leftist, state run media hack Andrea Mitchell and Congressman Ed Markey:

MARKEY:  The evidence is overwhelming.  There are a few people who are still fighting it in the same way that there were people still fighting the science of whether or not tobacco caused lung cancer but we could not rely upon that small minority when the overwhelmingly majority said the fumes in human beings were killing them in the same way that we new see that the fumes going into the atmosphere is having a dramatically negative impact on our planet.

This is why you should always know at least a little of our current history. By comparing the climate change hoax to big tobacco, Markey unwittingly committed the weak analogy logical fallacy and Rush caught it (emphasis added):

RUSH:  That's their new argument.  Now they're trying to compare these two things when there's no comparison.  If you want a comparison to tobacco companies, I brilliantly came up with this last week.  What nailed the tobacco companies?  What was it?  Remember when the CEOs of Big Tobacco were up testifying and it was discovered that they had lied about their research. They had lied about the impact of smoking on health. They had made up studies which showed that there was no connection to smoking and respiratory health and heart disease, and they had lied about it.  And when the lie had been uncovered there was a whistle-blower that went on 60 Minutes, sat behind the black screen, blew the whistle and that was the end of it.

This is the crux of the matter behind the anthropogenic climate change hoax, not the science, which is sound, but, the manipulation of said data from the science. Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not ten, fifty or a hundred years into the future; unless you have a time machine that everyone is unaware of. Data should also be freely shared between other scientists and not forced to use the FOIA to get it.

We now know, thanks to a whistle blower who leaked emails and program code, that the climate data was being manipulated by top climate scientists at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit. Just like researchers did to make it look like cigarette smoke was not the cause or played a role in lung cancer.


And the science is never settled. They come to a general agreement, but, scientists always leave room to change that agreement should any new evidence be found and all it takes is one person to do it.


This is the danger of conducting research, using the scientific method, when there is a preconceived notion. What happens, because scientists are human too, is that evidence is being sought out to support the preconceived notion and any evidence, no matter how overwhelming it refutes, is almost always discarded, hidden or destroyed.

Read the entire transcript here: Markey on Climate and Tobacco; Hoaxer Hansen Does Letterman

Meet The Bernie Madoff Jr. Of Carbon Credits

By Jerome R. CorsiNEW YORK – A story emerging out of Britain suggests "follow the money" may explain the enthusiasm of the United Nations to pursue caps on carbon emissions, despite doubts surfacing in the scientific community about the validity of the underlying global warming hypothesis. A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Rajendra K. Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs. Read the rest at WorldNet Daily

GOP Roadtrip To Copenhagen

Republicans Plan to Form Counter-Delegation at Climate Conference A GOP counter-delegation is forming to undermine the Obama administration's work on an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen, warning that the president is poised to make commitments he can't keep and drawing heightened attention to controversial leaked e-mails. A GOP counter-delegation is forming to undermine the Obama administration's work on an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen, warning that the president is poised to make commitments he can't keep and drawing heightened attention to controversial leaked e-mails. At least a half-dozen Republican senators and representatives are planning to head to Denmark next week, as part of the overall U.S. congressional delegation, which includes plenty of Democrats as well. Read the rest at FoxNews

The Intellectual Rape Of Innocence

If you're a parent like me, you almost always ask your children how school was that day or what did they learn. Now, what would you do, better yet, how would you react if your child responded with this:

"We learned in history today that the Declaration of Independence was a, was a statement of, you know, hope and, and positive democracy. And then the Constitution came along and sort of negated that."

I know how I would react and it wouldn't bode well for that school. If you think that children in this country are not being taught that, then think again and this intellectual rape of our nation's children is being spearheaded by a ultra radical left wing reprobate by the name of Howard Zinn.

Who is Howard Zinn? He is an American historian and professor emeritus in the Political Science Department at Boston University. He is the author of more than 20 books, including A People's History of the United States. He also runs a website that promotes his ultra radical agenda of changing the history of this country.

Although I have not read any of his books and relying on other historians who have, I don't think I even want to use the pages from them to start my fire place. This guy is a real peach. Not only does he twist history, he seems to omit much of it by throwing objectivity out the window:

"Objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable. That is, if it were possible it would be undesirable, because if you have any kind of a social aim, if you think history should serve society in some way; should serve the progress of the human race; should serve justice in some way, then it requires that you make your selection on the basis of what you think will advance causes of humanity."

Dan Flynn wrote an eye opening article, which he states in part:

More striking than Zinn’s inaccuracies—intentional and otherwise—is what he leaves out.

Washington’s Farewell Address, Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and Reagan’s speech at the Brandenburg Gate all fail to merit a mention. Nowhere do we learn that Americans were first in flight, first to fly across the Atlantic, and first to walk on the moon. Alexander Graham Bell, Jonas Salk, and the Wright Brothers are entirely absent. Instead, the reader is treated to the exploits of Speckled Snake, Joan Baez, and the Berrigan brothers. While Zinn sees fit to mention that immigrants often went into professions like ditch-digging and prostitution, American success stories like those of Alexander Hamilton, John Jacob Astor, and Louis B. Mayer—to name but a few—are excluded. Valley Forge rates a single fleeting reference, while D-Day’s Normandy invasion, Gettysburg, and other important military battles are left out. In their place, we get several pages on the My Lai massacre and colorful descriptions of U.S. bombs falling on hotels, air-raid shelters, and markets during the Gulf War of the early 1990s.

How do students learn about U.S. history with all these omissions? They don’t






Apparently, Mr. Zinn thinks that he is omnipotent in that he does not feel that he is required to back any of his "historical" expertise and knowledge with any supporting evidence. This is an academic no-no. When anyone is writing any paper or book that is of a historical, non-fiction nature, the author must cite supporting evidence so that readers can scrutinize the author's work and keep him or her honest.

His book has sold about 1 million copies and has recently been reprinted in hard cover. What seems to account for these sales is that he is using a tactic of targeting the Hollywood elite types. If you have ever seen the movie Good Will Hunting, Matt Damon's character mentions Zinn's book to his psychiatrist that it will "knock you on your ass...".

And it doesn't end there. Apparently Matt Damon and his sidekick, Ben Affleck grew up  in Zinn's neighborhood and reportedly are making a miniseries based on their neighbors tome.

To be fair to Howard Zinn, though it is difficult and I am mustering as much fortitude as I can to write this, he does admit that the 1995 edition of his book is biased. He states:

"I am not troubled by that, because the mountain of history books under which we all stand leans so heavily in the other direction, so tremblingly respectful of states and statesmen and so disrespectful, by inattention, to people’s movements, that we need some counterforce to avoid being crushed into submission."

If there ever was a reason to home school your children or start your own school charter, this guy is all the ammunition you need. People like Howard Zinn and his ilk are doing everything they can to rewrite our nation's history by blotting it out, much like Adolf Hitler and his minion Joseph Goebells did during the Nazi era of Germany.

There also may be some legal issues with Howard Zinn's method of teaching (brainwashing). Schools are required by law to teach various points of view in a factual and objective manner. Schools are not allowed to engage students in a discriminatory fashion that may tend to lead to indoctrination.

Our nation is a flawed one, however, compared to other countries we are the most noble. We have made mistakes in our past, but, a countries greatness is measured by how many of its people try to leave it as opposed to how many people are trying to get in.

AoD - Torquemada in East Anglia

Torquemada. When that name is invoked in any debate or opinion piece, rest assured that it's not a term of endearment.

This article lays it out nicely and nails it.

By Mona Charen

Excerpt:

Though professional hysterics may seek to "hide the decline," there has been a noticeable drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is a man-made phenomenon. Pause on that for a moment. Though Americans have been harangued about global warming for more than a decade, only 35 percent told a recent Pew survey that global warming is a serious problem, compared with 44 percent the previous year.

This skepticism predated the exposure of the East Anglia e-mails -- those playful missives that reveal some of the most prominent climate researchers to be, if not outright charlatans, at least partisans.

Why don't people buy global warming? Doubtless the poor economy has pushed less immediate worries to the background. But even before the e-mails revealed that supposedly neutral truth seekers were prepared to "redefine peer review" and engage in statistical sleight of hand "to hide" inconvenient truths, there were ample reasons for skepticism.

Read the rest at RealClearPolitics

A Congressional Makeover in 2010

When President Bush stated, "I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system...", it sounded the death knell for our economy. It was also one of the top ten most stupidest words ever uttered by a politician in the 21st century.

Barack Obama campaigned by talking from both sides of his mouth; to the opposition his rhetoric was one of a centrist, to his base it was a message of fundamentally transforming a great nation and his mantra to both was hope and change. Being a hairs breath away from his first full year into his first and hopefully only term, his approval ratings have slipped faster than any other president since FDR. To the experienced voter during the 2008 campaign, we asked ourselves how on the one hand someone can claim we are a great country, yet on the other hand say it needs to be fundamentally transformed.

There is no doubt in my mind how Obama became president. It was nothing more than a group of Americans that were fed up with President Bush and his administration for getting us into two wars and spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. He also appealed to younger voters or what I call the "Gimme" generation who, like a spoiled child, thought that they were going to get what they wanted.

In 2006 the democrats gained control over both houses of Congress and voted Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House; when that event occurred, I knew that this country was on the road to dark days. Since that time we have seen nothing but arrogance and contempt of Americans by ignoring us and passing legislation that is sure to drive this country into economic disaster. Though it's typical of liberals and progressives to think that they know what's best for everyone else, it's this elitist and statist attitude that will have them wondering why they are no longer sitting in their seat come this time next year.

- When asked where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the authority to force health care on Americans, Nancy Pelosi responded, "Are you serious?"

- Harry Reid recently equivocated Republicans to slave owners because they oppose health care reform. Interesting that he is ignorant of history. Republicans pushed civil rights legislation through Congress in the 1960's, while democrats filibustered it.

- Both houses of Congress are trying their best to pass bills that none of them have drafted or read.

- Obama's job summit included union bosses, yet excluded the Chamber of Commerce.

The list is endless and it's this arrogance that will be their undoing.

Recently we witnessed two gubernatorial elections where democrats were replaced with Republicans. Many liberal pundits claim that these election upsets were not a reflection of Obama and his administration. That may be, however, if these pundits think that these elections in Virginia and New Jersey are not a sign for things to come are out of touch with the real world. Why do you think that they are trying to shove a 2000 page health care reform bill through the Senate?

If you weren't paying attention to either of those elections, then you wouldn't have noticed that the young voters that Obama heavily relied on seemed to be AWOL at the ballot boxes.

If you are jobless, looking for a job, lost a home, etc and you voted for Obama, the question I have for you when you thought that He was going to deliver on his promises is:

How's that hope and change working for you?

No matter what happens, when the tides of political power shifts in November of next year, the damage that Obama and his boss, Andy Stern and Congress has done can be undone and this country can be put back on the road to its greatness.

Copenhagen - Elitist Hypocrisy At Its Best

World leaders and VIPs began pouring into Copenhagen Monday morning for the city's long-awaited climate summit, arriving in style in a fleet of gas-guzzling limos and luxury cars.Most delegates to the climate change conference haven't exactly been hoofing their way to Denmark's capital, swarming the city's airport with 140 private jets, 1,200 hired limousines and a carbon footprint the size of a small country. Video shot on the scene Monday shows squads of new arrivals at the green gathering pulling up in BMWs, Mercedes Benzes, sleek Volvos and plush Jaguars. A bus reserved for the delegates rode along empty outside the conference center. Read the rest at FoxNews

Hollywood Conservatives To Al Gore - Give It Back

Two conservative screenwriters say Al Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center.Just days ahead of an international climate change conference, global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore has been hit by an inconvenient scandal -- one that's reverberated all the way back to Hollywood. Two conservative screenwriters say Gore should be stripped of his Oscar in light of the global warming questions raised by leaked e-mails out of a British research center. Read the rest at FoxNews

Geoff Jenkins - The G. Gordon Liddy of Climate Gate

Watergate was a political scandal that had many twists and turns. Ultimately, the event forced the resignation of Richard Nixon and led to several indictments of White House officials known as the Plumbers, with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt at its head. The recent events surrounding emails and documents being leaked by some whistle blower at the East Anglia Hadley Climate Research Unit, which incidentally is hot on the heals of the Copenhagen Conference, clearly show that Climate gate is not unlike the Watergate scandal with Geoff Jenkins at the center.

Who is Geoff Jenkins? In 2004, the UK Guardian described him as "the man Tony Blair turns to for the facts about climate change." But, to really know who he is, because he is not one of the top names in the history of the anthropogenic global warming movement, we need to go back to 1988.

Geoff Jenkins started his climate prediction business when the IPCC was created in 1988, with Sir John Houghton leading it; Jenkins' job was to put data together from science to create the Group One Report in the 90's for the IPCC. In May of 1990, Jenkins was among the first people to staff the newly created Hadley Center and after the Rio de Janiero Earth Summit in 1992, Hadley moved into the policy area and researched ways to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, which ultimately led to the Kyoto Agreement in 1997. Three years later, Hadley's mission statement changed again due to flooding in the UK when the UK's environmental department set up a Climate Impacts Program to cope with adaptation.

And Geoff Jenkins was at the center of all of this.

Now that we have revisited the brief history of Hadley and Geoff Jenkins, let's move on to the leaked emails and documents and we will revisit him later to tie it together.

Sometime during the third week of November, a whistle blower at East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit (CRU) uploaded emails and documents in a 61 megabyte compressed file to a message board. A message was attached to the post that said something to the effect that the climate was too important to keep the material secret and the file would be up for a short period of time.

The file went viral and spread around the Internet so fast, the USS Enterprise would look like a Model-T in a race. Climate Audit was shut down because it couldn't handle the bandwidth usage and a mirror site was created to handle the enormous traffic. Torrent sites had it and other obscure websites uploaded the file.

Then people began to scour through the emails and had a look at Oz behind the curtain:

- Michael Mann talks about ruining a peer review journal (1047388489).

- Tim Osborn discusses how to alter data to stop a cooling trend (939154709).

- Phil Jones asks his colleagues to delete FOIA requests (1212063122).

- Email showing that Greenpeace is involved in drafting a letter to The Times (872202064).

You can read the rest at the Doug Ross Journal.

At any rate, what these leaked emails reveal is a history of academic fraud that has led many governments to enact laws that have, or will be, costly; Spain is realizing this already. Keith Briffa's fraudulent tree ring report, which Michael Mann relied heavily on to create an equally bogus graph, known as the Hockey Stick Chart was cited numerous times in the IPCC's reports. What they failed to include was the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, which would have shown a completely different conclusion.

Michael Mann is a contributor at Real Climate's blog. In October of 2005, Scientific American called Real Climate, "A refreshing antidote to the political and economic slants that commonly color and distort news coverage of topics like the greenhouse effect, air quality, natural disasters and global warming."

Getting back to Geoff Jenkins, slowly.

The significance of Real Climate is that it's hosted by Environmental Media Services. Activist Cash describes EMS:

If you’ve ever been advised to steer clear of a food, beverage, or other consumer product based on the claims of a nonprofit organization, you’ve likely been “spun” by Fenton’s multi-million-dollar message machine -- and Environmental Media Services (EMS) has probably been the messenger.

EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994.

Arlie Schardt founded EMS (now called Science Communication Network) in 1994. Twenty years before that, he was a writer for Sports Illustrated and left the magazine to lead the Environmental Defense Fund. Interestingly, he was also in charge of the Tides Center when it was led by non other than Wade Rathke of the now discredited ACORN.

Now we get to Geoff Jenkins.

In the mid 90's, a report was issued using faked data that still didn't show any warming effect between 1995-96. In an attempt to explain it away, he made a suggestion that there was a NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation, aka La Nina) reversal.

On March 18, 1996, Michael Fumento caught the scandalous suggestion and wrote an article in the Washington Times:

Global-warming enthusiasts desperately grasp at anything to prove their case. In early January, the Climatic Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia made headlines, including the New York Times, with a preliminary report saying 1995 was the hottest year on record. But their data were for only 11 months. Rather than risk December's temperatures spoiling everything, they jumped the gun and sent out their press releases.

Their fears were fulfilled when December's average temperature came in at the lowest in 17 years. "It was a pretty ordinary year," said NASA scientist John Christy, who has been analyzing satellite data on temperature since 1979. And James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who pretty much started the whole global-warming scare, admits his study of land areas – where the effects of global warming would be most severe – revealed that 1995 was about 0.02 degrees celsius cooler than 1990.

In a 1996 email to Phil Jones, Geoff Jenkins writes:

Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), "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.

I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:

1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov

2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.

3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov

4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec

5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??

6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also

7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year - can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)

8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.

9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.

10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.

Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.

Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.

Cheers

Geoff

Jenkins' "cunning plan" was to spoon feed selected information to Nick Nuttal, who is the head spokesman for the United Nations Environment Program, for his articles. The "via Oz?" comment in regards to this "cunning plan", is most likely referring to Senior Research Scientist at Australia's Climate Forecasting Group, Neville Nichols.

By selecting which media sources to spoon feed selected information to, Jenkins would have caused a frenzy. After the real temperature data was issued, "We relesae (sic) the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO press release. It may not evoke any interest by then."

The fringe, state run, lamestream media can spin this topic however they want. However, much like an event caught on video, nobody can deny the blatant fraud that was occurring all these years. We "climate change deniers" knew that these hucksters were "cooking the books" all along and the emails should not be the central issue, but the code that was created to alter the data is, the emails merely reinforce the fraud that was going on behind closed doors.

Der Spiegal Unloads On Obama West Point Speech

By Gabor Steingart Never before has a speech by President Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address announcing America's new strategy for Afghanistan. It seemed like a campaign speech combined with Bush rhetoric -- and left both dreamers and realists feeling distraught. One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received. Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool. One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly. Read the rest at Spiegal Online International

Want To Shake Al Gore's Hand With A Photo? $1,200 Please

ALAPALOOZABy Jennifer Harper INSIDE THE BELTWAY "Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen." The official announcement from this fair Danish city says it all. The former vice president is getting star treatment when he arrives with an entire swarm of green-minded gadflies for the United Nations' global warming extravaganza, which begins on Dec. 7. "Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference," notes the Danish tourism commission, which is helping Mr. Gore promote "Our Choice," his newest book about global warming in all its alarming modalities. Read the rest at The Washington Times

AoD - The Ghost of Lysenko

By Bruce Walker

Excerpt:

The imaginary science of man-made global warning can now be entered into the infamous history of politicized science, the results of which have threads in our lives today. Consider the residue of such frauds as Rachel Carson, Alfred Kinsey, and Margaret Mead. Carson's invented findings and unscientific methods led to the banning of DDT, which in turn cost the lives of tens of millions of children in undeveloped nations. Kinsey's tortuously doctored "sex research," as Dr. Judith Riesman has so amply demonstrated, was not only invented to sate his perverted lusts, but created scientific myths about normal and abnormal behavior which haunt us to this day. Mead also simply invented research to fit her idea of what the science of anthropology ought to be in order to justify her own immature and immoral behavior. Carson, Kinsey, and Mead had an agenda before they did any research, and this agenda governed everything else.

Read the rest at American Thinker

Admission Of Guilt - Scientists Admit They Dumped Data

Scientists at the University of East Anglia have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit CRU was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building. Read the rest at FoxNews

EPA Relied Heavily On Hadley CRU Data

With all the hullabaloo about the leaked emails from East Anglia's Hadley Climate Research Unit, one aspect of it that's not being talked about too much is agencies, such as the EPA and their reliance on that data to make energy policy. The continued analysis of the code contained within the leaked information clearly shows that fraud was the flavor of the day. Not only does it prove that data was deliberately being manipulated, but, databases were clearly in disarray and what one email from Phil Jones seems to indicate that he wanted material destroyed when skeptics discovered that the UK had a freedom of information act.

What one has to understand is that Hadley CRU wields enormous influence in outside circles and purportedly has the largest climate database in the world; it's models were used in the IPCC's 2007 report, which the EPA has acknowledged it relied upon very heavily when making conclusions that carbon dioxide emissions are a danger to public health.

As more and more information is being brought out by coders looking at the data, it seems that much has to be explained in those emails and data sets. But, what seems to be going around in the state run, fringe media is the legality of these emails being "hacked" and the predictable downplaying of its contents.

What these reporters are ignoring to ask is four important questions:

1. Is this the first time data has escaped Hadley?

2. Since the emails and data go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not?

3. Since the Copenhagen conference is fast approaching, isn't it a little odd that these emails were "hacked" and released to the world?

4. Why hasn't any investigation been called for?

Of course, we can't expect the fringe media to ask questions that may lead to unwanted answers.

Even though Senator Inhofe has called for an investigation, whether or not he will get the support of other Congressional members is the question. Many politicians have been bamboozled into believing the anthropogenic global warming hoax and are not likely to change their view points, particularly since a new revenue stream is in the works with cap and trade legislation.

In 1988, this entire issue was started by Maurice Strong and further propagated by James Hansen with a preconceived notion that the modern human industrial population was causing the earth's temperature to rise. Preconceived notions are supposed to be anathema to scientists, because it tends to send them looking for evidence to support it and discarding any that disproves it. What these emails and data sets show is that these scientists were doing everything they could to manipulate data and, in Phil Jones' own words, hide the decline when results were showing the opposite.

Science also demands sharing of data. Evidence must be verifiable and results must be reproducible in the real world by other scientists, this is how it goes through the filters to keep everyone honest in the process. However, this didn't seem to be the case with the Hadley scientists. Many times data had to be obtained from skeptical scientists through the Freedom of Information Act, which seems to indicate that something was trying to be hidden.

Eugene Robinson's Hot Air

Eugene Robinson's article at Real Clear Politics is long on spin and short on facts. Let's pick it apart:

Stop hyperventilating, all you climate change deniers. The purloined e-mail correspondence published by skeptics last week -- portraying some leading climate researchers as petty, vindictive and tremendously eager to make their data fit accepted theories -- does not prove that global warming is a fraud.

We "climate change deniers" are not saying that global warming is a fraud, we are saying the junk science used to purvey it is the cause and the fraud, so I guess, in a sense, global warming is man made considering that the emails prove that Michael Mann, et al tried to hide the decline and it's not just the emails, it's the code that is damning. Incidentally, Mr. Robinson which is it, climate change or global warming?

If I'm wrong, somebody ought to tell the polar ice caps that they're free to stop melting.

Really? Real science says that it's cyclical and currently they are building up in some places and decreasing in others.

That said, the e-mail episode is more than a major embarrassment for the scientists involved. Most Americans are convinced that climate change is real -- a necessary prerequisite for the kinds of huge economic and behavioral adjustments we would have to make to begin seriously limiting carbon emissions. But consensus on the nature and scope of the problem will dissipate, and fast, if experts try to obscure the fact that there's much about the climate they still don't know.

More mindless "consensus" claptrap. Of course climate change is real, it's been going on for 4.5 billion years and throwing money at a non existent phenomenon isn't going to 'fix' anything, but it will destroy the economy if this preposterous cap and tax bill gets passed and signed into law fast. As for "scientific consensus", there is no such thing. Let me repeat that: there is no such thing. When are you climate change alarmists going to realize that? But, if you want to play the consensus game, may a I direct your attention to the Global Warming Petition Project?

Here's what happened: Someone hacked into the servers at one of the leading academic centers in the field -- the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England -- and filched a trove of e-mails and documents, which have been posted on numerous Web sites maintained by climate skeptics.

Nobody hacked into anything, Mr. Robinson. If that were the case, then why hasn't an official investigation been started yet? Those emails go back a number of years, how would a hacker know which emails were relevant and which emails were not? This isn't the first time data has been leaked by Hadley CRU, ask Stephen Mcyntire at Climate Audit. Then there is the timing of this event. Since the Copenhagan climate conference is looming, don't you think it's a bit odd that these emails were leaked?

Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research Unit, released a statement Wednesday saying, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published e-mails do not read well." That would be an example of British understatement.

"Don't read well"? That's beyond any understatement, considering that violence was suggested by one "scientist".

In one message sent to a long list of colleagues, Jones speaks of having completed a "trick" with recent temperature data to "hide the decline." The word "trick" is hardly a smoking gun -- scientists use it to refer to clever but perfectly legitimate ways of handling data. But the "hide the decline" part refers to a real issue among climate researchers called the "divergence problem."

Ah, yes it is Mr. Robinson and here's where you climate change alarmists are missing the entire point. The code (IDL) clearly shows that the data was altered involving data manipulation going back to the 60's to make it look as if there was a warming trend.

The rest of Mr. Robinson's article is more claptrap and apologist rhetoric that is always vomited by those who venerate anyone that creates a feel good campaign. These scientists are the epitome of why PHD means Piled High and Deep and should have their credentials revoked, because this is clearly academic fraud.